# The Death Penalty: Yes or No?



## MJS (Dec 12, 2007)

Your thoughts?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22222241/




> NEW YORK - More than at any time over the past 30 years, the future of capital punishment is in limbo.
> 
> The Supreme Court will hear arguments next term in a momentous lethal injection case. While its widely expected that executions will resume in some form following that case, the moment gives Americans a chance to contemplate what would change if they stopped for good.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 12, 2007)

The death penalty is completely un-necessary. 

The State should not be in the business of taking lives. Even if there could be 100% certainty of guilt. We know that there can not be that 100% certainty of guilt. The State should therefore err on the side of caution. Life imprisonment is possible, and is therefore a satisfactory measure to protect society. 

The courts recently ruled that cocaine sentences should have parity ~ regardless of whether the drug is powder form, or crystalized form. This is a step in the correct direction to 'equal justice under the law'. 

Removing the death penalty is a next step in providing 'equal justice under the law', and it is long overdue.


----------



## newGuy12 (Dec 12, 2007)

Right.  You should not kill them, but lock them up somewhere where they can no longer kill anyone else.  Then, everyone out here is safe.

Because if you believe in G-d, then, you see, you have to let the person live out their life, so that you will maximize the chance that they will see the error of their ways, and make peace with the Higher Power before they die!


----------



## Kreth (Dec 12, 2007)

newGuy12 said:


> Because if you believe in G-d, then, you see, you have to let the person live out their life, so that you will maximize the chance that they will see the error of their ways, and make peace with the Higher Power before they die!


And what if you believe that by killing them, you're helping to prevent them racking up still more bad karma? :idunno:


----------



## newGuy12 (Dec 12, 2007)

Kreth said:


> And what if you believe that by killing them, you're helping to prevent them racking up still more bad karma? :idunno:



Yes, I know, but, how much bad action could someone take while locked up?  In my way of thinking, society would have to overhaul the prison system.  Now, it is simply a business, to make money.

For example, there are studies which show that an OVERWHELMING majority of criminals who do violent crimes are drunk or high when they do them.  They are loaded! 

This seems to suggest that there are addictions / alcoholism which contribute to this bad behaviour.  Now, what resources are spent to address this problem?  Not very much (I heard about this from a guy who has worked in the field of alcoholism and drug addiction recovery for over 30 years).

But, if you consider that this karmic action that these people are taking are going to have a negative affect on them, then you may as well let it play out, right?  Why?  Because if they do not know their lesson now, how will they in the next incarnation?  They will only know the same, no?  There is nothing to be LOST by not killing them, unless I am missing something, misunderstanding something, which may very well be the case.


----------



## Lisa (Dec 12, 2007)

I had often thought in my younger years that I could not be a person that could decide to put someone to death.  I didn't think I could do that.

I have kids now.  Anyone hurt them, I would want the ******* to pay with his life.  I think I could even flick the switch to be honest.

Different stages in your life makes your outlook different.


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Dec 12, 2007)

Not too long ago I was all for the death penalty.  But with so many cases being overturned and the disparity along racial lines in it's use, I have changed my mind about it.  Life without a chance of parole is less expensive too.

Jeff


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 12, 2007)

Some people are beyond redemption. It's not that we aren't forgiving them... it's them who just don't *want* (or even care for) the forgiveness and *want* to keep doing what they've done. Serial murderers and rapists and repeat child molesters and so on. 
Locking them up for the rest of their/our lives doesn't help them in any redeeming manner. None. They sit and live on free meals and a free place to sleep with free medical and free basically everything except of course the freedom to do what they were locked up for in the first place... but then knowing prison they'll find other ways. 
Sometimes by ending their lives we are doing them (and the victim's families) a favor. They may be able to understand and appreciate what wrong they've done more because they realize that they cannot go back and repent for their wrongs/crimes/sins and THAT makes them understand. 
ULTIMATE Punishment is best left up to G-d I agree, but present punishment is our God-given right (in this country anyway) by our laws and constitution. Letting these beasts, who have given up their humanity by committing these crimes upon humanity (their fellow humans), letting them continue to live and gloat and relish the memories of their crimes over and over and over again without regret/remorse/sorrow/guilt... 
Some do have all the regret/remorse/sorrow/guilt and some who are _truly sorry_ will want the death penalty rather than live with the guilt and the shame, they would understand the price they need to pay to make things right. 
I say yes to the death penalty if they are absolutely and positively without question guilty. These are the Gacy's, Bundys, Dahmlers, Lucas' and so forth.
The guy who recently confessed to 9 murders over a period of years ... if found without a shadow of a doubt that it was indeed him then by all means.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 12, 2007)

Lisa said:


> I had often thought in my younger years that I could not be a person that could decide to put someone to death. I didn't think I could do that.
> 
> I have kids now. Anyone hurt them, I would want the ******* to pay with his life. I think I could even flick the switch to be honest.
> 
> Different stages in your life makes your outlook different.


 
My thoughts exactly....

Personally, I'm a supporter of the death penalty and a majority of it is for that reason.  By the time that someone makes it to death row, they have been through an appeal process, a jury of their peers, and the judicial system which is pretty thrifty with handing out death penalties.  For all of the horrible crimes that happen, there are a very small number of death sentences (or ones that are actually carried out).  If a famliy member was the subject of one of these crimes, the death penalty is pretty good closure.  Plus, there are lots of ways to get OUT of jail.  There is also plenty of research to back up the fact that prisons do not reform inmates as well as we think they do.

Now, I am a supporter of more equality in the judicial system.  My feeling is that the sentencing system should be subject to more strict criteria rather than being left mostly up to the judge.  For example, the UCMJ has a very narrow range of penalties allowed for any infraction.  Commanders then choose a penalty from that range, depending on the severity of the infraction, but they cannot stray from that range.

One area that I'm obviously underinformed in is the costs associated with things.  I'm not clear on how death row inmates cost more than an average inmate?


----------



## SFC JeffJ (Dec 12, 2007)

MBuzzy said:


> One area that I'm obviously underinformed in is the costs associated with things.  I'm not clear on how death row inmates cost more than an average inmate?



It's the appeals process that makes the death penalty cost more than life in prison.

Jeff


----------



## LawDog (Dec 12, 2007)

If they have been found guilty and have lost all of their legal appeals then yes. 
Their trail, served jail time, lawers, appeals etc. have/will cost the tax payer a very large portion of their tax dollar. New jails will have to be built, new guards will have to be hired and this ever expanding cycle will continue.
These criminals do not care about the lives that they have taken or ruined.
:knight:


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 12, 2007)

SFC JeffJ said:


> It's the appeals process that makes the death penalty cost more than life in prison.
> 
> Jeff


 
So are there more appeals allowed for Death sentences?  How does the appeal process compare?


----------



## terryl965 (Dec 12, 2007)

LawDog said:


> If they have been found guilty and have lost all of their legal appeals then yes.
> Their trail, served jail time, lawers, appeals etc. have/will cost the tax payer a very large portion of their tax dollar. New jails will have to be built, new guards will have to be hired and this ever expanding cycle will continue.
> These criminals do not care about the lives that they have taken or ruined.
> :knight:


 
I agree with LawDog and I'm also with Lisa anybody ever does anything to my childern forget the death penalty, I would kill them myself and then ask to be put to rest with the satifaction of doing what is right by me.


----------



## Kacey (Dec 12, 2007)

If there is the slightest hint of doubt that the person is guilty - then no, they should not be subjected to the death penalty.  People who are undeniably guilty - those caught in the act, or those against whom the evidence is incontrovertible - who have committed capital crimes, such as violent rape, pederasty, and murder (although that list is not exclusive) should be put to death.  There are still exceptions even to this:  those who murder in self-defense, those who truly do not understand the consequences of their actions, those who are mentally ill, etc.  The first group deserves assistance from those who failed to protect them; the latter two deserve treatment.

The number of condemned criminals who have "found God" while on death row does nothing to dissuade me from this opinion; it's much easier to "find God" when one doesn't have a choice.  I see no reason why someone found guilty of the type of crimes listed above should spend his or her life living at my expense.  Certainly, the life of a death row inmate is not pleasant - but anyone who lands there deservedly should have the least pleasant experience that can be provided, as a minimal return for their heinous acts.

The question becomes, then, what to do with the people for whom there is that hint of a doubt?  The justice system should devote itself to a twofold task:  finding the absolute truth, and doing its best to rehabilitate, rather than warehouse, those who enter the system.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 12, 2007)

Kacey said:


> The number of condemned criminals who have "found God" while on death row does nothing to dissuade me from this opinion; it's much easier to "find God" when one doesn't have a choice. I see no reason why someone found guilty of the type of crimes listed above should spend his or her life living at my expense. Certainly, the life of a death row inmate is not pleasant - but anyone who lands there deservedly should have the least pleasant experience that can be provided, as a minimal return for their heinous acts.


 
And finding God doesn't necessarily make someone good.  It doesn't even make them sorry....in fact, its pretty easy for someone to say "I found God!  Now let me out of here."  That's a pretty personal thing, no proof and really, makes no difference.  If you killed 12 people after kidnapping them and torturing them....you can find all the God you want, but you should still fry for it.


----------



## Kacey (Dec 12, 2007)

MBuzzy said:


> And finding God doesn't necessarily make someone good.  It doesn't even make them sorry....in fact, its pretty easy for someone to say "I found God!  Now let me out of here."  That's a pretty personal thing, no proof and really, makes no difference.  If you killed 12 people after kidnapping them and torturing them....you can find all the God you want, but you should still fry for it.



I agree... but I've just seen too many appeals on the basis of "I found God in prison, I'm a new person, I deserve another chance" - anyone can find God after a major ****-up that leads to a death sentence, but I see no reason why that should change the outcome; if anything, I would think that anyone who "finds God" after committing a capital crime would want to repent in any fashion required by law... not use it as a rationale to excuse past indiscretions.


----------



## Drac (Dec 12, 2007)

LawDog said:


> If they have been found guilty and have lost all of their legal appeals then yes.
> Their trail, served jail time, lawers, appeals etc. have/will cost the tax payer a very large portion of their tax dollar. New jails will have to be built, new guards will have to be hired and this ever expanding cycle will continue.
> These criminals do not care about the lives that they have taken or ruined.
> :knight:


 
Well said..


----------



## Big Don (Dec 12, 2007)

The only way to be 100% certain that person will never again commit a murder, rape, etc, is to remove them from the living. Very few dead people have killed again.
The Fifth Amendment specifically provides for the death penalty: *No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
* Therefore, with due process, a person can be executed.
Personally, I don't like my tax dollars paying for the hundreds of thousands of people in prisons. IMHO, these criminals are treated far too kindly and should be forced to work to earn their keep. The Thirteenth Amendment specifically allows this: *Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.*Thus, convicts can be used as slaves and or as involuntary servants(although, I don't really grasp the difference...) 
In the late nineties, when both Texas and Florida were executing murderers as fast as the appellant process allowed, both states saw a decline in murders. 
Were someone to "find God" on death row, that should never be a deterrent to carrying out their sentence. In the case of Christians, for example, after their execution their souls would be in Heaven, so they really have nothing to fear from death, not to mention the fact that the forgiveness of God is not the forgiveness of the state and the separation of church and state people should be the first to point that out, yet they never do...


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 13, 2007)

*Innocent men have been put to death under the Death Penalty. Therefore, man's judgement process is fallible at some level and I cannot condone it.* 
Of course, I also think that the "War on Drugs" is ridiculous. Someone that I was talking to the other day actually thought that a huge amount of people would be out bootin' black tar heroin right after all drugs were made legal. I personally don't see it. Who actually thinks that people are prevented from doing drugs because they are illegal? Not very many. The percentage that would "experiment" with newly legal drugs would be infinitesimal. 
Kinda like the percentage of people that are prevented from committing crimes because they are illegal.
What is the point of prison, in our 21st Century civilization? Punishment, or Rehabilitation? Some prisons have good voc-tec programs and education, and the rest are pretty much just Crime University.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 13, 2007)

There are only two reasons people don't commit crimes.
1- Most people believe that committing crimes is wrong and won't commit them because their morals stop them. 
2- The minority whose morals aren't strong enough to stop them are dettered by the threat of sanctions, i.e., fines, imprisonment, etc.
When there was more of a stigma about crime or being seen as a criminal, the world was better off because the fear of public shame was enough to stop many people from doing things they shouldn't.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 13, 2007)

Doc_Jude said:


> *Innocent men have been put to death under the Death Penalty. Therefore, man's judgement process is fallible at some level and I cannot condone it.*
> Of course, I also think that the "War on Drugs" is ridiculous. Someone that I was talking to the other day actually thought that a huge amount of people would be out bootin' black tar heroin right after all drugs were made legal. I personally don't see it. Who actually thinks that people are prevented from doing drugs because they are illegal? Not very many. The percentage that would "experiment" with newly legal drugs would be infinitesimal.
> Kinda like the percentage of people that are prevented from committing crimes because they are illegal.
> What is the point of prison, in our 21st Century civilization? Punishment, or Rehabilitation? Some prisons have good voc-tec programs and education, and the rest are pretty much just Crime University.


 
I think you are giving people a little bit too much credit.  The Death Penalty also serves a huge deterrant.  Think of the converse - how many crimes of passion are prevented by fear of punishment?  Is there any data or studies to support that people are prevented from doing crimes because they are illegal?  That would be extremely hard to research.

I do agree that man's judgement is fallible and that prisons serve as nothing more than a place for criminals to learn how to commit crime better.  The rehabilitation process really doesn't work - except because people don't want to go back!

People's moral compasses really aren't that strong.  The basis of human nature is to satisfy our own needs and desires - law is what deters the vast majority of people from doing that.  Try to think of it in an objective manner and by extension.  If there were no laws, what boundaries would you start to push?  It would start with speed limits probably, then the occassional robbery...but just when you need it, eventually, people would be killing each other.


----------



## cdunn (Dec 13, 2007)

Big Don said:


> IMHO, these criminals are treated far too kindly and should be forced to work to earn their keep. The Thirteenth Amendment specifically allows this: *Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.*Thus, convicts can be used as slaves and or as involuntary servants(although, I don't really grasp the difference...)


 
Slaves are objects. Involuntary servants are humans, and have most of the rights held by such. Be careful of the path you walk down. 

On the other front - I cannot approve of the death penalty. Those whose deeds are foul enough to be considered for death do not deserve a punishment that merciful.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 13, 2007)

cdunn said:


> Slaves are objects. Involuntary servants are humans, and have most of the rights held by such. Be careful of the path you walk down.


 I'd say that the criminals are responsible for the paths they walk, too.





> On the other front - I cannot approve of the death penalty. Those whose deeds are foul enough to be considered for death do not deserve a punishment that merciful.


----------



## CoryKS (Dec 13, 2007)

I'm reminded of the words of a Marine captain in reference to bin Laden and his cohort:  "It's God's job to forgive them.  Our job is to arrange the meeting."

Some crimes are too horrible to delay the meeting.


----------



## MJS (Dec 13, 2007)

Nice replies everyone.  Its interesting actually, because right here in my state, they have put all probation/early release/parole programs on hold, due to the home invasion that took place here, in which 3 of the 4 people were killed. The men in question were on parole at the time of the killings. 

Of course, there were mixed thoughts on this, with some saying it is a good thing that this happened, and others saying that not everyone who is up for parole is a violent killer, so now they suffer because of the others actions. Well, that old saying, "One bad apple spoils the bunch" somes to mind here. So now people are reviewing the process, seeing what changes need to be made, and yes, even the thought of more prisons has come up. Of course, like always, people don't want to give something to get something. In other words, people don't want another prison, yet they cry when things like I mention above happen. Go figure. 

So...here are the options...keep the system as is, but be prepared to hear people complain the next time a violent crime happens and the accused is on parole or...build more prisons to handle the over crowding and execute these people that have been sitting on death row for years. Is it fair for the inmates to have appeal after appeal, causing the families to suffer the process over and over? 

If people don't want it anymore, then they need to accept the fact that more prisons need to be built. Of course, the cost of keeping them alive vs. killing them is something I'm not sure of.

IMO though, if the crime falls into the category that warrants the death penalty, and every other option has been exhausted and every bit of proof is pointing to the fact that they're guilty, then go thru with it.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 13, 2007)

MBuzzy said:


> People's moral compasses really aren't that strong. The basis of human nature is to satisfy our own needs and desires - law is what deters the vast majority of people from doing that. Try to think of it in an objective manner and by extension. If there were no laws, what boundaries would you start to push? It would start with speed limits probably, then the occassional robbery...but just when you need it, eventually, people would be killing each other.


 
I just don't buy this. Not at all. There are plenty of examples of other primates behaving in a very moral way within their group. As the groups of homo sapiens expanded legal systems were created. We are a small group mammal. Put us in groups of forty to a hundred and there will be very little amoral behavior.

I think we can't really see the morality of the individual, because of the pressures that society creates; if it is not the law, it is religion, if it is not religion, it is patriotism. Remove the constructs of modern society, and I think you would find that our moral codes rapidly become apparent and that it is much more in line with good behavior than bad behavior.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 13, 2007)

The probation and parole systems are FUBAR. No one convicted of a violent crime should ever be released early. The idea of early release due to "good behavior" is ludicrous, bad behavior is what caused their imprisonment, no amount of "good behavior" should shorten their stay in prison. Likewise, the entire concept of ruling someone "Not guilty by reason of insanity" is an affront to justice. Look at Andrea Yates anyone insane enough to kill her five children shouldn't be allowed another breath. John Hinkley shot THE PRESIDENT and is now allowed long weekends at his parent's with no supervision. He crippled James Brady and shot the President and he gets vacations? I bet Brady would love a vacation from his wheel chair.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 13, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Likewise, the entire concept of ruling someone "Not guilty by reason of insanity" is an affront to justice.



I doubt you really believe this.  If you did, you would have to entirely abandon the requirement of _mens rea_ for a crime.  Only the actual effect of your actions would define a crime, not your state of mind or intent.  Thus, if you killed someone, you would be guilty full stop - self defense would no longer be an affirmative defense.  If you accidentally kicked your wife in bed while you were asleep, you would be guilty of assault and the fact that you were asleep would be no defense.  There would no longer be any 2nd or 1st degree murder, no manslaughter - everything would be a murder charge.  If you accidentally tripped someone in sparring class and in a freak accident they managed to break their neck, you would be guilty of murder even though their death was an accident.

These sorts of outcomes are what would happen if there were no requirement for _mens rea_, out of which the insanity plea stems.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 13, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> I doubt you really believe this.  If you did, you would have to entirely abandon the requirement of _mens rea_ for a crime.  Only the actual effect of your actions would define a crime, not your state of mind or intent.  Thus, if you killed someone, you would be guilty full stop - self defense would no longer be an affirmative defense.  If you accidentally kicked your wife in bed while you were asleep, you would be guilty of assault and the fact that you were asleep would be no defense.  There would no longer be any 2nd or 1st degree murder, no manslaughter - everything would be a murder charge.  If you accidentally tripped someone in sparring class and in a freak accident they managed to break their neck, you would be guilty of murder even though their death was an accident.
> 
> These sorts of outcomes are what would happen if there were no requirement for _mens rea_, out of which the insanity plea stems.


Not at all. Someone who claims self defense doesn't claim to not be responsible for his actions.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 13, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Not at all. Someone who claims self defense doesn't claim to not be responsible for his actions.



And for the rest?


----------



## crushing (Dec 13, 2007)

Kreth said:


> And what if you believe that by killing them, you're helping to prevent them racking up still more bad karma? :idunno:


 
Not only will it keep them from racking up more bad karma, but someone else will need to step in to deliver that 'future earned bad karma' to those that will deserve it.  This only serves to create more criminals.


----------



## MJS (Dec 13, 2007)

Big Don said:


> The probation and parole systems are FUBAR. No one convicted of a violent crime should ever be released early. The idea of early release due to "good behavior" is ludicrous, bad behavior is what caused their imprisonment, no amount of "good behavior" should shorten their stay in prison. Likewise, the entire concept of ruling someone "Not guilty by reason of insanity" is an affront to justice. Look at Andrea Yates anyone insane enough to kill her five children shouldn't be allowed another breath. John Hinkley shot THE PRESIDENT and is now allowed long weekends at his parent's with no supervision. He crippled James Brady and shot the President and he gets vacations? I bet Brady would love a vacation from his wheel chair.


 
Not sure if you've ever seen this or not.  Talk about a messed up system.
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52812&highlight=cheshire


----------



## Ping898 (Dec 13, 2007)

isn't it funny how if a person commits a henious crime and asks to be put to death all these red flags are raised that he/she is mentally ill and thus should not be put to death...at least that is the way it seems to me...

I have to admit I am not really for the death penalty, I think there are too many errors in the system....but i admit that my opinion is not set in stone and somethine may occur one day to change it....


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 13, 2007)

MJS said:


> Your thoughts?
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22222241/



Hi MJS,

Many posters have brought up numerous points about things such as criminal deterrence, certainty of guilt, social inequality, cost scenarios, relational bias, and so on. To me, these are auxiliary or secondary issues that, while important considerations in and of themselves, sidestep the real moral concern of state executions.

State executions rests upon an extremist ethical premise that Two Wrongs Make A Right; that, namely, by implementing an equivalent violent behavior upon a violent criminal that the original act of violence is somehow equivocated or neutralized.

That, to me, is morally repugnant. Just as I would chastise the child who believes it is acceptable to strike another child because "he hit me first", I will likewise criticize adults who advocate state executions. The moral logic behind both behaviors is equivocal.


----------



## Grenadier (Dec 13, 2007)

*Moderator's Note:*

Posts that dealt with the discussion of drugs and imprisonment have been split off into this new thread. 

Please post such material in the new thread, while keeping the discussion in this thread relevant to the death penalty.  

Thank you.

-Ronald Shin
-MT Senior Moderator


----------



## CoryKS (Dec 13, 2007)

heretic888 said:


> That, to me, is morally repugnant. Just as I would chastise the child who believes it is acceptable to strike another child because "he hit me first", I will likewise criticize adults who advocate state executions. The moral logic behind both behaviors is equivocal.


 
Only if you believe that serial murder, for example, is equivalent to a slapfight among children.  To me, _that_ is morally repugnant.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 13, 2007)

newGuy12 said:


> Right. You should not kill them, but lock them up somewhere where they can no longer kill anyone else. Then, everyone out here is safe.
> 
> Because if you believe in G-d, then, you see, you have to let the person live out their life, so that you will maximize the chance that they will see the error of their ways, and make peace with the Higher Power before they die!




I support the above with the following conditions.  

Send them to South America First Class even. 

Maximum security costs about $3000 USD a year. Life expectency is about 3 years. It is cheaper than medium security in the states. 

I support the Death Penalty. 

People need to understand that certain actions are not allowed in soceity. Those actions are defined as a group usually stated in writing as laws. 

Just my opinion. I respect yours. That is the great thing in this country, we can disagree and in the end we can elect people to represent us or we can even vote on the issue.  :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 13, 2007)

CoryKS said:


> Only if you believe that serial murder, for example, is equivalent to a slapfight among children.  To me, _that_ is morally repugnant.



Hi CoryKS,

I'm glad you find your Straw Man morally repugnant. Unfortunately, it has little to do with the analogy in my previous post.

The point I was trying to make is that the _moral reasoning_ underlying both state executions and juvenile reciprocal violence is equivocal, not that the behaviors themselves are ethically equivocal. In both cases, the rationalization for the respective behaviors rests upon the premise that Two Wrongs Make A Right (i.e., it is acceptable for the State to enact violence upon criminals because the criminals "did it first").

Incidentally, you do bring up an interesting point I had not considered. If held to the same criterion as individuals, it is possible to see the State (as the initiator of numerous executions) as a socially acceptable serial killer.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 13, 2007)

Rich Parsons said:


> I support the Death Penalty.
> 
> People need to understand that certain actions are not allowed in soceity. Those actions are defined as a group usually stated in writing as laws.



Hi Rich,

I find this line of argumentation fascinating. 

The vast majority of crimes, even violent crimes, are not punishable by execution in our society. Are you therefore suggesting that these actions are "allowed" in society by lack of threat of the death penalty??

Of course, if you really mean (as I think you do, but correct me if I am mistaken) that capital punishment serves as a deterrent to future crimes, I am afraid this assumption is not borne out by any consistent statistical data (in fact, there is usually a slight negative correlation, albeit it is fairly weak).


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 13, 2007)

MBuzzy said:


> I think you are giving people a little bit too much credit.  The Death Penalty also serves a huge deterrant.  Think of the converse - how many crimes of passion are prevented by fear of punishment?  Is there any data or studies to support that people are prevented from doing crimes because they are illegal?  That would be extremely hard to research.



I don't think that Crimes of Passion are ever rationalized. It's emotion-driven behavior, not rational, therefore no fear of punishment. 
If people aren't deterred because there are laws against criminal behavior, then what are the laws there for?



MBuzzy said:


> I do agree that man's judgement is fallible and that prisons serve as nothing more than a place for criminals to learn how to commit crime better.  The rehabilitation process really doesn't work - except because people don't want to go back!



Agreed.



MBuzzy said:


> People's moral compasses really aren't that strong.  The basis of human nature is to satisfy our own needs and desires - law is what deters the vast majority of people from doing that.  Try to think of it in an objective manner and by extension.  If there were no laws, what boundaries would you start to push?  It would start with speed limits probably, then the occassional robbery...but just when you need it, eventually, people would be killing each other.



Damn it, people. We need more ol' school Greek Philosophy. More Ethics, less Morals. People need to know WHY certain behaviors are preferable, not simply that they'll be punished in this life or the next if they're naughty.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 13, 2007)

How Many Innocent Inmates Are Executed? - Human Rights Magazine


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 13, 2007)

NOW, THIS IS A GOOD IDEA. If it was televised, ever better. I'd watch this over American Idol any day of the week.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 13, 2007)

heretic888 said:


> Hi Rich,
> 
> I find this line of argumentation fascinating.
> 
> ...




Data?

You want to argue with data?

How Dare you approach me with Data on a subject I feel Emotional About,  

Of course I accept Data. I like to review it myself and see sample sizes and run my own numbers versus see the "results" of others. 

My argument is that I support Capital Punishment. If Society decides that a crime fits this bill then the puynishment is Death. If Society decides it is life of imprisonment, then see the first part of how to keep it cheap. But even if one does not prescribe to that, it is what Society has decided. 

I know that in today's society with the exception of Engineers, not many people where solid colored soft collared shirts out to the bar. Soceity is fickle when it comes to fashion. It is more acceptable to wear a long sleeve shirt with no collar. It is more acceptable to wear a formal shirt untucked and possible unbuttoned with a T-shirt under it. It is even better to wear just a T-shirt with some crazy saying or pattern off center on it. Of course I have not prescribed to this latest fashion trend. Maybe that is why I am not having luck recently. 

Of course one says WTF to this? How does this relate. I bring it up now for I recognize that Soceity is Fickle and transient. So, if Society decides that it is bad to kill people at random for no cause, then they will assign a punishment to the said crime. If there is problem with the punishment being too tough there will be discusisons and lobby's and appeals to address these issues. The same goes the other ways as well. It may not be the best system, but it allows for change over time and for people to express their point of view. If society or their elected officials decides that it is bad to allow certain things on planes, then there will be new laws and acts and enforcement agencies put in place. The Courts can hear cases brought to them by groups or individuals that challenge those laws. 

The way I present it tries to respect that in Canada, if they decide to have no Capital Punishment or to not allow people to own a firearm and they agree to that then good for them. They have decided and enacted a form of control for themselves. If the US decides to allow people to wlak around naked as a statement of their religious beliefs then that is cool as well, as long as they are following the law. 

** Quote from: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html **


> *Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.* _Note_
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.




I agree that people should have the right of the people peaceably to assembly. But in almost all cities and states there is a requirement to get a prarade or event license. This does not prohibit the right to peaceable assembly it just requires something for the locals to understand that there is an event coming to plan for it. And so society has decided that it is ok to peaceable assembly but that one must inform the local authorities so there are no surprises. So soeciety has decided this should be the way it is handled. Of course society assigns a value to this and it usually a fine.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 13, 2007)

Richard Parsons:

Who should then suffer for those wrongfully executed? Or should we simply forget about them? Acceptable Losses? Collateral Damage in our rush to punish the guilty or fulfill the whims of the masses? Moral Authority this fallible is neither Moral nor Worthy of Authority. & just because the majority want something doesn't mean it's right. Many people would cancel the Constitutional Rights of others, but it's not going to happen, not w/o a lot of work and subjection to criticism.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 13, 2007)

Doc_Jude said:


> How Many Innocent Inmates Are Executed? - Human Rights Magazine


 
I can't say that "Human Rights Magazine" is an unbiased source.  Especially when they don't cite their "startling statistics" nor any info on the innocent men.  

I would like to hear the rest of this story from an unbiased source.  Especially since I can't say that I follow their argument.  Some innocent men were freed - that's a good thing, right?  If they were in fact innocent?  How many of those were due to technicalities or to legal loopholes.  I would ask....how many of the GUILTY criminals get OUT of their punishments due to a legal system with too many loop holes and checks and balances.

There is truly no way to create statistics for something like this, innocence and guilt are not black and white issues.  They are decided by the jury and judge - very few people will outright admit to their guilt.  In prisons....everyone's innocent.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 13, 2007)

Doc_Jude said:


> Richard Parsons:
> 
> Who should then suffer for those wrongfully executed? Or should we simply forget about them? Acceptable Losses? Collateral Damage in our rush to punish the guilty or fulfill the whims of the masses? Moral Authority this fallible is neither Moral nor Worthy of Authority. & just because the majority want something doesn't mean it's right. Many people would cancel the Constitutional Rights of others, but it's not going to happen, not w/o a lot of work and subjection to criticism.


 
Personally, I have always seen the "wrongfully executed" argument as an emotional appeal of those opposed to the death penalty.  How many are wrongfully executed?  No way to know and on top of that, to get yourself in the position to BE executed, you are obviously not a model citizen to begin with.  I've never been to court or arrested....because I don't do things wrong.  Generally those who end up in courts or arrested are doing something wrong.

There are of course the wrongfully accused, there will always be - it is human nature to place blame.  Which is why we have a very robust legal system with millions of loopholes, technicalities and appeals....and a jury of your peers.  If you make it through that entire process and are STILL on death row, I simply cannot believe that you did nothing wrong.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 13, 2007)

Doc_Jude said:


> Richard Parsons:
> 
> Who should then suffer for those wrongfully executed? Or should we simply forget about them? Acceptable Losses? Collateral Damage in our rush to punish the guilty or fulfill the whims of the masses? Moral Authority this fallible is neither Moral nor Worthy of Authority. & just because the majority want something doesn't mean it's right. Many people would cancel the Constitutional Rights of others, but it's not going to happen, not w/o a lot of work and subjection to criticism.



Well as stated by others  and I thought by myself, if the law allows for appeals then so be it. Use those appeals and once they are used up then execute the person. 

Do I recognize that in the past there have been errors some by mistake and some by design? Yes I do. Do I think it is perfect? No I do not. 

But to think that life is a Utopia and that wishing for everyone to behave is not going to make the world better. I have run across thsoe young er than 18 who would assault an adult and then cry that they were under 18 and could not be hit. (* Usually around 16 or 17 *) This did not stop me from making a point with them. They needed to understand that their actions have effects or consequences. 

If there were no laws then some would go out and take from others. (* It happens today, and these people are socially unacceptable *) But there would be more. I have talked to them. I know some on medication and others who are not, who would go out and start killing or robbing if they thought they could get away with it. They fear loosing everything and going to jail. Some form of recognition of it being unacceptable is what stops them. If a large person is able to walk up and take your food and no one says anything and you have nothing to defend yourself, and there is no one to say it is unacceptable then they get away with it, and it enforces negative behaviours (* by today's standards *)  and they do it again. 

But your concern is that these people could be locked up to avoid a mistake. The issue I have is that there are people who need to be removed from soceity. No matter what you do they are not acceptable either my chemical inbalance or choice or what have you. Yet, some innocent might get killed and therefore we need not do it. 

Let us look at the no innocent should ever be killed. This is our goal. 

So is it ok for others to kill? Is it ok for terrorist or freedom fighters or religious fanatics or fundamentalists to kill others. If you let them go they will do it again and with pleasure and or believe they are doing what is right. Now this could be defined acceptable by their society, but unacceptable by someone elses. So they go to war. But an innocent might die trying to make sure that no more dictators try to take over the world. So, this means to aovid possible having one fo our society killed we just give into their society. Their request becomes the requirement and commands. This is done to aovid some innocent from being killed. On both sides. So in the end that culture or society that is not willing to make a stand to make the statement that some things are not just right will not survive. If they choose to go their way and allows others to dictate their future ( by choice not by force ) will have their culture disappear. 

I respect that someone may have a religious point and wish that no one would die. I understand that to some ay form of killing including self defense is to be avoided. I respect their point of view. And they have a right in this society and culture to express their point of view. But, so do I. I could say my religion allows for killing. This make my opinion just as valid as anyone else's who says their religion prohibits it. And in a culture that allows for both to express, a point of view and an idea niether is superior to the other. The are both as valid and invalid. 

My point about our culture though is that there are Morals, Ethics and Laws. 

Morals are what we learn that is right or wrong from either church or family or even soceity itself. 

Ethics are like Morals but are from a professional level. Is ti ok to help a patient, or to defend a guilty person, etcetera. They have less of a personal feel to them. And can also be effected by or effect society. 

Law is what the people or their elected representative believes that is necessary to have order. While it may be unethical to own a business and recommend people to invest in it at one time that was completely legal. Now it is a little more difficult and some positions it may even be illegal to do such now. This is how Ethics effects Law. If people are not following it then they enact a law. Not because it stops them but to assign a punishment, in most cases. 

While I do not support the whole killing of people, I understand that science will get better and mistake will happen. (* Been questioned/arrested myself based upon statements by others that later did not led to charges *). I understand that the subject is very emotional to some as it represents a major part of their religion/faith. And many think that to disagree with them somehow invalidates their religion and or challenges their faith. But to me if they had what I call true faith and walked with the knowledge that they were doing the right thing and they said their peace, and presented their case then they should accept that others may disagree. They should understand that not everyone thinks just like them. I have to accept it and live with it, I hope they do. Unfortunately, it is acceptable for people to come to my home and try to tell me I am going to hell for not believing like them. It is ok for people to claim that all lives are sacred and how dare you threaten anyone's life with the support of a punishment. Be it caning to capital. It is acceptable for the religious groups to insist that you are not a true patriot if you do not follow step with them. I hope that this can be modified. I do not wish to take away religions. I just want them not to be a part of my forced life by others. If we choose to enter into discourse here, and talk philosphy that is good. 

So do I wish that no one would ever have to die form a disease? Yes. 
Do I wish that no one would ever have anything stolen ever again? Yes.
Do I wish that no one would ever be raped? Yes
Do I wish that no one would ever assaulted or attacked? Yes. 

Can I stop this? I see no way possible. There are too many groups on thie small planet all looking to make sure that their personal beliefs and society culture is the one that survives. Some do it through capitalism, other sthrough religion, and others through terror. But those that do not make a statement will go the way that other cultures have. I see it all tied together. If I can support the use of leathel force to defend myself, and to protect our society then how can I not support the use in punishment as well. I also thought Dr. Kevorkian was trying to help people. I think people should have the right to end their lives. In his case in broke the law, and was prosecuted and sentenced by the law. If a person wished to end their life, and they are not insane and only have a standard of living issue then I support it.  Just because for some unknown reason I do not support. I would support them loosing all benefits form life insurance and such. 

I believe a person should be held accountable for their actions. I think they should be responsible for the effects they have caused upon society. Michael Vick was convicted/plead guilty to charges and punished for 23 months out of 5 years possible. But, there were many on Monday Night football who supported his actions and were upset that he could not play football.  Now I support their right to say this. But I find it a sad state of affairs that they because he plays a national sport he should get special treatment. But that is my opinion.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 14, 2007)

Could I get a link to a case in the last 10 years (* First conviction  not appeals or death *) where modern techniques have been used that a person has been wrongfully convicted and executed?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 14, 2007)

> People's moral compasses really aren't that strong. The basis of human nature is to satisfy our own needs and desires - law is what deters the vast majority of people from doing that. Try to think of it in an objective manner and by extension. If there were no laws, what boundaries would you start to push? It would start with speed limits probably, then the occassional robbery...but just when you need it, eventually, people would be killing each other.


 
I would argue that the basis of human nature is not to satisfy our own needs and desires, but to survive on our own individual terms as much as possible.  Often, this means cooperating with others.  There is a distinct difference.



> I think we can't really see the morality of the individual, because of the pressures that society creates; if it is not the law, it is religion, if it is not religion, it is patriotism. Remove the constructs of modern society, and I think you would find that our moral codes rapidly become apparent and that it is much more in line with good behavior than bad behavior.


 
Are you saying the *acts* that society has deemed criminal are the fault of society.  That were it not for society itself, then these acts would not occur?



> These sorts of outcomes are what would happen if there were no requirement for _mens rea_, out of which the insanity plea stems.


 
No you would not.  His position does not mean that it has to be taken to that extreme.  It just means that insanity would not necessarily need to be allowed as a legal justification for a crime.



> State executions rests upon an extremist ethical premise that Two Wrongs Make A Right; that, namely, by implementing an equivalent violent behavior upon a violent criminal that the original act of violence is somehow equivocated or neutralized.


 
I disagree.  It is not saying that two wrongs make a right.  It is merely showing that the consequenses of ones actions may be death by the state.  What you are saying by this is that death at the hands of other human beings is *always* wrong, whether it be murder, or say, self-defense.



> Just as I would chastise the child who believes it is acceptable to strike another child because "he hit me first", I will likewise criticize adults who advocate state executions. The moral logic behind both behaviors is equivocal.


 
Then it is interesting that you are posting this on a website devoted to martial arts.  We understant that a childs mindset at a certain age as to not be able to articulate a self-defense argument as such.  The *he hit me first* statement is, or can be, a statement of *he hit me, so I hit him back in defense of myself.*


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 14, 2007)

Doc_Jude said:


> I don't think that Crimes of Passion are ever rationalized. It's emotion-driven behavior, not rational, therefore no fear of punishment.
> If people aren't deterred because there are laws against criminal behavior, then what are the laws there for?


That is true, by their definition, crimes of passion are not rationalized, but the majority of us have the ability to realize that maybe it is a bad idea - due to the consequences.  Have you ever been very mad and had the urge to lash out at someone?  Most people have - aka road rage - but we don't do it, because we can stop and look at things objectively.  There are some who can't or won't.  

People ARE deterred by laws.  I would say that laws are what deter people from doing most wrong things.  There are plenty of things that are not ethically OR morally wrong, but we are prevented from doing by laws and social contracts.  

I like the speeding example......There is nothing ethically OR morally wrong with speeding, but the law exists to keep order in society and to preserve general safety, just like most laws.



Doc_Jude said:


> Damn it, people. We need more ol' school Greek Philosophy. More Ethics, less Morals. People need to know WHY certain behaviors are preferable, not simply that they'll be punished in this life or the next if they're naughty.


 
If we're talking old school Greek philosophy, there is plenty to look at and personally, I don't think that we need more of it.  Plato and Socrates felt that the simple knowledge of "good" and virtue would keep people from doing wrong.  But they also reasoned that no act was done without some form of reason behind it and that no one would intentionally commit an evil act.  We have definately learned that this is not true.  People DO perform evil acts....

But then we get into Moral relativism (aristotelian), if I believe that something is good and virtuous and that it will bring me happines, then it is ethical.  Some do believe that killing in their own best interest is ethical.

and then we can get into the concept of intrinsic good.  Which can never be reached......I can go on and on, but I think that what you meant to say was that we need more MORALS and less Ethics.  Ethics are based in Reason, morals are more about the basic ideas of right and wrong (which Plato, Aristotle AND Socrates all said was LEARNED - meaning imprinted by society).  The bottom line is that this is not a moral or ethical question.  when you bring those concepts into a discussion of the death penalty, you're muddying the waters.  It isn't about right and wrong, good and bad.....it is about what is best for society and keeping order for the greater good.  Getting murderers and depraved human beings off of the streets - permanently if need be - is in the best interest of society.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 14, 2007)

That people deemed Not guilty by reason of insanity get off more or less Scot free (apologies to those of Gaelic descent) is untenable. What would be just and fair is a ruling of guilty but insane. Should one become sane after their conviction they should still pay for the crime. When an animal attacks a person it is put to death almost without exception, why? Because, animals do not have the mental capacity to know what they did was wrong. If a person lacks that same capacity, they should clearly be removed from society. To allow further acts of violence by the insane, would be, well, insane.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 14, 2007)

MBuzzy said:


> Personally, I have always seen the "wrongfully executed" argument as an emotional appeal of those opposed to the death penalty.  How many are wrongfully executed?  No way to know and on top of that, to get yourself in the position to BE executed, you are obviously not a model citizen to begin with.  I've never been to court or arrested....because I don't do things wrong.  Generally those who end up in courts or arrested are doing something wrong.



How is the "Death Penalty" NOT an emotional appeal? 
Please don't think that I'm for the abolition of LAW. I'm not. 



MBuzzy said:


> There are of course the wrongfully accused, there will always be - it is human nature to place blame.  Which is why we have a very robust legal system with millions of loopholes, technicalities and appeals....and a jury of your peers.  If you make it through that entire process and are STILL on death row, I simply cannot believe that you did nothing wrong.



The punishment must fit the crime, however. If no one but the innocent and "God" are witness to their innocence, then their blood is on the hands of the judges, and those that support them. Our legal system is not infallible, and if you support the death penalty, then their blood is on your hands too.

Innocent Men Executed?


----------



## MJS (Dec 14, 2007)

Doc_Jude said:


> How Many Innocent Inmates Are Executed? - Human Rights Magazine


 
Yes, that is a concern.  You'd think that it wouldn't take that long to uncover evidence, yet by looking at things like you linked, its amazing how things are found years later.  Then again, I would bet that there are some cases, such as the one that I linked here to the Cheshire, Ct. home invasion/killings, in which the evidence points right to the two suspects.  I really don't think that there would be any evidence anywhere, that would show that it wasn't these two that did that crime.


----------



## MJS (Dec 14, 2007)

heretic888 said:


> Hi Rich,
> 
> I find this line of argumentation fascinating.
> 
> ...


 
I'm not Rich, but this caught my eye.  Are you sure about the bold part?


----------



## Big Don (Dec 14, 2007)

heretic888 said:


> Hi Rich,
> 
> I find this line of argumentation fascinating.
> 
> ...


The idea that because a specific crime, theft for example isn't punishable by execution in society that it is "allowed" is ignorant and foolish. The worse the crime, the harsher the penalty. This has been the case in every civilization in history, with a few notable exceptions, where leftists were in charge. For instance, Pol Pot and his merry band killing people for the heinous "crime" of being educated or even "Looking" educated by wearing glasses... 
The death penalty in the US is reserved for the most heinous crimes.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 14, 2007)

Doc_Jude said:


> How is the "Death Penalty" NOT an emotional appeal?
> Please don't think that I'm for the abolition of LAW. I'm not.


 
I'm not sure I follow you here.  The point is that the argument of "wrongfully executed people" is an appeal to people's emtions.  

From Wikipedia
"*Appeal to emotion* is a logical fallacy which uses the manipulation of the recipient's emotions, rather than valid logic, to win an argument. This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring and encompasses several logical fallacies"

The point is that I question the validity of the wrongfully executed argument.  Where is the data that supports this?  The majority of it comes from places like "Human Rights Magazine" and "The National Coalition to abolish the Death Penalty" neither of those are even borderline non biased sources.  Both of the reports that I have read to date (the ones in this article) are based solely on what seems to be speculation and manipulation of facts.  If your facts are strong and hold up, you give references and background to your statistics....and don't base conclusions on reports COMMISSIONED and done by newspapers who can be good sources, but is questionable when they go looking for news.....news on closed cases.



Doc_Jude said:


> The punishment must fit the crime, however. If no one but the innocent and "God" are witness to their innocence, then their blood is on the hands of the judges, and those that support them. Our legal system is not infallible, and if you support the death penalty, then their blood is on your hands too.
> 
> Innocent Men Executed?


 
First off, I find it a bit harsh to say that it is the fault of all who support the death penalty when any criminal is killed.  Though I fully support it and don't mind that at all....I don't see why you would say that.  The logic doesn't make sense.  Does this also mean that I'm at fault for every abortion?  Does it mean that I'm at fault for any crime that is committed that isn't against my personal ethical code (not moral)?  I don't think so.  I do think that it is yet another emotional appeal trying to instill guilt in those who truly have NOTHING to feel guilty about.  We are ALL entitled to our opinions.  Luckily most people who support the Death Penalty do so quietly and have no interest in the changing the mind of others, or worse trying to make them feel guilty for their views.

I'm fine with that...I can handle it is someone thinks that I am at fault because a mass murdered is given the death penalty.  I'm perfectly happy being the executioner of someone who rapes and kills 15 women - and I have no problems if you say that the blood of someone who kills his 3 children and wife if put to death.  And you know, I am comfortable with the system, I am comfortable with society's punishment system.  I am also comfortable with the fact that it is possible that innocent men will be put to death.  Do I WANT this to happen, NO...a RESOUNDING no.  I do NOT think that innocent men should die for any reason.  But I also think that the system has made every attempt to prevent this.  It is not by any means infallible, but has a great deal of checks and balances.  By the time that an innocent man makes it to the chair, there has to be a pretty long line of deceptions and set ups - and HORRIBLE lawyers - or EXTREMELY good ones on the opposition.  Meaning that the world is against this person.  Or POSSIBLY, they actually are guilty and are LYING.  If, as you say, the only people who know the truth are the accused and God, then they are fighting perception and trying to justify why they were at the scene of the crime at the opportune moment in a position to look like they did it.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 14, 2007)

heretic888 said:


> Hi Rich,
> 
> I find this line of argumentation fascinating.
> 
> ...


 

Heretic888,

Did I answer your questions?


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 14, 2007)

5-0 Kenpo said:


> I disagree. It is not saying that two wrongs make a right. It is merely showing that the consequenses of ones actions may be death by the state.



Hi 5-0 Kenpo,

When making arguments such as this, it is important to consider the function of such policies. Appealing to consequences is only relevant in two contexts:

1) Increasing or decreasing the frequency of future behaviors.

2) Exacting revenge on others.

In regards to the first point, capital punishment has not been demonstrated to decrease the frequency of criminal behaviors. This is most probably due to the reason that most crimes which warrant the death penalty are generally crimes of passion.

In regards to the second point, this is almost always what underlies the arguments of most proponents of capital punishment. It just "feels good" to cause pain to those who have caused us pain, so this is of course a perfectly understandable and natural sentiment. That, however, doesn't make it right.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> What you are saying by this is that death at the hands of other human beings is *always* wrong, whether it be murder, or say, self-defense.



This is a Straw Man. I argued nothing of the sort.

What I am _actually_ saying is that recapitulative violence, whose goal is to harm those who have harmed us, is wrong. It may feel justified, but its still wrong.



5-0 Kenpo said:


> Then it is interesting that you are posting this on a website devoted to martial arts. We understant that a childs mindset at a certain age as to not be able to articulate a self-defense argument as such. The *he hit me first* statement is, or can be, a statement of *he hit me, so I hit him back in defense of myself.*



Unfortunately, you are being inexact with your logical articulations and collapsing the concept of self-defense violence with recapitulative violence. In the former, I use violence to stop one from exerting violence on me. In the latter, I use violence to "pay back" one who has previously exerted violence on me (which is generally after-the-fact).


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 14, 2007)

Rich Parsons said:


> Heretic888,
> 
> Did I answer your questions?


 
Hi Rich,

Not really. But, that's okay.


----------



## JBrainard (Dec 14, 2007)

Here is what I immediately thought when I saw the title of this thread: Everyone here on this board is a martial artist of some sort. What are we all taught in regards to self defence? That you have no ethical or legal right to kill someone unless they are using lethal force against you. Now, once the death penalty candidate is captured, he is no longer a threat. He is isolated from society, surrounded only by the people who gaurd him. At that point, killing him surves no purpose to the the public.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 14, 2007)

JBrainard said:


> Here is what I immediately thought when I saw the title of this thread: Everyone here on this board is a martial artist of some sort. What are we all taught in regards to self defence? That you have no ethical or legal right to kill someone unless they are using lethal force against you. Now, once the death penalty candidate is captured, he is no longer a threat. He is isolated from society, surrounded only by the people who gaurd him. At that point, killing him surves no purpose to the the public.


 
Except when he is released 10 years into his sentence after having served 10 years with OTHER criminals, learning to do things more efficiently.  And probably going back to his previous behavior.


----------



## JBrainard (Dec 14, 2007)

MBuzzy said:


> Except when he is released 10 years into his sentence after having served 10 years with OTHER criminals, learning to do things more efficiently. And probably going back to his previous behavior.


 
Ah, yes, good point. I should have added that these individuals *need* to be given life inprisonment without hope of parol. Then my statement holds true, no?


----------



## 5-0 Kenpo (Dec 14, 2007)

heretic888 said:


> When making arguments such as this, it is important to consider the function of such policies. Appealing to consequences is only relevant in two contexts:
> 
> 1) Increasing or decreasing the frequency of future behaviors.
> 
> ...


 
Maybe your two points are valid.  However, one can not prove a negative.  Therefore, it is possible that the death penalty is decreasing the behavior.  

Now you can err on the side of it not, and therefore be against the death penalty.  I generally believe the opposite.




> What I am _actually_ saying is that recapitulative violence, whose goal is to harm those who have harmed us, is wrong. It may feel justified, but its still wrong.


 
I disagree that it is always wrong to harm those who wrong us.  What I think is a more appropriate to understand your position is this.  Is there a justification in a delay in harming those who have harmed us.  

In other words, if I wait a month to his someone who hit me justified?  Or, if I hit them immediately, is that justified.  Both are violence against one who has violated us.  Only the timing is different.




> Unfortunately, you are being inexact with your logical articulations and collapsing the concept of self-defense violence with recapitulative violence. In the former, I use violence to stop one from exerting violence on me. In the latter, I use violence to "pay back" one who has previously exerted violence on me (which is generally after-the-fact).


 
No, I'm saying that using the example of a child's articulation of self-defense is weak when discussing this subject.  And, if someone hit my child, and he hit that person back, I would explain to him about self-defense, not automatically chastise him.


----------



## fireman00 (Dec 14, 2007)

YES - definitively YES... when I read about the John Couey's of the world I cringe to think they are still drawing breath and costing their victims and others money to house and feed them. 

I am ashamed to live in NJ now they've shown how spineless they are in repealing the death penalty and the BS liberal "  now doesn't everyone feel better" mentality.  We already have one of the highest tax rates in the country... now rather then put it to good use by killing vermin off we'll waste it keeping them warm, cozy, fed with 3 meals a day and TV.  

Rape, Murder, Drug dealing - should all be punishable by death.  Sorry to the liberals but criminals  show no mercy in the crimes they perpetrate against society... why should society show them mercy?  Get drunk and run over a 16 year old girl who was riding her bike home from school?  bye bye....  A mother that's turned into a heroin addict  by a dealer who gives her a couple of free tastes... she then in turn kills her child by starving her cause she's always out of her mind high? both of 'em Dealer and mother ... bye bye... Get liquored up and bring your 6 week old little boy to bed 'cuz he's crying and roll over on top of him and kill him?  bye bye.  and on and on....   and that's not even taking into account the fools that just walk up and jam a knife into a victim's throat or shoots someone over a jacket  or a robbery gone bad. 

And another point to think about.. look at how our prison system have turned into incubators that churn out "super criminals" who have more criminal skills when they went in... couple that with the gang relations they build while in prison and we are in trouble.  MS13, Crips, Bloods, the Aryan Brotherhood... we want to turn  folks who have learned from these horrible folks loose back into society? 

Sorry... can't buy into it.  Give folks 3 tries to prove their innocence... if that fails then goodnight.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 14, 2007)

Big Don said:


> If a person lacks that same capacity, they should clearly be removed from society. To allow further acts of violence by the insane, would be, well, insane.



Were you under the impression that a successful insanity plea means you get to walk?  It means you get to spend most of the rest of your life confined in a psychiatric hospital.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 14, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> Were you under the impression that a successful insanity plea means you get to walk?  It means you get to spend most of the rest of your life confined in a psychiatric hospital.


You mean like John Hinkley Jr? He gets UNSUPERVISED vacations from the hospital. HE SHOT THE PRESIDENT!


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 14, 2007)

Big Don said:


> You mean like John Hinkley Jr? He gets UNSUPERVISED vacations from the hospital. HE SHOT THE PRESIDENT!



26 years ago.  He would have been out of jail on an attempted murder sentence long before the hospital let him go.   You should be happy, his plea resulted in more punishment than he normally would have got.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 14, 2007)

MBuzzy said:


> I'm not sure I follow you here.  The point is that the argument of "wrongfully executed people" is an appeal to people's emtions.



Yes, it can be used as an emotional appeal... except when it is proven that innocent men have been executed *after the fact*. If instances of wrongful execution have been proven, how many more are executed that *aren't discovered?* This is logic, not fallacy. If we are human and admit our own obvious imperfection, it is obvious that we must ere on the side of caution when handing out punishment to our fellow men.



MBuzzy said:


> The point is that I question the validity of the wrongfully executed argument.  Where is the data that supports this?  The majority of it comes from places like "Human Rights Magazine" and "The National Coalition to abolish the Death Penalty" neither of those are even borderline non biased sources...



Doesn't matter. Facts are facts. Finding a "non-biased" source in a subject like this is rather difficult, obviously if the opinion spread on this thread is any indication. 



MBuzzy said:


> First off, I find it a bit harsh to say that it is the fault of all who support the death penalty when any criminal is killed.  Though I fully support it and don't mind that at all....I don't see why you would say that.  The logic doesn't make sense.  Does this also mean that I'm at fault for every abortion?  Does it mean that I'm at fault for any crime that is committed that isn't against my personal ethical code (not moral)?  I don't think so.  I do think that it is yet another emotional appeal trying to instill guilt in those who truly have NOTHING to feel guilty about.  We are ALL entitled to our opinions.  Luckily most people who support the Death Penalty do so quietly and have no interest in the changing the mind of others, or worse trying to make them feel guilty for their views.



You find *that* harsh, but you don't find your support of the death penalty harsh? I find the death penalty harsh, especially knowing how many screw ups occur in our legal system. Sometimes, we just don't have the proof to prove our innocence. Sometimes LE & legal personal screw up, or manufacture evidence. Sometimes people are blamed, or framed, for things they aren't guilty of. It happens. 



> I'm fine with that...I can handle it is someone thinks that I am at fault because a mass murdered is given the death penalty.  I'm perfectly happy being the executioner of someone who rapes and kills 15 women - and I have no problems if you say that the blood of someone who kills his 3 children and wife if put to death.  And you know, I am comfortable with the system, I am comfortable with society's punishment system.  I am also comfortable with the fact that it is possible that innocent men will be put to death.  Do I WANT this to happen, NO...a RESOUNDING no.  I do NOT think that innocent men should die for any reason.  But I also think that the system has made every attempt to prevent this.  It is not by any means infallible, but has a great deal of checks and balances.  By the time that an innocent man makes it to the chair, there has to be a pretty long line of deceptions and set ups - and HORRIBLE lawyers - or EXTREMELY good ones on the opposition.  Meaning that the world is against this person.  Or POSSIBLY, they actually are guilty and are LYING.  If, as you say, the only people who know the truth are the accused and God, then they are fighting perception and trying to justify why they were at the scene of the crime at the opportune moment in a position to look like they did it.



So, you only find it harsh when the finger is pointed at you, right? You think that a system that occasionally murders someone that doesn't deserve it is a good system, as long as those that are obviously guilty of capital crimes are put to death? In case you were confused, I was talking about a system that murders innocent of capital crimes. You want those that you think deserve it to die, while I don't think that man should have the authority to dole that punishment so easily. 

Oh well. Agree to disagree, I guess.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 14, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> 26 years ago.  He would have been out of jail on an attempted murder sentence long before the hospital let him go.   You should be happy, his plea resulted in more punishment than he normally would have got.


That is just it, he has received NO punishment. The criminally insane are not subject to punishment, only treatment. There is a huge qualitative difference there.  James Brady would, you can be sure, love even a supervised break from being stuck in his wheelchair, but, Hinkley's acts are permanent. 
So, because it has been 39 years since Sirhan Sirhan killed Bobby Kennedy he should be released? Because people have served far less time for murder. Or what about Charles Manson. Manson never killed anyone, yet he rots in prison, and, he is friggin nuts, should his sentence be commuted and he be committed?


> Were you under the impression that a successful insanity plea means you get to walk? It means you get to spend most of the rest of your life confined in a psychiatric hospital.


 Not at all, do you think being in a psychiatric hospital is the moral equivalent of being jailed for crimes? The psychiatric hospital's mandate is to help the patient, not punish the guilty. If one is deemed "Sane" at some future point, they should then begin the punishment phase of their sentence. If ignorance of the law isn't a defense how is it that being too nuts to obey the law is?


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 14, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Not at all, do you think being in a psychiatric hospital is the moral equivalent of being jailed for crimes? The psychiatric hospital's mandate is to help the patient, not punish the guilty. If one is deemed "Sane" at some future point, they should then begin the punishment phase of their sentence. If ignorance of the law isn't a defense how is it that being too nuts to obey the law is?



Uhhhhh... findings of Insanity, if actual, is a lack of logical or moral discernment, thereby the accused is not held responsible for their actions, hence they receive institutional psych treatment in leu of penal incarceration. Knowledge or ignorance of the law is a non-issue in such cases. 
Are we really talking about this???


----------



## Big Don (Dec 15, 2007)

Doc_Jude said:


> Uhhhhh... findings of Insanity, if actual, is a lack of logical or moral discernment, thereby the accused is not held responsible for their actions, hence they receive institutional psych treatment in leu of penal incarceration. Knowledge or ignorance of the law is a non-issue in such cases.
> Are we really talking about this???


Yes. People should be held responsible for their actions. Period.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 15, 2007)

You're right, this tends to be a very emotional topic for people.  It is also one in which the majority of people will not change their opinion, since it is linked heavily to their moral and ethical code.  Personally, I choose to look at it objectively.  So, as with everything in this board, it is nothing personal.  



Doc_Jude said:


> Yes, it can be used as an emotional appeal... except when it is proven that innocent men have been executed *after the fact*. If instances of wrongful execution have been proven, how many more are executed that *aren't discovered?* This is logic, not fallacy. If we are human and admit our own obvious imperfection, it is obvious that we must ere on the side of caution when handing out punishment to our fellow men.
> 
> Doesn't matter. Facts are facts. Finding a "non-biased" source in a subject like this is rather difficult, obviously if the opinion spread on this thread is any indication.


 
What I'm questioning is the validity of the proof.  The investigations were done by a commissioned board, paid by a newspaper, years after the fact.  And yet, the courts failed to find any of that?  And then it was published ONLY in the newspaper that paid for it and an anti death penalty site?  I'm not saying that it is wrong, it just sends up MANY red flags to my analytical brain.

In addition to that point, I question the "If instances of wrongful execution have been proven, how many more are executed that *aren't discovered?" *extension.  I don't believe that this is a logical extrapolation.  They are mutually exclusive points.  One case has no bearing on any other.  So let's look at the numbers....

In 2006, there were 766,010 inmates in the nations prisons, up almost 20,000 from 2005.  Of those, approximately 3,366 are death row inmates (not taking into account appeals and unknown circumstances.....)[http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/jails.htm] [http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.php?pid=stats]
Therefore, 0.4% of the inmates in this nations prisons are on death row and that was with about 2 mins of internet searching.  The next point would be to research how many of those have historically been actually executed.

So now, let's look at your assumption.  Ho: Death row inmates are guilty  Ha:  Death row inmates are innocent.  Now let's tie some numbers here.  I admit the fallibility of the legal system.  It would be folly not to.  Of COURSE the legal system is fallible.  MAN is fallible.  There is NO WAY TO PREVENT that.  So let's say that 5% of the inmates in the nations prison ARE innocent.  So, there are 38301 innocent prisoners.  And 169 Death row inmates who are innocent.  Of those, it can be assumed that if they are TRULY innocent, half of those will get off.  So 84 innocent men are executed....and that is using HUGELY inflated numbers.  I do not believe that there are even close to 5% of the inmates who are innocent.

I can easily prove that the hypothesis is fails.  I'm a nerd and wrote it out, but without showing you those calculations, you have no idea the numbers I used, which ties me back to my original point.  With a basic knowledge of statistics, I can make the numbers say anything I want.  

But that point aside, if 84 innocent men are executed over the next 30 years or so, I personally view that as acceptable losses.  That sounds horribly cold and evil, but even without the death sentence, they are STILL IN JAIL FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIVES.  That changes nothing.  They live life in a cell - and are the expenses of a bureaucratic system (bureaucratic has a negative connotation, but I'm using it in the organizational system sense), that is designed to protect the general public and punish the guilty.

That is true, it is difficult to find unbiased facts, because everyone has their agenda...and that is why I question every news report that fails to cite sources or presents statistics with no basis.  I have DONE extensive statistical research, I know how incredibly easy it is to manipulate numbers.



Doc_Jude said:


> You find *that* harsh, but you don't find your support of the death penalty harsh? I find the death penalty harsh, especially knowing how many screw ups occur in our legal system. Sometimes, we just don't have the proof to prove our innocence. Sometimes LE & legal personal screw up, or manufacture evidence. Sometimes people are blamed, or framed, for things they aren't guilty of. It happens.
> 
> So, you only find it harsh when the finger is pointed at you, right? You think that a system that occasionally murders someone that doesn't deserve it is a good system, as long as those that are obviously guilty of capital crimes are put to death? In case you were confused, I was talking about a system that murders innocent of capital crimes. You want those that you think deserve it to die, while I don't think that man should have the authority to dole that punishment so easily.


 
I also find the death penalty harsh.  I think it is horrible that we do such a thing.  I think it is terrible when innocent men die.  and I don't deny that people are blamed, framed, evidence is manufactured, legal systems screw up, etc....but I don't buy how often this happens.  If your world view is based only on television and movies, you probably think this happens every day.  It is NOT a common occurance in my opinion.  Sure, it happens, but there is no alternative.  The only alternative is to scrap the entire legal system.

I also do not care if the finger is pointed at me.  I feel no guilt for this.  People can say that I'm to blame all they want, this does not impact me in the least.  I haven't committed any crimes, and thank god, I live in a country where I am free to have my beliefs, you are free to have yours and anyone can say whatever they want about me and my beliefs....I say it is harsh because I don't see the connection.  I see no logical way to link one's beliefs and a failure of a legal system that I have never been directly involved in.  If I was a judge, sure.  If I was a congressman, I would feel a personal responsibility.  As a Civil Engineer....sorry. 

On top of that, I have found in my discussions of this topic that as I stated earlier, guilt is the primary argument used against the Death Penalty.  That is the logical fallacy I'm referring to.  Statements that refer to these vast numbers of innocent people who are dying on death row.  In 2006, 53 men were executed in this country.  I would LOVE to see a Depeartment of Justice statistic regarding how many of these men were found innocent in an objective, legal setting after their death.  THAT is something that would change the minds of lots of people.

The point here is that the subject must be looked at objectively, without ties to emotion and morals.  I feel that those who are guilty of capitol crimes, and whose crimes fit within the criteria for a death penalty, and who have gone through an objective trial by their peers, were given the chance for appeal, and are still guilty, deserve to die.  I personally feel that if you have gotten that far and are innocent....There's no way that you're completely blameless.  I just can't see a situation where someone is put into the position to be blamed and then can produce NO EVIDENCE to the contrary over the course of years and many appeals.....and by juries of their peers.  I have no faith in the media, so the few and far between instances of innocent men who are executed really don't bother me.

And by extension, if men do not have the authority to dole out punishment, where does this start and stop?  What authority DO men have?  So we can take someone's life away and keep them incarcerated, but cannot put them to death?  Or is it that men do not have the right to pass judgement on each other at all?  In which case we go back to the point of the general public's moral compass.....If people have internal, built in morality, then it isn't necessary.  In which case, we can scrap the entire legal system and feel safe.  I do not.  I don't trust people at all.  If you take away rules and punishments - you have chaos.



Doc_Jude said:


> Oh well. Agree to disagree, I guess.


 
Exactly!  This is the beauty of our country...and this forum.  We are all free to have our opinions.  And personally, I see this as a completely non-attributional system, i.e. an academic debate.

If there is objective information out there regarding these statistics of all the innocent men who have been executed, I would like to see them.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 15, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Yes. People should be held responsible for their actions. Period.


 
Agreed.  When a plea of insanity can be recommended by a lawyer....the system is being perverted.  

This is of course an example of the fallibility of the legal system....only it works in the opposite direction!  We're letting the wrong people go!

Insanity is WAY too objective.  If I was guity of a crime and knew it and was facing a hefty punishment....i'd start eating crayons and talking to lamps.


----------



## MJS (Dec 15, 2007)

JBrainard said:


> Ah, yes, good point. I should have added that these individuals *need* to be given life inprisonment without hope of parol. Then my statement holds true, no?


 
And to ease the over crowding in prison, we need to a) build more or b) send them out of state to other prisons, both options of course, usually get flak from the general public.  

I"m fine with either option.  What I don't like it the long drawn out appeal process.  Why is someone sitting on death row for 10 yrs?  Either go thru with it or lock them up for life.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 15, 2007)

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iS87a-dYyw3uytcrOSlWhaZcX0ZgD8THHKL80

Here is a perfect example from another thread.  

""This is just another freak show of a hearing where they convicted an innocent man," Goudeau's wife, Wendy Carr, said outside the courthouse."  

It is very easy for his wife or him to say that he is guilty....even when there is DNA evidence linking him to the crime.  The man faces several counts of murder, rape, and other crimes.  Now because he's well behaved in court, people are going to scream that he's innocent.  With no back up other than his word alone.

Personally, I say put him to death.  Instead, we put him in a jail cell to rot for the rest of his life and for the tax payers to support.  AND on top of that, to give him the medical care he requires to PROLONG his miserable life while he sits in a cell.  Not to mention education, free meals, entertainment, etc.  Now how does a man like this with such little respect for human life or rights deserve to live?


----------



## MJS (Dec 15, 2007)

MBuzzy said:


> http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iS87a-dYyw3uytcrOSlWhaZcX0ZgD8THHKL80
> 
> Here is a perfect example from another thread.
> 
> ...


 
Yes, this is the other side of the coin, and one that people no doubt compain about.  I don't know the current stats as far as cost goes, but life in prison isn't as harsh as some think.  You got a roof over your head, access to a phone, tv, gym equipment, visits, medical care, 3 meals a day, plus the prison store.


----------



## bydand (Dec 15, 2007)

Red is positive, Black is negitive.  Need somebody to flip the switch? PM me.  

All I have to say on the subject.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 15, 2007)

Without having read the thread yet, I am going to weigh in.

I must proceed my statement with this, though. There are many times when people simply need to be killed. And I am not talking for revenge reasons, as I don't think that is ever justified. But I am talking about killing because they are a danger to the lives of others. Killing Saddam Hussien is a great example of a justifiable killing. When we target and kill global terrorist, that is another great example.

However, I am against the death penalty in our country. Why? There is too much of a margin of error in our justice system. There are still cases today where people are on death row and are found innocent. Really, I would only be for the death penalty if it were because that individual would be considered, with certainty, a danger to society, and if they were guilty of their crime with absolute certainty. Since our legal system cannot gaurantee the above, I cannot support the death penalty. 

This is difficult for me when I hear about criminals who do horrific acts, but who are still allowed to live in our justice system. But I have to stand on my principles, not on my desires...

C.


----------



## Kacey (Dec 15, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Yes. People should be held responsible for their actions. Period.


So... no extenuating circumstance for whatever reason?  Any person who kills another should die - no matter how unintentional (e.g. suicide by car - that is, when a person walks in front of a car with the intent of being killed), accidental (e.g. car hits ice, slides into median, kills passenger), or in defense of another person (e.g. family, child, weaker, etc.)?

I understand the hard-line stance, I really do - but at the same time, Hammurabi is dead, and eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth system of Biblical justice has been revamped since his time - and even then, it allowed for monetary compensation... and no, I'm not suggesting that murderers be allowed to buy their way off - but isn't that what happens when a suspected murderer has an expensive lawyer?  The difference is that the money goes to the lawyer instead of the deceased's family.

The justice system needs to be revamped, no doubt about it - and especially when dealing with capital crimes.  But I don't see punishment being equal no matter the circumstances as being any better than the mess we've got now.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 15, 2007)

Kacey said:


> So... no extenuating circumstance for whatever reason?  Any person who kills another should die - no matter how unintentional (e.g. suicide by car - that is, when a person walks in front of a car with the intent of being killed), accidental (e.g. car hits ice, slides into median, kills passenger), or in defense of another person (e.g. family, child, weaker, etc.)?
> 
> I understand the hard-line stance, I really do - but at the same time, Hammurabi is dead, and eye-for-an-eye, tooth-for-a-tooth system of Biblical justice has been revamped since his time - and even then, it allowed for monetary compensation... and no, I'm not suggesting that murderers be allowed to buy their way off - but isn't that what happens when a suspected murderer has an expensive lawyer?  The difference is that the money goes to the lawyer instead of the deceased's family.
> 
> The justice system needs to be revamped, no doubt about it - and especially when dealing with capital crimes.  But I don't see punishment being equal no matter the circumstances as being any better than the mess we've got now.


There is a difference, both moral and legal between justifiable homicide and murder. It isn't hard at all to see the difference between self defense or defense of others and murder, at least I didn't think it was. Some of you people are starting to worry me...


----------



## Kacey (Dec 15, 2007)

Big Don said:


> There is a difference, both moral and legal between justifiable homicide and murder. It isn't hard at all to see the difference between self defense or defense of others and murder, at least I didn't think it was. Some of you people are starting to worry me...



I don't dispute the difference - but I can only respond to what you say, not what you mean and don't type on the page... and I do know people who would make the statement you made and mean it literally.  So until you made this statement I had no way of knowing what you meant; the joy of conversation - especially via text, where there is no inflection - is that one can _only_ take the face value of words, not the implications meant by the author.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 15, 2007)

Kacey said:


> I don't dispute the difference - but I can only respond to what you say, not what you mean and don't type on the page... and I do know people who would make the statement you made and mean it literally.  So until you made this statement I had no way of knowing what you meant; the joy of conversation - especially via text, where there is no inflection - is that one can _only_ take the face value of words, not the implications meant by the author.


Makes you really value inflection doesn't it?


----------



## grydth (Dec 15, 2007)

I may well have missed a link in my study of this thread. 

Can anyone cite an instance(s) since the resumption of capital punishment where it has been conclusively proven that an innocent person was wrongfully executed?


----------



## Karatedrifter7 (Dec 15, 2007)

Thats a difficult one to answer, but in most cases, I'm not in favour of it. Take Timothy McVeigh. We might have been able to find out more about the Oklahoma conspiracy if he'd been around longer. But he took his secrets with him.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 15, 2007)

Big Don said:


> That is just it, he has received NO punishment. The criminally insane are not subject to punishment, only treatment.



By being confined to a secure, locked down facility for an indefinite period of time.  The only thing significantly better about the psychiatric hospital is the lack of shower rape, which isn't supposed to happen in prison anyways.



Big Don said:


> So, because it has been 39 years since Sirhan Sirhan killed Bobby Kennedy he should be released? Because people have served far less time for murder. Or what about Charles Manson. Manson never killed anyone, yet he rots in prison, and, he is friggin nuts, should his sentence be commuted and he be committed?



Either should be released if they have completed their sentences.  I have no idea if either have.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 15, 2007)

Big Don said:


> Yes. People should be held responsible for their actions. Period.



Jesus H. Christ, you are so incoherent on this topic.  Do you not get that the necessity of _mens rea_ is the basis for the insanity plea AS WELL AS justifiable homicide/self defense?  You don't get one without the other.

Of course that is what would happen when the principles are applied evenly.  You have already made it abundantly clear that your preferences drive your desired outcomes, not your principles.  You like it when someone kills someone else in self defense, so they should be let go.  You don't like it when some crazy dude kills someone, he should rot in jail forever.  Never mind that neither had the criminal intent required to be guilty.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 15, 2007)

grydth said:


> Can anyone cite an instance(s) since the resumption of capital punishment where it has been conclusively proven that an innocent person was wrongfully executed?



Some of these innocent guys would have been executed eventually without the involvement of an interested third party with money.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/Browse-Profiles.php


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 15, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> Jesus H. Christ, you are so incoherent on this topic.  Do you not get that the necessity of _mens rea_ is the basis for the insanity plea AS WELL AS justifiable homicide/self defense?  You don't get one without the other.



This guy obviously doesn't even get the basics of criminal law. Just quit talking to him. I have.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 15, 2007)

Be nice, guys.  Its nothing personal, everyone is entitled to an opinion.  Plus, the best way to discuss anything is to attack the ideas and points, not the people.



Empty Hands said:


> Some of these innocent guys would have been executed eventually without the involvement of an interested third party with money.
> http://www.innocenceproject.org/know/Browse-Profiles.php


 
I haven't actually taken the time to read any of these....but isn't this just an example of the system working?  That is why we have an appeals process and allow people to exhaust every resource before being put to death.  If they get off, that is a GOOD thing.  

Unfortunately, the converse applies as well, just as there are innocent men who get executed, there are guilty men who are set free.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 15, 2007)

MBuzzy said:


> Be nice, guys.  Its nothing personal, everyone is entitled to an opinion.  Plus, the best way to discuss anything is to attack the ideas and points, not the people.



Actually the Big Guy made it personal by calling several of my posts "idiotic" when I hadn't been rude first.  Not that it justifies anything, but it does add to the frustration...

What also adds to the frustration is I have written several long posts addressing exactly the points raised by my interlocutor, which have been completely ignored.



MBuzzy said:


> I haven't actually taken the time to read any of these....but isn't this just an example of the system working?



Unfortunately not.  The evidence and money raised to free these men came from the Innocence Project, not the system.  The system is not obligated to pay for exculpatory testing such as DNA testing.  AFAIK, if the prosecution thinks eyewitness testimony (for instance) is enough to convict, they have no obligation to test the DNA samples in their possession.  As DNA testing is costly, a number of convicts later freed were stuck in jail due to lack of money.  Also, courts have been known to refuse new evidence on appeal, arguing that appeals courts are not for the establishment of fact, but the testing of procedure.

It doesn't help either that the position of DA is an elected one, and convictions look better to the voters than exonerations.  The DA all too often wants a conviction, not to find the truth.  Just look at Mike Nifong of Duke Lacrosse fame for a textbook example.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 16, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> Actually the Big Guy made it personal by calling several of my posts "idiotic" when I hadn't been rude first. Not that it justifies anything, but it does add to the frustration...
> 
> What also adds to the frustration is I have written several long posts addressing exactly the points raised by my interlocutor, which have been completely ignored.


 
Understood....maybe I should rephrase.  I just think that we should ALL make an attempt to KEEP it from being personal, that's all.  Although I understand the frustration.



Empty Hands said:


> Unfortunately not. The evidence and money raised to free these men came from the Innocence Project, not the system. The system is not obligated to pay for exculpatory testing such as DNA testing. AFAIK, if the prosecution thinks eyewitness testimony (for instance) is enough to convict, they have no obligation to test the DNA samples in their possession. As DNA testing is costly, a number of convicts later freed were stuck in jail due to lack of money. Also, courts have been known to refuse new evidence on appeal, arguing that appeals courts are not for the establishment of fact, but the testing of procedure.
> 
> It doesn't help either that the position of DA is an elected one, and convictions look better to the voters than exonerations. The DA all too often wants a conviction, not to find the truth. Just look at Mike Nifong of Duke Lacrosse fame for a textbook example.


 
I suppose I will need to read up a bit on the innocence project.  Either way, it is an extension of the system working.  I'm a student of systems analysis and when a complex system exists with problems, those affected by the system generally create ammendments to the system to overcome those problems and mitigate their effects.  So I view this organization as society's way of taking a PROACTIVE approach at fixing the system.  After all, that is how TRUE change happens.  When you feel strongly enough about an issue, you go out and try to change it.  If you can't change it, try to mitigate its effects.  Seems like they are reasonably successful.  I still see it as a good thing.  If we can preserve the deterrance of the Death Penalty and add another fail safe to ensure that innocent men aren't executed - all the better in my opinion.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 16, 2007)

MBuzzy said:


> So I view this organization as society's way of taking a PROACTIVE approach at fixing the system.



Well, that's true enough.  Hopefully they can help inspire change.  Making the justice system more effective SHOULD make everyone more happy (of course it won't though).  Those changes do have to happen to the wider system though, a couple of activist groups aren't enough to correct millions of potential problems.



MBuzzy said:


> If we can preserve the deterrance of the Death Penalty and add another fail safe to ensure that innocent men aren't executed - all the better in my opinion.



Definitely.  I would be a lot more willing to support it in that case.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 16, 2007)

grydth said:


> I may well have missed a link in my study of this thread.
> 
> Can anyone cite an instance(s) since the resumption of capital punishment where it has been conclusively proven that an innocent person was wrongfully executed?



http://www.fdp.dk/uk/released.htm

http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/tows_2000/tows_past_20000928.jhtml

The center of wrongful convictions have found some 86 people on death row innocent (mostly proved innocent with DNA evidence). They would have been killed otherwise.

http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/

It happens more often then people think. That is why like I said before, even though some people should be killed, I can't justify the death penalty with the margin of error in our system.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 16, 2007)

MBuzzy said:


> Understood....maybe I should rephrase.  I just think that we should ALL make an attempt to KEEP it from being personal, that's all.  Although I understand the frustration.



We should keep things civil and stick to healthy conversation and debate. However, that demands a willingness to listen to the arguments and points of other, along with a openness to learning new information, especially on a subject that they feel so strongly about.

A few posters here in this thread obviously don't come from this standpoint and would rather simply stand on their uninformed opinions, voicing them in an rather callus, acerbic manner. A public discussion forum isn't the place for that. Try a Blog.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 16, 2007)

Cruentus said:


> http://www.fdp.dk/uk/released.htm
> 
> http://www.oprah.com/tows/pastshows/tows_2000/tows_past_20000928.jhtml
> 
> ...



& the problem with the Center for Wrongful Convictions, along the backlog of cases that need proper DNA verification, is that they won't be able to get to all of the wrongful convictions before they're put to death. They save some, but not all. 
The bloodthirsty attitude of some people that see these government-endorsed murders as acceptable & "collateral damage" is what perpetuates this kind of archaic punishment.


----------



## MJS (Dec 18, 2007)

Hmmm....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22296966/


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Dec 18, 2007)

The dealth penalty...I support it. What I dont support is the argument that it needs to be humane. I think punishments should go back to an eye for an eye. You kill some one buy shooting them well then you get shot. Or in the case of the guy in Texas that was dragged to his death, they people responsible should die the same way. Ive told people this before and they say to me "Well Brandon who are we going to get to perform all these punishments" my only answer is "ME" I will do it to save tax payers millions and to solve the problem.

Also...child molestors...SHOT THEM IN THE HEAD. There is no place for them in society. You mess with a little kid you deserve to die plain and simple. If this makes me barbaric than so be it. But like Christopher Titus says "show me the pro molesting little kids side of the argument"

B


----------



## Ray (Dec 18, 2007)

Yes, but only for first-time non-violent drug offenders.


----------



## Empty Hands (Dec 18, 2007)

KempoGuy06 said:


> Also...child molestors...SHOT THEM IN THE HEAD.



I notice you didn't volunteer your services in performing your "eye-for-an-eye" duties by molesting the child molesters.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 18, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> I notice you didn't volunteer your services in performing your "eye-for-an-eye" duties by molesting the child molesters.


an eye for an eye is fine, when dealing with murder when a death for a death is equal. For child molesters and rapists, I would suggest something a tad more brutal than today's modern execution methods. The brazen bull perhaps.http://www.medievality.com/brazen-bull.html That is, make the punishment fit the brutality of the crime.
Executions should be swift, public and on pay-per-view. When you tell people you might kill them if they kill/rape/molest you don't get the full deterrent effect unless and until you kill some people for murder/rape/molestation. The monies recouped from the first dozen pay-per-view executions would cover the prison budgets for years.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 18, 2007)

Empty threats are quickly spotted by the bad guys, who will not fear them. For examples see Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussein, Arafat, etc, etc, et al.


----------



## morph4me (Dec 18, 2007)

I just read through this entire thread and just want to say that I am very impressed at how such an emotional issue has been discussed to this point, it's one of the things that makes MT such a great forum.

I happen to stand with Rich Parsons, MBuzzy, Bydand and everyone else similarly inclined. I can't really add anything else to the conversation.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Dec 19, 2007)

Big Don said:


> an eye for an eye is fine, when dealing with murder when a death for a death is equal. For child molesters and rapists, I would suggest something a tad more brutal than today's modern execution methods. The brazen bull perhaps.http://www.medievality.com/brazen-bull.html That is, make the punishment fit the brutality of the crime.
> Executions should be swift, public and on pay-per-view. When you tell people you might kill them if they kill/rape/molest you don't get the full deterrent effect unless and until you kill some people for murder/rape/molestation. The monies recouped from the first dozen pay-per-view executions would cover the prison budgets for years.


thats a good one as far as Im concerned. 

Or maybe we can take them and drowned them and bring them back to life. do this every die for the rest of there life. I believe thats a good way to torture them

B


----------



## Big Don (Dec 19, 2007)

KempoGuy06 said:


> thats a good one as far as Im concerned.
> 
> Or maybe we can take them and drowned them and bring them back to life. do this every die for the rest of there life. I believe thats a good way to torture them
> 
> B


The only problem I see with that is, who is going to want to save their *** day after day?


----------



## dart68 (Dec 19, 2007)

Big Don said:


> an eye for an eye is fine, when dealing with murder when a death for a death is equal. For child molesters and rapists, I would suggest something a tad more brutal than today's modern execution methods. The brazen bull perhaps.http://www.medievality.com/brazen-bull.html That is, make the punishment fit the brutality of the crime.
> Executions should be swift, public and on pay-per-view. When you tell people you might kill them if they kill/rape/molest you don't get the full deterrent effect unless and until you kill some people for murder/rape/molestation. The monies recouped from the first dozen pay-per-view executions would cover the prison budgets for years.


 
It's been stated the the death penalty has not been a real deterance to people commiting the crimes.  I think the deterance would not come from the penalty of death but the assurance that you'll be caught.  Most people that commit crimes do so because they believe they won't be caught.  If you're not afraid of being caught, you won't be afraid of the penalty.

Those who believe that the state should not execute criminals I ask, "Why not?"

Those that believe that you should not execute criminals because there is never proof beyond a shadow of a doubt, would you still be against the death penalty even if there was no doubt?  The burdon of proof in criminal law is beyond a *reasonable* doubt, not beyond a shadow of a doubt.  A suspect could claim that he wasn't there because he had been abducted by aliens during the time the crime was commited.  But is that reasonable to believe?  

As to whether or not the death penalty - I say yes.  At the very least, you won't be able to call someone who was put to death a *repeat offender.*


----------



## morph4me (Dec 19, 2007)

dart68 said:


> It's been stated the the death penalty has not been a real deterance to people commiting the crimes. I think the deterance would not come from the penalty of death but the assurance that you'll be caught. Most people that commit crimes do so because they believe they won't be caught. If you're not afraid of being caught, you won't be afraid of the penalty.


 
The death penalty may not be a deterrant, but it garauntees that the person who is put to death, will never kill anyone else.


----------



## PatMunk (Dec 19, 2007)

About the only thing wrong with the death penalty is it isn't carried out fast enough once the conviction is handed out.... 

Judge Roy Bean had the right idea ....


----------



## dart68 (Dec 19, 2007)

morph4me said:


> The death penalty may not be a deterrant, but it garauntees that the person who is put to death, will never kill anyone else.


 

I agree.  As I said in my post, someone that has been put to death won't be called a repeat offender.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 19, 2007)

morph4me said:


> The death penalty may not be a deterrant, but it garauntees that the person who is put to death, will never kill anyone else.


When it is used in a timely manner, that is people don't grow old and gray on death row, it is a deterrent. When people get old on death row, it is just an empty threat. Empty threats quit scaring my son when he was 4...


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 19, 2007)

MJS said:


> Hmmm....
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22296966/



That's great! Even if some folks around here lack the sense to see the error in it, the states don't.


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 19, 2007)

Empty Hands said:


> I notice you didn't volunteer your services in performing your "eye-for-an-eye" duties by molesting the child molesters.



Ha! True. Of course, for the "eye for an eye" punishment to be properly proportionate, it would take a jack hammer to the rectum. Everybody wants to party, but no one wants to clean up after.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 19, 2007)

Hi guys,

A few more brief comments on my part.



dart68 said:


> Those who believe that the state should not execute criminals I ask, "Why not?"



Because of the inherent moral hypocrisy of Two Wrongs Make A Right. As I stated earlier, the only two reasons for capital punishment are social deterrence (which has not been statistically observed) and vengeance (which, based on several of the last few posts here, is the real reason behind these positions).

Also, as per social observation theory, socially accepted forms of violence are more likely to increase the frequency of general violence in society (this is also one of the reasons why domestic violent behavior rises during times of war and in children observing violent media).



			
				morph4me said:
			
		

> The death penalty may not be a deterrant, but it garauntees that the person who is put to death, will never kill anyone else.



The death penalty also guarantees the person put to death will never jaywalk again, litter again, or cheat on his or her taxes again. 

To be blunt, this argument is absurd.



			
				dart68 said:
			
		

> As I said in my post, someone that has been put to death won't be called a repeat offender.



Neither will someone with life imprisonment.

Neither will someone that has been genuinely rehabilitated (if it is indeed possible for the offender in question).

Neither will someone who never committed a crime in the first place.

So??



			
				Big Don said:
			
		

> When it is used in a timely manner, that is people don't grow old and gray on death row, it is a deterrent.



Since we are now making blanket assertions without a shred of empirical evidence to support them, can I now assert the earth is resting on the back of a giant panda??

Can I??

Good grief....


----------



## Doc_Jude (Dec 19, 2007)

KempoGuy06 said:


> thats a good one as far as Im concerned.
> 
> Or maybe we can take them and drowned them and bring them back to life. do this every die for the rest of there life. I believe thats a good way to torture them
> 
> B



Yes, let's use water boarding on criminals, but not terrorists. 
DO YOU "PEOPLE" (& that's a stretch) EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING!?!

Yes, let's drown criminals and have them raped & ravaged by wild. & I know, we can have lotteries to see who gets to perform these atrocities. It'll be just like _*Hostel*_, but legal, because the "majority" want it, & they want it on Pay Per View, & there goes Society  :flushed:

If you are so desperate to throw your humanity away, go right ahead, but you must abandon the moral high ground to do it.


----------



## Big Don (Dec 19, 2007)

heretic888 said:


> Hi guys,
> Neither will someone with life imprisonment.


 Boy, do you need to talk to a CO some time... People serving IN prison commit crimes and occasionally murder someone, be it a fellow prisoner, or a CO, murder is still murder...


> Neither will someone that has been genuinely rehabilitated (if it is indeed possible for the offender in question).


:lfao:





> Neither will someone who never committed a crime in the first place.
> So??
> 
> 
> ...


Turtle, which rests on the backs of four elephants





> Can I??
> 
> Good grief....


----------



## MJS (Dec 19, 2007)

KempoGuy06 said:


> The dealth penalty...I support it. What I dont support is the argument that it needs to be humane. I think punishments should go back to an eye for an eye. You kill some one buy shooting them well then you get shot. Or in the case of the guy in Texas that was dragged to his death, they people responsible should die the same way. Ive told people this before and they say to me "Well Brandon who are we going to get to perform all these punishments" my only answer is "ME" I will do it to save tax payers millions and to solve the problem.
> 
> Also...child molestors...SHOT THEM IN THE HEAD. There is no place for them in society. You mess with a little kid you deserve to die plain and simple. If this makes me barbaric than so be it. But like Christopher Titus says "show me the pro molesting little kids side of the argument"
> 
> B


 
Ya know, I say the same thing, especially when I hear about people abusing/killing kids.  I hate to see stories of the boyfriend who threw his girlfriends crying baby because he was left alone with the kid, didn't know what to do to stop it from crying, so ended up killing it.


----------



## MJS (Dec 19, 2007)

PatMunk said:


> About the only thing wrong with the death penalty is it isn't carried out fast enough once the conviction is handed out....
> 
> Judge Roy Bean had the right idea ....


 
Agreed!  People sit and sit and sit and sit.  I say, if the crime warrants the death penalty and all evidence has been exhausted, then go thru with it.  Do something...either kill them or lock them up with no chance of parole.  But to sit on death row for years is pointless IMO.


----------



## MJS (Dec 19, 2007)

Saw this on the news today.
http://www.wfsb.com/news/14888193/detail.html

Gotta love this part.

"However, lengthy appeals will likely postpone that indefinitely"


This guy is a scumbag, who should never see freedom again.  No regard for human life whatsoever.


----------



## fireman00 (Dec 20, 2007)

I'll ask anyone who is anti-death penalty this question... how many times have you personally dealt with a situation where you saw up close and personal the impact that murder has upon a person, their family and their loved ones... how their lives are torn apart.... not to mention the after affects that police/ fire / rescue get to deal with. 

Me... I've seen the aftermath and its heart-wrenching... and to think that a murderer gets three meals a day, TV, AC, laundry, rec time, outdoor time.... sorry that doesn't add up. 

It's like putting down a mad dog or a rabid raccoon... a murderer is a social disease that should be permanently removed from society. 3 appeals and if the last one doesn't save you then its a short walk to the lethal injection/ gas chamber/ ol' sparky/ gallows/ <insert choice>.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 20, 2007)

fireman00 said:


> I'll ask anyone who is anti-death penalty this question... how many times have you personally dealt with a situation where you saw up close and personal the impact that murder has upon a person, their family and their loved ones... how their lives are torn apart.... not to mention the after affects that police/ fire / rescue get to deal with.
> 
> Me... I've seen the aftermath and its heart-wrenching... and to think that a murderer gets three meals a day, TV, AC, laundry, rec time, outdoor time.... sorry that doesn't add up.
> 
> It's like putting down a mad dog or a rabid raccoon... a murderer is a social disease that should be permanently removed from society. 3 appeals and if the last one doesn't save you then its a short walk to the lethal injection/ gas chamber/ ol' sparky/ gallows/ <insert choice>.



Hi fireman00,

While I sympathize with the loss of your friends, the fact remains this argument is an Appeal To Emotion and, as such, has no real merit. If you are going to give a sustained defense as to why state executions should be a defining feature of our society, you'll need to come up with something more enduring than reciprocal vengeance.

While this may seem like a crass statement on my part, what arguments such as this really boil down to are We Should Have Executions Because It Will Make Us Feel Better. That a policy may seem emotionally self-gratifying does not make it a morally sound policy.

Also, as per your last paragraph, life imprisonment would also "permanently remove" a murderer from society. Depending on the nature of their imprisonment, the aforementioned murderer may also be able to contribute to society in some way (such as through prison labor systems).


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 21, 2007)

heretic888 said:


> Hi fireman00,
> 
> While I sympathize with the loss of your friends, the fact remains this argument is an Appeal To Emotion and, as such, has no real merit. If you are going to give a sustained defense as to why state executions should be a defining feature of our society, you'll need to come up with something more enduring than reciprocal vengeance.
> 
> ...



I think that there are a lot better, more reasonable arguments for executions then vengeance.  It is  safe to say that some people  are a danger  to society.  Some people  prove to  be a lethal threat even while  in  the prison system as well. It is also a worthy argument to say that we shouldn't have to continue to pay the 30 or so thousand a year it takes to keep a prisoner incarcerated when that prisoner willfully chooses to be a danger to the rest of us.

So I am of the stance that some people do need to be killed, and I think that there are good reasons for this stance that have nothing to do with revenge. 

I just wanted to make that point, even though I am actually against the death penalty in our country for reasons that I proposed earlier...


----------



## morph4me (Dec 21, 2007)

heretic888 said:


> Hi fireman00,
> 
> While I sympathize with the loss of your friends, the fact remains this argument is an Appeal To Emotion and, as such, has no real merit. If you are going to give a sustained defense as to why state executions should be a defining feature of our society, you'll need to come up with something more enduring than reciprocal vengeance.


 
I'm fine with reciprocal vengeance



heretic888 said:


> While this may seem like a crass statement on my part, what arguments such as this really boil down to are We Should Have Executions Because It Will Make Us Feel Better. That a policy may seem emotionally self-gratifying does not make it a morally sound policy.


 
Thank you for taking it upon yourself to be the guardian of morality for the rest of us



heretic888 said:


> Also, as per your last paragraph, life imprisonment would also "permanently remove" a murderer from society. Depending on the nature of their imprisonment, the aforementioned murderer may also be able to contribute to society in some way (such as through prison labor systems).


 
life imprisonment doesn't permanently remove a murder from society, just changes the society he interacts with.


----------



## MBuzzy (Dec 21, 2007)

heretic888 said:


> Also, as per your last paragraph, life imprisonment would also "permanently remove" a murderer from society. Depending on the nature of their imprisonment, the aforementioned murderer may also be able to contribute to society in some way (such as through prison labor systems).


 


morph4me said:


> life imprisonment doesn't permanently remove a murder from society, just changes the society he interacts with.


 
And puts the criminal in a position where he is living at the public's expense, probably in a better manner than he was accustomed to anyway, gives him an opportunity to learn (both about crimes and college level), and allows them to still live a full life.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 19, 2008)

It occurred to me, as I was driving home from an 11 hour workday, this morning, that, perhaps we, as a society look at capital punishment, and indeed imprisonment wrongly.
Too much emphasis, IMO, has been placed on "rehabilitation" and not enough on PUNISHMENT. Ask any member of a 12 step program, no one, NO ONE will ever change unless and until THEY CHOOSE TO. If  we as a society said,"If you do X your punishment will be Y" and stuck to it unerringly and without hesitation, fewer people would be inclined to commit crimes and risk punishment. But, for that to work, we as a society MUST stop treating criminals as misguided and return to treating those who do evil as evildoers.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 19, 2008)

A resounding no.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Feb 19, 2008)

Big Don said:


> It occurred to me, as I was driving home from an 11 hour workday, this morning, that, perhaps we, as a society look at capital punishment, and indeed imprisonment wrongly.
> Too much emphasis, IMO, has been placed on "rehabilitation" and not enough on PUNISHMENT. Ask any member of a 12 step program, no one, NO ONE will ever change unless and until THEY CHOOSE TO. If we as a society said,"If you do X your punishment will be Y" and stuck to it unerringly and without hesitation, fewer people would be inclined to commit crimes and risk punishment. But, for that to work, we as a society MUST stop treating criminals as misguided and return to treating those who do evil as evildoers.


No, there is not to much emphasis on rehab.
Sean


----------



## jetboatdeath (Feb 19, 2008)

I think the death sentence was meant as a deterrent to the most violent of crimes, and because of the violent criminals of today they do not fear death so the death sentence really offers no deterrent. I also think the death sentence is to light for some of the crimes out there. I also dont feel it is my responsibility to pay for a criminal to be put away for life. So we must come up with a new sentence that wills denture the criminal. My idea is bare with me here. torture, yes it is harsh and cruel but hey, so is shooting 20 people in the head because you had a bad day. As I was taught in the French commando school I attended while in the army, Torture as a form of getting information does not work, torture as a form of punishment does.


----------



## Archangel M (Feb 19, 2008)

Death will certainly deter at least ONE criminal.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 19, 2008)

The problem, I think, is the compulsion to at least appear to be "nice". The way we handle vile criminality in this day and age, it is remarkable that BOHICA (Bend Over Here It Comes Again) isn't our motto.


----------



## Big Don (Feb 19, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Death will certainly deter at least ONE criminal.


The dead commit extremely few crimes...
The deterrent effect is hampered by not executing criminals in a timely fashion. When, in the late nineties, Florida and Texas were executing felons in large numbers, both states saw a dramatic drop in violent crime. Deterrents that are not used properly are worthless. Empty threats do not now, nor, have they ever been effective.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 22, 2008)

Big Don said:


> It occurred to me, as I was driving home from an 11 hour workday, this morning, that, perhaps we, as a society look at capital punishment, and indeed imprisonment wrongly.
> Too much emphasis, IMO, has been placed on "rehabilitation" and not enough on PUNISHMENT. Ask any member of a 12 step program, no one, NO ONE will ever change unless and until THEY CHOOSE TO. If  we as a society said,"If you do X your punishment will be Y" and stuck to it unerringly and without hesitation, fewer people would be inclined to commit crimes and risk punishment. But, for that to work, we as a society MUST stop treating criminals as misguided and return to treating those who do evil as evildoers.



Hi Don,

I actually think the opposite is true. Our penal system is mostly concerned with arbitrarily "punishing" criminals and (in most cases) releasing them back into the general public after they have acquired knowledge and experiences that make them better criminals.

By the way, your assertions are almost totally incorrect. Punishment strategies are largely meaningless to individuals who do not experience them firsthand, especially if we're talking about adults. You should familiarize yourself with the science of applied behavioral analysis (and perhaps experimental psychology as a whole), as your beliefs seem to be rooted almost totally in myths and illusions about human behavior.

What has been demonstrated time after time to be the most effective means of reducing criminal recidivism is educational programs that teach the incarcerated basic job skills and provide them a means to pursue employment outside of prison (otherwise, the only "career" that will work for them is crime). Unlike the assertions that capital punishment is a deterrent to others, this is something that has actually been documented time and time again in the academic literature.

Incidentally, reward/punishment strategies aren't particularly effective on adult populations (or adolescents, for that matter) and punishment-only strategies have a very limited success on children.

The more you know. And stuff.

Laterz.


----------



## Sukerkin (Feb 22, 2008)

It is odd that I find two posts in a row above that I agree with completely and yet they are, at their core, contradictory to each other .

The liberal side (British _liberal_ remember ) of my own views on the death penalty are coloured by the necessity of certainty of evidence.  It's a bit hard to bring someone back from the grave when you discover they were innocent after all.

The conservative side of my views is utterly ruthless.  "Death for parking offences!" is the cry.  By this I mean that harsh penalties only have an effect if they are vastly disproportional to the offence.

Sad as it is, I don't think that we can support the death penalty in a supposedly civilised society *unless* proof is absoute and unequivocal.  There are obviously exceptional cases where it is clear who the culprit is but many cases are not clear cut and you're dealing with probabilities of guilt.

We've had a case in England that's hit the news very recently which has spurred quite an emotive response.  In part it's because the victim is a beautiful teenage girl but also it's because the crime is so outrageous.  

Basically, the accused man (I use the term loosely) knifed the girl to death in the driveway of her house and had sex with her corpse.

If the proof is absolutely infallible, I would have no qualms about the death penalty for such a crime - in fact I'd be prepared to carry it out myself if required (Japanese style).

Given, however, that even DNA evidence is only 'very likely' rather than 'certain' do we as a society have the right to take the life of a citizen on what amounts to 'accusation'?


----------

