If not death penalty, then?

[Jakalwarrior]

I heard about this case this morning on the radio since it happened in my area. I was just wondering, for those who dont believe in the death penalty, what would be fitting? Honestly I have to wonder if the death penalty is right. Isn't that getting off a little easy? or should the person have a right to redeem their self? or is it one last mercy to the person? ug. Moral conundrum.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Ligda]

yes, it is too easy.

and the bitter revenge of a victim's family eases little once the perpetrator is killed. in many situations, this is the case. families believe once the killer is killed, everything will be justified, but the psychological trauma is still raw and unhealed. the death penalty is too simplified. it breeds hatred and revenge in an already violent society. i promise, i'm really not a peace-loving hippie, but i really think the the only reason it still is in existence is history.

"an eye for an eye leaves all the world blind"

lock prisoners in solitary confinement for life with no chance of parole. watch "the life of david gale"

[Onotheo]

I don't want to go to excessive lengths on explaining my opinion on this but this is what I think.

People who's value to humanity is sub-zero should be isolated and only be given extremely minimal or no contact with the rest of humanity. They should not be executed but be given options to commit suicide.

[Jakalwarrior]

So perhaps they should lock this guy in solitary with a can of gasoline and a lighter?

[Ligda]

no, that would be giving them a luxury that they don't deserve.

[Onotheo]

So perhaps they should lock this guy in solitary with a can of gasoline and a lighter?
Hmm... idk. Maybe still the same thing as current prison systems, but it's just that: They have an option to just end their own life. I'm probably not making sense, lol.

[PHS Philip]

To me, the death penalty isn't punishment. It's revenge. The justice system exists for the former, not the latter. The other problem is the problem of the justice system's imperfection: many people on death row are innocent.

[reb]

'Mother Jones' magazine just had a reasoned article on the californiacation prison system. frankly, it's perfectly clear to me-irrefutable-heinous crimes and their perpetrators are a drag on our resources. we don't have inexhaustible resources. put the horrible (charlie manson, jeffrey dahmer) to death swiftly, efficiently, and be done with it. move on to dealing with someone who can or is willing to live among the rest of us without being a torturous, vicious pos.
reb

[Antares]

'Mother Jones' magazine just had a reasoned article on the californiacation prison system. frankly, it's perfectly clear to me-irrefutable-heinous crimes and their perpetrators are a drag on our resources. we don't have inexhaustible resources. put the horrible (charlie manson, jeffrey dahmer) to death swiftly, efficiently, and be done with it. move on to dealing with someone who can or is willing to live among the rest of us without being a torturous, vicious pos.
reb

Let's see how this sounds.

"It's perfectly clear to me-mental illnesses and their patients are a drag on our resources. we don't have inexhaustible resources. put the insane (-insert name here-) to death swiftly, efficiently, and be done with it. move on to dealing with someone who can be cured or can live among the rest of us without being a waste of resources, useless pos. (?)"

Simply put, if we kill them because they've killed someone or are "torturous", it's revenge, and our system is not used for that.

[Ligda]

'Mother Jones' magazine just had a reasoned article on the californiacation prison system. frankly, it's perfectly clear to me-irrefutable-heinous crimes and their perpetrators are a drag on our resources. we don't have inexhaustible resources. put the horrible (charlie manson, jeffrey dahmer) to death swiftly, efficiently, and be done with it. move on to dealing with someone who can or is willing to live among the rest of us without being a torturous, vicious pos.
reb

in theory, this is true. but it costs much more to legally kill someone, with the appeals, required hearings, extra security, suicide and protected watches, etc. it typically takes at least 15 years of this for someone to actually be executed.

the friends and family's need for revenge is hardly ever soothed after a killing. most of them relive the pain when the prisoner is actually put to death 15 years later.

[searcheagle]

'Mother Jones' magazine just had a reasoned article on the californiacation prison system. frankly, it's perfectly clear to me-irrefutable-heinous crimes and their perpetrators are a drag on our resources. we don't have inexhaustible resources. put the horrible (charlie manson, jeffrey dahmer) to death swiftly, efficiently, and be done with it. move on to dealing with someone who can or is willing to live among the rest of us without being a torturous, vicious pos.
reb

I never thought I'd say this, but I may actually agree with Mother Jones!

People who live life to commit heinous crimes should have their life taken away as they have done to many of their victims. It is a disrespect to the victim's memory and society at large to not remove these scourges of the earth from realm of the living.





searcheagle added to this post, 4 minutes and 36 seconds later...

Let's see how this sounds.

"It's perfectly clear to me-mental illnesses and their patients are a drag on our resources. we don't have inexhaustible resources. put the insane (-insert name here-) to death swiftly, efficiently, and be done with it. move on to dealing with someone who can be cured or can live among the rest of us without being a waste of resources, useless pos. (?)"

Simply put, if we kill them because they've killed someone or are "torturous", it's revenge, and our system is not used for that.

That, with all due respect, is a ridiculous comparison. You are comparing a person who committed a heinous crime, by their own choice, fully aware of the consequences to the victim of mental illness. The person with the mental illness was not a choice.

It is time for criminals to take responsibility for their actions- not make ridiculous comparisons to mental illness victims.

[Tocsin]

That, with all due respect, is a ridiculous comparison. You are comparing a person who committed a heinous crime, by their own choice, fully aware of the consequences to the victim of mental illness. The person with the mental illness was not a choice.

It is time for criminals to take responsibility for their actions- not make ridiculous comparisons to mental illness victims.

Actually, Antares comparison is lucid and sound - both groups, criminals and the mentally incompetent, represent a drain on the resources available to the general population.

I think the point Antares is trying to make is that if you claim that the drain on resources that dangerous criminals cause is a justification for eliminating them and their cost to society, then you would also have to consider the drain on society than mental incompetents represent as a justification for their elimination as well.

For the record, i am opposed to both such arguments.

[Paradox]

I like the idea of solitary confinement for the rest of their lives. Remove the people who commit such heinous crimes from society all together. If they aren't willing to conform to our laws, they should be condemned to live a life with no human contact. Additionally, these criminals should not be allowed any form of mental stimulation, such as books or television. I can only imagine how terrible that life would be.

[reb]

Antares, i did NOT include the mentally ill. you are extending my position further than i stated. however, Mother Jones makes the point that much of the prison population is 'mentally ill'. (they do NOT suggest the death penalty-they have not drifted so far from their 'roots' lol!) so, go there if you want; i am specifically not making any issue of 'mentally ill' since there is so much subjectivity in that designator-you may already think me mentally ill-should you continue to augment my statements, i will wonder about YOU heehee..... however, there is no subjective issue with a person such as Charlie Manson, or the VMI killer, or a host of others-plenty of people see, plenty of people can agree on the basics of what they saw...John Cooey...look at him and his cohorts...buried that little girl alive after sexually abusing her. why do we need a court to decide what to do about that? have we no responsibility left in our society? evidently, there are people who feel that 'letting the state take care of it' absolves them of responsibility for the outcome, like people who eat meat from the store, but decry deer hunting...hypocrites. let the taxpayer pay for this slobbering huge mechanism made up of lawyers and judges who slurp off of us, and build cages everywhere that we pay for over and over again due to the abuse and waste...places where gangs are bred, violence is encouraged...

i am not interested in revenge. revenge is an emotional issue; i have had revenge, and always, my emotions are engaged when i take revenge. completely without emotion, it costs about $15 for a box of .45 acp. one shot to the head of someone like Charlie saves us an unimaginable amount of money (50 rounds per box, one round. cheap. perfectly successful, tie his ass so he can't move his head, very little suffering, and none for the executioner, unless they get tied up in emotion at killing rattlesnakes in their bedroom, which is just what Charlie is like). to save more money, we could argue over 9mm vs. .45 acp, if you like. if you dig up any interviews with Charlie, he is still whacky, as is Squeaky (i read something on her, i think it was about her parole hearing).

i don't think it is inhuman at all to kill a fox who tries to get my chickens. one how has intercourse with them, then rips off their wings, or tears off their legs, before killing and eating them....it is perfectly within the bounds of human thought to kill that fox. and a fox is much prettier than Charlie and his ilk....dint someone kill Dahmer in prison? they should give that person a taxpayer funded award, and a medal....lol! saved us $, he did...or she? woont that be cool? an intj woman got to Dahmer. lovely thought.
reb

[Ligda]

well stated, reb.

however, we don't live in a society that allows that. we would rather spend hundereds of thousands of dollars to appeal for 15 years while the convicted lives in relative comfort.

[whiteslate]

I like the idea of solitary confinement for the rest of their lives. Remove the people who commit such heinous crimes from society all together. If they aren't willing to conform to our laws, they should be condemned to live a life with no human contact. Additionally, these criminals should not be allowed any form of mental stimulation, such as books or television. I can only imagine how terrible that life would be.

I'm sorry for the seemingly rude Caps, but really, no mental stimulation is sheer torture - death would have been more forgiving. [ok, I'm not sorry.] In Buddhist terms, if I get the chair, I might have just been given a chance for reincarnation. In Agnostic INTJ terms, it's Heellllllo, Adventure! - Well maybe an adventure for me; we'll see :)

Plus, keeping them alive indefinitely has its costs - why not make them do dreary data entry and codemonkeying to offset the debts incurred by the American Prisons [if you care; if you're a citizen of the USA.] Side note: It costs an average of $88 dollars a day per prisoner. [Wikipedia, I didn't verify with the official webx]

[And disclaimer: Perhaps it's rare in my country that someone gets the death penalty, and even more so for one to be wrongly convicted and then punished to hang, therefore pardon me if I'm insensitive to those who felt/think that the death penalty should be reconsidered, even if only for the purpose of undoing a miscarriage of justice. :( In the town I'm born in, they much like to whooop your ass [i.e the ROD.] ]

So, give me a death, pronto!

[Skatt]

I was just talking about this with my sister last night. These days it's actually much more difficult to get sent on death row with any doubts of your guilt. Science has come far enough to mostly determined the difference between facts and presumption. It's not infallible, but it is still a big deal to sentence someone to death. I personally would need to know beyond reasonable doubt that the person was guilty in order to go that far.
I don't like the idea of capital punishment, but I like the idea of supporting the life of a killer even less. I don't think it's right to give the death penalty to people who haven't killed.
Molesters and rapists are typically victims themselves and I think that there is hope of reform in most cases, though I don't think that complete freedom or even the ability to live solitary should ever be allowed again. Group homes with other offenders or something along those lines seems like a better option.
Generally, my concerns with the issue boil down to money. It's not fair to get an easy, free-ride life for committing a heinous crime. Killers die, and sex offenders must work still. I think that most criminals should still be required to work. I don't think that they should be allowed to learn in jail. The idea of free college, boarding, and meals seems like incentive to break the law to me.

[elsdfr]

Perhaps the odds are that innocent people are killed. For what, revenge?

I blame society and consumeristic greed.

[halcyon55]

The death penalty is flawed.

[elsdfr]

Yes, what gives any human the right to kill another.

Either its a failure of their hubringing or the governmanet.

Sanity reigns in neither. Understanding doesn't come easy ;)

[Josh]

I don't support the death penalty because it deters future crime, or lessens the pain of the victim's families, it does neither of these things. I support it because one, this is the law of nature, an eye for an eye. Those who do something heinous enough warrant it have nothing to contribute to society, they are simply a detriment and have the propensity to cause more pain wherever they go. Now clearly an alternative is to lock them up forever which brings me to the second reason why it makes sense; capital punishment saves taxpayers the tens of thousands a year spent to house each of these animals who have more amenities than the poor in american society. Simple, prudent, economics.

[Sliderule]

Lobotomies for everyone!:knife: This is the best of both worlds, they're no longer a threat to others and they won't mind being locked up in a single cell for the rest of their lives. And no one gets killed.

I think it's a win win for everybody.

[Antares]

That, with all due respect, is a ridiculous comparison. You are comparing a person who committed a heinous crime, by their own choice, fully aware of the consequences to the victim of mental illness. The person with the mental illness was not a choice.

It is time for criminals to take responsibility for their actions- not make ridiculous comparisons to mental illness victims.

Yes, but 'killed for their actions' is effectively revenge. It's not punishment. They don't endure that punishment, because for them, it's over. Can you punish a dead person? We end it early for them so they wouldn't have to endure that punishment. All they have now is blissful oblivion.

The comparison is sound because killing someone just because they committed a heinous crime is revenge, thus an invalid reason and can be disregarded. In the end, both groups drain community resources while giving nothing in return.

[Karamazov]

I don't support the death penalty because it deters future crime, or lessens the pain of the victim's families, it does neither of these things. I support it because one, this is the law of nature, an eye for an eye. Those who do something heinous enough warrant it have nothing to contribute to society, they are simply a detriment and have the propensity to cause more pain wherever they go. Now clearly an alternative is to lock them up forever which brings me to the second reason why it makes sense; capital punishment saves taxpayers the tens of thousands a year spent to house each of these animals who have more amenities than the poor in american society. Simple, prudent, economics.

Actually death penalty cases cost more, not less, of taxpayer money. The courts are clogged up by frivolous policies offset from the grand "War on Drugs" and "Three Strikes".To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's causing prisons to overcrowd; prisons themselves already under staffed and under payed, criminals who've committed real crimes get to plea bargain as a result, leaving them to do a minimum of what they should get and they'll be able to get out just in time for Christmas. Recidivism is high all over; not enough funding going to rehabilitation programs due to bureaucracy, which leaves ex-cons out to dry, with no degree, trade, or help to readjust in society. If anybody thinks it's a waste of resources, it isn't about them. It's about us.

Frankly, nothing is going to get done without stepping on many people's toes. Many people have a vested interest in seeing our current Drug policies continue. Law Enforcement (Federal and State level), Corrections, Probation, Politicians, etc. Not including the Unions.

It's easy to think they're merely animals(we all are aren't we?). Just like how palatable the idea of generalizing any group into a faceless hoard, in order avoid seeing the nuances and characteristics that may complicate the issue into something more than just black/white. I think it's lazy thinking.

I think the death penalty should be done away with because it's ineffective. Laws aren't designed, much less judged, on the criterion of a "make a wish" program. They're not there to make everyone feel nice and happy. They're there because, when using right judgment, they work.

[Tyrant Soup]

Yes, but 'killed for their actions' is effectively revenge. It's not punishment.

Before morals can be debated, it is necessary to agree on a consistent framework for judging whether an act is right or wrong.

You assert that revenge is immoral. That assertion itself is easily as controversial as the one it is being used to defend.

Why is vengeance immoral?





Tyrant Soup added to this post, 6 minutes and 6 seconds later...


I think the death penalty should be done away with because it's ineffective.

Incarceration is ineffective also. Do you advocate doing away with it?


Laws aren't designed, much less judged, on the criterion of a "make a wish" program. They're not there to make everyone feel nice and happy. They're there because, when using right judgment, they work.

Judgment vary from person to person. If you say it works and your neighbor say it don't, who's right?

[Karamazov]

Incarceration is ineffective also. Do you advocate doing away with it?
Exactly. My pointing out that the death penalty is ineffective correlates with criminals not getting any punishment in the first place....Right?

I think you know what I meant.

Judgment vary from person to person. If you say it works and your neighbor say it don't, who's right?

Independent studies conducted by Think-tanks, Criminologists, Agencies and Bureaus, both State and Federal.

Basically, you know, evidence.

[Tyrant Soup]

Exactly. My pointing out that the death penalty is ineffective correlates with criminals not getting any punishment in the first place....Right?

Deterrence is not the sole reason for retaliation. Justice is equally important. It can be argued that the death penalty is effective because it is the only way to guarantee that a proven murderer will not take another innocent life.

[Sliderule]

How about large padded neon colored mittens?

Now stay with it I'm not done yet,

Instead of extensive prison sentences or the death penalty, we release these criminals back into society. They have to wear the mittens at all times outside of their work place and home. How is someone going to hurt anyone if they're wearing giant padded neon mittens. Make them attachable and detachable with the aid of a device located in the home and at the business. At the same time install a gps tracking device on their person that immediately notifies authorities/delivers a gentle paralyzing shock if they try to leave the house or workplace without wearing the mittens, or even set up the house to lock down if it detects motion out of the exits without the mittens.

We have the technology.

[Jakalwarrior]

too bad there is nowhere we can throw them to live in their own society making what they will of life. Essentially banishing them from our society but not forcing anything on them. If they want to kill each other or cant sustain themselves and starve, that is their problem. If they show aggression we treat them like a hostile enemy and drop a few bombs on them, etc... Maybe we can recommission Australia?

[Sliderule]

I take it you've seen escape from New York?

[Jakalwarrior]

I take it you've seen escape from New York?

yep, the one with Ray Leyota on that island was better though.

[Sliderule]

I still say mittens.

[Josh]

Actually death penalty cases cost more, not less, of taxpayer money. The courts are clogged up by frivolous policies offset from the grand "War on Drugs" and "Three Strikes".To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

It's causing prisons to overcrowd; prisons themselves already under staffed and under payed, criminals who've committed real crimes get to plea bargain as a result, leaving them to do a minimum of what they should get and they'll be able to get out just in time for Christmas. Recidivism is high all over; not enough funding going to rehabilitation programs due to bureaucracy, which leaves ex-cons out to dry, with no degree, trade, or help to readjust in society. If anybody thinks it's a waste of resources, it isn't about them. It's about us.

Frankly, nothing is going to get done without stepping on many people's toes. Many people have a vested interest in seeing our current Drug policies continue. Law Enforcement (Federal and State level), Corrections, Probation, Politicians, etc. Not including the Unions.

It's easy to think they're merely animals(we all are aren't we?). Just like how palatable the idea of generalizing any group into a faceless hoard, in order avoid seeing the nuances and characteristics that may complicate the issue into something more than just black/white. I think it's lazy thinking.

I think the death penalty should be done away with because it's ineffective. Laws aren't designed, much less judged, on the criterion of a "make a wish" program. They're not there to make everyone feel nice and happy. They're there because, when using right judgment, they work.

Your thinking doesn't seem clear to me, much of it wasn't even directed towards the topic of discussion and i'm finding it difficult to decipher what your point is but i'll attempt to respond anyway.

Don't get me started on the court system or drug policies, i'm with you on that. Locking non violent offenders up for drug use is completely idiotic and account for nearly half the prison population. Moreover i agree that the current prison system is completely ineffective, as you have pointed out, it creates a perpetual cycle of lifetime convicts.

I did not propose that the death penalty is a good policy because it makes people feel "nice and happy." Only because it makes sense. I will refer to those who warrant the death penalty as animals yet again. You can call this lazy thinking and generalizing a group, but when it's people who have committed and been convicted of pre-meditated murder, i feel i am justified. It seems you misunderstood if you interpreted that i would advocate this penalty for anything other than first degree murder, this is not the case. Furthermore i do not think that giving them a place to live with 3 hot meals a day, magazines, and cable, when we can't even feed homeless people, is just. These laws you speak of that are in place because "they work," pray tell who does lifetime incarceration of a murderer in a cushy prison at the expense of the citizens pocketbooks work for?

And no, i do not think that time, money, and man hours should be wasted on rehabilitation either. Have these people executed the day after trial. I apologize for what you must be perceiving as a lack of sensitivity, practicality and justice often necessitate a lack thereof.

[cncracer]

I personally do not think the death penalty is the path to take. It cost more when the court time and legal fees are combined than keeping a person in jail for life without parole.
My other issue is we are prone to make mistakes with our jury system. How do your correct a mistake if the person is dead, and how do you remove the guilt if you are on the jury that makes the mistake?
Our system turns the jury into executioners which in my view is the same as a person who is being tried for a capital crime.

[PHS Philip]

Deterrence is not the sole reason for retaliation. Justice is equally important. It can be argued that the death penalty is effective because it is the only way to guarantee that a proven murderer will not take another innocent life.

Justice is a fake concept that has been used to justify (hah) murder throughout history. And this idea that our court system convicts based on proof is really very naive. Juries are stupid, and misunderstand or cherrypick evidence. Media coverage doesn't help things, either.

[Jakalwarrior]

Justice is a fake concept that has been used to justify (hah) murder throughout history. And this idea that our court system convicts based on proof is really very naive. Juries are stupid, and misunderstand or cherrypick evidence. Media coverage doesn't help things, either.

Hence why execution takes "beyond a shadow of a doubt". If there is any doubt in anyones mind it becomes life in prison. Sometimes they do try to get the jury emotional enough to skew their judgement, but the literal letter of the law is pretty darn good. Just a tiny shadow that resembles a doubt in the back of your mind is all it takes to stop the death penalty.

[reb]

could it possibly be that the court systems and the laws are what's flawed, not 'the cost to administer the death penalty'?

having watched 'the law' in action, it has occurred to me that those who are most likely to get hung out to dry/imprisoned/fined big are those who are the least likely to be able to muster an effective defense....or pay for a hot shot lawyer. while the criminals in governments go free, and in corporate america....should those people who created the economic chaos we see in the u.s.s. of a. be tried and 'punished'? in some cases, i bet they have caused death at this point to others who might be 'innocent victims'....if not, they likely will shortly. to me, they do not need punishment, they need to be prevented from ever having a position which involves public trust or the abilty to have a large effect on anyone again. they might be qualified to dig clams or something....

in any case, i maintain my position...the debating of morals/right and wrong, these things are best left to overactive forebrains with nothing productive to do at the moment (as am i at the moment! lol!). the only philosophy i need is to find food, have shelter, defend myself if attacked and to do what i think is 'good' when i am able to see it. the rest is simple to me...i am thankful i have no children. if someone molested my child, and i was as sure of it as i am John Toomey molested little Jessica, John Toomey would see me.

not hard to understand at all to me. someone tries to kill me, i protect my life. when that is not understood as justice, then we have become a society of helpless fools.

i bet no one remembers the father in florida who killed the karate instructor who molested his boy...his boy had been taken to the bahamas or someplace by this karate instructor. there was obvious molestation...when the federal marshalls got the instructor and extradited him, they were bringing him back through the airport; the news cameras caught the whole thing....father was at a 'pay phone bank' along one wall, turned as they came to him, pulled a revolver, and helped the karate instructor understand how a parent protects their child properly. the jury failed to deliver a conviction on the father. simple. child's life ruined, karate instructor cannot do it again. my sympathy is with that whole family, but the father did someone else's child a favor. not revenge at all; a simple act of prevention. a removal of a cancer...

y'all ought to read that mother jones article...last month's magazine, i think...good article, but from a leftist perspective.

reb

[Karamazov]

And no, i do not think that time, money, and man hours should be wasted on rehabilitation either. Have these people executed the day after trial. I apologize for what you must be perceiving as a lack of sensitivity, practicality and justice often necessitate a lack thereof.

Well, seeing as how this is about the death penalty, I thought I'd remark on how exorbitant it was to keep it. The ethical implications are relegated, at least for me, below what is pragmatic. That is not to say that I don't care about it. I am also against it on the grounds that it shouldn't be used as a systematic right arm of vengeance (as stated before).

Alright, let me gauge as to where you are going with this. Do you support the way China, Saudi Arabia, or Russia has conducted it's Justice system. They are pretty wanton about capital punishment. Parenthetically, dictatorships keep things nice and orderly; crime has always been at a virtual low in an authoritarian environment. So, how far are you willing to take this? If you're going kill murderers, then you might as well kill anyone who will be a destabilizing element to a society's natural order.

Sorry, but that is lazy thinking. It's easier to take such draconian measures, anymore than it is easier to steal and commit fraud than earn your living by working hard. We are operating under a free society, where there is supposed to be a relative equilibrium between the ethics and pragmatism of our justice system. Under any free society, you're going to have abuses, and there's no way to circumvent that.

No need for apologies. It wasn't your insensitivity, It was just your reasoning that seemed like a cop-out. It's just nonsensical to keep legislation that has failed to achieve it's desired ends, for the sake of someone's personal sense of of "justice". Especially one where you or I are liable to be victims of it. Hence, why I made allusions towards people's tendency to want laws that cater to their palate.

[Skatt]

Yes, what gives any human the right to kill another.

Either its a failure of their hubringing or the governmanet.

Sanity reigns in neither. Understanding doesn't come easy ;)

It's easy to see it this way and that's how I saw it for a long time. However, as I have become more into my own and broadened my world view more and more I see just as much sanity in senseless violence as I do in senseless peace. I still don't think people have the right to kill each other, but there are bigger issues than the lives of killers and their equal standing as humans. There are people that have been mentally damaged to the point where they can no longer be allowed to exist freely in the real world. In the matter of survival, our planet can't support the present population for much longer and it does need to decline somehow. It's not fair to have to support a life that cannot be lived just because we can't trust it in a position were it can provide for itself and it is less humane to simply lock them up and let them starve to death than it is to kill them. There is a point where things have to go into the gray area and forget about what black and white are. The fact is that sometimes good and evil don't exist in a situation and all there is left is survival. Typically, morals are against the better judgment of humanity anyway. If everything were weighed logically and based on collateral damage, there are far worse things than murder. For example, excessive reproduction or radical free-market capitalism.
There are just so many ways to look at a situation. It's hard to really say who is right. Especially in a situation where logic has to be weighed out versus feeling.
I can only add that people have to die and what's going to cause the most damage in the future is that so many people are resistant to that fact.

[ame]

a few of the worst in the criminal world should be kept alive for observation and development in the psychiatric field. the rest are surplus. why maintain them?

[Nexus]

I submit that we abolish the death penalty and in its place bring back gladiatorial combat. Think of all the money the government would make by selling tickets and broadcasting rights. It's brilliant, I say. Brilliant! Mwahaha!

[reb]

we already have adequate arenas...and we are close 'morally' (as if that means doodoo) with the 'octagon' and ultimate fighting...why not? the gummint needs $ bad right now.....
reb

[Airius]

I believe they should go ahead and use the death penalty for someone who would murder a child. Rapists and molestors? Castration.

Edit-- after using them for psychiatric evaluation.

[Tyrant Soup]

Justice is a fake concept that has been used to justify (hah) murder throughout history. And this idea that our court system convicts based on proof is really very naive. Juries are stupid, and misunderstand or cherrypick evidence.

It's far from perfect, but what's the alternative?

[zibber]

'Mother Jones' magazine just had a reasoned article on the californiacation prison system. frankly, it's perfectly clear to me-irrefutable-heinous crimes and their perpetrators are a drag on our resources. we don't have inexhaustible resources. put the horrible (charlie manson, jeffrey dahmer) to death swiftly, efficiently, and be done with it. move on to dealing with someone who can or is willing to live among the rest of us without being a torturous, vicious pos.
reb

This is a nice illustration of why the death penalty is a bad idea.

Here we have the (subtle) personification of the knee-jerk reaction to certain people and acts that inspires the bloodlust which has little to do with justice and more with vengefulness.

"Irrefutable" heinous crimes.. Heinous is a value judgement.

(I'm probably making a mistake, but do you even know why Charles Manson is in jail, for instance? He never killed anyone. He is a charismatic man who was bombarded into a cult leader and said things that led other people to murder. The Helter Skelter story was fabricated/greatly embellished by the DA responsible for Manson's demonisation, out to make some bucks. There is so much more to the story and it has a lot to do with the fundamental defects of (American) society. It's not the clear-cut devil tale it's made out to be.)

we already have adequate arenas...and we are close 'morally' (as if that means doodoo) with the 'octagon' and ultimate fighting...why not? the gummint needs $ bad right now.....
reb

LOL, I hadn't even read this when I typed my previous reply. Do you have any clue what mixed martial arts are about? Apparently you confuse the UFC with some kind of underground street fighting, while it is clearly a professional sports organisation.

I take back "(subtle)"!

[zippikay]

as always, there are many ways to approach matters and in the end its just a matter of opinion.

revenge? yes, revenge is sweet, rational people may not understand the rationale behind revenge, but it is very powerful for emotion

then again, we can always approach it as prevention, just like reb said. suffice to say that we shut down the individual that can cause harm to society.

then again, is it humane or not to spend money just to kill a disfunctional character?
because we try to treat the person as human, we provide extensive court process that cost time and money so that we would try not to kill the wrong person. then, there are many way of living that is worse than dying.

if i would see in economic sense, we can always cut off their arms and let them live as sub-human who had their rights as human is taken away... in effect, they would be written dead, but "employed" in servitude to redeem their actions that create loss to society... of course, that would be inhumane and thus we let them die in peace...

[Tablelamp]

Reduction of working limbs is reduction of production rates. To cripple a criminal and tell him to work is simply a waste of resources.

I may think the justice system is messed up, but I do not believe in revenge.
I mean, even if they do repent, does it ever undo what they did? Plus there is always the suspicion that follows them afterwards. Plus, why do we have to suffer and pay for them to live for another 60 years in a comfy prison?

Kill the bastards, use their bodies to fertilize farms, and forget about them.
Most of the career serial killers do it for the fame anyhow, so the best revenge would be to bury them and forget about them, rather than make movies about them. :yuck:

[PHS Philip]

Hence why execution takes "beyond a shadow of a doubt". If there is any doubt in anyones mind it becomes life in prison. Sometimes they do try to get the jury emotional enough to skew their judgement, but the literal letter of the law is pretty darn good. Just a tiny shadow that resembles a doubt in the back of your mind is all it takes to stop the death penalty.

But I don't trust our legal system to actually remove any shadow of a doubt. I don't think a legal system can and still function.





PHS Philip added to this post, 1 minutes and 20 seconds later...

It's far from perfect, but what's the alternative?

Life without parole, because at least you can release them. I hate absolute punishment, which is really what the death penalty is, because it means that if new evidence comes up, you can never even partially reverse the verdict.

[dogwoodlover]

The death penalty serves no purpose. Its nothing more than a signpost pointing to times past.

If someone commits a crime and is killed as revenge, whether its society or an individual who does it, it accomplishes nothing. The whole basis for "not killing" is that life is sacred, and if we routinely execute those who commit murder-related crimes we are making a mockery of our principles.

Moral principles aside, statistically speaking it costs far more money to put someone on death row than to put someone in prison for life; in addition to this I personally consider being a sub-human government slave for the entirety of one's life far greater punishment than being killed off.

[reb]

zibber, you accuse me of making a value judgment when i say 'heinous'. what do you call 'bad idea', knee-jerk reaction, bloodlust, embellished, charismatic? i see you don't make value judgments, just state the facts. i am deeply honored to have been lectured by one who knows....

you ever been in a fight? the ufc is just like what happens on the street, except there's someone to pull the guy off you when you say uncle, or your eyes roll back in your head. go take some shots in the dojo...then talk to me about the ufc. i used to watch the ufc, and finally went 'ya know, this is brutality for the sake of brutality...they neither have stolen anything from each other, nor hate each other for any logical reason..' supporting ufc is just like supporting dog or cockfighting...the dogs have no more choice genetically than these guys (and a few women) do....how admirable...

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
hei·nous
hateful; odious; abominable; totally reprehensible: a heinous offense.

evidently either your opinion is that any behaviour is tolerable, or that the 'life' of a person who incites followers to murder others is to be lauded. very funny....life may teach you some things...

i would have no more bloodlust killing Charlie, than i would killing the coon that tried to get at my chickens the other morning. i have no reason to hate Charlie, nor do i; i just will not tolerate someone like him near me...there are plenty of other examples, but obviously, you aren't inclined to consider anything other than 'all life is sacred'. again, i point to the hypocrisy...we should lock someone up for life, you believe? what is the difference of stealing their freedom and killing them? none that i see. and then you defend the ufc....lol! a bit schizoid...

have fun with your moral stance...it works in the real world, i promise...take a good look at the prison system, and note the rate of recidivism...
reb

[PHS Philip]

Taking freedom can be somewhat reversed. Killing can't. That's the difference.

[Antares]

what is the difference of stealing their freedom and killing them? none that i see. and then you defend the ufc....lol! a bit schizoid...

It might make no difference to you, but it might make a world of differences to the criminal, because after all, your priorities are not the same as anothers'. Does it surprise you that much that someone might rather be imprisoned for life than executed? Prisoners have it pretty good in a lot of places, actually.

[zippikay]

just out of curiosity, what do they eat in prison? I know that if I have some food catering company I would push for amendment in death penalty, hoping that I would profit from the catering; that would count towards laundry and uniform company, look at those industries who take in tax as their profit in the name of humanity...

[PoeticBohemian]

Point one, fundamentally the death penalty states that if one takes the life of another, or lives of others, then that one's life or right to freedom is forfeit.
Point two, a crime worthy of the death penalty, of which murder is the most prominent, is not only a crime against another individual or other individuals, it is a crime against Society.
Point three, having committed a crime punishable by death, one becomes a ward of the State, and in a democracy, that State, the Society, is the citizens.

So, instead of accruing more cost to Society, should not this individual be put in service to the State?

As example, potentially life-saving drugs are in need of testing. Would it not be better to have one who has no regard for human life pay for the crime by being put in service of saving lives?
This, of course, would occur only if the individual has been proven beyond a shadow of doubt to have commited the crime and had no serious mental disease, and this repayment obligation would be supervised independent of the drug companies involved and the State itself.
Not only is the criminal repaying Society by rendering oneself useful to the citizens, there is ample time to reflect and potentially feel remorse for one's actions.

This could be written into law and everyone made aware of it.
Would this be a better deterrent to the more violent crimes?
Would not this be a more humane and practical solution than merely taking another life?
Granted, there are Orwellian shadows lurking over this, but careful and thoughful consideration of the writing of this law and its regulation would reduce the occasion of its manipulation.

[Tablelamp]

"Life is sacred" is a morality stance. I prefer the "natural" stance, and death has been one-half the coin of life for almost 2 billion years... who are we to say it is wrong?

Lets look at the facts in context for a minute, and retreat from the nebulous:
The economy is in trouble, prisons are over booked. Why prisons are over booked, I will not get into.
Prisons cost money. Prisoners for life, cost money... duh, their whole lives.
Stop feeding them, save money!
It is like the war in Iraq; it may be right, it may be wrong... but we still can't afford it, so morality needs to take a back seat to putting food in my mouth.

Morality is a human experiment. We are the first species to have it, and if we let it lead us to our deaths, we will be the LAST species to have it.
That I believe... until someone can prove me otherwise.

[dogwoodlover]

morality needs to take a back seat to putting food in my mouth.

Where in the hell do you live? Africa?

America is the richest country in the world, we spend more money producing beef each year than it would cost to feed the entire world a plant-diet. We aren't exactly "food-deprived." If we killed all our prisoners that money would simply go to funding more wars.

For those of you worried about "cost-effectiveness," take your complaints up with the Pentagon--its budget well exceeds half a trillion dollars each year. That simply dwarfs the cost of our prisons.

[reb]

bill maher explains my postion better than i can....

motherjones.com/bill-maher

kill 'em all, let god sort 'em out (if there is a god)....but i like the idea of chain gangs. they still have them in oklahoma. as far as having it 'good' in prison....ever been in prison? in the 50 states, and the federal lockups, the conditions are all over the place...go see the worst and best, and then make a judgment about whether you'd rather be locked up for life...the chain gang for murderers/rapists/diaper snipers...that would be an amenable alternative to me...work 'em until they drop.

but i had an incident two days ago where a half wit tried to run over me in a parking lot; i was standing in a 'no parking zone' with yellow lines on it smoking a weed well away from the entrance to the store, and this 'human' decided he wanted to cross the yellow lined area...when he honked at me twice, and i just looked at him, he 'jumped the truck' at me...closed the distance from 5 feet to 2. i decided it wasn't worth killing him....and moved, while circling my left index finger around my left ear....with my right hand in my pocket...watching his eyes. had i shot the sob, i mighta got put in jail...am i a murderer when i'm threatened with a deadly weapon (a vehicle is a deadly weapon in the eyes of the law most places)? there are no witnesses (none are going to come forward, promise)....lol! think on it-any of us might, through a series of strange events, and just one wrong decision, wind up in the grey bar hotel...seriously consider what it woud be like to be caged like a pet monkey for 30 years...see if you can get your head wrapped around that. for those that like the idea, more power to them, but don't expect me to have to go along with it, pay for it, or like it. in a 'free society', i ought to have the right to 'opt out' of wasteful, inhumane bs like this...

[Skatt]

If we want to bring morals in to the picture(:P) Then I'll offer a great one that our country was founded one. Two choices: liberty or death. Liberty is what prisoners lose, not freedom. Freedom actually cannot be taken away that easily. A prisoner is still free to do as they wish with their environment, therefore the freedom in prison is no different than the freedom outside of prison. Liberty is being able to make arbitrary decisions. That is what prisoners can't do. Every decision they make is monitored and approved or denied. The prisoner is still free because they can still attempt any decision they wish. To take away a prisoner's freedom they have to be completely hindered or dead. No real point to that statement, just a perspective.
Survival aside, morals should still take a backseat to efficiency and practicality. It makes no sense for a society to put so much effort into maintaining so many people that can't be trusted to contribute without violating other people's personal space. It's never going to be a perfect system or a perfect world in the sense that most people see the two ideals. Especially when so many people group living and survival into the same meaning. I'm not surprised about this since everything that is considered life preparation is really just a mask for a different form of survival. One where people spend their whole lives trying to die with more money and/or belongings than the last person, or trying to make a difference that won't even be seen until long after they have died. I'm not saying there is a better way, I just don't see the point. That's why I don't see the point in keeping a person alive if all they have to do is sit around and wait for visits if there is even anyone that wants to visit them, and then eventually death. There are a lot of cases where prison forces people to survive. There is no good reason outside of extremely foggy morals to keep these people alive. My morals tell me not to kill. I don't even kill bugs or animals since it's not a necessity for my life. I don't think there is any good reason to kill another person, even in self-defense(though I don't doubt that I would if it came down to it). There is just less good reasons to not kill someone who is just going to be stuck in a prison surviving off of society.
There isn't really a good way to make an argument for either side on this issue because there are too many variables that can be thrown out there to be dissected.

[Skatt]

What about just locking them up and not taking care of them? That way no one actually kills anybody and no one has to pay to support a killer. Sure, they'll die of starvation or dehydration, but... J/K I really can't figure out how any of this can ever make sense.

[Tablelamp]

Where in the hell do you live? Africa?
No, I didn't mean literally. I was just emphasizing my regard to the waste of resources.

For those of you worried about "cost-effectiveness," take your complaints up with the Pentagon--its budget well exceeds half a trillion dollars each year. That simply dwarfs the cost of our prisons.

Hahaha! Now who is the bigger criminal?
...of course I don't believe in a government that controls it's own wages anyhow, but I doubt that will ever change. Something about power corrupting, ect. ;)

[OmegaPsi]

Its always been a thought of mine to give people life in prison, and while they are in prison let them have the right to a peaceful suicide if they want it.

[Ool]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I can’t find any indication in the report of the murderer’s motive for his crime. If someone does it out of, say, sociopathy and suicidal insanity then I don’t think the death sentence would deter others of the same ilk much…

[Skatt]

I don't think there is really a good reason to keep around a person that would light a 5 year old on fire for any reason even if it's insanity. I really don't think it's meant as a deterrent in this case.

[LaoTzu]

I think that violent, irretreivable offenders should be sent to an island somewhere as far away as possible, and left to fend for themselves.

Air Drop food once in a while, monitor all traffic to the island so no escapes occur (or just mine the perimiter :P ). Set up a no fly zone for anything but airdrops.

let em live as free as they want, just nowhere near 'normal' society.

[Skatt]

Not bad really. Could be cost effective and technically within the realm of a good number of moral compasses. I like it.

[TheLastMohican]

I think that violent, irretreivable offenders should be sent to an island somewhere as far away as possible, and left to fend for themselves.


How about Manhattan?

[Karamazov]

How about Manhattan?

Try Alcatraz. Manhattan is actually doing pretty well, all things considered.

[JessicaHavenLea]

too bad there is nowhere we can throw them to live in their own society making what they will of life. Essentially banishing them from our society but not forcing anything on them. If they want to kill each other or cant sustain themselves and starve, that is their problem. If they show aggression we treat them like a hostile enemy and drop a few bombs on them, etc... Maybe we can recommission Australia?

I was thinking about a prisoner exchange program. Say, if someone commits a crime here they would be sent to do hard labor in a (strict) foreign nation. I hear Saudi Arabia is pretty authoritarian.

[Sliderule]

I think that violent, irretreivable offenders should be sent to an island somewhere as far away as possible, and left to fend for themselves.

Air Drop food once in a while, monitor all traffic to the island so no escapes occur (or just mine the perimiter :P ). Set up a no fly zone for anything but airdrops.

let em live as free as they want, just nowhere near 'normal' society.

How about Manhattan?

Ok if this thread is going to head back in this direction which was covered earlier by Jackal Warrior and me with the Escape from New York comparison can I redirect once again to my brilliant idea which no one seems to have even acknowledged?


How about large padded neon colored mittens?

Now stay with it I'm not done yet,

Instead of extensive prison sentences or the death penalty, we release these criminals back into society. They have to wear the mittens at all times outside of their work place and home. How is someone going to hurt anyone if they're wearing giant padded neon mittens. Make them attachable and detachable with the aid of a device located in the home and at the business. At the same time install a gps tracking device on their person that immediately notifies authorities/delivers a gentle paralyzing shock if they try to leave the house or workplace without wearing the mittens, or even set up the house to lock down if it detects motion out of the exits without the mittens.

We have the technology.

They pay for their own incarceration by working jobs in society, it's really elegant.

C'mon mittens folks!

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

He's downright cuddly now!

[reb]

i'll wear the mittens in public for a week (except playing bridge, can't hold cards that way) if i get to shoot John Toomey dead nuts in the center of his forehead with a .45 with no legal consequences...you can show the video on youtube, plot:

neon pink mitten comes into frame, .45 vaquero in hand, Toomey cuffed to chair bolted to floor....Toomey urinates....mitten thumb cocks hammer....

fill in the blanks....

actually, i'd go along with making them do hard labor; in Toomey's case, he should be made to build a house for Jessica's family with his bare hands from old lumber with hand tools only. and make it good, or make him do it over. he's so dopey looking, however, that might take 20 government inspectors to watch him....and you KNOW who would pay for that....

gimme that mitten....