Capital Punishment [Archive] - Kung Fu Magazine Forums

GreenCloudCLF

07-28-2005, 10:10 AM

If they have proof beyond the shadow of a doubt then all murderers should die.

First, there is now such thing. Second, even if there was, that is not the standard of proof required in our Judiciary system. It is proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Our system is based on the theory that it is better to let a guilty man go free, then lock up an innocent man. There are many safeguards in place to help ensure an innocent man does not get convicted. But sometimes the system is wrong.

In the states that still allow the death penalty, many have automatic appeals (whether or not a lawyer files). The average time of execution from initial conviction to execution is around 18 years.

I am a firm believer in the death penalty. Why? Because I know if my 6 years old daughter was raped and murdered I would want to see the man that did it to her killed. As revenge? No punishment. Revenge and punishment are 2 seperate things. Many people group them together, but they are not the same. I know that killing the one responsible for killing my daughter would ensure that he never killed another mans child. "But what about life in prison?" A life sentence allows you to come up for parole in 18 to 25 years. "What about life without the possibility of parole?" What about a prison break, or some kind of pardon? Are those things unlikely? Absolutely, but why allow ANY chance of a man like John Wayne Gacy or Richard Ramirez get on the street again?

How do you think you would feel if you were asked to sit on a parloe board for someone like David Berkowitz. Decided, ok he had some treatment, is on medication, let's let him go. Then he kills again. Had he been executed you would have saved 2 lives (he liked killing couples) not to mention the pain and misery you would have saved BOTH their family and friends.

Merryprankster

07-28-2005, 10:23 AM

**** Execution.

As long as the system relies on human judgment, there will be mistakes. That means innocent people will die, over time.

Life in prison without parole serves the same effect - removes the threat to society. Since that alternative exists, it is socially irresponsible to execute people.

GreenCloudCLF

07-28-2005, 10:33 AM

Life in prison without parole serves the same effect - removes the threat to society.

What about the threat to the prison guards, prison chaplains, nurses etc..and the other inmates? Now I know you may say, if they deserve to be there, who cares what happens to them. But do you believe a man convicted of larceny should be at risk of a murderous criminal? Or better yet, since mistakes happen, what about the innocent people in prison who may now be targets of this man who deserves death? A truly innocent man in prison makes a nice target for a murderous man's desires.

Shouldn't we protect them by removing the homicidal people from the equation as well? Isn't THAT
socially irresponsible to allow them to prey on anyone? Criminal or not?

Christopher M

07-28-2005, 10:44 AM

Capital punishment is morally reprehensible, and should be opposed at every opportunity by every rational and ethical person. If you endorse capital punishment, you have given the state the right to take life from its citizens. By that standard, what is beyond the grasp of the state? Nothing.

Life in prison without parole serves the same effect...

Tsssh... two words: "Labor. Camp."

TenTigers

07-28-2005, 11:34 AM

Four walls are three too many.

FuXnDajenariht

07-28-2005, 01:21 PM

you know my my mom always used to says "**** the death penalty". for the one simple fact that she thinks a life sentence in a maximum security prison is literally hell on earth. she thinks its the ultimate form of punishment or revenge rather. death being too much of an easy route in her opinion. you've all seen an episode of oz or the big house lol. most sane people would rather kill themselves than end up in a place like that. so i dont believe theirs a lack of "fair" punishment. is it any wonder that criminals come out twice as bad? i never thought it was fair to the people who actually have or had a chance at rehabilitation.

the government tries to balance humane treatment with the goals of a prison, but the possibility constantly looming over your head of getting assaulted, robbed, ass pirated or ultimately murdered day after day doesn't create an environment for someone to learn from their mistakes. everyone knows the saying about treating someone like an animal..... a murderer isn't "usually" created overnight. one is usually born after years of being tossed around by the judicial system. i dont think much thought is put into the whole "rehabilitation" thing. i think if there was the death penalty wouldn't be needed half as much as it is. and what about the child killers and those other extreme cases? well i dont know. i dont think anyone has actually studied the limits of a persons ability to redeem themselves. i think if society wants to move past the death penalty issue they have to find these things out. everyone here prolly knows atleast 2 people in jail right now. its a big social experiment as it is, but neither side is really satisfied so i dont think it would hurt to try some new ideas out.

Mortal1

07-28-2005, 01:26 PM

Merryprankster

07-28-2005, 01:31 PM

What about the threat to the prison guards, prison chaplains, nurses etc..

They volunteered to be there. They know the risks and chose to take them.

and the other inmates?

They had a choice to not do things to stay out of prison, but didn't.

Prison security is what you are talking about. There are things like solitary, and prison managers can elect to organize offenders by level of violence and seriousness of crime, max, supermax, minimum security, etc.

For the record, your argument may be the stupidest thing I have ever read. The threat to the inmates and workers? Please - that is what security is for. It might increase demands on the system, but I'm not about to condone state-sanctioned murder of innocent people which WILL happen since justice relies on human judgment.

Chris, I'm a fan of Labor Camps. Free people have to earn a living, why not prisoners? It doesn't even have to have a point. Breaking big rocks into little rocks will do just fine, digging holes and filling them back up...

Eating 50 eggs...whatever.

a murderer isn't "usually" created overnight. one is usually born after years of being tossed around by the judicial system.

Huh? Plenty of murderers out there who had no significant jail experience.

Christopher M

07-28-2005, 01:56 PM

Chris, I'm a fan of Labor Camps. Free people have to earn a living, why not prisoners? It doesn't even have to have a point. Breaking big rocks into little rocks will do just fine, digging holes and filling them back up...

Well, there's alot of oil and minerals in the arctic which aren't gonna mine themselves. I say put inmates to work and let the prison system pay for itself.

TenTigers

07-28-2005, 02:21 PM

Jason Martell

07-28-2005, 02:49 PM

Well, there's alot of oil and minerals in the arctic which aren't gonna mine themselves. I say put inmates to work and let the prison system pay for itself.

I don't think we should put dangerus tools in the hands of criminals.

Jason Martell

07-28-2005, 02:50 PM

I think we can also do alot of medical research on human test subjects, by using condemned criminals. We spend all this money on medical research, all this money on feeding and housing convicted murderers, let them pay their debt to society for real. I for one, would have absolutely no problem with awarding Charles Manson the Nobel Prize for testing cures for cancer, aids, multiple sclerosis, etc. Posthumously, of course.

Prison is not the most clean sterile environment for doing research,a dn a lot of these guys get deseases in prison, and as far as mental research goes, I don't know if they are the best subjects, because prison causes too many variables.

Jason Martell

07-28-2005, 02:51 PM

So some jakkoff kills your mom and he gets thre squares a day for the rest of his life. That I can handle. But you can't shut these convicted murderers up. They start doing interveiws and books. Even if they aren't getting paid they should be silenced for eternity the same way they silenced someone else.

no that enfringes upon democracy too much, and it allows for too many secrets to be kept. You never know, they might have something that needs to be heard.

Mutant

07-28-2005, 02:52 PM

Well, there's alot of oil and minerals in the arctic which aren't gonna mine themselves.
Now thats ingenuity LOL!

Christopher M

07-28-2005, 03:04 PM

I don't think we should put dangerus tools in the hands of criminals.

They could hassle the polar bears?

red5angel

07-28-2005, 03:49 PM

I believe it's a necessary evil, not as a deterrant, because it's proven not to be, but as a means to rid society of those who cannot fit in.
Sexual predators cannot be cured, so why keep them around?
Murderers could not takethe time to consider the lives of those they took, wo why do we give them the same benefit?

The laws not perfect but sometimes it works.

Nick Forrer

07-28-2005, 04:01 PM

So does no one here think that one of the goals of prison should be to try and reform people? Is the only argument against the death penalty that it would kill innocent people or be misused by the state? Aren't there documented cases of people who've murdered and later regreted it and gone on to do positive things with their lives?

David Jamieson

07-28-2005, 05:13 PM

A great deal of murders are not of the premeditated variety. This is the most reprehensible of acts imo. It is where you consider and with intention seek to kill another person.

Statistically speaking the greater majority of murders are Crimes of passion or varying degrees of manslaughter which is tantamount to unintentional killing. But this still in each instance can get a person life in prison and of course in some places the death penalty although I do think that is reserved in most places for intentional murder or Murder 1.

Here's a scenario to consider:

Someone kills your sister at a party accidentally by backing their car over her in the parking lot while leaving. You know who it is and intentionally seek to kill that person.

Who is more guilty of the resulting crime?

So many variables, so many flaws in the justice system. I am of the thinking that there are a great deal of people in the prison system who have sentences that do not match their crime. I imagine there is also a percentage of people who shouldn't be there at all. Never mind the fact that it is now legal in some states to put to death mentally disabled people who do not have any control over their lives to begin with.

Too many variables to just wash it all away with the "kill them and have done with it attitude".

FuXnDajenariht

07-28-2005, 06:59 PM

the death penalty exists here because its one of those unforgiveable crimes in the publics eyes. execution is just the ultimate symbol of this belief. the punishment is revenge in this case, and sometimes or maybe alot of the time despite the circumstances.

ive read that fairly light sentences are handed out in other civilized countries in comparison to us. maybe 10-12 years. i could be wrong. i think most people believe that getting rid of execution somehow makes us too lenient. like we're gonna start giving out lollipops to felons instead. i think thats the misconception. but it does lean more towards rehabilitation in my opinion or should?. sort of like scaling down the system a bit.

does anyone actually think a murderer deserves a second chance though? everyone can walk around on a soapbox about how executing them is wrong wrong but i guess the question is would you sleep at night with one living next to your family?

theres this other saying about the only guilty murderers being the ones that got caught...

FuXnDajenariht

07-28-2005, 07:11 PM

there was this prison shrink a few years back with this "new method" of rehabilitation. he got the victims family involved in the process. one of those "feel my pain, you *******" things. i think it was on nightline or 20/20 a couple years back. he was getting results but had problems with fundings or sumthin. anyone remember him?

Jason Martell

07-28-2005, 07:41 PM

GreenCloudCLF

07-29-2005, 05:49 AM

For the record, your argument may be the stupidest thing I have ever read.

I find this comment funny from a person whose arguement began:

**** Execution.

I am going to take a leap and assume you have never known anyone who has been affected by a senseless loss, such as a murder. Never seen the heartache and pain of a greiving family member. I am also going to assume you know few if any LEO or CO. I was one. I know many. If you have never been to a crime scene and seen 3 people shot up by an AK (I worked in DC) or a man who had his head crushed by a piece of concrete for cutting in line at a pizza place, you cannot know the pain until they see it on victims families faces. This is why I can say with pride I support the death-penalty. This is why I can sit here and tell my reasons systematically and organized without resulting to vulgarity. I speak from experience, research, and observation. You seem to speak out of paranoid gov't delusions about "Big Brother" taking over. If that is your fear, you should oppose the Homeland Security Bill, it takes away more rights than the Death Penalty ever has or ever will.

They volunteered to be there. They know the risks and chose to take them.

If you know anything about law enforcement or corrections you may know that many of them ended up in that career for many reasons. Many are there to help people, the reason I started. However there are many there because they cannot get other jobs that pay nearly as well. Or because of the good Gov't benefits (and for anyone who hasn't had a gov't job, they are good benefits)

But irregardless of either of these reasons, you are stating that it is alright to inflict possible injury and death upon these people because of their career choice. I don;t see how you can be against the death penalty for violent criminals, but be willing to subject others to their whims, voluntarily or not. And you didn't address my question about people their for white collar or non-violent crimes. Someone who is sentenced to a year and a day, sent up to Rikers, who is small, book-wormish and fits all stereotypes of the word "nerd" deserves to be raped on an almost daily basis because of greed? This is what happens in the real world of prisons, not segregation based on offense. They stick em where they got room, because of the prison overcrowding. There is obviously Supermax prisons, but those are exceptions and not the norm.

Actually pedophile phsychologists believe they can be and have been cured. It's difficult but no more difficult then curing a drug addict.

If pedophile psychologists said pedophiles could not be cured, what would they do? Lose their jobs. Many psychologists who take on hot-button topics such as pedophilia and put out these theories do so as a manner of getting their name out into the media so someone will pick up them and give them a grant.
------

As for prison for rehabilitation, I am a firm believer that this is what they should be used for. The advent of prisons saw people being locked-up and tortured for their transgression, criminal and civil. But as time goes one things evolve, as I believe prisons should.

85% of murders are committed by someone who knows their victim (spouse, family etc...) It is only since around 1900 that murders are beginning to have less rhyme and reason (serial killers). This has especially spiked since the 1970's. Could it be because the media attention given to people like the DC area sniper(of which I was working one of the crime scenes.) Should we blame the media, that's is awhole other debate. However, these monsters do not deserve to breathe the same air I do.

Dale Dugas

07-29-2005, 05:59 AM

Rapists, child molesters, and anyone who beats/abuses women and children should be taken out. No room on the planet for these pieces of filth.

At the same time there should be a rougher prison system in place.

They break the law and get FREE food, FREE healthcare(sometimes better than what we the non-lawbreakers can get), in some cases a FREE education on my as well as your tax bill.

That is the true crime.

These fahckheads should be working like the rest of us. I know some prison systems have this, and I applaud them. Have em breaking rocks and sorting through trash, rather than have them work on the customer service end of some retail catalogs(isnt that a good one....)

I also applaud the prisons where you have a ball and chain on your ankle. Prison is punishment not an easy life. They say there is more rape, murder and drug use on the inside. WTF is up with that.

Comments?

In Boston,

Dale Dugas

GreenCloudCLF

07-29-2005, 06:04 AM

Oh, BTW many jurisdictions have the criminal subsidize their own prison stay by charging them per day, and billing them when they get out. Nassau County in NY charges $40 per day. This is the best for people who can't make bail and sit for the year and a half of foot dragging until trial.

PangQuan

07-29-2005, 02:59 PM

A alot of people like to play the high road...I am all for peace and love of mankind.

But at the same time I have a no bull $hit mindset. If you even once become weak enough to kill, murder, rape, molest or any other crimes to this extreme or beyond then you need to die. No ifs ands or buts.

give a murderer a knife and they will stab you in the back, give them a nuke and they will blow up the country.... Just because they dont have the means or resourses for mass destruction does not mean they would not choose that path.

A piece of $hit is a piece of $hit...cant change that. Perhaps my mind set is old, or perhaps its not clouded by my personal life...

I dont take into account the fact that im sitting nice and plush in front of a comp...i look at the 7 year old thats got no mother and father because someone chose to kill them. Or the woman living with a complex because her step father raped her for 6 years.

Put yourself in the position. Most cannot. They think they can, but in fact they cannot.

I was beaten as a child for many years. I would not even charge a fine for that. I can over look that. Kill my sister, and ill kill you. rape my brother and ill kill you. molest my child and ill kill you. give me the opportunity to pull the trigger or switch against the scum of the planet and i will. You can call me no better than them if you want. Fine, fact is I dont even kill ants or spiders. They have done nothing wrong. But a human who thinks they can go ahead and out of the blue decide to remove someone from this life deserves to leave themselves.

those of you who dont think murderers should die need to go have a nice long talk with someone who is a raging psychopath. SERIOUSLY.

and if you happen to find one and you meet them while they are not behind bars, you will probably be thier next victim.

good luck saving humanity. its like a festering wound on a limb. amputation is the best course or it will just end up taking the whole body. lose a foot while you can or you will lose your whole **** leg, or perhaps your life.

TenTigers

07-29-2005, 08:39 PM

You never know, they might have something that needs to be heard.

yeah, howzabout.."AAAAAHHHHGGGGGGGHHHH NOOPLEASEOOOHHHHSSHH!!!!!!!!!TTT!
or a death rattle, perhaps?

FuXnDajenariht

07-30-2005, 04:38 AM

lol so much for peace and love Pang.

i thought it was an eye for an eye?

Merryprankster

07-30-2005, 02:05 PM

I am going to take a leap and assume you have never known anyone who has been affected by a senseless loss, such as a murder. Never seen the heartache and pain of a greiving family member. I am also going to assume you know few if any LEO or CO. I was one. I know many. If you have never been to a crime scene and seen 3 people shot up by an AK (I worked in DC) or a man who had his head crushed by a piece of concrete for cutting in line at a pizza place, you cannot know the pain until they see it on victims families faces. This is why I can say with pride I support the death-penalty. This is why I can sit here and tell my reasons systematically and organized without resulting to vulgarity. I speak from experience, research, and observation. You seem to speak out of paranoid gov't delusions about "Big Brother" taking over. If that is your fear, you should oppose the Homeland Security Bill, it takes away more rights than the Death Penalty ever has or ever will.

LOL!

Nice assumptions.

1. I'm in the Coast Guard.
2. I know at least 3 people who have been raped, 1 by her own father.
3. I am not against the death penalty on moral grounds. I firmly believe that a person who has committed murder has forfeited their right to live.

However, we have an imperfect system, where people sit in judgment of other people. Any system involving humans WILL make mistakes; this means that innocent people WILL die. They have either already been executed by the state, or it will happen in the future.

Call me idealistic, but putting even one innocent person to death is not worth the only possible societal gain that cannot be achieved through life in prison without parole - retribution.

People like you try to stand on the moral highground, speak from their anecdotal experiences, and appeal to the emotion - "oh, if you looked into the eyes of the victim and the victims family, you'd want revenge for them, so the death penalty is just."

But strangely, for somebody who claims such systematic, organized thought, (to presumably connote superior mental ability) you've completely missed the implications of a human system that sends people to death - that innocent people WILL die.

If you agree with the death penalty - are self-righteously "proud to support it," then you are saying, in essence, that the occasional dead innocent, put to death by a system built on the idea that "it is better that 10 guilty men go free," than an innocent man punished, is worth the retribution.

I can reverse unjust incarceration, as scarring as it may be. I cannot reverse death. Therefore, I cannot risk sanctioning the death penalty an an appropriate state-sponsored punishment.

So when I say **** Execution, I mean it. Whether you think it's innappropriate is hardly one of my concerns.

rogue

07-30-2005, 03:10 PM

Actually pedophile phsychologists believe they can be and have been cured. It's difficult but no more difficult then curing a drug addict.
You're going to have to show the studies for me to believe that one.

However, we have an imperfect system, where people sit in judgment of other people. And prosecuters who are less interested in determining someones guilt and more into getting the win so they can go into private practice.
I'm all for putting people to death for certain acts but only if we know with 100% certainty that they did it. Otherwise lock them up and throw away the key.

Merryprankster

07-30-2005, 03:18 PM

I'm all for putting people to death for certain acts but only if we know with 100% certainty that they did it.

I personally don't believe there is any such thing as 100% certainty. I agree with the sentiment; I just think it's impossible to practice.

rogue

07-30-2005, 03:32 PM

OK, I'll settle for 99.9% sure. :D I have no problem with putting someone to death like Ted Bundy, BTK and others that we know did it. How many who are pro-death penalty think that they can do the deed. I don't think I could.

Mikkyou

07-30-2005, 07:54 PM

Personally I am against capital punishment.In all the years that the state has excuted prisioners has it changed the rate in which people kill.
Has killing the person really stopped the hurt and true closure for the victims family? The idea of the modern prision was to reform and reprogram the individual
into a successful citizen.I see capital punishment more of an act of vengence then
an act of justice.But it does give a prime example of Karma be it past or present.

Merryprankster

07-31-2005, 08:17 PM

And prosecuters who are less interested in determining someones guilt and more into getting the win so they can go into private practice.

I completely disagree with this. I think most prosecutors are very concerned with the guilt or innocence of the person they are putting in jail. They work very hard to make sure there are no holes in their cases - not just because they want to "win," but because not having holes in their case is the best way for them to satisfy themselves and the system that they are prosecuting a guilty person.

Of course, I also think most LEO's are honest, and that most of the time, when LEO's use lethal force, its completely justifiable.

TaiChiBob

08-01-2005, 05:20 AM

Greetings..

It is philosophically inconsistent to tell a society that it is wrong to kill and then punish the killers by killing them.. regardless of sentiment, that position enforces the notion that killing is a justifiable social tool, that killing can serve a purpose.. the killers just differ in purpose..

I have long suggested that we geographically isolate capital prisoners and supply them with basic tools for agriculture and leave them to live or die by their own hand. Lesser criminals would benefit from more tools and better conditions, but still be required to earn their keep.. basic medical care can be provided according to contribution to the micro-society and the criminal's behavior history.. release of lesser criminals would be dependent on their contribution to the system.. these micro-societies would exist based on inmate established order (they would prosper or perish, their choice).. those unable to conform and prosper would have to figure out how to co-exist within this closed society before they could be re-introduced to regular society.. prisoners that show positive attributes could be transferred to more progressive sites on the journey back to society.. rehabilitation would be based on inmate motivation, those motivated to reform could be transferred to sites with facilities to assist in that process..

I find that too often the capital offenders are not deterred by the death penalty.. the death penalty is a quick fix and and an easy way out.. a life of toiling to exist, and interacting with others of the same mind-set in an environment where if they kill you, so what, might give someone a reason to reconsider a capital offense.. the methods of death at the hands of inmates in this situation may not be nearly so humane as the current gov't position..

I do not feel i have the right to take another person's life except in actual self-defense.. once neutralized, a criminal's life is still sacred.. i do not want the gov't to take a life on my behalf, but.. if these prisoners can't co-exist in their own isolated environment, it is not of my doing.. War is a separate issue, but still not without it's own moral issues..

Be well..

GreenCloudCLF

08-01-2005, 05:57 AM

MerryPrankster,

I just realize now you live in the District. I lived in 6D and worked in 5D. Whereabouts you at?
-----

Anyways, I want to reiterate, with all of the automatic appeals (18 years worth) I feel the death penalty has sufficient checks to ensure an innocent man is not put to death.

There is never a 100% positive of a mans guilt. And I don't believe we would need that. Current burden of proof of reasonable doubt satisfies me (and the courts).

Also, my other reiteration is not that the death penalty be used as a method of revenge. I believe it is a method of punishment for their crimes. Just as the courts have taken to chemical castration for sex offenders, I believe the death penalty is the proper punishment for the worthy.

K.Brazier

08-01-2005, 06:39 AM

What would Jesus say?

Merryprankster

08-01-2005, 06:48 AM

I just realize now you live in the District. I lived in 6D and worked in 5D. Whereabouts you at?

I'm actually in Crystal City. Moving to San Francisco in August.

I feel the death penalty has sufficient checks to ensure an innocent man is not put to death.

How many death row inmates were released in Illinois was it?...all because DNA evidence exonerated them? Death Penalty supporters argue that shows the checks and balances are working!

What that really proves is that innocent people are - rarely but consistently - placed on death row. It is not a large leap to conclude that innocent people must have died in state executions, despite the best intentions of the state to prevent that from happening.

There is never a 100% positive of a mans guilt.

Correct. Which is why the Death Penalty is a very wrong punishment. If there is never 100% proof, then there should never be an irrevocable punishment because there is always the finite chance the person is innocent.

As I stated before, the only alternative argument is to state that the public good of retribution outweighs the lives of the innocents accidentally put to death - and I am appalled by that argument on all kinds of levels.

I understand that reasonable doubt satisfies the court, and I think that is an appropriate standard for guilt - but for the state to take life, I'd need an iron-clad guarentee. Since none exists, I object to the death penalty on systemic grounds - not the idea that even multiple murderers have sacred lives.

GreenCloudCLF

08-01-2005, 06:56 AM

Death Penalty Errors by State (http://ccjr.policy.net/cjedfund/jpreport/)

Thought y'all would want to see some overturned conviction statistics based on state. (Remember an overturned conviction does not mean a person is innocent. Also, these "wrongful conviction" statistics also show the checks I have been showing)

Merryprankster

08-01-2005, 06:59 AM

None of that is the point, GreenCloud:

Given the finite probability of a person's innocence, the number of people on death row, and the effects of all of this over time, at least one innocent person will eventually be put to death, despite our best efforts.

It's probably already happened, and if it has not, it eventually will.

To me, this is an unacceptable price to pay.

The ONLY argument available to death penalty supporters is that it IS an acceptable price to pay.

Eddie

08-01-2005, 01:25 PM

I would have thought that we as people has evolved and matured over the past thousands of years. Its seems we didn’t. The Death penalty is a human right infringement. We have no right to take someone else’s life. Sure, the same goes for that person who committed the crime, but there are other ways of punishment.

Life in jail cant be very easy. The emotional toll it takes on someone would be hell alone. As humans, all that drives us is hope. If that is taken away from you, we might as well be zombies. I cannot possibly imagine what it would be like to be in jail, but I get the feeling its not nice. Those people who committed the crimes are also people too, and while I support stronger and tighter law enforcement regulations etc, I am against any human right violation. We cannot become them, and do the same by killing them.

Regards to the terrorist statement, I think many people are often missing the point. A terrorist to some is always a freedom fighter to others.

I suspect this topic be driven by the Al Quada incidents of late, so I’d rather not get involved in political arguments.

Its NEVER a good thing when people die or suffer. NEVER, not even out of revenge.

Mortal1

08-01-2005, 03:44 PM

"Regards to the terrorist statement, I think many people are often missing the point. A terrorist to some is always a freedom fighter to others."

And to those others you speak of. They are terrorists also and deserve to die as well. People who harbor terrorists are wrong and that's it.

I think you are missing the point.

With all due respect.

GreenCloudCLF

08-01-2005, 07:28 PM

Its NEVER a good thing when people die or suffer. NEVER, not even out of revenge.

But?

Life in jail cant be very easy. The emotional toll it takes on someone would be hell alone.

Contradictory statements?

MP,

The ONLY argument available to death penalty supporters is that it IS an acceptable price to pay.

That is not the ONLY arguement. I believe there are enough checks to ensure that innocents are not excecuted.

MonkeySlap Too

08-01-2005, 07:45 PM

MP Said:
"However, we have an imperfect system, where people sit in judgment of other people. Any system involving humans WILL make mistakes; this means that innocent people WILL die. They have either already been executed by the state, or it will happen in the future.

Call me idealistic, but putting even one innocent person to death is not worth the only possible societal gain that cannot be achieved through life in prison without parole - retribution.

People like you try to stand on the moral highground, speak from their anecdotal experiences, and appeal to the emotion - "oh, if you looked into the eyes of the victim and the victims family, you'd want revenge for them, so the death penalty is just."

But strangely, for somebody who claims such systematic, organized thought, (to presumably connote superior mental ability) you've completely missed the implications of a human system that sends people to death - that innocent people WILL die.

If you agree with the death penalty - are self-righteously "proud to support it," then you are saying, in essence, that the occasional dead innocent, put to death by a system built on the idea that "it is better that 10 guilty men go free," than an innocent man punished, is worth the retribution.

I can reverse unjust incarceration, as scarring as it may be. I cannot reverse death. Therefore, I cannot risk sanctioning the death penalty an an appropriate state-sponsored punishment."

From now on I'm just going to shut up and re-post what he says...

Akhilleus

08-01-2005, 07:56 PM

"Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends."

-J.R.R. Tolkien

Eddie

08-02-2005, 12:39 AM

But?
Contradictory statements?

Nope its not. I’m against crime just as most of you, but I live in a real society with real problems. I have never been to jail, and really will do all I can never to make that mistake to go to jail either, but I have seen and were told of how bad it is in jail. When ever we are victims of crime, we tend to want to impose the most severe punishment on people. This is normal, we all are like that, but from what I have been told and seen on tv, prison (specially in South Africa) is punishment enough. This part of my statement related more to those who say that prisoners should have no right and be treated as such. I agree that when you cross the line, you should be punished, and punishment should fit the crime, but we have NO excuse to take away anyone’s dignity or basic human rights. Even criminals are people too. Don’t make things easy for them, but just keep in mind that they are still entitled to basic human rights.

Your cultural and religious back ground guides the way you view certain things. And never under estimate the power of propaganda. In my country we saw all these, and we had to learn from experience. When I grew up, as a white boy in South Africa, I was always told that a certain political group were terrorists. Every single day on the TV news that’s what we saw, and from the first day in school, that’s what we have been told. Every Tuesday in highschool we had military cadet training, which prepared all us white people for the struggle and to take up arms against this group. Now that very same group is the ruling party of my country, and I realise now that these Men and Woman who I used to see as terrorist, were actually just standing up for what they believed in. There is always two sides of the coin.

My political views differ very much from most people on this forum, and I have had this type of argument with people on this forum since way before the 911 atrocity. I am a simple guy, not to well versed in English, and cannot always bring my points of belief across in a manner that others really understand what I’m REALLY trying to say. I have even been called a terrorist too.

I am against killing and against crime. Capital punishment is killing too. It often confuses me to see how many people who are against things like abortion etc are actually for the death penalty.

Im not trying to offend anyone, so hope you see this as it was intended.

Greencloudclf, if you have personal issues on this topic, please take it up with me in a pm. Respect is something we as martial artists should know all about. Why bother to post this topic if no one would be allowed to view their opinions without being attacked with sarcasm.

Mr Punch

08-02-2005, 01:59 AM

Does nobody else here think that giving a murderer a death penalty is often letting them off easily? :confused:

A lot of murderers say they want to be killed.

Some others would prefer death over a lifetime of incarceration.

And the death penalty gives them this get out.

Life imprisonment should be just that. There should be no parole for mass murderers, rapists, serial killers, or premeditated murderers of any sort. For murders of passion, there should maybe be a chance of rehabilitation.

All of these criminals should have psychological evaluation and analysis for the rest of their lives. Why?

1) It'll probably **** them off!
2) They'll stand a chance of providing some useful information and data to help prevent/identify the kind of situations which breed this kind of dysfunction.

Prison should be work six days a week, to pay for their treatment and incarceration, and the profits from any books etc written in that time should go to paying for their stay and to victims' support charities etc. These ****ers should pay for what they did.

TV should be a limited bargained for privilege, not a right, and not the norm. Access to libraries etc should be another. As should exercise other than work. If you misbehave, you should get nothing but the barest nutritional minimum. Thereby offenders who want to improve themselves can work and study to do so. Those who don't get nada.

Just my opinion.

The death penalty, as is the current prison system, is very inefficient.

Merryprankster

08-02-2005, 06:14 AM

That is not the ONLY arguement. I believe there are enough checks to ensure that innocents are not excecuted.

It is the only argument once you admit the system isn't perfect. Are you telling me the system is perfect? That is has a perfect record? That all those checks 100% guarentee that innocent people are not executed?

You said before there is never 100% certainty about guilt.

Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Either there is an imperfect system, which will, by its imperfect nature, eventually put an innocent man to death, or there is a perfect, infallible system, which self corrects to 100% surity before the "moment of truth."

There are very few things in life that are truly dilemmas (in the rhetorical sense of either/or). This is one of them - there is no third way.

GreenCloudCLF

08-02-2005, 08:19 AM

Eddie,

I did not mean for my comments to sound sarcastic. We were debating a point, and I was presenting my point of view from what you said. I was unaware that Eglish was not your first language, as you are rather eloquent. Please take no offense to my opinion, because as everyone knows opinions are like *******s, everyone has one. This is a public forum debating the Death Penalty, our differing points of view should not require PM discussions.

Again, if you took my posts as insulting I apologize.

MP,

There is no 100% sure about guilt. And I am not saying the system is perfect. I AM saying that the errors in the system alow people who should be excuted to avoid this penalty. In a manner of "erring on the side of caution." There is NO evidence (other than peoples conjecture it may happen) which states an innocent man has ever been executed. EVER. Not in the 200+ years our government has existed. So I am certain that erring on the side of caution does ensure that an innocent man is not executed.

If ever an innocent is executed, then I admit, I may have to revisit my opinon. But I do require evidence, not conjecture.
------
For those reading this thread that actually have an opinion (going either for or against) such as MP and Eddie, I reccommend the following movie if you have not already seen it.The Life of David Gale (http://imdb.com/title/tt0289992/)

Merryprankster

08-02-2005, 08:55 AM

If ever an innocent is executed, then I admit, I may have to revisit my opinon. But I do require evidence, not conjecture.

In the absence of 100% certainty, our system should err on the side of caution, as you surmise. But the system safeguards are not erring on the side of caution because they do not eliminate error. They cannot for it is impossible to do. Rather, they merely reduce the rate of error. The only foolproof caution is to eliminate the death penalty.

Yes, we have appeals. We have lots of them, we have all kinds of reviews. And still, people make mistakes. It happens in every single human system. Mistakes are a known quantity, in that they exist in every human process. Mistakes are a known quantity in that optimization algorithms CANNOT SOLVE for a 100% perfect solution - they merely shoot for about 99%. Mistakes exist in everything known to man.

Captial punishment is not an issue where we can afford to be wrong.

Unless you can say, with a straight face, that the system is 100% foolproof, then you must admit that given a long enough time, with enough executions, an innocent person WILL be put to death.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, and giving the justice system at least .99 percent of the doubt IMO, that the system is 99.99% accurate. That means that for every 10,000 people executed, 1 is not guilty of a capital crime. For every 9999 people who deserved it, you get one dead person who did not.

And if you still agree with the death penalty after that demonstration, then the ONLY justification is that the 9999 cases of retribution are worth that one person who shouldn't have died.

Understand that this is a valid argument. You may validly hold the opinion that society benefits far more from killing 9999 people who deserved it, than it loses by sacrificing the one. You may argue that it is a vital, necessary part of the social contract.

But also understand that the minute you say the system isn't perfect, that this is your ONLY recourse. You MUST admit that sacrificing people who don't deserve it is worth the retribution.

No matter how much you talk around it, or try to justify it through the appeals process and system safeguards, the minute you admit the system makes errors, that conclusion is inescapable.

There is NO evidence (other than peoples conjecture it may happen) which states an innocent man has ever been executed. EVER. Not in the 200+ years our government has existed. So I am certain that erring on the side of caution does ensure that an innocent man is not executed.

What you are really saying is "Ok, I admit the system isn't perfect, but it hasn't killed anybodywho didn't deserve it...yet." When people start saying this, I always know I have them backed into a logical corner. You are essentially admitting that it is only a matter of time before the system does.

Either the system isn't perfect, or it is (the whole system, including appeals, pardons, stays, etc). And if it isn't, then the death penalty is way too risky.

Unless, of course, you believe that one guy is worth the cumulative retribution.

iblis73

08-02-2005, 10:32 AM

I for one believe we arent killing ENOUGH people! I realize the mechanism for cap punishment needs work, but I am definately all for it. Not only do most murderers/rapists get out on parole after serving 1/3 or less of their time, they are often better connected when they leave. The explosion in gangs, prison gangs and other criminal enterprises is ridiculous. I think ANY premeditated murder is worthy of capital punishment. As for sexual predators........the facts remain, they have the highest or one of the highest rates of repeat offense. Death, castration, or lifetime placement in a concentration camp is the only way to go.

Each time one of these cretins reoffends-murder, rape,robbery,molestation......he multiplies his own cost to society. Forget the arrest, trial and incarceration....think of the devastating emotional and financial wreckage of the victim and the victims family.

We need less scum.

PangQuan

08-02-2005, 10:54 AM

We need less scum.

what we need is Judge Dredd or The Punisher. Now those guys know how to get the job done....if only they were real...

TaiChiBob

08-02-2005, 11:00 AM

Greetings..

We are one of just a few remaining countries that utilize the death penalty.. most other civilized people recognize the sanctity of life.. that is not to say that the criminal should not be rididly controlled and prohibited from future interaction with the rest of society.. but, very few of the people supporting the death penalty have actually had to take a life.. it's much easier to say than do.. i had the misfortune to have a Saturday lab dropped from my college courses in 1969, leaving me with only 12 hours that term.. the selective service board decided i could learn more with a rifle in my hand.. Taking a life is the very last thing you ever want to do.

Another thing, people lament the suffering of the victim's family and friends.. i would find more satisfaction knowing that the killer was living out their life in a similar torment, not a quick pass to the other side.. facing a life of hardship, toil and no hope for release seems far worse than a humane ticket to the next life.. put these killers in a cell with some nasty guy named "Big Nancy", they'll wish for a quick end..

It is inconsistent to tell someone it's wrong to kill, then kill them for it..

Be well..

PangQuan

08-02-2005, 11:18 AM

The punishment should fit the crime.

A lot of times the psychos that commit murder and get several life terms end up adapting to their prison invironment. They can become big shots, and actually have a better life in prison.

Is it punishment to give someone power over other people and then feed them cloth them house them and let them take part in many hobby activities such as television, basketball, weight lifting, etc...

"Big Nancy" is probably a murderer or rapist, and now gets his jollies off in prison and LOVES it.

Many of these guys in the pen for life feel they have it made and would not know what to do on the outside. If by chance they get out. They commit another crime so they can GO BACK in, where they have it just the way they want it.

Sometimes we just need to take out the trash.

Like when someone admits to murder, they should be killed. Why waste money, energy and time on this filth?

TenTigers

08-02-2005, 11:34 AM

"They can- actually have a better life in prison."
That's my plan for retirement. If I get old and feeble, and can't teach Kung-Fu, and also broke...I will simply rob a bank. I figure it this way-If I pull it off, then I will have money, if I get caught, I will have a roof over my head, three square meals a day, free medical, and all the a$$ I need. Of course, there won't be any women, but at 80, I'd probably be lucky to get anything.
-and I won't be raped in jail, 'cause who wants an old ****, when they can have Big Nancy? :eek:

PangQuan

08-02-2005, 11:40 AM

do some sort of computer related fraudulent activity. Go to a white collar pen. Then you can play tennis and grow flowers as well.

GreenCloudCLF

11-05-2005, 07:53 AM

The following TRUE story I stole from yahoo.com

Death Row escape '100 percent human error'
Officials 'embarrassed' by inmate's flight; jury, victims' families scared

-----------------
HOUSTON - Jurors and victims’ relatives fear they might be targets of a death row inmate who freed himself from handcuffs and walked out of a county jail in civilian clothes.

Convicted killer Charles Victor Thompson remained at large Saturday, authorities said. Thompson, 35, fooled at least four jail employees when he walked out of the Harris County Jail on Thursday.

“This was 100 percent human error; that’s the most frustrating thing about it,” sheriff’s spokesman Lt. John Martin said Friday. “There were multiple failures. There were several points where it could have been prevented.”

“As a department, we’re embarrassed about this,” said Chief Deputy Danny Billingsley. “We’re going to find out what happened and we’re going to fix it.”

Martin said investigators were trying to determine if he had inside help.

Victims' relatives go into hiding
Several relatives of Thompson’s victims — his ex-girlfriend and her boyfriend — went into hiding or agreed to police protection, the Houston Chronicle reported.

“He can make people believe he is the most innocent man in the world,” said Wynona Donaghy, mother of victim Dennise Hayslip. “If somebody is helping him, they don’t realize how dangerous he is.”

Cathy Lange, who served on a resentencing jury that recommended the death penalty for Thompson on Oct. 28, said she was terrified when she learned of Thompson’s escape.

“I was shaking,” Lange told the Chronicle. “I went all over the house making sure that all the windows were locked.”

Lange said she later decided that Thompson would be more concerned with escaping than hunting down jurors, but she had spoken to other jurors who also were worried.

Thompson was condemned in 1999 for the shooting deaths a year earlier of Hayslip, 39, and Darren Keith Cain, 30. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ordered he be resentenced and on Oct. 28 a new jury again recommended the death penalty. Thompson was being held in the county jail pending his transfer back to prison.

Fake ID facilitates escape
On Thursday, Thompson claimed he had an appointment with his lawyer and was taken to a meeting room. However, the visitor was not Thompson’s attorney. Martin said investigators were questioning the visitor but wouldn’t give details.

After the visitor left, Thompson removed his handcuffs and his bright orange prison jumpsuit and got out of a prisoner’s booth that should have been locked. He then left wearing a dark blue shirt, khaki pants and white tennis shoes, carrying a fake identification badge and claiming to work for the Texas Attorney General’s office.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
---------------------------

Should have killed him faster

cam

11-05-2005, 11:57 AM

Tough question, I guess it depends on the circumstances.
I wonder though, say you're a murderer and you know that you will get the death penalty if apprehended, won't that make you even more dangerous, more determined not to get caught.

Radhnoti

11-06-2005, 07:43 AM

I support the death penalty. I believe it's existance deters serious crime. I know you can go out and show me a million "official studies" that it doesn't...but I feel most those are biased. Look at Singapore or other countries where you're guaranteed death for serious crime.
How about the way it aids the rule of law? Some victims families will settle for nothing less than the death of their loved one's attacker. If they don't feel society and it's laws will give them what they need would vigilantism not increase?
Or how about the possibility that it limits the severity of the crime? An armed robber is in a bank. If he gets caught he's going to jail for a LONG time, what keeps him from taking out all potential witnesses to his crime? Pulling the trigger puts him (potentially) on death row, it ups the stakes.

It's a common sense answer, to me, that the death penalty is a deterrent.

Radplaiddude

11-06-2005, 07:54 AM

What does this have to do with Kung Fu??????

Wong Fei Hong

11-06-2005, 09:16 AM

:rolleyes: I was about to write i beleive that the death penalty is correct if you know the guy WAS definately guilty, but man , i had a change of heart in the last second a my finger touched the keyb.

So my answer is , i dont believe in the death penalty because all life is sacred.

As for that statement about saddam hussein in the poll , then according to history , america should be all put to death ? for acts of terrorism against 23 countries since world war 2?

Wong Fei Hong

11-06-2005, 09:22 AM

http://expage.com/notowar4

just thought i would post this, to explain my previous post.
Its not the only page of its kind

TaiChiBob

11-06-2005, 10:05 AM

Greetings..

In the hands of the vengeful, the prideful, the zealots, the fanatics (i hope no one assumes i am speaking of the Bush administration, it should be obvious).. the death-penalty could be expanded to cover much more than is now intended.. so, be careful what you ask for, it may someday be turned on you..

Be well

Ben Gash

11-07-2005, 03:40 AM

I'm against the death penalty for various reasons, personal, spiritual, intellectual and political.
The bottom line is that capital punishment is entirely ineffective as a deterrent. In the 20 years after Canada scrapped the death penalty the murder rate dropped significantly. Why? I'll discuss that a bit later. There is no real effective detterrent to murder in the West as A) At it's core it's not something you can deter. Murderers are largely thinking about the moment and the small picture, usually fuelled by anger or survival instinct. The law and the consequences are far from their minds. B ) Detection rates are TERRIBLE. How many crimes go unsolved and unpunished? The majority I would say (if you include those that are never reported). Somebeody mentioned Singapore, but this is a small, cramped island with a high conviction rate. If the chances are you're not going to get caught, then how is any legal censure a deterrent? If you want to reduce violent crime, CATCH MORE VIOLENT CRIMINALS.
Why did the murder rate go down in Canada? How come Texas re-introduced the death penalty, yet now executes a higher proportion of it's population than most states? Because the death penalty sets a bad example. It says it is possible to make judgements on the value of human life, and some people's lives are less valuable because they cause a problem for the state (this thinking was carried to it's logical extreme in Germany). It is then only a short leap in logic to thinking that if someone is causing YOU a problem, then their life is less valuable than yours. Think about it, the US is one of the few remaining countries in the developed world to retain capital punishment, yet it has BY FAR the highest murder rate, so obviously the system isn't working.
Capital punishment is not about justice, it is about revenge. It's saying I want someone to pay in kind for what happened. Indeed, people do pay in kind. The killers family suffer as the victims family. What crime did the children of a convicted killer commit to be punished so? Capital punishment brings you down to the level of the criminal. It shows no higher ideal whatsoever, it simply says "you exerted your will over another because you could, and now we will exert our will over you because we can". This is why most civilised countries have long ago abandoned it. People felt that it was no more than state endorsed murder. You cannot combat evil by doing evil yourself .
(OK, I try to keep religion to a minimum here, but I did say I had spiritual objections to it)
Romans 12 v19-21 "Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath: for it is written "vengeance is Mine, I will repay" says the Lord.
Therefore "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head"
Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."
As with many aspects of the Christian faith, this is by no means easy in practice (we're only human after all) , but it does discuss key issues such as setting a good example, not acting out of revenge, and addressing social inequality as a means to reducing crime, because;
Capital punishment is socially devisive. Most people on death row are either black or of below normal IQ (indeed, from my own country's past, most people hanged in the 20th century would now be classified as having learning disabilities). This inequality in itself shows that there is something desparately wrong with the system.
The real problem with the death penalty debate (indeed debate in general) is that it gets bogged down with issues that are related, but not really relevant. Poor clear up rates, a flawed court system, ineffective sentencing and problems in prisons are their own issues, yet they often cause people to go "oh, everything is terrible, we need the death penalty." As for the "3 squares and a TV" argument, if prison was so great why do A) people try so hard not to go there and B ) more than half of the people serving life terms in this country (which usually means a 20-30 year minimum) attempt suicide (often successfully) ?

Christopher M

11-07-2005, 04:50 AM

I support the death penalty.

How can a libertarian justify giving the state the power to kill its citizens? Surely this is the most intrusive power the state could possibly execute.

Mr Punch

11-07-2005, 05:03 AM

Another problem with the death penalty, especially addressing those of you like Dale Dugas, who have said something like murderers, rapists, people who beat or abuse women or children etc should all get the chop, is that that will cause more murder! If I beat my wife to within an inch of her life, and I think I'm gonna get fried the same as if I'd killed her, I may as well finish the job and try to cover it up properly... same with rape/abuse.

So it would have to be only for murderers, and then as I said before, apart from all of the other logical and moral arguments, I don't want to let these people off: I want to study them, and make them bargain every day of their lives in prison for the rights that normal people take for granted, like three squares, by working their asses off like anyone else... that way they can actually learn some direct responsibility.

Radhnoti

11-08-2005, 06:01 PM

Christopher M - "How can a libertarian justify giving the state the power to kill its citizens? Surely this is the most intrusive power the state could possibly execute."

I'm aware that I'm not in the libertarian majority on this one. Note that the people I'm referring to have violated the second part of the "libertarian philosophy", they failed to respect the RIGHT of others to make their own choices...in fact they took away ALL choice by taking their life. Or look at it this way, is it appropriate that the victims loved ones are taxed to care for the murderers needs in prison for the rest of his/her life? If (guaranteed) banishment from society were an option I suppose I'd embrace it...

I'm more of a libertarian in the Neal Boortz vein. :D

Christopher M

11-08-2005, 10:33 PM

I'm aware that I'm not in the libertarian majority on this one.

Well, I think alot of American and LP style libertarians would agree with you. But the broader tradition of 'classical liberalism' probably generally wouldn't.

they failed to respect the RIGHT of others to make their own choices...in fact they took away ALL choice by taking their life.

Sure, but (i) two wrongs don't make a right, and (ii) a wrong by the citizen being replaced by a wrong by the state definitely doesn't make a right.

is it appropriate that the victims loved ones are taxed to care for the murderers needs in prison for the rest of his/her life?

No, but (i) all evidence suggests that the death penalty is more rather than less expensive than the alternatives, and (ii) there are alternatives. Personally, I don't think the prison system should cost a single cent of public funds. It has a substantial workforce as its disposal; it would not be difficult to use it to generate at least enough productivity to cover costs.

GreenCloudCLF

12-12-2005, 08:12 PM

What do you guys think about this?

http://www.governor.ca.gov/govsite/pdf/press_release_2005/Williams_Clemency_Statement.pdf

Kaitain(UK)

12-13-2005, 02:53 AM

As others have said, mistakes can and (most importantly) have been made in the legal process, and these mistakes have lead to the execution of an innocent person. With such evidence, how can there can be justification for a death penalty?

Emotive arguments like "if my daughter was _____, then I'd want the person who did it to die" don't sweep away the arguments against a state killing it's own citizens.

The death penalty has not proven to be a deterrent to murderers - the figures back that up. As a punishment it has terrible finality to it - so when subsequent evidence comes to light that proves a person innocent, there is no recourse for justice.

All moral arguments aside, ultimately this comes to the core question of "what if we're wrong?"

Demolition Man had it right....

Mega_Fist

12-13-2005, 04:47 AM

I said the third option, but keep in mind that I categorize rape, murder, molestation .

You think people should be executed for molestation!?

TaiChiBob

12-13-2005, 06:07 AM

Greetings..

It is inconsistent to decree murder as a crime punishable by state sanctioned murder. It is the easy way out for the criminal who would otherwise face a life of hardship and incarceration. Sure, there is the arguement that prison life is not so bad, that's our fault for not insisting on tough prison conditions. I do not condone inhumane conditions, but certainly a situation where the convicted felons are required to support themselves.

Personally, i favor a geographic isolation where rudimentary tools are provided and the convicts must scratch out their survival from the land. The isolation would include no interference from the authorities, they would live or die by their own hand. This may seem brutal but it is a last opportunity to self-govern and experience a society of similar personalities. Video monitoring of the convicts would provide valuable insights into the processes of criminal behavior. Tools and shelter would vary from site to site depending on the nature of the crimes.. but, no electricity, no radio or TV or newspapers and magizines.. the convicts are isolated from society.. There exists technology that would permit tamper-proof collars that would contain prisoners within certain boundaries.. fatal if tampered with or if the prisoner tries to escape.

This leaves open the option to release a wrongfully convicted prisoner or consider a release in the event that there is quantifiable evidence of responsible and socially acceptable self-governing.. in other words, prisoners that show they can devise and conform to a socially appropriate model could be considered as reformed.

To the degree that it is wrong to take a life in a criminal act, it is equally wrong to use death as a tool for justice.. no one has the right to take the life of another, not even by a majority consensus.. remember, by majority consensus the Third Reich killed 6 millon Jews and the Colonial Americans burned witches and herded Native Americans into "Reservations".. Majority consensus has a checkered past. It is ignorantly self-righteous to believe that anyone has the right to terminate the existence of another, for any reason. Once a murderer is captured and isolated the social need for protection is met. In the defense of self and others, it may be necessary to terminate someone, but.. only where no other option is readily apparent.

There is no justification for the use of death as a tool for justice.. it only confirms that the sanctity of life is no more than a social tool.. used for crime or revenge. It devalues humanity. Life is not a bargaining tool for social manipulation or control, that is absurd.. and, the arguement that it is cheaper to execute someone than incarcerate them is not only wrong, it begins to put a price on life (a really slippery slope)..

Imagine the scenario where YOU have been convicted of a capitol crime you didn't commit.. it IS possible.

Be well.. and, do no harm..

Dark Knight

12-13-2005, 08:49 AM

Should this guy live?
__________________________________________________ _____

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tookie
From wikipedia.com:

[Williams said that he "didn't want to leave any witnesses." Williams also said he killed Owens "because he was white and he was killing all white people." Coward claims that Williams bragged about killing Owens.

Williams said, "You should have heard the way he sounded when I shot him." Williams then made gurgling or growling noises and laughed about Owens' death.]

The Murders

Williams at age 29 Williams was convicted for the murders of Albert Owens, Tsai-Shai Yang,Yen-I Yang, and Yee Chen Lin, which took place in 1979 during two separate robberies. According to the conviction, during the robberies Williams shot Owens twice in the back and shot the Yang family up close with a shotgun, at point-blank range.

Albert Owens

According to court transcripts, late on the evening of Tuesday, February 27, 1979, Stanley Williams introduced his friend Alfred Coward, a.k.a. "Blackie," to a man named "Darryl". A short time later, Darryl, driving a brown station wagon, drove Williams to the residence of James Garrett. Coward followed in his 1969 Cadillac. Stanley Williams often stayed at the Garrett residence and kept some of his belongings there, including a 12 gauge shotgun. Upon arriving at the Garrett residence, Williams went inside. About ten minutes later, Williams returned carrying a twelve-gauge shotgun...

The four men then discussed where they could go in Pomona to make some money. Williams left the other men for a brief period of time. When he returned, he had a .22 caliber handgun, which he also put in the station wagon. Williams then told Coward, Darryl and Sims they should go to Pomona. In response, Coward and Sims entered the Cadillac, Williams and Darryl entered the station wagon, and both cars traveled on the freeway toward Pomona.

Shortly thereafter, the two vehicles exited the freeway near Whittier Boulevard. They drove to a Stop-N-Go market and, at Williams' direction, Darryl and Sims entered the store, presumably to rob it. At the time, Darryl was armed with the .22 caliber handgun Williams had previously placed in the station wagon. The clerk at the Stop-N-Go market, Johnny Garcia, testified that he had just finished mopping the floor when he noticed the station wagon and four black men at the door to the market. Sims states that he and Darryl walked in the market. Sims walked to the back of the market as Darryl approached the clerk and asked for a cigarette. Sims states he then "walked back from the back 'cause there was somebody in there and just walked out the door and got back the car with, uh, Blackie. And then we left."

Williams reportedly became upset that Darryl and Sims did not commit the robbery. Williams told the men that they would find another place to rob. Williams said that at the next location all of them would go inside and he would show them how to commit a robbery.

Coward and Sims then followed Williams and Darryl to the 7-Eleven market located at 10437 Whittier Boulevard, in Pico Rivera, California. The store clerk, twenty-six year old Albert Lewis Owens, was sweeping the store parking lot. When Darryl and Sims entered the 7-Eleven, Owens put the broom and dust pan he was using on the hood of his car and followed them into the store. Williams and Coward followed Owens into the store.

As Darryl and Sims walked to the counter area to take money from the register, Williams walked behind Owens, pulling the sawed-off shotgun from under his jacket and told Owens to "shut up and keep walking."

While pointing the shotgun at Owens' back, Williams directed him to a back storage room. Not long after, Williams blew out a security camera and then killed Owens, shooting him twice in the back at point blank range as he lay prone on the storage room floor.

The pathologist who conducted the autopsy on Owens testified that the end of the barrel was "very close" to Owens' body when he was shot. One of the two wounds was described as "a near contact wound."

After Williams murdered Owens, he, Darryl, Coward and Sims fled in the two cars and returned home to Los Angeles. The robbery netted Williams and his associates approximately $120.00. Once back in Los Angeles, Sims asked Williams why he shot Owens. Williams said that he "didn't want to leave any witnesses." Williams also said he killed Owens "because he was white and he was killing all white people." Coward claims that Williams bragged about killing Owens.

Williams said, "You should have heard the way he sounded when I shot him." Williams then made gurgling or growling noises and laughed about Owens' death.
The Yang family

The Yang family, who were immigrants from Taiwan, included husband Yen-Yi Yang and wife Tsai-Shai Yang who were well above their sixties.

One of their children, Yee-Chen Lin had recently joined them from Taiwan. The family worked together operating and maintaining a motel called the Brookhaven in South Central Los Angeles.

At approximately 5:00 am on March 11, 1979, court transcripts show that Stanley Williams entered the Brookhaven Motel at 10411 South Vermont Avenue. After entering the public lobby area, Williams broke down the door that led to the private office. Once inside the private office, Williams, using his shotgun, killed seventy-six year old Yen-I Yang; Williams also killed Yang's wife, sixty-three year old Tsai-Shai Yang; lastly, Williams killed Yang's daughter, forty-three year old Yee-Chen Lin.

Williams then removed the currency from the cash register and fled the location.

Robert Yang, son of Yen-Yi and Tsai-Shai, was asleep with his wife in their bedroom at the Brookhaven Motel when he was awakened by the sound of somebody breaking down the door to the motel's office. This sound was immediately followed by the sound of his mother or sister screaming, followed by gun shots. When Robert entered the motel office he found his mother, his sister, and his father had all been shot. Robert observed that the cash register was open and money was missing. It was later determined that the robbery of the Brookhaven Motel and the murder of the three members of the Yang family netted Stanley Williams approximately one hundred dollars.

According to the forensic pathologist, Yen-I Yang suffered two shotgun wounds. One shotgun wound was to his left arm and abdomen. This wound shredded Yen-I's left arm, fractured his ribs, and shattered his spleen, right kidney, bowel and large vessels. The other shotgun wound was to the lower left chest. This wound also fractured ribs and shattered the spleen, right kidney, bowel and large vessels. Moreover, a plastic shotgun shot container and associated wadding were recovered from the base of Yen-I's liver. The pathologist further explained that both of the Yen-I Yang's wounds were inflicted when the end of the muzzle was only feet from Yen-I's body.

Yee-Chen Lin was shot once in the upper left face area at a distance of a few feet. She was transported from the scene by paramedics to Centinela Hospital where she died at 7:36 am.

Tsai-Shai was shot twice at close range. The pathologist explained that one shotgun wound was to the coccyx or tail bone. Based on the physical characteristics of the wound and the fact that wadding, along with the plastic shot container, were recovered just beneath the skin of this wound, the muzzle of the gun must have been just inches from her body when she was shot and killed. The other shotgun wound was to the anterior abdomen with the charge entering at the navel. At trial, the pathologist testified that the muzzle of the gun was a few feet from Tsai-Shai's body when the shot that caused this wound was fired. Williams referred to the victims in conversations with friends as "Buddha-heads", although there was no evidence that the murders were religiously motivated.

Williams was convicted of the murders of all four individuals and sentenced to death. In addition, associates in prison recall him claiming to have murdered police. He is also believed to have ordered killings inside the prison. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Williams

Mortal1

12-13-2005, 10:10 AM

LIberals are only for killing if it is an unborn child. If it is some peice of sh it who killed 4 people he should live. What a bunch of hypocrittes.

Ben Gash

12-13-2005, 03:56 PM

And how many times were you nominated for the Nobel prize mortal? He was 6 times for his work with anti violence groups.

Mortal1

12-13-2005, 04:25 PM

lol The noble piece prize has meant nothing for years. lolo They gave this award to Arafat. It is a known joke. Are you kidding?

He also executed 4 innocent people and threw acid on gaurds. That is why we should have killed this peice of sh it years ago.

And he was defended by the best attorney's for free. He was convicted and should be dead. We shouldn't even be having this convo.

PangQuan

12-13-2005, 04:41 PM

give a bad man enough time and he will surely repent for his sins.

this does not take away from the act in which he commited.

yet if a man is truly rehabilitated does he still deserve death?

and if so, how can we tell if someone actual does change thier ways?

the thing with this case is the clemecy was based around evidence of facts surrounding an incident many years ago. past evidence does not dictate present behavior. but it does proove of a past deed.

its a legality issue. he did commit the crime, he is guilty. but is he the same man?

for the record i am pro. but i perhaps would have said free him. Of course i cannot morally make a decision i would stick by unless i were to review all of the evidence, facts, and situations involved up to this point. so who knows, maybe i would have hit the killswitch myself. i do not know.

GreenCloudCLF

12-14-2005, 07:44 AM

While I believe the receving of a Nobel Peace Pize may be impressive, ANYONE can be nomiated by submitting your name, with a certain number of people signing a petition, hell we can nominate Pang Quan today if enough Kung-Fu guys will sign the petition...

PangQuan

12-14-2005, 09:18 AM

I think that is a very good idea.

Lets nominate PangQuan.

He is such a great guy, he deserves it.

HERE HERE!!

CoRWiN

01-12-2006, 12:00 PM

One aspect of this issue i would like to touch on is this concept of "punishment". Our entire criminal system is based on a concept of reformation, which has failed pretty much miserably from the dawn of its existence. The idea that capital punishment is their to appease family members and to teach the criminal a lesson is just silly. Capital punishment is merely preventing the crime from ever being repeated by the criminal. These criminals have been deemed unreformable and would be a complete waste of our resources if sent to prison.

Now what if the criminals could be put to work in labor camps and made to pay for themselves... hmmm sounds a lot like fascism at it's best. Hard to imagine that any Libertarian would propose that. These labor camps would be a drain on the economy offering unfairly advantagous prices of whatever labor they were providing, regardless of the fact that they could escape and kill again.

Ok what about their rights as a human being. Well the human they killed had rights as well. Does not every action need an equal and opposite reaction. I'm a firm believer you lose ur rights by not acknowleding the rights of others, simple logic "DO UNTO OTHERS A YOU WOULD HAVE DONE UNTO YOU". If you were to take a philosophy course you would learn that this concept "The Golden Rule" is the highest level of moral code. By criminals cognitivaly denying rights to their fellow humans, they deny them to themselves. The "State" aka 'The People" have the right in fact the Responsibility to every human being to meet out the ultimately sad but necessary reaction.

Finally for all of you who say "well if capital punishment is so great why isn't it working?" here's an easy answer ...YOU. Our criminals have no fear of death with the amount of red tape needed to actually get through before if ever they are sentenced. Punishment should be quick, decisive and here's the key ... Public. Without the direct correlation of murder = death the punishment is wasted. It must also be Uniform. Read any book on raising children or Sun Tzu's Art of War for that matter. Our current method is a complete joke.

And by the way for all that money saved if done properly we could invest it all into education. Greater education leads to healthier happier lives. Healthier happier lives = less murder. So the answer would be exponentially good.

Green Cloud

01-12-2006, 12:26 PM

Tou che Corwin, In couldn't agree with you more. Only problem I have with capital punishment is when an innocent person gets executed. How do we get around that??

TaiChiBob

01-12-2006, 12:47 PM

Greetings..

This once great nation now administers justice with political precision.. we claim a defense of human rights as we invade Iraq and slay innocent civilians.. we claim protecting our national interests by countering WMDs in Iraq (uh.. what?).. and we are among the last civilized (?) nations to still use the death penalty.. "might does not make right", only the wise use of it can do that.. There are many more human rights "hot-spots" that the US takes no action on.. this nation now acts only when it serves its own interests..

I have offered economic and efficient solutions to the death penalty in previous posts.. beyond that, the desire for vengance is simply blood-lust..

I do not believe any of us has the right to terminate the physical existance of another that is not an immediate and active threat to others. Self-defense only.

There is no "justice" in killing people. To tell someone it is wrong to kill, then kill them is a laughable contradiction.. it further points out the endless contradictions and inconsistencies of public policy. In the US, as my own attorney asked, it's "how much justice can you afford"?

Be well..

PangQuan

01-12-2006, 01:36 PM

its all about innocent until proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt.

perhaps some people are easily persuaded beyond the shadow of a doubt, more than they should be.

the way i see it. if a person is truly innocent then there is no real evidence to prove them guilty.

yet innocent people are found to be guilty on occasion.

this shows that the people convicting the innocent are not properly doing thier job. or the innocent was set up with false evidence led to mislead the jury and judge.

so when an innocent person is convicted of a crime they did not commit, this conviction is in itself a crime. if the conviction leads to the death penalty then the conviction crime, as i see it, is a form of murder.

its a cycle that wont seem to end. not as long as we have human biastness placing judgment on others.

CoRWiN

01-12-2006, 05:37 PM

I admit that the wrongful persecution of an innocent is a difficult issue to tackle. I'll give a couple justifications, but it must be taken in consideration I believe that capital punishment is the only fesabile deterrent to crimes against someones right to life. Any reasons i give then are more of a "help me sleep at night" approach.

A. What's the price of an innocent? Is an innocent death gaurenteed worth more then 1 possible death in the future? ... how about 5, or 10, what's the number? If a murder is let go it is statistically likely that he will kill again. And theirs no gaurentee that the original criminal was innocent to begin with. All i can trust in is a system that offers fair trails and with technology increasing at a rapid rate I am ever more confident in the science behind crimineology.

B. hmm i had more but got wrapped into a law and order episode i'll try again later...

Here's some thoughts for taiChiBob,

All humans have rights even Iraqis. In many of your earlier entries you had an undertone of morality realitivity, the idea that a different culture can not be judged in terms of right or wrong from the bias of another. The same kind of thinking is EXACTLY what prevents America from protecting the rights of more humans all over the world. For instance when the Cameron Rouge was carving out a place in history for mass genocide in Cambodia. Now i'm not saying we're in Iraq to save the people there, to me that's all the justification we need though. Oil, revenge, justice, religous difference, sure there are many issue that resulted in the invasion. Do YOU know the main reason though? I sure couldn't tell you, but i do know Saddam was a bad man, a bad man in a bad neck of the woods, he had to go.

I do agree with you though that America should be doin more, i'm talking Korea, China's Human right violations, hell what about Northern Ireland. But we must pick and choose our battles. Would you have us wage war on the world? Sounds like contradictory ideologies.

One more thing, what is really so unnatural about killing? I wonder if Japanese martial arts take a different stance on this. Buddhism with its extremism towards lot ending life completly misses Buddhas teachings on balance and harmony. The Japanese on the other hand with roots in samurai tradtion accept death as a fact of life. Please give your thoughts.

PangQuan

01-12-2006, 07:10 PM

when you study an art of martial background, you study the art of killing.

there are martial art that do not focus on killing. it may be a derivitive, but not complete. Martial art is meant to kill. these type of martial art are for sport. they leave out the essence of why the martial art was developed in the first place. protection. protection at all cost. to have the ability to fully protect you must be able to kill. you must be able to pull the trigger. if you cannot, you are just exersizing.

the stipulation within this is knowing when to kill and when not to kill.

in the heat of battle, true battle, you must be willing to kill on an instant, with no thoughts of good or evil.

does this mean when you are in self defense you must kill? no. does this mean when one tries to take your life you must kill? no.

however, if the only way to end the oppression is to kill, due to the fact you cannot subdue your assailaint other wise, it would be foolish not to pull that trigger.

this when applied to the court system follows along the same line. if rehabilitation is a possibility it must be the first course of action, but when there is not enough proof to say this person can be changed, you are given one alternative. life in prisonment, or death.

so now the question is when do we decide between these two? when can another man truly decide that prison is not enough. that this person must die. is it based soley on vengance for the wronged. or is there some higher reason this persons flame must be extinguished? in prison will they be able to committ more of the same crime? possibly.

should the guard with the wife, kid, dog, mortgage, and church be subjected to an individual who still may possess the ability and desire to kill another? I do not think so. In such a case if an individual is believed to be beyond rehabilitation, and is also believed to not be safe to guards, as well as other inmates, then this person has proven that there is no way to subdue your assailant beyond the removal of his life.

execution has always been and i believe it will always be. has execution ever been fool proof? No. will it ever be full proof? I highly doubt it.

this is a situation that has no real answer.

no real answer i can see except this;

we are all man. in this world of man there is no perfection. we carry on as we will, and we will make the decisions we feel are the best at the time. corruption and greed will forever be a part of this world of man, and along with this taint there will never be true peace. For this is the nature of man, it is our weakest as well as our strongest attribute. We will error and we will wrong, through this taint there will be those who's will's shall be strengthend and who's morals will be hightend.

The good along with the bad i say.

balance