You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Killing your family II
- Thread starter EnochGale
- Start date
MP Freeman
New member
Once a victim is dead. No restitution can be collected. And BG's life is no longer his. Yes I morally agree with death penalty, and it should be difficult to get convicted of this penalty.
It is now.
I drink grape juice because OJ kills. And walks free.
It is now.
I drink grape juice because OJ kills. And walks free.
The problem with the way capital punishment is done in this country, is there is no accountability for error. That would seem to run counter to the general principle that people should be held accountable for their mistakes.
If a person is convicted of a capital crime and executed, and then evidence surfaces that the convict was in fact innocent, then the judge, jurors and prosecuting attorney(s) involved should go on trial for _their_ lives.
Let's see how things look with the shoe on the other foot.
Alternatively, we should allow the death penalty under only two circumstances: at the hands of the victim at the time and place of the crime; or in the case of public officials who willfully violate the civil rights of people in such a manner that seriously injures or kills them.
Otherwise murderers should spend the rest of their lives working to compensate their victims' families.
--The Beez
If a person is convicted of a capital crime and executed, and then evidence surfaces that the convict was in fact innocent, then the judge, jurors and prosecuting attorney(s) involved should go on trial for _their_ lives.
Let's see how things look with the shoe on the other foot.
Alternatively, we should allow the death penalty under only two circumstances: at the hands of the victim at the time and place of the crime; or in the case of public officials who willfully violate the civil rights of people in such a manner that seriously injures or kills them.
Otherwise murderers should spend the rest of their lives working to compensate their victims' families.
--The Beez
I think the death penalty is a fit crime for the taking of a human life. If you purposely take a person's life, you lose your right to your own.
However..I do believe it has been used against innocent people. I do believe it has been used selectively. I'm also afraid of what crimes in the future will be eligible for the death penalty.
It's a tough question and not as black and white as it should be. I agree 100% with whoever suggested that we remove a lot of the "perks" that go with being incarcerated. Seems living a miserable life would be more incentive not to kill than a swift death, especially while being housed at our expense while waiting for appeal. Put them in a cage, feed them enough to survive and forget them. It would be cheaper than either of the current solutions.
However..I do believe it has been used against innocent people. I do believe it has been used selectively. I'm also afraid of what crimes in the future will be eligible for the death penalty.
It's a tough question and not as black and white as it should be. I agree 100% with whoever suggested that we remove a lot of the "perks" that go with being incarcerated. Seems living a miserable life would be more incentive not to kill than a swift death, especially while being housed at our expense while waiting for appeal. Put them in a cage, feed them enough to survive and forget them. It would be cheaper than either of the current solutions.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Beez:
If a person is convicted of a capital crime and executed, and then evidence surfaces that the convict was in fact innocent, then the judge, jurors and prosecuting attorney(s) involved should go on trial for _their_ lives.[/quote]
Sounds fair to me. No one should have a problem with this. Unless they're one of those involved in convicting and executing an innocent man. Those of you so anxious to execute, would you sing the same tune if you were that "innocent man"? I doubt it. My goverment makes entirely too many mistakes for me want them to have the power of life or death over me. Wrongful executions are permanent and undoable, while all other forms of punishment can be rectified if handed out mistakenly.
------------------
Just one of the Good Guys
If a person is convicted of a capital crime and executed, and then evidence surfaces that the convict was in fact innocent, then the judge, jurors and prosecuting attorney(s) involved should go on trial for _their_ lives.[/quote]
Sounds fair to me. No one should have a problem with this. Unless they're one of those involved in convicting and executing an innocent man. Those of you so anxious to execute, would you sing the same tune if you were that "innocent man"? I doubt it. My goverment makes entirely too many mistakes for me want them to have the power of life or death over me. Wrongful executions are permanent and undoable, while all other forms of punishment can be rectified if handed out mistakenly.
------------------
Just one of the Good Guys
Well, let's look at the rational for placing violently dangerous criminals behind bars for life..
Let's look at Jeffrey Dahmer for a moment.
He what, killed X number of people in brutal acts of cannabilism. He is caught, and charged, and sentenced to life, was it, in prison?
He was sent to prison, as was the other inmates there, to eliminate the possibility that they'd kill again.
Well, almost anyway. It seems that Daumer was killed in prison by an inmate.
So the arguement that incarcerating someone for the rest of their life so they won't kill again is a hollow arguement. It doens't hold water.
And what of the prisoner, Christopher Scarver, who killed him? Is he going to be served up another life term for another murder he won't commit because he's in a Max security prison?
Does anyone think the families of the victims of Dahmer sigh relief knowing that the tormentor of their family member is dead?
I'd be willing to place a buck on it. I don't suppose the numbers are in on how much tax-payers money Dahmer's "execution" cost?
And speaking of Dahmer's murderer. Does he now prove that he's equally dangerous in Max Security, as he is in open society? Think he's worried CP coming to see him? I doubt it, he doesn't give a damn about life, period.
Let's look at Jeffrey Dahmer for a moment.
He what, killed X number of people in brutal acts of cannabilism. He is caught, and charged, and sentenced to life, was it, in prison?
He was sent to prison, as was the other inmates there, to eliminate the possibility that they'd kill again.
Well, almost anyway. It seems that Daumer was killed in prison by an inmate.
So the arguement that incarcerating someone for the rest of their life so they won't kill again is a hollow arguement. It doens't hold water.
And what of the prisoner, Christopher Scarver, who killed him? Is he going to be served up another life term for another murder he won't commit because he's in a Max security prison?
Does anyone think the families of the victims of Dahmer sigh relief knowing that the tormentor of their family member is dead?
I'd be willing to place a buck on it. I don't suppose the numbers are in on how much tax-payers money Dahmer's "execution" cost?
And speaking of Dahmer's murderer. Does he now prove that he's equally dangerous in Max Security, as he is in open society? Think he's worried CP coming to see him? I doubt it, he doesn't give a damn about life, period.
Wow! Go away for a few days and,,,,,
FUD,
For the raw figures and sources, the ACLU (I know, I know) has a number of sources from a number of States where the DP is enforced.
Amnesty International also has some sources, but mostly for internation data and figures.
IMNSHO, I'm pretty satisifed with the way the present system works. I firmly believe the 10th amendment applies.
FUD,
For the raw figures and sources, the ACLU (I know, I know) has a number of sources from a number of States where the DP is enforced.
Amnesty International also has some sources, but mostly for internation data and figures.
IMNSHO, I'm pretty satisifed with the way the present system works. I firmly believe the 10th amendment applies.
Yes, the death penalty does discourage recindivism (sp?). Once he or she is put down, a criminal wont be adding anymore atrocities to the ole police record (those being the crimes we know about).
How many times have we read about an individual who was released despite a history of horrific assault and even murder against the public? Finally, that individual commits a more recent crime so savage that he is given a life without parole or a dp sentence, though by that time the damage to more lives has been done.
On the otherhand, criminals serving various sentences, including life, do have certain amenities and an oppurtunity to continue to leech off the public. They say even Charlie Manson has computer access. A friend's brother, incarcerated for assault, drugs and theft, managed from prison to ring up hundreds of dollars on his mother's phone number (I am not sure how he performed this stunt, only that dear mom, faced with the choice of pressing charges against her boy or quietly paying the outrageous bills, decided to take care of the cost herself). Assassinations against witnessess have been traced to prison.
But I also believe our judicial system, including the administration of the death penalty, has serious problems.
If this were not so, we, as law abiding citizens, would not be spending so much time worrying about the legal consequences of protecting our lives from assault. A fine line seperates an act of self protection from assault or homicide...and other factors beside the evidence at hand, the context of the incident and even the upstanding character of the citizen, can play a part in determining whether or not the self defender is freed or jailed. Other factors, including the mood of the judicial system, the quality of the attornies, the bias of the media...
Just as a firearm owner should always be prepared for and aware of the consequences of an act of self defense, I feel that when the system puts down a person in defense of society, it too should be liable for its actions.
The use of genetic detective work in determining guilt or innocence, WHEN CARRIED OUT CORRECTLY, is a big step forward toward providing more honest verdicts. I find it difficult to believe that in a nation that split the atom decades before I was born, that was capable of landing men on the moon and sending probes toward the far ends of the solar system, we are still dependent on such a biased and haphazard method for seperating guilt from innocence as we close in on the 21st century. Even well intentioned witnessess and police may mispercieve an event that could determine guilt or innocence... and many of these participants are often not that well intentioned when it comes to having a motiviation for testifying.
Jeff
How many times have we read about an individual who was released despite a history of horrific assault and even murder against the public? Finally, that individual commits a more recent crime so savage that he is given a life without parole or a dp sentence, though by that time the damage to more lives has been done.
On the otherhand, criminals serving various sentences, including life, do have certain amenities and an oppurtunity to continue to leech off the public. They say even Charlie Manson has computer access. A friend's brother, incarcerated for assault, drugs and theft, managed from prison to ring up hundreds of dollars on his mother's phone number (I am not sure how he performed this stunt, only that dear mom, faced with the choice of pressing charges against her boy or quietly paying the outrageous bills, decided to take care of the cost herself). Assassinations against witnessess have been traced to prison.
But I also believe our judicial system, including the administration of the death penalty, has serious problems.
If this were not so, we, as law abiding citizens, would not be spending so much time worrying about the legal consequences of protecting our lives from assault. A fine line seperates an act of self protection from assault or homicide...and other factors beside the evidence at hand, the context of the incident and even the upstanding character of the citizen, can play a part in determining whether or not the self defender is freed or jailed. Other factors, including the mood of the judicial system, the quality of the attornies, the bias of the media...
Just as a firearm owner should always be prepared for and aware of the consequences of an act of self defense, I feel that when the system puts down a person in defense of society, it too should be liable for its actions.
The use of genetic detective work in determining guilt or innocence, WHEN CARRIED OUT CORRECTLY, is a big step forward toward providing more honest verdicts. I find it difficult to believe that in a nation that split the atom decades before I was born, that was capable of landing men on the moon and sending probes toward the far ends of the solar system, we are still dependent on such a biased and haphazard method for seperating guilt from innocence as we close in on the 21st century. Even well intentioned witnessess and police may mispercieve an event that could determine guilt or innocence... and many of these participants are often not that well intentioned when it comes to having a motiviation for testifying.
Jeff
The problme of amenities in prision is disturbing but it's in part due to the prision admininstrations themselves. They like to have things they can give and take away in order to control the population.
We think it is because of liberalism, the mindless rant of some RKBA types, but that's not it. It is to have carrots to control them.
When it was argued to take away weights, it wasn't liberal who raved - it was prision administrators.
Life in a cell with a toilet, bed, chair and
shower and access to reasonable nonfiction that helps one learn is all that prisioners should get. Interacting with each other in the yard is a waste. Let food be delivered to them like the airlines.
Isolation has been tried before and didn't work in the early days of prision, but perhaps we can try it again.
The abstract call for execution has started by FUD is just an emotional appeal. There is no evidence that the execution of murderer as compared to life without parole makes the family feel better. Find the study that shows that.
It is easy to call for death on the Internet.
We can all pound our manly chests and really get outraged if someone breakes the group think. But, death of anyone is not a good thing. If necessary, do it - but death is to be regretted.
Who here wants to be an executioner in the current justice system - knowing its foibles and weaknesses? Do you FUD?
Talking about 45 vs 9mm and weird looks you get at the gas station is far different from killing and killing and killing.
We think it is because of liberalism, the mindless rant of some RKBA types, but that's not it. It is to have carrots to control them.
When it was argued to take away weights, it wasn't liberal who raved - it was prision administrators.
Life in a cell with a toilet, bed, chair and
shower and access to reasonable nonfiction that helps one learn is all that prisioners should get. Interacting with each other in the yard is a waste. Let food be delivered to them like the airlines.
Isolation has been tried before and didn't work in the early days of prision, but perhaps we can try it again.
The abstract call for execution has started by FUD is just an emotional appeal. There is no evidence that the execution of murderer as compared to life without parole makes the family feel better. Find the study that shows that.
It is easy to call for death on the Internet.
We can all pound our manly chests and really get outraged if someone breakes the group think. But, death of anyone is not a good thing. If necessary, do it - but death is to be regretted.
Who here wants to be an executioner in the current justice system - knowing its foibles and weaknesses? Do you FUD?
Talking about 45 vs 9mm and weird looks you get at the gas station is far different from killing and killing and killing.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EnochGale: ... to kill to save FUD a couple of bucks on his taxes just sucks from any perspective you can look at ...[/quote]It isn't about saving me a couple of bucks on my taxes. The problem that I have is that the family of a victim will have some amount of THEIR tax money going to financial support someone who brutally murdered someone that they loved. That what this was all about when I started the original trend. For a family to have to pay even one penny to financially support someone who took the life of a loved one is adding insult to injury and that's what sucks! <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EnochGale: ... death of anyone is not a good thing ... [/quote]A murderer should be judge by the same standards that he applied to others -- what was fair for the victim should be equally fair for him. If he wrongfully & intentionally took a life, why is it unfair to ask him to offer up his life in return?
EnochGale, you want to talk about studies. The middle east does not have a very high thieft rate because if you are caught stealing, they cut off your hand. That discourages people. I ask you again: why the murder rate following another crime is significantly higher today than it was half a century ago? Before, if you cooperated with a criminal, in an overwhelming amount of cases you did not get hurt. Exception were the criminals who were nervous and/or frightened by something you might have suddenly done & the hardened criminal who was already wanted for serious crimes. Today, even if you completely cooperate, there is still a good chance that you will be injuried or killed. Again, I ask you, why is that?
I submit to you that in the past criminals knew that punishment for a murder could very well mean losing their own life and they placed a higher value on the life of the victim. I further submit to you that today that fear is no longer there -- case in point, the murder of a handful of people at a fast food restr. a few weeks ago. Everyone cooprated with the criminals and nobody fought back. Why did they have to kill the victims? When caught and convicted, why should they not be given the same punishment that they gave to others? Seems fair to me -- judge and punish them by the same yardstick that they applied to others. As you said, all life is important. Why should their right to life be greater than their victims's`right to life?
[This message has been edited by FUD (edited August 13, 2000).]
EnochGale, you want to talk about studies. The middle east does not have a very high thieft rate because if you are caught stealing, they cut off your hand. That discourages people. I ask you again: why the murder rate following another crime is significantly higher today than it was half a century ago? Before, if you cooperated with a criminal, in an overwhelming amount of cases you did not get hurt. Exception were the criminals who were nervous and/or frightened by something you might have suddenly done & the hardened criminal who was already wanted for serious crimes. Today, even if you completely cooperate, there is still a good chance that you will be injuried or killed. Again, I ask you, why is that?
I submit to you that in the past criminals knew that punishment for a murder could very well mean losing their own life and they placed a higher value on the life of the victim. I further submit to you that today that fear is no longer there -- case in point, the murder of a handful of people at a fast food restr. a few weeks ago. Everyone cooprated with the criminals and nobody fought back. Why did they have to kill the victims? When caught and convicted, why should they not be given the same punishment that they gave to others? Seems fair to me -- judge and punish them by the same yardstick that they applied to others. As you said, all life is important. Why should their right to life be greater than their victims's`right to life?
[This message has been edited by FUD (edited August 13, 2000).]
FUD, you make speeches that sound nice. That's not how we do things.
Go to the criminology literature and find for me evidence that the death penalty in the USA
has a deterrent effect.
Simple task. And you brought up the expense issue. While it might offend you that taxes go to the person in prision, given that there is a real chance the guy has been treated unfairly by the system (look at the guy recently released for rape after the witness was found to be wrong - he spent 11 years on the taxpayer) would you like to kill him to save a buck. As I said before if we had a god like ability to determine the truth, I have no problem with the death penalty if it is fairly applied. But I'm not for killing folk when OJ can buy his way out. That is not acceptable.
I'm not killing poor people for your feelings.
We can disagree but I'm not wallowing in revenge. We have progressed beyond that.
Let's give you a hypothetical like in a philosophy class.
A man murders your wife, rapes your children, etc. Science has progressed such that we can
give him a treatment that guarantees he will
be a worthy citizen with no chance of recidivism. Would you still give him the death penalty?
[This message has been edited by EnochGale (edited August 13, 2000).]
Go to the criminology literature and find for me evidence that the death penalty in the USA
has a deterrent effect.
Simple task. And you brought up the expense issue. While it might offend you that taxes go to the person in prision, given that there is a real chance the guy has been treated unfairly by the system (look at the guy recently released for rape after the witness was found to be wrong - he spent 11 years on the taxpayer) would you like to kill him to save a buck. As I said before if we had a god like ability to determine the truth, I have no problem with the death penalty if it is fairly applied. But I'm not for killing folk when OJ can buy his way out. That is not acceptable.
I'm not killing poor people for your feelings.
We can disagree but I'm not wallowing in revenge. We have progressed beyond that.
Let's give you a hypothetical like in a philosophy class.
A man murders your wife, rapes your children, etc. Science has progressed such that we can
give him a treatment that guarantees he will
be a worthy citizen with no chance of recidivism. Would you still give him the death penalty?
[This message has been edited by EnochGale (edited August 13, 2000).]
EnochGale, my speeches "sound nice" because they are logical and have a valid point. It isn't so much about saving me tax dollars but that some of the victim's family tax dollars will have to go to support an individual who murdered their loved one. There's something unfair about that anyway you look at it. And while we're on the subject of fairness, why does someone who killed someone else have a greater right to life than the victim? All life is equal. If it is alright for him to wrongfully take a life. Then it is even MORE right for that individual to lose his own life as punishment.
[This message has been edited by FUD (edited August 14, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by FUD (edited August 14, 2000).]
EnochGale,
If you advocate the complete abolition of CP, then why are you wasting time trying to convert us here?
I would think you'd have a greater effect trying to sway political figures.
Also, just think of all the money you could swindle out of the family members of Death Row inmates, for championing their cause.
Perhaps the best presented arguement is in front of Courthouses where a case is being tried that would ultimately lead to the death sentence.
One thing I think you've neglected to consider. We here aren't the ones who go after the death sentence, it's usually the State, or Local Attorney's who do. We, as Jury members, are left to ponder the evidence presented, and argued by the attorneys of both sides.
We, as Jury members have the duty to that accused person, to weigh out the presented evidence from both sides. And then make a determination as to whether that person deserves such punishment.
Though this is beside the focus here, I think. Here's a typical thing nowadays.
A BG breaks into a house, intent upon robbery, or who knows?
The resident, fearing for their life, shoots the BG. The BG survives, many times to sue the innocent person, and often winning in Court.
Is this Justice served for the innocent person who was minding their own business?
A person who wasn't looking for trouble, and was forced to deal with a BG in the most effective manner they could. And are then punished for it!
The BG's in the community are then given another message to continue onward with their assault upon the public. Who knows, you might wind up a rich BG.
Better than working for a living like the lemmings they victimize, right?
[This message has been edited by Donny (edited August 13, 2000).]
If you advocate the complete abolition of CP, then why are you wasting time trying to convert us here?
I would think you'd have a greater effect trying to sway political figures.
Also, just think of all the money you could swindle out of the family members of Death Row inmates, for championing their cause.
Perhaps the best presented arguement is in front of Courthouses where a case is being tried that would ultimately lead to the death sentence.
One thing I think you've neglected to consider. We here aren't the ones who go after the death sentence, it's usually the State, or Local Attorney's who do. We, as Jury members, are left to ponder the evidence presented, and argued by the attorneys of both sides.
We, as Jury members have the duty to that accused person, to weigh out the presented evidence from both sides. And then make a determination as to whether that person deserves such punishment.
Though this is beside the focus here, I think. Here's a typical thing nowadays.
A BG breaks into a house, intent upon robbery, or who knows?
The resident, fearing for their life, shoots the BG. The BG survives, many times to sue the innocent person, and often winning in Court.
Is this Justice served for the innocent person who was minding their own business?
A person who wasn't looking for trouble, and was forced to deal with a BG in the most effective manner they could. And are then punished for it!
The BG's in the community are then given another message to continue onward with their assault upon the public. Who knows, you might wind up a rich BG.
Better than working for a living like the lemmings they victimize, right?
[This message has been edited by Donny (edited August 13, 2000).]