The Death Penalty for Sex Offenders

[Makalakumu]

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

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

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

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

 

[Makalakumu]

Originally posted by rmcrobertson
OK, why not.

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

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

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

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

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

Gandalf

Sometimes the world stinks...

 

[Rich Parsons]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this wrong? No, it just is.

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

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

:asian:

 

[jfarnsworth]

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

 

[Rich Parsons]

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

Good Points Brother JF.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you confirm that a person ostracized stays ostracized?

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

Thoughts?

 

[michaeledward]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike

 

[Rich Parsons]

Mike,

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

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

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

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

Thank You

 

[rmcrobertson]

Is there room for, "pointless?"

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

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

 

[michaeledward]

Originally posted by Rich Parsons
Mike,

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

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

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

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

Thank You

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

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

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

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

Mike

 

[Ceicei]

Originally posted by michaeledward

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

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

- Ceicei

 

[michaeledward]

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

- Ceicei

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

Ergo

'Why are the prisons overcrowded?'

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

Hmm .... Mike

 

[Cruentus]

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

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

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

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

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

PAUL

 

[Makalakumu]

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

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

 

[rmcrobertson]

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

 

[Rich Parsons]

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

No Disrespect Robert, you comment made me laugh.

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

I think I might even enjoy your post still.

With Respect
:asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

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

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

 

[michaeledward]

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

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

 

[stephen]

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

More sexual assult victims will be killed by their attackers.

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

Steve Kovalcik

 

[TonyM.]

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

 

[hardheadjarhead]

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

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

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

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

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


Regards,


Steve