# Capital Punishment: yay or nay?



## Twin Fist (Sep 30, 2008)

What say you?

Talking about Bob Barr we got sidetracked on the death penalty.

I myself favor the liberal and gratuitous use of the death penalty. I think we need to make more crimes capital crimes. And limit appeals to 12 months, maximum.

What do you think?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 30, 2008)

I'm not convinced it works as a deterant, and it's really not "acceptable" within my own beliefs, though in some cases I'm hard pressed not to make exceptions.


----------



## terryl965 (Sep 30, 2008)

If the crime fits then Yes. I know I am just a hard press guy.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 30, 2008)

It doesn't work as a deterrent, it is true.  Most non-drug-related murders are what used to be termed 'crimes of passion' - no thought of consequences exists at the moment of the crime and so no punishment, however harsh, is a deterrent.

However, that being a given, I am strongly in favour of the punishment fitting the crime and most certainly in the case of individuals presenting a real threat to society as a whole believe that the death penalty is justified.

We've talked on this before I'm sure and I'm also sure that I inputted to those discourses but just to reiterate, my major reservation on enacting the death penalty is certainty of proof.  I am uneasy about passing the legal power to a government to kill it's own citizens in the first place and for me to be remotely at peace with the idea there has to be certainty of proof.  Not 'reasonable doubt' in the eyes of a jury but real proof.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 30, 2008)

I have nothing against it in principle, but I have big problems with the way it is carried out.  There are too many big problems with the justice system in general and the death penalty adjudication in particular in order to endorse it.  Everything from sentencing disparities to the Innocence Project has shown that.  Such problems led the Republican governor of Illinois to institute a moratorium on the death penalty in that state.  Once those problems are cleared up (won't hold my breath) I would have no problem with it again.


----------



## Nolerama (Sep 30, 2008)

I think that capital punishment is a lazy form of the Judeo-Christian "Eye For An Eye" belief, which unfortunately, is the perspective that many Americans view as the reason for capital punishment; myself included (at times).

I call it "lazy" because it's not an equal punishment for the terror, anguish and/or grief that the condemned person's initial transgression inflicted upon a community.

So we kill that person... AFTER locking him up for years on Death Row. Personally, I think it's even MORE of a disservice to taxpayers by keeping someone on Death Row for X amount of years while they await their death.

If we REALLY want to be literal and logical about condemning violators against humanity, then we should match it with the exact (or similarly damaging) act that the condemned did in the first place. An Eye For An Eye, right?

Rape the rapists. If a murderer killed someone's son, then kill the murderer's son. Etc. Etc.

To many those suggestions are extremely unethical. It's definitely not an American thing... So where can we be literal and have an even crime/punishment playing field?

We can't. That's why "Capital Punishment" as we know it is flawed... And ultimately LAZY.

I say, NO to Capital Punishment. We can do better. With the increase in privatization in our prison system, we can't, since the companies are always looking after their profit margins, and don't care about rehabilitation, justice, or effective punishment. The daily agenda is completely different from the intention.

(I actually wrote a paper hypothesizing that with proper brain chemical stimulation, emotions could be induced through drugs, and can make the user suffer in similar ways like that of the family or community that he or she affected. It sounded cool, but probably wouldn't work.)


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 30, 2008)

It deterrs at least one killer from killing again, but I dont care if its a deterrent. Its punishment. Im all for it as long as it falls within some established guidelines. 20 eyewitnesses, a confession and physical evidence? Yes..absolutely. A circumstantial case based on forensics only and no body? Uhhh..no.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 30, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> I have nothing against it in principle, but I have big problems with the way it is carried out.  There are too many big problems with the justice system in general and the death penalty adjudication in particular in order to endorse it.  Everything from sentencing disparities to the Innocence Project has shown that.  Such problems led the Republican governor of Illinois to institute a moratorium on the death penalty in that state.



Yes, I used to be more in favor of it but while I still am not offended by the principle I more and more find the practice unacceptable. (Seeing the governor of Illinois institute a moratorium on it really got me thinking.) There are too many people on Death Row who have been shown to be not guilty. There are too many questions of fairness. All in all, I think a govt. should be loathe to execute its own citizens, and the more humane thing to do is use imprisonment. With the practical concerns mentioned above I just can't support it now.

The point about "crimes of passion" is also well-taken.


----------



## grydth (Sep 30, 2008)

We have capital punishment all across the land, happens every day. It is only the innocent victims who suffer it. The vicious killers then quickly find reasons why *they* are too good to die.

That said, use it too freely and you have nothing better than the French Revolution at the height of the Terror. 

Limit appeals arbitrarily and you greatly increase the probability that you'll kill an innocent person in the name of the USA - and isn't that murder?

I also believe that cries for the death penalty would decrease somewhat if prison were exactly that, instead of a 3 star hotel with free gym and cable tv; and if a sentence of life in prison actually meant that hopeless fate.


----------



## stickarts (Sep 30, 2008)

I am not for it. It has not been shown to be a deterent. The thought of someone being found guilty incorrectly is a problem, and ethically I have too many doubts about it.


----------



## MA-Caver (Sep 30, 2008)

I'm for capital punishment on certain types of offenses. 
Serial murders with absolute proof that the man they have is indeed the killer (i.e. Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahlmer, J.W. Gacy, etc.). They should NOT sit on death row for more than 12 months, period. 
Even on crimes of passion, while it depends. Murdering a child, absolutely. There is absolutely _*NO*_ excuse or reason for _*ANYONE*_ intentionally taking the life of a child. They should not survive the child either way. 
Basically any heinous crime against children (molestation, porn, etc.) should be punishable by death. These guys DO NOT reform! 

Jealous lover murders... that depends, hot blooded pissed off type of killings... well, they should get life. Cold-blooded calculated murders... death. 

Gang killings... death penalty no appeal. These people are far too violent to remain in society. Same with racial killings because they're fueled by hatred and done without remorse.

Others... they depend. 

Problem with I think of capital punishment is that people have become so adverse to the idea of killing that they tend to neglect the victims of such horrendous crimes.


----------



## MJS (Sep 30, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> What say you?
> 
> Talking about Bob Barr we got sidetracked on the death penalty.
> 
> ...


 
There are many cases of people sitting in prison, on death row, or ones that have been put to death, that are innocent.  I'm always amazed at stuff like that.  I mean, it goes to show, that all of the evidence must not be present.  One has to wonder why though.  

As for the guilty ones, the ones where all of the fingers point to them...in that case, yes, I agree with you...put a damn time frame on the appeals.  People sit and sit and sit, the families have to re-live the experience every time there is an appeal...its crazy.  

As for what crimes should be worthy of the death penalty:  violent crimes.  The home invasion that happened in Cheshire, CT (there is a thread on that subject on this forum for those that want to look for it) You had 2 dirt bags break into a house, kill the wife and 2 daughters, and pretty much beat the **** out of the husband, then light the house on fire!  I say strap those scumbags into the chair and pull the switch.


----------



## Ray (Oct 1, 2008)

stickarts said:


> It has not been shown to be a deterent.


It deters a person from killing a second, third....time.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 1, 2008)

Ray said:


> It deters a person from killing a second, third....time.


It deters others from killing also. BUT, (and that was a big but) the deterrent effect is killed (pun intended) by having "Death Rows" where thousands grow old while wasting thousands of hours and millions of dollars on endless appeals. Texas, when George Bush was governor and Florida at the same time, were killing criminals at a much higher rate than other states like CA and NY who technically have the death penalty and yet, fold when it is time to use it, and they saw a decline in those crimes punishable by death.  

In the simplest terms, the punishments prescribed for crimes are threats to keep people from committing those crimes. A threat that is never carried out is nothing to fear, criminals, and, by the way, foreign governments, terrorists, and other scumbags, know this and fear not.


----------



## Big Don (Oct 1, 2008)

A slightly off topic point that begs to be addressed:
Assuming capital punishment is legal and in timely use, do you really care about the method?
Shouldn't we, in the name of environmentalism, if nothing else, return to hangings as the preferred method of execution? a rope can be used over and over...
Is swabing the soon to be dead criminal's arm really needed for lethal injection? Wouldn't a HUGE injection (6-8 oz, whatever)of siezed cocaine, heroin, etc do the job cheaper than the cocktail most often in use? The needles could also be used more than once, they'd probably outlast the rope...
Honestly, the body is going to be buried anyway, wouldn't just kicking them into a hole and backfilling it with a bulldozer work...


----------



## arnisador (Oct 1, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> death penalty no appeal



How exactly do you mean this? If the local circuit court judge in Dogwaddle, New Mexico sentences you to death, it's simply carried out immediately, as soon as the gov. signs the warrant? No chance for a higher court to see if you were railroaded, or Nifonged, or denied your right to an attorney, or what-have-you?

Judge Dredd, anyone?


----------



## jarrod (Oct 1, 2008)

like many others, i'm okay with it in theory but opposed to it in practice.  nietzsche made an interesting arguement, i think it was in _beyond good & evil_.  essentially, he argued that the problem with capital punishment was that it taught society that killing wasn't wrong, only that killing for the wrong reasons is wrong.  most criminals think they have a very good reason for doing what they do.  i don't know if he was right or not, but it's food for thought. 



Big Don said:


> A slightly off topic point that begs to be addressed:
> Assuming capital punishment is legal and in timely use, do you really care about the method?
> Shouldn't we, in the name of environmentalism, if nothing else, return to hangings as the preferred method of execution? a rope can be used over and over...
> Is swabing the soon to be dead criminal's arm really needed for lethal injection? Wouldn't a HUGE injection (6-8 oz, whatever)of siezed cocaine, heroin, etc do the job cheaper than the cocktail most often in use? The needles could also be used more than once, they'd probably outlast the rope...
> Honestly, the body is going to be buried anyway, wouldn't just kicking them into a hole and backfilling it with a bulldozer work...


 
if capital punishment is to be carried out, i think firing squad is resonable.  it's inexpensive & near instant.  as far as hanging & kicking the body in a hole...whatever crime someone has committed, that person still more than likely has family & people who love them.  they already have to lose someone they love, i don't think they need to know that their son/brother/father/whatever kicked on the end of a rope for ten minutes before being disposed of like diseased livestock.  

but don's post does make me think of an intersting point: is punishment & revenge the same thing?  is the goal of punishment to restore harmony or to make society feel better?  

jf


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 1, 2008)

arnisador said:


> How exactly do you mean this? If the local circuit court judge in Dogwaddle, New Mexico sentences you to death, it's simply carried out immediately, as soon as the gov. signs the warrant? No chance for a higher court to see if you were railroaded, or Nifonged, or denied your right to an attorney, or what-have-you?
> 
> Judge Dredd, anyone?


By that I meant that they have their day in court. THEIR attorney will need to gather as much evidence to PROVE their client is innocent and the DA needs to do the same for guilty. But in those cases it's usually open/shut that witnesses, etc. has shown them to be the guilty party... the appeals process is just dragging it on and on and on. They're cold blooded killers that take a life for some insignificant reason, like just wearing rival gang colors for example. 
Remember the story of a gang shooting of a young teenage deaf girl who was talking/signing to her friend while waiting for the bus... the gang bangas thought she was flashing (rival) gang signs at _them_... idiots like those we don't *need* in our society.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Oct 1, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> What say you?
> 
> Talking about Bob Barr we got sidetracked on the death penalty.
> 
> ...


 
I agree that offenses other than murder warrent the death penalty; however, I believe that there can be no room for error in sentencing one to capital punishment. 

There must be clear, concise, hard evidence that eleminates any shadow of a doubt. 

I don't necessarily feel that the only reason to endorse capital punishment is as a deterant either; I think that there are simply some individuals that are better off dead instead of continueing to leech off of society. To be perfectly blunt; a bullet to the head is a lot cheaper than feeding them, caring for them, clothing them, etc for the remainder of their lives. I'd rather see my tax dollars spent on education and/or health care for those that do try to contribute to society.  

Now...if you instead gave them the option to work on a corrections farm as an opportunity to avoid the death penatly...that would be even better. Let them work in a self-sufficient facility where they grow crops to provide for their own clothing and food....where they can work in factories to process the raw materials they are producting. Allow them to sell surplus items at fair market value to cover other expenses (like gaurds salaries) and take the surplus from that profit and send the victims/surviors family as a type of restitution. That way they are at least contributing more than they are taking...if they refuse the farm...zap 'em.


----------



## stickarts (Oct 1, 2008)

Ray said:


> It deters a person from killing a second, third....time.


 
No argument there.


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 1, 2008)

Ray said:


> It deters a person from killing a second, third....time.


Also in agreement. 
How many times does someone need to kill before they're deemed "un-rehabilitable" or un-redeemable? Does a criminal have to kill one of your own to have you cry out for their blood? What about those who have killed once and were sent to prison only to be released from parole 10 years later and went out and killed again? 
Oh there's a flaw in the system alright... it's letting these animals live. Locking them away for life without parole is basically saying they got away with it. They get 3 hots and a cot courtesy of our tax dollars for the rest of their lives.

Also, honestly, it really ticks me off when they talk about cruel and unusual in light of the methodology of our capital punishments. How is it any *MORE* cruel and unusual to beat a child to death with a hammer? Letting a victim starve to death in a dark dank basement? Bludgeon someone repeatedly with a lead pipe? Stabbing them umpteen number of times? On and on... how is it any more cruel than say the electric chair which sends a voltage so powerful that it effectively knocks out the brain waves and the recipient doesn't feel anything? Given sedatives to be put into a deep sleep before the deadly chemicals are injected? 
The gas chamber was probably cruel, gasping and choking for fresh air, hanging was probably cruel if the knot at the base of the neck didn't snap it right away, firing squad if the bullets didn't penetrate and destroy the heart stopping it and the guy bleeds out (which was rare anyway)... 
The ones against it are the ones who *imagine* without any base reference to actually experiencing it are the ones crying out "cruel and unusual". 
Besides why should'nt those animals suffer a little bit before dying? Their victims probably did... isn't that justice??


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 1, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> What say you?
> 
> Talking about Bob Barr we got sidetracked on the death penalty.
> 
> ...


No death penalty... not now not ever! Thank you.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 1, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> It deterrs at least one killer from killing again, but I dont care if its a deterrent. Its punishment. Im all for it as long as it falls within some established guidelines. 20 eyewitnesses, a confession and physical evidence? Yes..absolutely. A circumstantial case based on forensics only and no body? Uhhh..no.


Russia had it right. Rather than wasting bullets, you sent them to Siberia. The criminals and itellectuals were gone, as needed. Killing them is just a show.
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (Oct 1, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> I'm for capital punishment on certain types of offenses.
> Serial murders with absolute proof that the man they have is indeed the killer (i.e. Ted Bundy, Jeffery Dahlmer, J.W. Gacy, etc.). They should NOT sit on death row for more than 12 months, period.
> Even on crimes of passion, while it depends. Murdering a child, absolutely. There is absolutely _*NO*_ excuse or reason for _*ANYONE*_ intentionally taking the life of a child. They should not survive the child either way.
> Basically any heinous crime against children (molestation, porn, etc.) should be punishable by death. These guys DO NOT reform!
> ...


So, we can be like gods deciding who lives and dies. Isn't that what the criminals were doing?
Sean


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 1, 2008)

Touch Of Death said:


> So, we can be like gods deciding who lives and dies. Isn't that what the criminals were doing?
> Sean


NO. The criminals do it for their own selfish needs and wants and desires and they didn't give a rats *** for the victims or their families. What we are doing is meting out justice for what OUR society deems as a crime. The punishment should fit the crime... if it's theft then they are incarcerated and kept in prison, if it's murder for the sake of murder then they should meet the same end. Without justice there is even more crime. 
It's not about being GODS and deciding the fate of others, it's punishment... you let your kids get away with stuff? Breaking your rules? Same principal. 
Consequences of breaking society rules must be severe enough so that it will make those think twice before breaking them. Putting them in a cage with other animals of like minds won't stop them from plotting and planning their next caper. Given the chance there are prisoners who will try to escape and kill anyone who gets in their way. What if that someone is someone you care about? 
A majority of those who are behind bars today just don't care. Many don't want rehabilitation... crime pays a hellva lot better... when they get away with it. There are those too... who happen to LIKE killing. 
Again the focus dwindles off the victims and their families. What about them? Who replaces their loss? Do they get ANY type of compensation? Life insurance? Like wow, that makes folks feel better doesn't it?


----------



## zDom (Oct 1, 2008)

I'm for a secret society of omniscient vigilanties who hunt down and punish wrongdoers in ways that make them suffer pain and loss equivalent to that inflicted on their victims. 

I'd already have it up and running except I haven't worked out the omniscience part yet, so don't send me any resumes yet.


----------



## cdunn (Oct 1, 2008)

I cannot support the death penalty.

I do not believe in hell. Therefore, for any crime which is horrible enough to warrant the death penalty, I consider that death to be far too merciful to be an appropriate punishment for the crime.


----------



## Flying Crane (Oct 1, 2008)

jarrod said:


> an intersting point: is punishment & revenge the same thing?


 
No, it's not.  

Society needs to decide what they want it to be.  It cannot be both.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 1, 2008)

I dont punish my kids out of "revenge". Its an issue of paying for violating the rules. The more serious the violation the more serious the punishment.


----------



## celtic_crippler (Oct 1, 2008)

Touch Of Death said:


> So, we can be like gods deciding who lives and dies. Isn't that what the criminals were doing?
> Sean


 
Intersting statement from someone whose handle is "Touch of Death." LOL


...but no...it isn't. 

Motivations and reasons for taking life determine the definition. 

Martial artists, of all people, should realize that. I'm a peaceful man, I don't look for trouble....but if trouble comes looking for me...I'm ready to do what I have to in order to be the one that gets home to their family at the end of the day. 

Is killing in self defense murder? No it's not (though some states may put you away for manslaughter....sigh...glad I live in GA.) 

Killing for the sake of killing...that's murder and ethically wrong...regardless of what culture you come from.


----------



## MJS (Oct 1, 2008)

Ray said:


> It deters a person from killing a second, third....time.


 
Perhaps only to those that are really interested in a) admitting that they have a problem and b) seriously want to turn their life around.  There are people out there that could give a crap less if they die, because they themselves, have no regard for human life.  

When I worked in corrections, I'd talk to some of these guys.  I recall one who was looking at life for murder.  Never had any issues with this guy, yet he flat out told me that he wouldn't think twice about taking a swing at me.  Whats the worst that was going to happen to him?  Loss of some privledge for a short time?  Big deal.  Didn't matter to him, because he was probably going to die in jail anyway.  Sure does make you take a step back for a moment and think about those words.


----------



## Ybot (Oct 1, 2008)

I really have to agree with Touch Of Death on this one. It's not that I'm going to lose sleep over the death of a person who has done society wrong. The issue is that killing the person does nothing to heal society. I personally believe that it does the opposite.

Punishing a child, and killing a person for a wrong action are very different things.  Punishing a child SHOULD be about teaching them a lesson, so they can profit from the experience and do better in the future.  Killing a person teaches them no lesson, and they have no chance to profit from the experience and do better in the future.  There for I look at the death penalty as nothing more than a form of Revenge.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 1, 2008)

It can be revenge true but it can also be about society protecting itself against harmful elements.  

I won't go into the complexitities of whether society itself created the flaws in the human shaped creatures that commit such crimes as serial murder but I do firmly believe that the gene pool is better off without them.


----------



## Ray (Oct 1, 2008)

MJS said:


> Perhaps only to those that are really interested in a) admitting that they have a problem and b) seriously want to turn their life around. There are people out there that could give a crap less if they die, because they themselves, have no regard for human life.


You're probably right, I think I'll start a chapter of Murderers Anonymous for those poor killers who really want to turn their lives around.  I mean if OJ can do it, then there's hope for everyone.


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 1, 2008)

Ybot said:


> There for I look at the death penalty as nothing more than a form of Revenge.


 And I see it as Justice... :idunno: can't always agree on everything but disagreeing civilly is always a good thing. 
:asian:

Revenge is doing unto others as they did to you without due process. Lynch mobs are probably the closest thing to it. Dragging a guy out of a jail cell or running him down before the law gets to them and hanging them in a tree or beating them to death or whatever... that's revenge. 
Hunting the guy down, arresting them, examining the evidence, giving them a fair trial where they can argue their innocence and have their burden of proof presented to a jury while the burden of proof against is likewise given, then weighed by a jury of their peers and then declared guilty (or innocent) and sentence is according to what society says it is (death)... or they're released/acquitted based on the evidence and decision of the jury... that is justice.


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 1, 2008)

Capital sentences, when carried out, save innocent lives by permanently incapacitating
murderers. Some persons who commit capital homicide will other other innocent people if given the opportunity to do so. The death penalty is the most effective means of preventing such killers from repeating their crimes. The next most serious penalty, life imprisonment without possibility of parole, prevents murderers from committing some crimes but does not prevent them from murdering in prison.


----------



## KenpoTex (Oct 2, 2008)

Mark me down as very much in favor.  There are some people (murderers, child molesters, rapists, etc.) who just don't need to be wasting oxygen and we (the taxpayers) shouldn't have to support them...


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 2, 2008)

I don't support the death penalty.  I think that giving the state the legal power to take someone's life is a mistake.  I'm sure we could find a lot of people out there that need killin'.  I'm also sure that there are alot of other people who have lots of power that would expand that list beyond the bounds that you would accept.  

Giving the state the power over life or death is a bad idea.


----------



## Sukerkin (Oct 2, 2008)

Those last two posts taken together show why this issue can be such a difficult one to resolve for people as individuals and collectively.

I actually agree with both statements.  The first is supported by my moral sense; the second by my reason.

In the end, I'd still say I was on the "Aye" side of the fence but it is not an easy choice to make.


----------



## MJS (Oct 2, 2008)

Ybot said:


> I really have to agree with Touch Of Death on this one. It's not that I'm going to lose sleep over the death of a person who has done society wrong. The issue is that killing the person does nothing to heal society. I personally believe that it does the opposite.


 
IMHO, this is another case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.  Will killing someone bring back the person that they killed?  No.  Of course, on the flip side, keeping the person alive, the family of the victim will probably have to re-live the experience every time the accused party goes thru another appeal process.  Additionally, you also have the people who complain about prisons being over crowded.  

So, looks like we have the following options:

1) Kill the offending party.

2) Don't kill him.

3) Keep him in prison for life.

4) Build more prisons to hold the never ending flow of people who find a life of crime more appealing than being good.

5) Release people who supposedly have changed their ways, and hope that they are sincere and don't run out and pick up where they left off.


----------



## MJS (Oct 2, 2008)

Ray said:


> You're probably right, I think I'll start a chapter of Murderers Anonymous for those poor killers who really want to turn their lives around. I mean if OJ can do it, then there's hope for everyone.


 
Maybe I'm reading wrong, but I can't help but to pick up a hint of sarcasm here.  You know, if people were really interested in turning their lives around, maybe, just maybe there wouldn't be so many repeat offenders.  And gee, its a bit funny, because there was a home invasion here in CT. where the scumbag decided to kill both women because he was afraid he'd be ID'd by the 2 women.  So he shoots one, fortunately she survived and the other..well, sadly he took her to an isolated location where he killed here.

Hmm...and what was that about turning their lives around and having no remorse to human life?


----------



## stickarts (Oct 2, 2008)

There are definately people that it would seem that we would all be better off without. Two big issues I have a hard time getting around are 1) Who am i to judge if a life should be taken for whatever the reason. 2) Getting it wrong and putting someone to death that was actually innocent. 
What if you were that innocent person being put to death? Would you still be for capital punishment?
Tough issues that i don't think can be taken lightly.
I can't claim to know the right answer, or even if there is a right answer.


----------



## jarrod (Oct 2, 2008)

MJS said:


> 4) Build more prisons to hold the never ending flow of people who find a life of crime more appealing than being good.
> 
> 5) Release people who supposedly have changed their ways, and hope that they are sincere and don't run out and pick up where they left off.


 
while prison overpopulation is a huge problem, new prisons aren't being built to house scores of murderers.  prison over population is a direct result of the war on drugs, which needs to end, & poor economic conditions.

releasing prisoners is the ultimate goal.  the problem is that half the country views prisons as a punishment, the other half views it as rehabilitation, & the prison system ends up failing to fully accomplish either.  the thing is, the two are not mutually exclusive.  take away the weight rooms & the t.v.  make the only pastimes available vocational/educational training.  maybe allow 20min a day to exercise, & 30 minutes to watch the news.  take away the internet except for class related use, & maybe personal e-mail as a reward.  eliminate any social time that isn't structured.  i.e., bridge club, history club, whatever.  suddlenly there is less time to learn tricks of the trade from other cons, less violence (which perpetuates more violence) less leisure time, & more opportunities upon release.

jf


----------



## tshadowchaser (Oct 2, 2008)

I solidly support the death penalty for some crimes:
   Mass murder
   Terrorism within this country
   Rape of young children
   And a few others


----------



## MJS (Oct 2, 2008)

jarrod said:


> while prison overpopulation is a huge problem, new prisons aren't being built to house scores of murderers. prison over population is a direct result of the war on drugs, which needs to end, & poor economic conditions.


 
Well, until drugs are either deemed legal or illegal, the 'war' will most likely continue.  People would probably put marijuana in the category of things to be legal, while crack is in the illegal category.  Fine and dandy I suppose, until someone is so out of it, being under the influence of weed, that some tragedy happens.  Then the cries of make it all illegal again will be heard.  And yes, alcohol is just as bad, so again, damned if we do, damned if we don't.  No matter what road is taken, something will happen.



> releasing prisoners is the ultimate goal. the problem is that half the country views prisons as a punishment, the other half views it as rehabilitation, & the prison system ends up failing to fully accomplish either. the thing is, the two are not mutually exclusive. take away the weight rooms & the t.v. make the only pastimes available vocational/educational training. maybe allow 20min a day to exercise, & 30 minutes to watch the news. take away the internet except for class related use, & maybe personal e-mail as a reward. eliminate any social time that isn't structured. i.e., bridge club, history club, whatever. suddlenly there is less time to learn tricks of the trade from other cons, less violence (which perpetuates more violence) less leisure time, & more opportunities upon release.
> 
> jf


 
Amen!  I'm with you on that one.  The amount of 'free' time while in jail is simply amazing.  Maybe if it was made to be a place that isn't fun to be at, people would have a different outlook.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Oct 2, 2008)

jarrod said:


> like many others, i'm okay with it in theory but opposed to it in practice. nietzsche made an interesting arguement, i think it was in _beyond good & evil_. essentially, he argued that the problem with capital punishment was that it taught society that *killing wasn't wrong, only that killing for the wrong reasons is wrong*.


 
For what it's worth that bolded part pretty much jives with my own philosophy *shrug* 

Why?

Because





> but don's post does make me think of an intersting point: is punishment & revenge the same thing? is the goal of punishment to restore harmony or to make society feel better?
> 
> jf


 
Neither revenge NOR punishment has much of anything to do with it at all.

it is, plain and simply, about society's SURVIVAL: This person has killed productive,innocent members of our society and is a high risk to do so again. How many more innocent people are YOU ( general "you" not necessarily jarrod)comfortable with murdering by letting this diseased lifeform live and get paroled so that s/he can get at THEM?

Anybody noticing a glitch in the system here? Something to do with the survival of a functioning society( insofar as human societies are ever "Functional")?


----------



## Ray (Oct 2, 2008)

jarrod said:


> while prison overpopulation is a huge problem, new prisons aren't being built to house scores of murderers. prison over population is a direct result of the war on drugs, which needs to end, & poor economic conditions.


If there is a "war" on drugs, it is in words only...

The quantity of people in prision is directly correlated to the number of people breaking the law.


----------



## Ray (Oct 2, 2008)

jarrod said:


> like many others, i'm okay with it in theory but opposed to it in practice. nietzsche made an interesting arguement...


My favorite line about Nietzche is found in the movie "Blazing Saddles."


----------



## jarrod (Oct 2, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> For what it's worth that bolded part pretty much jives with my own philosophy *shrug*
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...


 
the part you bolded is my personal philosophy as well, & i suspect is the philosophy of most people.  

the problem lies in the fact that the law is absolute, but it is applied by human beings who are not, & are therefore liable to impose their own prejudices, preconceptions, & judgements independent of the law.  

i agree that survival of society is important, but there are other ways to insure it's survival.  life imprisonment is an option, as is allowing society to defend itself.  

insuring the survival of society also mean insuring that no innocent person is wrongly executed.   



Ray said:


> If there is a "war" on drugs, it is in words only...
> 
> The quantity of people in prision is directly correlated to the number of people breaking the law.


 
that's true, but there is not necessarily a correlation between law & morality.  what i mean is that not everything that is illegal is wrong, & not everything that is wrong is illegal.  

jf


----------



## Ray (Oct 3, 2008)

jarrod said:


> i agree that survival of society is important, but there are other ways to insure it's survival. life imprisonment is an option, as is allowing society to defend itself.
> 
> insuring the survival of society also mean insuring that no innocent person is wrongly executed.


Jeffery Dahmer (sp?): was he executed in prison? Was he "rightly" executed or "wrongly" executed...apparrently not innocent...

It's just not a realistic view to suppose that life imprisonment will bring any more justice than executions do. There have been several people, rightly imprisioned for serious crimes who were later set free only to commit further henious crimes. Life imprisonment doesn't really mean life imprisonment..



jarrod said:


> that's true, but there is not necessarily a correlation between law & morality. what i mean is that not everything that is illegal is wrong, & not everything that is wrong is illegal.


Which is exactly why we should go beyond the law's requirements (since it is the definition of what society has decided is wrong) and avoid the very appearance of evil.


----------



## jarrod (Oct 3, 2008)

Ray said:


> Jeffery Dahmer (sp?): was he executed in prison? Was he "rightly" executed or "wrongly" executed...apparrently not innocent...
> 
> It's just not a realistic view to suppose that life imprisonment will bring any more justice than executions do. There have been several people, rightly imprisioned for serious crimes who were later set free only to commit further henious crimes. Life imprisonment doesn't really mean life imprisonment.


 
jeffery dahmer & serial killers in general represent a very small portion of murderers.  i'm not one of those people who is upset about every single execution; i don't miss dahmer being on the planet at all.  but i would rather see serial killers serve life in prison than see innocent people executed.  

also, i should have specified that i was referring to life imprisonment without parole.  part of the reason why true life imprisonment is rare is because of the many people convicted of victimless crimes (hence the reference to the drug war) clogging up the prison system.  



Ray said:


> Which is exactly why we should go beyond the law's requirements (since it is the definition of what society has decided is wrong) and avoid the very appearance of evil.


 
but law is not the definition of what society has decided is wrong.  even if it were, society is often incorrect about what is wrong or right.  

law can be what society has decided is wrong; it can also be what a few people have determined is profitiable; it can be what the government has decided is a threat to it's power; it can be a means of oppression.  right & wrong have never correlated exactly to what is legal or illegal. 

it was never right to own slaves, or wrong for women to vote.  likewise the vast majority of people believe that lying & infidelity are wrong, yet these acts aren't illegal.    

jf


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 3, 2008)

I think murder will pretty much always remain "wrong".


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 3, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> I think murder will pretty much always remain "wrong".


 
Unless its for the "right" reasons...

Still want to give the State power over life or death?

Who do you want deciding who to kill?  What if you disagree?


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 3, 2008)

Murder:

1: the crime of *unlawfully killing* a person especially with malice aforethought


----------



## jarrod (Oct 3, 2008)

so let's say someone breaks into your house, & you pull out a gun.  he turns & runs, & in a panic you shoot anyway.  hell, maybe you had a beer or 3.  maybe the perpetrator is someone you know, somebody that everyone knows you don't particularly care for.  you may not have had malice aforethought, but that won't stop the prosecutor from arguing that you did.  guess what?  you're a murderer.  would you like the chair or the needle?

in this case, it was wrong to shoot, but i don't think the person in this scenario deserves to die for it.

jf


----------



## Archangel M (Oct 3, 2008)

In a case like that the state wouldnt be persuing the death penalty, lets not grasp too far.


----------



## jarrod (Oct 3, 2008)

by your assertion, murder is murder.  who draws the line as to which murders deserve the death penelty & which don't?  "the law" is the standard answer, but the real answer is a judge, a flesh & blood human being just like anyone else.

on a side note, it's good to have another night owl on here.  i get tired of checking the forums twenty times a night & not having anything to post.

jf


----------



## Jade Tigress (Oct 3, 2008)

Ray said:


> Jeffery Dahmer (sp?): was he executed in prison? Was he "rightly" executed or "wrongly" executed...apparrently not innocent...
> 
> It's just not a realistic view to suppose that life imprisonment will bring any more justice than executions do. There have been several people, rightly imprisioned for serious crimes who were later set free only to commit further henious crimes. Life imprisonment doesn't really mean life imprisonment..
> 
> Which is exactly why we should go beyond the law's requirements (since it is the definition of what society has decided is wrong) and avoid the very appearance of evil.



Dahmer wasn't executed, he was beaten to death by another inmate. 

Anyway, I support capital punishment as just that, a punishment, not as a deterrent. But indisputable proof of guilt is necessary, and that seems to be the issue, the taking of the life of an innocent person. In the Dahmer case, as well as Gacy, Bundy, Gein, and other notorious serial killers, there is no doubt as to the guilt of thier heinous crimes. 

Life on death row is no picnic, it's a life of solitary confinement, ****** for the inmate, expensive for the rest of us. Punishment should be swift and fit the crime.


----------



## MJS (Oct 3, 2008)

Ray said:


> Jeffery Dahmer (sp?): was he executed in prison? Was he "rightly" executed or "wrongly" executed...apparrently not innocent...
> 
> It's just not a realistic view to suppose that life imprisonment will bring any more justice than executions do. There have been several people, rightly imprisioned for serious crimes who were later set free only to commit further henious crimes. Life imprisonment doesn't really mean life imprisonment..


 
There have been many cases where an inmate, whether he is in prison for life, 20yrs or on death row, have been killed by other inmates due to the nature of the crime they did.  

As for the other part of your post...please share what you propose is the better solution.  If killing them is wrong, and keeping them locked for life is wrong, what do we do with them?  Let them out?  So they can kill again or do other crimes?  

Like I said...its people like that, that have NO remorse for anything.  Keep them locked up, where they won't endanger the public.


----------



## Makalakumu (Oct 3, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Murder:
> 
> 1: the crime of *unlawfully killing* a person especially with malice aforethought


 
Why do some people think abortion is murder?

I'm saying that because I don't think that you can quote a definition of murder and expect agreement.  

With that being said, I think that an all out proscription on the state taking life, is warrented.  

In the state I live in, they couldn't tie my shoe.  How can we expect them to *lawfully kill?*


----------



## Cryozombie (Oct 3, 2008)

I'm all for capital punishment, if by capital punishment we mean punishing the idiots at the Capital.


----------



## Ray (Oct 3, 2008)

jarrod said:


> jeffery dahmer & serial killers in general represent a very small portion of murderers. i'm not one of those people who is upset about every single execution; i don't miss dahmer being on the planet at all. but i would rather see serial killers serve life in prison than see innocent people executed.


You can really differentiate between the 1-time murderer and the murderer with the "serious problem?" It gets no worse than murder.


jarrod said:


> also, i should have specified that i was referring to life imprisonment without parole. part of the reason why true life imprisonment is rare is because of the many people convicted of victimless crimes (hence the reference to the drug war) clogging up the prison system.


You just don't get it, do you? There is no guarenteed life imprisonment; and the longer someone who is truely guilty stays in prison, the greater liklihood they will be set free.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Oct 3, 2008)

jarrod said:


> i agree that survival of society is important, but there are other ways to insure it's survival. life imprisonment is an option, as is allowing society to defend itself.


 
I much prefer that second option, and it badly needs to come to the forefront.

 Well, now with the economy about to collapse and more people thus about to have to deal face to face with more resulting criminals, that actually may finally happen.



> insuring the survival of society also mean insuring that no innocent person is wrongly executed.
> 
> 
> jf


 
Yep.


----------



## jarrod (Oct 4, 2008)

Ray said:


> You can really differentiate between the 1-time murderer and the murderer with the "serious problem?" It gets no worse than murder.
> You just don't get it, do you? There is no guarenteed life imprisonment; and the longer someone who is truely guilty stays in prison, the greater liklihood they will be set free.


 
no, i guess i'm just too stupid to understand you.  try using smaller words.  

we've done a pretty good job of keeping charles manson behind bars, & he has the possibility of parole.  plus he didn't actually kill anyone himself.  so explain to me why we can't manage to keep someone in prison for life without the possibility of parole.  remember to use small words, & type slowly for me if you can.

jf


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 4, 2008)

Lets keep this heated topic down to a simmer instead of a boil. Relax folks... it's just a conversation and people have the right to disagree or misunderstand.


----------



## jarrod (Oct 4, 2008)

he started it 

jf


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 4, 2008)

jarrod said:


> he started it
> 
> jf


Hey, I have no power except to act as a older brother and say watch out you're drawing attention to yourself. Throwing blame is like dropping a dixie cup of gasoline on the campfire.


----------



## MJS (Oct 4, 2008)

Ray said:


> You can really differentiate between the 1-time murderer and the murderer with the "serious problem?" It gets no worse than murder.
> You just don't get it, do you? There is no guarenteed life imprisonment; and the longer someone who is truely guilty stays in prison, the greater liklihood they will be set free.


 
Please share with us your solutions.  I asked in a previous post, but it went unanswered.  Usually if people make claims such as this, they'll be able to back up what they're saying with some examples.


----------



## Ray (Oct 4, 2008)

MJS said:


> Please share with us your solutions. I asked in a previous post, but it went unanswered. Usually if people make claims such as this, they'll be able to back up what they're saying with some examples.


You would like me to give you examples of convicted murderers who were executed who were thus prevented from murdering again?  

You would like me to provide examples of people who were convicted, let go, and committed crimes again?  Is it just limited to those who committed murder, were convicted, set free and killed again?  Or can I bring up the Willie Horton's of the world?

What is the perimeter of the parameters of the illustrative occurances?


----------



## jarrod (Oct 4, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Hey, I have no power except to act as a older brother and say watch out you're drawing attention to yourself. Throwing blame is like dropping a dixie cup of gasoline on the campfire.


 
i was kidding, hence the goofy face after the comment.  attempting to diffuse tensions with humor, all that stuff.

now ray, you stay on your side of the thread or else ma-caver will turn this thread around!

jf


----------



## Ray (Oct 4, 2008)

jarrod said:


> now ray, you stay on your side of the thread or else ma-caver will turn this thread around!


I have immense respect for the opinions of MA-Caver.  If he should declare himself "right," then I would have to defer to his judgment.


----------



## MJS (Oct 5, 2008)

Ray said:


> You would like me to give you examples of convicted murderers who were executed who were thus prevented from murdering again?
> 
> You would like me to provide examples of people who were convicted, let go, and committed crimes again? Is it just limited to those who committed murder, were convicted, set free and killed again? Or can I bring up the Willie Horton's of the world?
> 
> What is the perimeter of the parameters of the illustrative occurances?


 
Maybe I'm not clear on your stance on the death penalty.  Perhaps what the real issue is, is the fact that the legal system seems to be seriously flawed.  I mean, you have 2 violent, career criminals, who are out on parole, only to kill someone again, such as in the Cheshire, Ct. home invasion, where the wife and 2 daughters were killed, the husband badly beaten, but survived, and the house burned to the ground.  

Why were they on parole?  And yes, for the record, a mistake was made.  So, either keep the bad apples locked for life or if need be, limit all these appeals, esp. when the fingers are all pointing at them, and get on with the execution.  

"There is no guarenteed life imprisonment; and the longer someone who is truely guilty stays in prison, the greater liklihood they will be set free."

Wasn't John Gotti sent to prison for life?  Actually yes he was and he died there as well.  In your opinion, do you think he would have been set free, had he not passed in prison?


----------



## jarrod (Oct 5, 2008)

Ray said:


> I have immense respect for the opinions of MA-Caver. If he should declare himself "right," then I would have to defer to his judgment.


 
okay.


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 5, 2008)

jarrod said:


> Ray said:
> 
> 
> > I have immense respect for the opinions of MA-Caver. If he should declare himself "right," then I would have to defer to his judgment.
> ...




awww g'wan fellas stop it. 

Back to the discussion eh?


----------



## Ray (Oct 5, 2008)

MJS said:


> Maybe I'm not clear on your stance on the death penalty.


I support the death penalty in cases of capital crime: e.g treason and murder.



MJS said:


> In your opinion, do you think he would have been set free, had he not passed in prison?


The longer a convicted murderer lives in prision, the greater liklihood that someday he/she will be set free.


----------



## MJS (Oct 6, 2008)

Ray said:


> I support the death penalty in cases of capital crime: e.g treason and murder.


 
Thank you for the clarification. 



> The longer a convicted murderer lives in prision, the greater liklihood that someday he/she will be set free.


 
I don't know if I can fully agree with that.  I mean, do you think that a serial killer would get released, possibly in an effort to make room for the never ending flow of people who can't seem to stay away from criminal activity?  IMO, I'd think they'd release someone in prison on a lesser crime vs. someone who killed a large number of people.


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 6, 2008)

MJS said:


> > The longer a convicted murderer lives in prision, the greater liklihood that someday he/she will be set free.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if I can fully agree with that.  I mean, do you think that a serial killer would get released, possibly in an effort to make room for the never ending flow of people who can't seem to stay away from criminal activity?  IMO, I'd think they'd release someone in prison on a lesser crime vs. someone who killed a large number of people.


Agreed. There are people today who are continually denied parole everytime they go up for review. Manson will never get parole though he's eligible, same goes for the girls who followed his directions. These are just a couple of examples of people who will literally die in prison. 
A one time murderer may or may not be released... depending upon his crime. A jealous husband probably, a child killer... probably not. 
The law is just as aware of people outside the system who would like nothing more than to take their own brand of revenge/justice so some of these animals will stay behind bars.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Oct 7, 2008)

Twin Fist said:


> What say you?
> 
> Talking about Bob Barr we got sidetracked on the death penalty.
> 
> ...


 
Overall, I would say nay, although it's not without some hesitancy.  There are certainly some crimes whose perpetrators, I think, deserve to die.  However, I don't believe our justice system should base itself on our feelings of vengeance or outrage.  Additionally, I think that, as good as our justice system is, it's still too imperfect for capital punishment to be an option in the prosecuter's arsenal.  

As a side note, I agree that the appeals process is too extended, but a limit of 12 months remains too short a time.  Cases can be delayed easily, especially for state prosecutors, and a limit of only 12 months would compromise the rights of the accused...which, even when considering the most barbaric crimes, still must be preserved.


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 7, 2008)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> Overall, I would say nay, although it's not without some hesitancy.  There are certainly some crimes whose perpetrators, I think, deserve to die.  However, I don't believe our justice system should base itself on our feelings of vengeance or outrage.  Additionally, I think that, as good as our justice system is, it's still too imperfect for capital punishment to be an option in the prosecutor's arsenal.


 I don't think justice is a sense of outrage or vengeance but it is meeting the punishment equal to the crime in question. As you say there are those who "deserve to die". I liken them to a rabid dog or a fighting dog. Far too violent/dangerous to be let about loose or even in behind a cage (penal system). There are some who absolutely cannot be rehabilitated. Many who refuse to and many who just don't quite get it. For those who cannot and whose crimes against people were so savage and wanton in their scale of violence and would carry that violence behind bars and threaten the lives of the guards and other not so violent inmates... what else can you do with them? IMO take them out of the equation and out of the gene pool... permanently. For those who refuse and are still violent and stand a high probability of committing such violence if allowed to do so (released from the confines of prison walls) we can give them a three strike deal but that may mean three more innocent people dead that didn't have to die. And for those who just don't quite get it... well life behind bars is suitable alternative, life without parole. 
For me, the key to justice is to protect the innocent from future harm... by any means necessary. If the process of rehabilitation works and sticks... another key element... sticks to the felon then okay. But if it doesn't. What do you do with a dog that keeps on biting? 



RandomPhantom700 said:


> As a side note, I agree that the appeals process is too extended, but a limit of 12 months remains too short a time.  Cases can be delayed easily, especially for state prosecutors, and a limit of only 12 months would compromise the rights of the accused...which, even when considering the most barbaric crimes, still must be preserved.


 The over burden of the number of cases vs the number of prosecutors & investigators is staggering. Maybe 12 months is too short a time... if that particular case is being actively pursued. But *every day *a new case comes up and demands attention, sometimes immediate. What to do with the one awaiting the appeals process? Particularly the animal or rabid dog type killer(s). Waste of time and effort in their cases I think.  
Maybe it's an emotional knee jerk response on my part but if a guy is caught and even confesses to a horrendous child murder... should they have to sit for years behind bars? The loss of that child far outweighs the loss of the animal that killed them. 
I'm not going to go the line of the "Green Mile - John Coffey" circumstances. Today there are highly trained CSI and forensic people who'd be able to ascertain the man's guilt or innocence. No, it's not 100% but it is pretty darn close thanks to the advent of DNA investigation and the like. Just as DNA has shown many to be guilty it is being used to find many older crimes to be of mistaken identity and the accused/convicted to be innocent. 
It's not perfect and I wonder sometimes if it ever will be... but for the time being until more people step up to help speed up the process of analyzing evidence and making sure that the guilty are just that and the innocent just so... it's all we have. Meanwhile the prison system continues to swell at the seams.


----------



## jarrod (Oct 7, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> I don't think justice is a sense of outrage or vengeance but it is meeting the punishment equal to the crime in question.


 
i agree with you here in terms of the idea of justice, however 'justice' as practiced by the judicial system is all too often based on outrage & revenge.  until we find a way to deprive lawyers, judges, & juries of their basic emotions during a trial, they are going to at least partly decide the outcome based on those emotions.  that's fine, there's no such thing as a perfect system, i just am not comfortable trusting human lives to that system.  

now musashi wrote about the idea of the life-giving sword.  if you are saving lives by taking one, you're not really killing in the grand scheme of things.  unfortunately, capital punishment is sort of like social self-defense after the fact.  killing the perp doesn't prevent the death, & it doesn't do any more to prevent the killing of other productive members of society than life imprisonment does.  plus it runs the risk of allowing unequal or even wrongful application.

jf


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 7, 2008)

jarrod said:


> i agree with you here in terms of the idea of justice, however 'justice' as practiced by the judicial system is all too often based on outrage & revenge.  until we find a way to deprive lawyers, judges, & juries of their basic emotions during a trial, they are going to at least partly decide the outcome based on those emotions.  that's fine, there's no such thing as a perfect system, i just am not comfortable trusting human lives to that system.
> jf


Well we could input all the laws and sentences for breaking the laws into computers and input all evidence and then let the computers decide... how about that?? 

It's impossible to remove the human element... except in the manner described above. You will not have complete justice without the range of human emotions in it. You don't punish your child unemotionally do you? No, you punish them because they done something against your rules and that made you mad because you've done the best you could to tell them what the rules are and the consequences if they break them. Your anger is naturally from frustration over having to repeatedly do so. 
Yeah, it's a child and a child learns sometimes through repeated instruction reinforcement (positive and/or negative)... well these criminals are behaving like children no? But they're 10-100 times more violent than a child. Plus they're NOT children and have reached the age of consent and age of knowing right from wrong... yet they continue to defy the laws and cause pain and anguish for the survivors of their chosen victims. 
Punishment should equal the crime.


----------



## jarrod (Oct 8, 2008)

i never said to remove the human element from the judicial system, i just said that i personally don't trust humans to decide when another human deserves to die.  if we could trust people to do that, we wouldn't have murderers in the first place.  

jf


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 8, 2008)

jarrod said:


> i never said to remove the human element from the judicial system, i just said that i personally don't _trust humans to decide when another human deserves to die_.  if we could trust people to do that, we wouldn't have murderers in the first place.
> 
> jf


Well then, who would you trust? Either you do or you don't re-elect the judges again or allow them to hold their places on the bench. If you don't trust someone (human) then you remove them from your presence, no? 
We would have murderers anyway. The human mind/psyche is still far too animalistic to deny killing instincts. We hunt and we wage war with each other. Are these not examples of murder? Granted murder with a purpose (war overall not all individually). Millions of us however (thankfully) have learned to control/repress the animal side and be civilized. (_after thought: how many of us civilized people have deep down inside actually wanted to kill and were perfectly capable of doing so but stayed their hand? After 9/11 we all cried for Bin Laden's head on a plate, was that a literal request... for some it probably was but we leave it to others to take care of it)_  ... It's the few thousands that still want to give in to it. THOSE are the ones we need to cull from our "herd". 

The extent of the murder the amount of effort/violence that went into it... that is what we need to look at when trying to determine the death penalty. A single shot to the head is violent yes but didn't take much to do. Repeatedly bludgeoning/stabbing/shooting someone, maiming, mutilation, causing excessive suffering on the victims part... or just out of sheer randomness or murder for the sake of murder. These are things that must be weighed.  

Humans should rightly judge other humans (like I said, who else?) and it's because we have rationality, higher forms of education, intelligence, compassion, understanding (of self and of the human psyche), etc. etc. we have all these things that make up what is GOOD about our species. But a few throwbacks want to walk around bashing in head just like the good ole' days, they're whats bad about our species. The tree of life needs pruning from time to time.


----------



## KenpoTex (Oct 8, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> We would have murderers anyway. The human mind/psyche is still far too animalistic to deny killing instincts. *We hunt and we wage war with each other. Are these not examples of murder?* Granted murder with a purpose (war overall not all individually).



I would submit that while murder is killing, not all acts of killing can be defined as murder.


----------



## jarrod (Oct 8, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Well then, who would you trust? Either you do or you don't re-elect the judges again or allow them to hold their places on the bench. If you don't trust someone (human) then you remove them from your presence, no?
> We would have murderers anyway. *The human mind/psyche is still far too animalistic to deny killing instincts.* .


 
my point exactly.  1) the human mind can't be trusted, imo, to hold the legal power of life & death over another after the fact.  i'm not talking about the judge on the bench that can be voted out, i'm talking about all people.  2) when a criminal indulges in murder, he has debased himself as well as his victim.  society should not debase itself as well.



MA-Caver said:


> We hunt and we wage war with each other. Are these not examples of murder?


 
no, i'm going to agree with kenpotex on this one.



MA-Caver said:


> (_after thought: how many of us civilized people have deep down inside actually wanted to kill and were perfectly capable of doing so but stayed their hand? After 9/11 we all cried for Bin Laden's head on a plate, was that a literal request... for some it probably was but we leave it to others to take care of it)_


 
i remember after i enlisted right after 9/11, i often told my friends that if i got the chance i was going to eat a taliban's heart.  i wasn't kidding.  funny that now i'm on a board arguing against the death penelty.  



MA-Caver said:


> The extent of the murder the amount of effort/violence that went into it... that is what we need to look at when trying to determine the death penalty. A single shot to the head is violent yes but didn't take much to do. Repeatedly bludgeoning/stabbing/shooting someone, maiming, mutilation, causing excessive suffering on the victims part... or just out of sheer randomness or murder for the sake of murder. These are things that must be weighed.


 
so how many stabbings/bludgeonings warrants death?  3 stabs?  1? 67?  any number is arbitrary.  if an arbitrary number isn't chosen, the death penalty will be applied unevenly.  justice applied unevenly isn't justice at all.

jf


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 8, 2008)

KenpoTex said:


> I would submit that while murder is killing, not all acts of killing can be defined as murder.


Like say... the death penalty??


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 8, 2008)

jarrod said:


> my point exactly.  1) the human mind can't be trusted, imo, to hold the legal power of life & death over another after the fact.  i'm not talking about the judge on the bench that can be voted out, i'm talking about all people.  2) when a criminal indulges in murder, he has debased himself as well as his victim.  society should not debase itself as well.


 I don't think it's debasement of society when society as a whole determines the punishment to whatever crime that has been committed. Society determines what is a crime. Remember that it's legal to have sex with a child in Thailand and illegal here in the states (fortunately in a lot of other places too). So rightly so society determines the punishment for whatever it is that they deem as a crime. 



jarrod said:


> no, i'm going to agree with kenpotex on this one.


 See reply to kenpotex's post. 



jarrod said:


> i remember after i enlisted right after 9/11, i often told my friends that if i got the chance i was going to eat a taliban's heart.  i wasn't kidding.  funny that now i'm on a board arguing against the death penelty.


 yeah, funny how that works out ( :wink1: ) but you wanted justice, you wanted ... revenge?? But either way your statement of desiring to eat an enemy's heart helps my argument about the human animal in all of us... it's there. 



jarrod said:


> so how many stabbings/bludgeonings warrants death?  3 stabs?  1? 67?  any number is arbitrary.  if an arbitrary number isn't chosen, the death penalty will be applied unevenly.  justice applied unevenly isn't justice at all.
> jf


I agree here... so, again, society is the one that determines the level of justice/punishment to fit the crime. It's obvious that we represent two of the many sides of society and are calmly, rationally arguing/discussing it out. 
But admittedly I don't think either of us is right... nor do I think either of us is wrong. 
:asian:


----------



## jarrod (Oct 9, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> Like say... the death penalty??


 
sometimes yes, sometimes no...just like some wars are justified, some aren't, sometimes it's okay to kill an animal, sometimes it's not.  so far the government hasn't done a great job of determining when war is justified, i don't really trust them to do any better with the death penelty.



MA-Caver said:


> yeah, funny how that works out ( :wink1: ) but you wanted justice, you wanted ... revenge?? But either way your statement of desiring to eat an enemy's heart helps my argument about the human animal in all of us... it's there.


 
oh i agree, we all are animals down at the core...including judges & juries.  at the time i wasn't thinking about the difference between justice & revenge, i just wanted action.  



MA-Caver said:


> I agree here... so, again, society is the one that determines the level of justice/punishment to fit the crime. It's obvious that we represent two of the many sides of society and are calmly, rationally arguing/discussing it out.
> But admittedly I don't think either of us is right... nor do I think either of us is wrong.
> :asian:


 
ideally, yes, right & wrong could be determined by a vote & we'd all sleep well at night.  but morality doesn't always conform to social sentiment.  in the end, it's not society as a whole trying each & every case, it's a judge on a bench.  

i also agree that you & i aren't right or wrong, it is a matter of personal values.  it's always interesting hear the other person's perspective.


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 27, 2008)

jarrod said:


> i also agree that you & i aren't right or wrong, it is a matter of personal values.  it's always interesting hear the other person's perspective.


 I appreciate that as much as you do :asian: 
So, question is... whose "perspective" should we adhere to? That's one of the wonderful things about a democracy that there are two (sometimes more) sides to each story and two views and the majority rules (in a manner of speaking -- and literally I guess). So, there is no right or wrong is there? A majority will look and say this is right and a majority will look and say that is wrong. 
Living in a democracy at least allows us to have a voice/vote in determining that for the rest of society, because we are supposed to be that society that decides.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Oct 28, 2008)

Whenever this question comes up -- Do you believe in capital punishment? yay or nay -- other items get thrown in. Soon the conversation diverts from what appears to be the most just to which way is the cheapest.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Oct 29, 2008)

ill take the Ron White view "if you kill someone we will kill you back". I support that capital punishment 100%. I believe though that it should be made more brutal. my 2 cents

B


----------



## Big Don (Oct 29, 2008)

KempoGuy06 said:


> ill take the Ron White view "if you kill someone we will kill you back". I support that capital punishment 100%. I believe though that it should be made more brutal. my 2 cents
> 
> B


Were capital punishment brutal and scary as hell, the deterrent value would increase exponentially. Everyone has both, had shots and gone to sleep, which, is what lethal injection looks like, which, is why it isn't scary.


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 29, 2008)

The brutality of some executions is a good deterrent I think as well. Back in the "old west" the idea of dropping 4-5 feet coming to a sudden stop with a rope around your neck probably deterred a lot more murders than there were. The idea of the average citizen being able to shoot back was just as good a deterrent. It's not only the one that you're shooting at (if you were a murdering type) but the others around them that'll shoot you back in fear of their own lives. 
The lethal injections I never understood. Such a calm and peaceful way to go. Though those who are against it say that the one subjected to it is in agony from the combination of chemicals injected to their bodies. How would they know if they're already asleep and damned near comatose by the time the deadly mix is injected?


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Oct 29, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> The brutality of some executions is a good deterrent I think as well. Back in the "old west" the idea of dropping 4-5 feet coming to a sudden stop with a rope around your neck probably deterred a lot more murders than there were. The idea of the average citizen being able to shoot back was just as good a deterrent. It's not only the one that you're shooting at (if you were a murdering type) but the others around them that'll shoot you back in fear of their own lives.
> The lethal injections I never understood. Such a calm and peaceful way to go. Though those who are against it say that the one subjected to it is in agony from the combination of chemicals injected to their bodies. How would they know if they're already asleep and damned near comatose by the time the deadly mix is injected?


very good point. It makes no sense and from what ive learned they are nearly comatose before they get the leathal juice. 

I think they should set up a deathmatch of sorts. Have the ten people who have been on deathrow the longest get in a cage and fight to the death. the last one standing is safe for an entire year until the next match. if they refuse to fight shoot 'em. sell it on pay per view. Watch out UFC!!!

B


----------



## MA-Caver (Oct 29, 2008)

KempoGuy06 said:


> very good point. It makes no sense and from what ive learned they are nearly comatose before they get the leathal juice.
> 
> I think they should set up a deathmatch of sorts. Have the ten people who have been on deathrow the longest get in a cage and fight to the death. the last one standing is safe for an entire year until the next match. if they refuse to fight shoot 'em. sell it on pay per view. Watch out UFC!!!
> 
> B


It may just come to that some day. Don't be at all surprised.


----------



## KenpoTex (Oct 29, 2008)

In all seriousness, I would have no problem whatsoever if hanging, firing squads, etc. were to again become the standard method of execution.  I believe there would definitely be more of a "deterrent factor" there.

On a side-note, Utah used a firing squad to execute someone as recently as '95 (IIRC).


----------



## mook jong man (Oct 30, 2008)

I used to sort of be on the fence with this issue , but a couple of days ago in Sydney something pretty bad happened that changed my mind .

Some maggot did a home invasion on four asian students sharing a flat , he got in by following one of the girls through the foyer door as she was buzzed in by her flatmates , he then put a knife against her throat and forced his way in when they opened the door to the flat.

In their living room he made the 3 girls and 1 boy strip , one of the girls was the girlfriend of the boy , he raped her 3 times and the boyfriend twice and also committed an oral sex act on the boy all in view of each other . He also stole $200 off them .

This went on for approximately 70 mins , in an effort to escape this horror the girlfriend jumped off the balconey 25 metres up , she died instantly and the boyfriend jumped off too and sustained broken legs and pelvis and head injuries , he's alive but probably wishes he was dead . 

What makes it even more heartbreaking is that the girl was an only child , and her mother lost everything in the chinese earthquake , her house , her business and now her daughter . 

The cops have caught this piece of human excrement but i fear now we will hear a big sob story of how he was abused as a child and got addicted to alcohol and drugs etc , you all know the drill . 

So for animals like this bloke , yeah kill the son of a ***** , you would be doing the human race a favour , or at least let the relatives of the victims in the cell with the bastard for 5 minutes . We used to hang crims in this country maybe its about time it was brought back .


----------



## MJS (Oct 30, 2008)

mook jong man said:


> I used to sort of be on the fence with this issue , but a couple of days ago in Sydney something pretty bad happened that changed my mind .
> 
> Some maggot did a home invasion on four asian students sharing a flat , he got in by following one of the girls through the foyer door as she was buzzed in by her flatmates , he then put a knife against her throat and forced his way in when they opened the door to the flat.
> 
> ...


 
Well, this is certainly a horrible thing.  The thing that bothers me the most is the part I bolded.  Frankly, I hate that, because that is usually the first thing that the lawyers who are trying to defending scumbag, usually say.  I'm sorry, that is a huge cop out for them to use.  I find it hard to believe that anyone else who may have been abused or had a hard life, went out and did what that guy did.  

If someone really wants to change their life they will, and IMHO, this guy didn't.  By all means, if it is proven, without any doubt, that this guy did this, then forget the very lengthy appeal process and do away with the guy.


----------

