OT: This is why I will always oppose the death penalty

[SimonM]

Right here. (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/03/11/manitoba-kyle-unger-new-trial-murder.html)

[1bad65]

I was pro-death penalty for years.

The Yogurt Shop Murders in Austin, Tx changed my opinion. After the travesties of that case, I can never again support the death penalty.

Simon, you should look up info on it. You will be stunned.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I only favour the death penalty when its a case of someone really ****ing me off and then, I'll do it myself !
:mad:

[SimonM]

That would be a sadly common story in Canada if we had the death penalty. There have been many wrongful murder convictions that were overturned ten to thirty years after the fact here.

[sanjuro_ronin]

That would be a sadly common story in Canada if we had the death penalty. There have been many wrongful murder convictions that were overturned ten to thirty years after the fact here.

Way too many.
Typically the case of rushing for an aprehension due to public pressure and focusing on the first person they get that doesn't have a decent alibi.
Disgraceful.
And yes, being at home alone, when you live alone is an actual alibi.

[1bad65]

That would be a sadly common story in Canada if we had the death penalty. There have been many wrongful murder convictions that were overturned ten to thirty years after the fact here.

In the Yogurt Shop case, a picture surfaced (before the trials) with one of the suspects who 'confessed' with a cop holding a gun to his head in the interrogation room. And he still got convicted!!!!

And this happened in Austin, one of the most liberal cities in the US.

[1bad65]

Another thing is that there have been many people released from prison after they confessed to a crime they were innocent of. The reason they confessed is that they were threatened with the death penalty if it went to trial, so they confessed and plea bargained.

[SimonM]

In the Yogurt Shop case, a picture surfaced (before the trials) with one of the suspects who 'confessed' with a cop holding a gun to his head in the interrogation room. And he still got convicted!!!!

Ok, that is sufficient for me to be incensed.

[1bad65]

Ok, that is sufficient for me to be incensed.

That's the tip of the iceberg....

This is one of those cases where many of those involved in prosecuting the case should be sent to prison.

[David Jamieson]

That would be a sadly common story in Canada if we had the death penalty. There have been many wrongful murder convictions that were overturned ten to thirty years after the fact here.

actually less than a dozen, compared to hundreds that have been upheld.

not to mention, you don't have to worry about death penalties in Canada as they don't exist here and have been abolished for almost 50 years now.

And it speaks to the integrity of the justice system to review these cases and overturn them, it doesn't indicate inadequacy in our system at all. If our system was inadequate, they wouldn't review convictions, they wouldn't have appeal courts and so on and so forth.

We are lucky to live in Canada. Very little to complain about big picture-wise.

[SanHeChuan]

I don't think of death as a negative event. It just is. So if somebody dies for any reason, I don't care. :eek: Die now or die later, what does it really matter.

A perversion of justice though, should still be corrected, even if posthumously.

[David Jamieson]

I don't think of death as a negative event. It just is. So if somebody dies for any reason, I don't care. :eek: Die now or die later, what does it really matter.

A perversion of justice though, should still be corrected, even if posthumously.

once you have a kid, you won't feel that way. anyone you are close to, you won't feel that way about, if given a choice to give up your life for another for no other reason than to give it up at the whim of the killer, would you do it in quiet acceptance?

[Lucas]

i approve the death penalty, only when there is positive proof of guilt.

John Wayne Gacy for instance. He definately was guilty, and MORE than deserved to be executed. He got what he deserved, and I would have pulled the trigger myself.

i dont agree with execution under any other circumstances.

[SimonM]

I would see a million Gaceys live (languishing in jail in perpetuity) in order to preserve the life of one Guy Paul Morin.

[bawang]

as long as western countries can afford to keep murderers living in cells i say let them live unless they volunteer, have mercy

but sometimes i feel a thousand daths is not enough for someone like jeffery dhalmers


one complain i have is canada is too lax on youth laws, young offernders act is a joke, in high school i know people from g-lock and murda squad that kiled people and got released in 2 years

[Lucas]

I would see a million Gaceys live (languishing in jail in perpetuity) in order to preserve the life of one Guy Paul Morin.

thats why i only believe in the execution based on PROOF. not evidence that concludes in a guilty sentance. but cold, hard, proof.

i would rather have the gacy's dead and the other guy not sentanced to death because there is no un deniable proof.

this is not the way things are done for sure.

if its one or the other i would say no death sentance, but if things were done MY way( :D ) I would like that better.

[Lucas]

i understand where you are coming from, though. and I agree with you.

but i still prefer my method :p

[1bad65]

Dahmer died a horrible death. Alot worse than he would have died by the hands of the state.

A famous serial killer in Texas, Kenneth McDuff, could not wait to get a lethal injection. He had been diagnosed with cirrosis of the liver and was terrified of dying that way. Too bad the state gave him the easier way out.

[Lucas]

on the other side of the card, are those guys that are just fine living to old age on someone elses dime.

its a big spectrum, but ya. i would totally kill john wayne gacy. that guy and others like him are bad.

bad.

[Lucas]

wait a second

cant you still be hanged for horse theft in texas?

[bawang]

for some special criminals like john wayne gracy i think maybe ling chi is good

[1bad65]

wait a second

cant you still be hanged for horse theft in texas?

No. But you can use deadly force to protect your property at night.

[Drake]

I think the American justice system, as a whole, is very good. While it seems unfair at times, it does, typically, go in with the defendant presumed innocent. There are anomalies, as 1Bad pointed out, that might make us question our system. However, I would say considering the sheer volume of cases nationwide, our ratio is pretty **** good. It's not the justice system, or the death penalty causing problems. It's corrupt people.

[GunnedDownAtrocity]

once you have a kid, you won't feel that way. anyone you are close to, you won't feel that way about, if given a choice to give up your life for another for no other reason than to give it up at the whim of the killer, would you do it in quiet acceptance?

i was going to say the same thing. thinking of my daughter is the main reason i get nervous before climbing a tower. nine years ago i doubt id have given two ****s.

[Becca]

I think the American justice system, as a whole, is very good. While it seems unfair at times, it does, typically, go in with the defendant presumed innocent. There are anomalies, as 1Bad pointed out, that might make us question our system. However, I would say considering the sheer volume of cases nationwide, our ratio is pretty **** good. It's not the justice system, or the death penalty causing problems. It's corrupt people.
Maybe not so much in the late 1980s through the 1990s....

Tim Masters (http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/NEWS01/71107031) - convicted of killing a woman because he saw her body but didn't report it. He was a 15-year-old kid at the time and was convicted a decade later. Then rotten in prison for another decade. The prosecutors are all trial judges now. All they got for mishandeling his case was centured....

[Drake]

Maybe not so much in the late 1980s through the 1990s....

Tim Masters (http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/NEWS01/71107031) - convicted of killing a woman because he saw her body but didn't report it. He was a 15-year-old kid at the time and was convicted a decade later. Then rotten in prison for another decade. The prosecutors are all trial judges now. All they got for mishandeling his case was centured....

One case. How many go through the justice system on a daily basis? What other circumstances were present in this case that we didn't know about? What was it that led the police to arrest him? What did his attorney recommend? Did he admit to killing the person? What evidence was against him? To what degree was the case mishandled? There are a lot of ways to make mistakes during trials. Which ones were made? How did we learn from it?

Let's not simplify the situation, nor resort to lower level thinking by running with gut or anecdotal stories.

[SimonM]

thats why i only believe in the execution based on PROOF. not evidence that concludes in a guilty sentance. but cold, hard, proof.


That's the problem.

The standard for conviction is supposed to be PROOF.

Remember "innocent until proven guilty"?

Miscarriages happen anyway because of forced confessions, inexpert experts, mistaken witnesses and plain old-fashioned prejudice.

Another day, another Canadian who has likely been in Jail for 1.5 decades for nothing gets bail. (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2009/03/12/smith-inquiry.html)

[1bad65]

Didn't one of the Founding Fathers say something to the effect of 'It's better to let 100 guilty men go free than imprison 1 innocent man.'?

[Becca]

One case. How many go through the justice system on a daily basis? What other circumstances were present in this case that we didn't know about? What was it that led the police to arrest him? What did his attorney recommend? Did he admit to killing the person? What evidence was against him? To what degree was the case mishandled? There are a lot of ways to make mistakes during trials. Which ones were made? How did we learn from it?

Let's not simplify the situation, nor resort to lower level thinking by running with gut or anecdotal stories.
Badly mis handled. The only evidence was that Tim lived a few hundred feet from where the body was founf, his tracks passed close to the body, though they didn't approch it. There was fingerprint evidence that did not match his, Cloth fibers that didn't link to him. Both linked the body to her ex-boyfriend. It took them ten years to get to trial and they only won that by withholding the finger print evidence from the defense lawyer. This destroyed his Navy career. He's been out of prison for a little over a year and can't find a job.

This is one incident, but I found hundreds by doing a google search.

I'm not saying that death penalty isn't sometimes earned. But letting someone rot on death row because you want to make sure you didn't sentance san inocent to death? Even the justice system knows the practice is badly flawed. Fix it or stop using it all to gether.

[SimonM]

AFAIK every other democratic nation besides some US states have done away with the death penalty.

[Lucas]

and i agree with you guys.

but i also fully agree with the execution sentance of many individuals, such as mass murderers, serial killers, serial rapists, child molesters...and the like.

and there is many times a VERY clear difference between a sentance judged based on available evidence, where a jury has to make a call one way or the other with many times no clear case.

but some times, regardless of what some may think, cases can be VERY straight forward. John Wayne Gacy, again as an example. There are many others.

its these cases i fully support execution.

i dont expect anyone to understand.

im talking CLEAR lines. not vague shady ones.

[SimonM]

From a legal perspective there is not.

If a jury convicts anybody of any crime, according to the law in any country founded in the common law tradition, they are supposed to do so only because it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the individual is guilty. A jury is technically supposed to find not guilty if there is even a shred of doubt.

And yet the innocent routinely go to prison for murder.

There is no vindication in posthumous exhonoration.

[Lucas]

i think you know what i mean.

or do you think that for instance in the case of john wayne gacy that he was possibly innocent?

like AFTER they found all the bodies in his crawlspace?

[SimonM]

We can't make an exception for "perfect cases" when the assumption is that all convictions must be such to begin with.

[BoulderDawg]

From a legal perspective there is not.

If a jury convicts anybody of any crime, according to the law in any country founded in the common law tradition, they are supposed to do so only because it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the individual is guilty. A jury is technically supposed to find not guilty if there is even a shred of doubt.

And yet the innocent routinely go to prison for murder.

There is no vindication in posthumous exhonoration.

That's not exactly true nor is that concept rooted in common law.

The term normally used is "Reasonable doubt".

"Beyond a shadow" "Not guilty if there is even a shred of doubt" would apply to about 99% of the trials in America.

Example: A woman gets shot in her bedroom. It's her husband's gun, no sign of a break-in, the guy was having major problems with his wife, he had a history of violence, had threatened to kill her and had just taken out a 500K insurance policy on her. He tells the cops somebody came into his house, grabbed his gun, shot his wife and ran..........Of course, there will be doubt here because no one else was actually there and saw it. Under "Beyond the shadow" the DA probably would not even file charges. In fact the only way anyone would ever be convicted would be to get caught in the act.

[Drake]

Becca,
Like I said, I don't think the system has problems. It's people who corrupt the system.

If we were to get rid of the system, what would take its place?

[SimonM]

The same system used by every other democratic country on earth.

The one where the state does not kill criminals.

[Drake]

The same system used by every other democratic country on earth.

The one where the state does not kill criminals.

Just because a bunch of other people use a system doesn't make it right. Logical fallacy, bud.

Problem is, prisons are nearing max capacity, and it's really not showing that it helps criminals at all. Do we work to reform them and give them an education? Is that fair to law-abiding citizens who have to work for college, and then pay taxes to buy criminals their educations?

As for the death penalty... what is solved by it? Sure, a family is vindicated, but what does it accomplish? What other options do we have? Life in prison? Does that accomplish anything either? What impact does that have on the prison system, and what does that say about ability to handle criminals? Just put them somewhere because we really have no idea what else to do with them?

[Drake]

I know... I say we get back to shipping convicts to Australia! :D

[Becca]

Becca,
Like I said, I don't think the system has problems. It's people who corrupt the system.

If we were to get rid of the system, what would take its place?So a system created by people, managed by people, and corrupted by people isn't flawed?

As to what would take it's place: how about life sentances without parrol? That's what a death sentance amounts to when a death row inamte spends 30 or more years appealing his/her sentence anyway.....

[sanjuro_ronin]

I know... I say we get back to shipping convicts to Australia! :D

Or Kentucky if we really wanna punish them !

[GLW]

The old thing about juries being SUPPOSED to assume INNOCENT until PROVEN GUILTY (which is one of the major differences between the way the founders of the US setup the legal system and the British system they came from...) is the big problem.

First, Social Psychology research has shown that for the most part, people on juries unfortunately assume that the defendant is guilty or else the state would not have gone to the expense and hassle of bringing the case to court.

So...rather than assuming innocence and laying the burden of proof on the state, most people in the US flip that and assume guilt.

Now, this COULD be cured with teaching citizenship to every grade schooler through high school - and including things like burden of proof.

This can also be addressed in jury selection - I was in one of those and a number of people were dismissed because the defense attorney asked questions that in the end, revealed that those people were putting the burden of proof on the defendant instead of the state.

When they were dismissed, he pointed out that the defendant did not even have to mount any defense to win his case if the state had even one area where reasonable doubt existed....and THAT is the way it is supposed to work.

Case in point : it IS unfortunate but the original murder verdict on O.J. Simpson WAS correct. Not because he was not guilty. Rather because the burden of proof, being on the State of California, was botched and they did not prove him guilty beyond an reasonable doubt.

[SimonM]

British Common Law and it's derivatives assume innocence until proof of guilt.

[sanjuro_ronin]

British Common Law and it's derivatives assume innocence until proof of guilt.

Well, unless you are a suspected terrorist or a Brasilian electrician.

[David Jamieson]

Well, unless you are a suspected terrorist or a Brasilian electrician.

That's actually the bush/blair combo turnaround laws.

Completely unrelated to actual rule of law.

[BoulderDawg]

First, Social Psychology research has shown that for the most part, people on juries unfortunately assume that the defendant is guilty or else the state would not have gone to the expense and hassle of bringing the case to court.

Not only that but the way juries make decisions. Let's say the first vote they take is 10-2 in whichever direction. Well of course the people who vote 2 are going to be second guessing their vote. That's fine and I think the jury should have a day to discuss the case and revote several times. However in cases where you have a jury out for a week with one or two people holding up the verdict, undue pressure is put upon these people and they wear down and cave into the majority...this is not justice.

Juries should only have one day to make a decision. I've never been on a jury but I believe my mind would be made up on the first vote and would not change.

[SimonM]

SR and DJ: True and I think everybody was perfectly justified in their outrage over the incident. Truly a black mark on justice.

[Reverend Tap]

That's actually the bush/blair combo turnaround laws.

Completely unrelated to actual rule of law.

Except inasmuch as it exposes one of the inherent weaknesses thereof; that, with nothing more than just the wrong person sitting at the helm, the whole system can quickly and easily be subverted and turned on its head.

An issue that merits attention, IMO, as we don't know when the next "wrong person" will be elected.

[SimonM]

This is true. And it is also a very compelling argument for NOT killing people in custody.

[David Jamieson]

Except inasmuch as it exposes one of the inherent weaknesses thereof; that, with nothing more than just the wrong person sitting at the helm, the whole system can quickly and easily be subverted and turned on its head.

An issue that merits attention, IMO, as we don't know when the next "wrong person" will be elected.

I think a lot of things about the "system" were exposed during the terms of W.
We learned that rule of law can be put aside, we learned that unilateral war declaration by one nation on another is still done, we learned that the executive powers of the leaders of powerful countries are too broad. we learned that checks and balances don't actually exist and we learned that we live in an artificial democracy that can be taken away at any time by force or by indifference to the will of the people by the executive.

Totalitarian governments will be the way of the future if people don't get involved and remain apathetic in the fat countries.

[Lucas]

This is true. And it is also a very compelling argument for NOT killing people in custody.

unless of course they are john wayne gacy

:p :D

[SimonM]

Why give him an easy out?

Let him live a looooong life in a jail cell giving him a loooooong time to reflect on the things he did to get there is what I say.

[Lucas]

Why give him an easy out?

Let him live a looooong life in a jail cell giving him a loooooong time to reflect on the things he did to get there is what I say.

well see. for some people thats a horrible fate, to sit in jail and what not. but for others, its not that bad. they get to live. eat. watch tv. read. write letters. work out. play games. have friends. relationships.

sometimes its not the easy way out. its taking from them what they most desire to hold on to.

life.

[Lucas]

look at charles manson


oh he hated being imprisoned didint he?

not.

[Lucas]

also, just so you know, im kind of messing with you and playing devils advocate.

but i also believe what i say.

[BoulderDawg]

look at charles manson


oh he hated being imprisoned didint he?

not.

I always wondered what Charlie had.

Here's some little crazy dude out in the middle of a desert that had a harem of good looking women that would do whatever he wanted them to do.

[Lucas]

I always wondered what Charlie had.

Here's some little crazy dude out in the middle of a desert that had a harem of good looking women that would do whatever he wanted them to do.

lol, he had the magic pill

[SimonM]

I always wondered what Charlie had.



It's called large quantities of LSD and enough low key music industry connections to seem like a big-shot to naive people who were doped up on LSD.

[Lucas]

It's called large quantities of LSD and enough low key music industry connections to seem like a big-shot to naive people who were doped up on LSD.

dont spoil the magic man :mad:

[Reverend Tap]

well see. for some people thats a horrible fate, to sit in jail and what not. but for others, its not that bad. they get to live. eat. watch tv. read. write letters. work out. play games. have friends. relationships.

sometimes its not the easy way out. its taking from them what they most desire to hold on to.

life.

In all honesty, and I may well be very much in the minority on this, I couldn't give less of a sh*t if the people who get sent to jail are happy or miserable about it. To my mind, the point of imprisonment isn't, or perhaps more to the point shouldn't be, the long-term psychological punishment of the prisoner, but rather simply to keep them out of society and thus unable to continue in whatever antisocial acts they were committing. Same with execution, really (which I do not support for the reasons outlined in this thread). I mean, unless you're into the whole heaven/hell thing and believe they're headed for everlasting fire, a modern humane execution isn't a torturous punishment; indeed, many look upon death as a release.

I like that actual rapists, murderers and the like are kept from continuing to rape and murder. I couldn't care less if they're happy or not about their living accommodations. It's not like you're going to find one method of punishment that works on everybody, anyway.

[1bad65]

It's called large quantities of LSD and enough low key music industry connections to seem like a big-shot to naive people who were doped up on LSD.

That's about it. Also, all of his followers were missing something in their lives. It was Manson who filled that void. That's usually the case with cult leaders.

[Lucas]

In all honesty, and I may well be very much in the minority on this, I couldn't give less of a sh*t if the people who get sent to jail are happy or miserable about it. To my mind, the point of imprisonment isn't, or perhaps more to the point shouldn't be, the long-term psychological punishment of the prisoner, but rather simply to keep them out of society and thus unable to continue in whatever antisocial acts they were committing. Same with execution, really (which I do not support for the reasons outlined in this thread). I mean, unless you're into the whole heaven/hell thing and believe they're headed for everlasting fire, a modern humane execution isn't a torturous punishment; indeed, many look upon death as a release.

I like that actual rapists, murderers and the like are kept from continuing to rape and murder. I couldn't care less if they're happy or not about their living accommodations. It's not like you're going to find one method of punishment that works on everybody, anyway.


i think so far through this thread, im the minority here. so far it seems im the only person in favor of the death penalty.

thats okay though. its way cheaper to just kill the john wayne gacy's than to fatten them up for life. im glad he was executed.

even more so if i were to face someone that murdered, in cold blood, my child. a friends child, a brothers child. any child. ill kill the ******* myself.

[BoulderDawg]

As I've mentioned before, I've watched these prison documentaries. Most of the guys I see on those shows.......totally wack, mind is totally gone and no matter what they do they will never be able to function in society.

In the past a lot of these people would have ended up in mental institutions by the time they were teenagers. Now a days you have to be totally in another world to be committed so the only place left for these people is prison. Even then they can refuse medication if they so desire. I'm not so sure this is a good idea.

Death penality: You can't kill a man for being mentally ill.

[Lucas]

i can if hes john wayne gacy

:p


idc

BACK ME UP BAWANG YOU BUM!

[AJM]

I'm opposed to the death penalty for all the previously mentioned reasons.
That said, it took the greatest control not to kill jamie savage when I encountered him alone at 6 in the morning in the tunnels under Waterbury state hospital in Vermont. He killed my friend Eric's daughter Melissa.

[Baqualin]

Or Kentucky if we really wanna punish them !

Hey SJ!!!!...have you ever been down here....we grow great smoke:)
BQ

Also some of the best looking women in the US

[GLW]

Rev. Tap hit upon the big mental puzzle that is the Criminal Justice system. Exactly what IS the purpose of the sentence applied to a person found guilty of a crime?

Now, should the goal be justice and remuneration for the victim of the crime?

Should it be solely to make the society safe from the convicted person?

Should it be rehabilitation?

Should it be punishment?

As it sits now, the US system is a hodge podge of all of these and does none of them well.

For example, in the strictest sense, if the sole purpose of the final aspect of the system is to make sure the criminal is no longer a threat to society, then the old “Kill them all” sentence is the only sure fire punishment. Of course, execution for being busted with a half a joint and a roach clip would be a bit extreme…but you would NEVER use an illegal substance again.

Now, if the guiding principle is then to REASONABLY make sure that society is safe, then you remove the convicted from society and then do something to make sure that they never are a danger to society again.

In old tribal cultures, this could be as simple as “We’re not going to kill you…but we are going to banish you from the tribe…” - which basically equaled a death sentence anyway.

If the aim is to compensate, well, financial remuneration, indentured servitude, and so on have been tried…but can you ever REALLY compensate a rape victim or the family of a murder victim? At best, the results in this approach are going to be unsatisfying.

Now, if you add a “Humane” concept to the “Make society safe from the criminal” approach, you get into the prison as rehabilitation concept. Hmm…the word penitentiary – for prison – comes from penitent – as in “feeling or expressing sorrow for sin or wrongdoing and disposed to atonement and amendment”

I doubt that a person treated like an animal is ever going to be very penitent.

Then you get to ask things like “Is the treatment of a convicted criminal fair to the citizens who actually obey the laws?”

For example, is it fair that a person could conceivably commit a felony, be sent to prison, study and come out with a college degree or a skill/trade to make a living while the law abiding citizen may want to go to college or trade school but can’t afford it…

But, if you put a person whose main method of making a living is illegal into prison …and then you do nothing to give them a viable and legal way to make a living, are you not then pretty much making sure that they will return to their illegal method of living when they get out. And, since you have pretty much ensured that the person will be a repeat offender, have you not also failed in using the criminal justice system to protect society?

So, does this mean that a society either has an obligation in protecting itself to lock them up and throw away the key…or to offer options that will then rehabilitate the offender?

I find it curious that in a heavily Christian nation, we have a number of people who opt for the most un-Christian approach of pretty close to zero tolerance. I have never been able to understand how any Christian can – with a straight face – proclaim support for capital punishment.

[Drake]

I'm an atheist... FRY'EM! :cool:

[GLW]

Not really true about the cost :

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty

Capital punishment in the US actually cost more than life in prison…according to just about every study of it I have seen since I actually kept up with it in the 1970’s

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081005045849AAXO2zf

There are a number of expenses here. First, the jury selection for a capital trial usually ends up with jurors less likely to convict (as it should be)…but this can often translate into “The bad guy got off…”

Then you have the appeals that are required, the review, the added expense of higher security for those on death row (if you are already going to die, what have you got to lose)…and so on.

I have been against the death penalty for years…but unlike a lot, I don’t even consider the moral or ethical issues. I simply look at the bottom line. It costs me more to put a guy to death than to lock him up until he dies… at least in the current criminal justice system in the US. (For the great state of Texas, the cost is roughly 3 to 1)

[Drake]

That's why we need to find less expensive ways of dealing with them. :D

[sanjuro_ronin]

That's why we need to find less expensive ways of dealing with them. :D

Soylent Green

[Lucas]

we just need to take it back to the old school

In cases like John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, Richard Ramirez....really the list goes ON AND ON. for criminals like there, where there is no doubt about whether they are guilty, just execute them right away.

dont put them on death row, dont feed them, dont bathe or launder for them. Just execute them right away.

KEEP IN MIND the individuals i am speaking of. Im not talking executing some guy who killed one person in a quarrell.

but mass murderers, serial killers/rapists, child molesters, etc. under the right circumstances. just finish them immediatly.

thats almost free.

shoot them, then burn them. then bury the ashes. or fertalize some plants with them.

[Becca]

Capital punishment in the US actually cost more than life in prison…according to just about every study of it I have seen since I actually kept up with it in the 1970’s.... There are a number of expenses here. That's a good point. What about that guy on death row who petitioned the Supreme Court, asking for his sentance to be set aside because the 30 years he spent on death row appealing his sentence was cruel. And, yes, he did confess, but claims he only did that because he thought it would prevent him from being sentenced to death....:rolleyes:

Here's the story. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-c-fathi/32-years-on-death-row_b_174751.html)

[SimonM]

we just need to take it back to the old school

In cases like John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, Richard Ramirez....really the list goes ON AND ON. for criminals like there, where there is no doubt about whether they are guilty, just execute them right away.


Eurhg!

Slippery slope much?

[Lucas]

Eurhg!

Slippery slope much?

of course it is. its not my fault, i didnt build our system.

[wetwonder]

The only thing absolute about the death penalty is that the folks who support it always change their minds if they end up facing it themselves.

[Lucas]

The only thing absolute about the death penalty is that the folks who support it always change their minds if they end up facing it themselves.

i dont plan on becoming a mass murderer, serial rapists, massive child molester......so.....

i dont think people here are capable of understanding the difference between your average murderer, rapist and the kind that are abominations of humanity, the truly sick, evil, twisted and just inhuman people that DO exist. and also deserve to be annhialated from the face of the earth.

[SimonM]

of course it is. its not my fault, i didnt build our system.

So are you suggesting that execution without due process is your system?

[GLW]

On survival grounds, if I am put in a situation where it is "him or me" I know who I vote for - and it ain't him.... So, would I be able to pull a trigger or whatever to make sure I survived... Yes.

If it was someone hurting my child or a loved one...sure again...and those types of things are natural responses to imminent threats.

But dealing out death because "someone deserves it" when I am in no imminent danger - well, if it were a revenge thing, I could see it happening but I also could see no way to justify it afterward.

So, since I cannot give life to someone who deserves it, I would hope that I would not be so quick to deal out death to someone who deserves it as well. I can see how people can justify capital punishment. I simply just can't see how a primarily Christian society can.

[SimonM]

See GLW self defense and immediate defense of others are different than a premeditated execution of a neutralized threat. So I would agree with you there.

[wetwonder]

i dont plan on becoming a mass murderer, serial rapists, massive child molester......so.....

i dont think people here are capable of understanding the difference between your average murderer, rapist and the kind that are abominations of humanity, the truly sick, evil, twisted and just inhuman people that DO exist. and also deserve to be annhialated from the face of the earth.


Well it's good to know if the unexpected happens, and you by some happenstance end up in that situation, that you will have no change of heart as you are enjoying your last meal.

[Lucas]

lol well i can assure you i wont unnexpectedly become a mass murderer, serial rapist/child molestor.

you sir may be prone to those 'unexpected happenings' as you put them, but i am not. nor shall i ever be. if people read my posts carefully, and closely, they will see i am in favor of the death pentaly for CERTAIN peoples. John Wayne Gacy has been my prime example this whole thread. Perhaps you do not know what level of crime Mr. Gacy had commited.....


simon. if you read my earlier posts you will see that i say under the current system i believe in the process that you and most others on this thread advocate is the best course.

In other words, unless the system changes, dont execute. But that doesnt mean I dont believe the types of criminals i have described do not deserve execution. I believe these types of individuals more than deserve to be irradicated from this planet.

:p

[SimonM]

You realize that according to Theravada Buddhist scripture one of the first Arhats was a reformed cannibal.

It may be unlikely for a leopard to change his spots but we can live in hope.

And the dead don't learn.

[Lucas]

im not buddhist and i dont have a solid opinion on what or if there is an afterlife. so personally i cant say based on a belief system if one cannot in fact learn after they die.

none of us know so i wont say one way or the other on that part.

;):p

[SanHeChuan]

What about executing those who have committed several violent crimes, at least some of those convictions had to be straight so there would be no miscarriage of justice there.

[Reverend Tap]

Rev. Tap hit upon the big mental puzzle that is the Criminal Justice system. Exactly what IS the purpose of the sentence applied to a person found guilty of a crime?

Now, should the goal be justice and remuneration for the victim of the crime?

Should it be solely to make the society safe from the convicted person?

Should it be rehabilitation?

Should it be punishment?

As it sits now, the US system is a hodge podge of all of these and does none of them well.

Excellent post. To clarify my position from my earlier post a bit, my personal opinion is that the most fundamental purpose of a functional criminal justice system must be the short- and long-term protection of the society in general. Punishment doesn't really deter future acts like people like to pretend it does, and renumeration of the victims, while a very humane and just objective, is both highly subjective and subject to the whims of emotion. It is my opinion that decisions made in this arena should be as purely logical as is possible.

Now, protection of society can mean a number of things depending on the circumstances, and that's where things can get messy. First of all, I don't believe there should ever be any criminal penalty for "victimless crimes," as they pose no actual threat to the greater bulk of society. If I want to do things that could get my fool @ss killed, but won't hurt other people, that's really not the government's business (though it certainly may be my friends/family's business). So there's that. Going up the scale to petty criminal acts, for the most part the protection of society can be accomplished without locking the offender away (which has been shown in many ways to contribute to repeat offenses), as I am vastly in favor of alternative sentencing whenever possible. You do something to the detriment of the community, you gotta do something of equal or slightly greater benefit to the community, simple as that. I am also in favor of eliminating draconian and authoritarian measures and practices whenever possible, and jail time certainly fits that description. Now, going up again, there are those offenders whose criminal acts pose a serious and lasting danger to society; serial killers, rapists, etc. For these people, I do believe jail time is appropriate, as it protects society in the short-term when alternative sentencing cannot. However, in the situation I'm outlining, there would be far, far fewer people crowding prisons, which could then be managed more effectively and humanely for the purpose of attempting actual rehabilitation of the prisoners. Rehabilitation, however, is not the primary goal; it is the best possible means (again, without any unnecessary draconian/authoritarian methods, in this case execution) of working to protect society at large.

A perfect system? Of course not; there's no such thing once you introduce the human element. But I do think it would work far better than the jumbled mishmash we've got now.

[golden arhat]

its weird that alof ot PRO LIFErs support the DEATH penalty.

how christian.

[Lucas]

What about executing those who have committed several violent crimes, at least some of those convictions had to be straight so there would be no miscarriage of justice there.

this is what im talking about. apparently people dont understand what i mean when i say people like john wayne gacy, albert fisher, richard ramirez, h. h. holmes, ted bundy, terry blair, jeffry dahmer, joseph paul franklin, patrick kearny, randy kaft, henry lee lucas, gerald stano......this is a very very small list, and all of these people were only serial/mass murderers/rapists, active in the united states only.

go research the names i posted. some of these people killed in the HUNDREDS!!!!! cold blood murder. children, women, babies, grandmas.....you guys want to feed those ****ers and pay for them to live to an old age so they can jack off to their history in a nice warm cell? i dont think so.

its for people like this whom i advocate exectution. its not hard to make that call. seriously. im not talking about some two bit chumps. these guys are the worst of the worst. some people dont get that.

go research those people and others JUST like them.

im not christian.

[Drake]

its weird that alof ot PRO LIFErs support the DEATH penalty.

how christian.


Their logic is actually quite christian. An eye for an eye. It's a bit OT, but I can see where they are coming from.

[Lucas]

another thing i dont get, how many of you would want to keep jeffrey dahmer or john gacy alive, but are ok with us going and killing other soldiers in a war.

a soldier puts himself in that position. they die because they are a soldier. we, the united states have killed MANY innocents in the name of war.

when someone kills, for instance, 100 people. young women, children, small boys and girls. its not ok for us to execute them? but its ok for us to go blow up a village?

in my opinion they put themselves there. just as the soldier did. but they actually DESERVE to die. unlike the soldiers who is only doing thier job.

the mass serial rapist murderers are only doing what they want. what gets them off, and fills the void of their psycho fantasies. but we should coddle them and feed them, and let them until they are dying of old age?

some of you assume that life in prisonment is the worst fate ever. for you that may be the case. but i can assure you, many of these types of people would rather stay alive in a cell than die.

if the opposite were the case there would be far more suicides on death row.

[Drake]

I'm a soldier, and I agree with both the DP (stay out of this, Sanjuro!! :eek: ) and soldiers killing on a battlefield.

However, I'd say the big difference is that on the battlefield, if I were to wound someone, effectively taking them out of the fight, then it is now my responsibility to make sure they get medical care, and once taken prisoner, all their needs are met. They aren't charged with any crimes, and they usually are better cared for than they were before they were captured. Anyone remember the photos from the Gulf War, with all the well-fed Iraqi soldiers playing with Game Boys? And in the 2003 invasion, they would surrender simply because they were starving and knew we would feed them. No shots fired.

In other words, the battlefield isn't an instant death sentence, and our goal isn't so much to kill everyone, but rather, to put them out of the fight, or even make it so they canot accomplish their mission. There's doctrinal terms for all of this, but I'll spare you the Army-ese.

[GLW]

Actually, the 'eye for an eye' approach is Old Testament and NOT Christian. In fact, the original laws and approach to man/god/right/wrong was supplanted byt the ...ready for it... New Covenant - which had basically 2 laws...Love god with your entire being and love thy neighbor as thyself.

The dogma of Jesus and his teachings pretty much repudiated a lot of traditional Jewish law and hierarchy...which is one of the big reasons that Herod and other rabbis were so vehemently opposed to his teachings and followers.

The old "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" was pretty much Jesus' way of dealing with capital punishment.

[SanHeChuan]

So what your saying is that the old testament and therefore god was wrong. :eek:

[GLW]

nope..In the New Testament, Jesus' words are that he came to make a new covenant and to clarify the old ways.

So, if you are Christian and choose to follow the words of the Old Testament where it conflicts with the words/teachings of Jesus, then you are not following Jesus and not being a Christian.

On a similar note, if you are Jewish living now you only have to follow about half of the Jewish 600+ laws (or was that 300+...oh well, memory - -) the main thing is that about half of the Jewish laws only apply once the Temple is rebuilt.

But, the point was that if you profess to be Christian and then go about following a code of conduct that is contrary to the teachings of Jesus, you have a problem of understanding, consistency, or hypocrisy.

The idea of unconditional love is a royal b!tch...