Do you remember Karla Faye Tucker?

[Beorning]

I happened to recall this case yesterday:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Faye_Tucker

I actually remember that her pending execution in 1998 was in the news even back here. I was a Christian at that time and I remember praying for her at the hour she was being given the injection...

Do you remember that case? Do you think that she should or shouldn't have been executed? What's your opinion on death penalty in general?

BTW. I also recall from the news that the were pickets outside the prison at the time of her execution. While anti-death penalty pickets are nothing wrong, I can't help wondering about the people who were waving the "Let the B***h die" plackards. Is it a humane thing to do..?

[Retribution]

Yes, I recall her, and yes she should have died just like she did. I know her home life was hard but that is not an excuse for murdering others in a cold and callus way. Her life was one big crime spree and she did not have a change of heart about it until after she was caught.  I do not care about the excuses they are irrelevant and I am not inclined to give everyone a free pass who plays the sympathy card.

There is a logical way to avoid getting executed and that is to not murder anyone. And one should also avoid putting themselves into that sort of position in the first place. I am so very tired of how our society has an excuse for everything and everyone and no one takes responsibility for their own actions.

[Beorning]

Well, let me raise some counter-points:

1. Personally, I do believe that her home life could have been an excuse... or, at least, an explanation. To a big extent, we *are* shaped by our childhood experiences - experiences we have no control over.

2. I don't know if she could be described as having killed in "cold blood". From what I've read, she was stoned out of her head when she committed those murders. Many addicts do commit deeds they later genuinely regret.

3. Regardless of whenever it happened, she did have a change of heart. Isn't it cruel to hold a woman in prison for 14 years, let her reform... and then, execute her anyway? She was a different person than when she commited those murders.

4. It's not like people wanted for her go to free - there was only talk of changing her sentence to lifetime in prison. So, it's not like people wanted her not to be responsible for what she did...

[Retribution]

We simply are not going to agree on this. And yes, she should not have been in prison 14 years she should have been put to death long before that.

[Aiden]

I support the death penalty, as bad as this sounds I think more people should be executed. Rapists, Child Rapists, Gang Members. All those "Lifers" I think we should be rid of them.

(I'm also not looking to get into a debate, this is how I feel. My friend has TRIED to reason with me, it just doesn't work with me)

[Tairis]

So because she had a religious conversion and she was a woman, somehow she should have been spared? She murdered a man because he was making an unpleasant noise after he was beaten with a hammer. All to steal that man's things to pay for drugs because she was an addict.

She should have been shot once the guilty verdict was passed, saved the state thousands, and saved everyone from years of BS. It's easy to be repentant when you have nothing to lose in a place where you'll never have to actually do anything to repair the damage you've caused.

[DemonessOfDeathValley]

I don't believe in the death penalty. In my opinion killing is killing, whether it's a person committing a crime or the criminal being executed.

[Valthazar]

Personally, I think life in prison without parole (like solitary confinement) is a bigger punishment than getting the death penalty.  But then again, the death penalty is more cost effective as tax payers, so it is a difficult issue.

[meikle]

Death sentence is never anything than more than vengeance.  Blood for blood is a barbaric, outdated practice that serves no functional purpose but is actively detrimental to our society -- the appeals process in death sentences are (necessarily) long, drawn-out, and expensive compared to, for example, life without parole.  Recent studies suggest that as many as 4% of prisoners who find themselves facing the death penalty are innocent. 

Beyond that, the institution of the death penalty functions as a perverse incentive: a person who will expect to be killed for their crimes is motivated by the legal system to remain at large, and has no further incentive to stop committing crimes.  If the role of the criminal justice system is to protect the people of the nation, then the death penalty is actively contrary to that goal.

(like solitary confinement) ... But then again, the death penalty is more cost effective as tax payers, so it is a difficult issue.

The death penalty is significantly more expensive to tax payers than life in prison; an inmate on death row costs $90,000 a year more than an inmate in a maximum security prison serving a life sentence.

Solitary confinement is an incredibly cruel act of psychological torture when enacted for more than a few weeks at a time.  The goal of the justice system is to protect the innocent, not to torture the guilty.   ... "The court found that 'Texas's administrative segregation units are virtual incubators of psychoses — seeding illness in otherwise healthy inmates and exacerbating illness in those already suffering from mental infirmities.'" http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/exhibits/ww_justice/documents_3/Ruiz_opinion_5_2001.pdf

She should have been shot once the guilty verdict was passed ... It's easy to be repentant when you have nothing to lose in a place where you'll never have to actually do anything to repair the damage you've caused.

This entire post comes across as incredibly deranged, but certainly backs up my prior point that death penalty supporters are usually sadists out for blood.  You know what would allow her to do something to repair the damage she caused?  Not killing her.  Rehabilitation allows criminals to repay their debt to society.  Execution only serves to get people like you off.

If we executed death penalty convicts immediately upon verdict, we would kill significantly more innocent people than any of these criminals do themselves.  Here's a list of innocent people you're in favor of murdering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_exonerated_death_row_inmates

[Qt]

Well, let me raise some counter-points:

1. Personally, I do believe that her home life could have been an excuse... or, at least, an explanation. To a big extent, we *are* shaped by our childhood experiences - experiences we have no control over.

2. I don't know if she could be described as having killed in "cold blood". From what I've read, she was stoned out of her head when she committed those murders. Many addicts do commit deeds they later genuinely regret.

3. Regardless of whenever it happened, she did have a change of heart. Isn't it cruel to hold a woman in prison for 14 years, let her reform... and then, execute her anyway? She was a different person than when she commited those murders.

4. It's not like people wanted for her go to free - there was only talk of changing her sentence to lifetime in prison. So, it's not like people wanted her not to be responsible for what she did...

Your post is a bit confusing, are you against the death penalty as a whole? Or are you simply arguing that she shouldn't have been executed because she was female.

Would you have made the same arguments if the person's gender is male instead of female?

[meikle]

Your post is a bit confusing, are you against the death penalty as a whole? Or are you simply arguing that she shouldn't have been executed because she was female.

Would you have made the same arguments if the person's gender is male instead of female?

Are you really confused?  Nothing in that post suggests that her gender has anything to do with it.

[Beorning]

So because she had a religious conversion and she was a woman, somehow she should have been spared?

Well, her religious conversion meant that she reformed. And she remained reformed for the next 14 years. What was the point of killing her, then?

She murdered a man because he was making an unpleasant noise after he was beaten with a hammer. All to steal that man's things to pay for drugs because she was an addict.

Isn't her being an addict an exonerating circumstance, actually? It's a well-known problem of addicts that they have trouble controlling their actions when pressed by their addiction...

Your post is a bit confusing, are you against the death penalty as a whole? Or are you simply arguing that she shouldn't have been executed because she was female.

Would you have made the same arguments if the person's gender is male instead of female?

I won't deny that I tend to be a bit more empathizing with women than men... But I think I'd make the same arguments if Tucker was a male, yes.

And yes, I am against death penalty.

[Retribution]

Every time I see a debate like this I wonder where all the love and concern for the victims is because it seems to be all reserved for the criminals.

[Formless]

Every time I see a debate like this I wonder where all the love and concern for the victims is because it seems to be all reserved for the criminals.

Indeed.

[Beorning]

Every time I see a debate like this I wonder where all the love and concern for the victims is because it seems to be all reserved for the criminals.

Come on, this is just unfair. I don't agree with the fundamental concept of murdering people for their crimes (and yes, I agree that these are serious crimes), so I don't have any sympathy for the victims? Can't you see that this is completely black-and-white approach?

What you're saying is that because criminals hurt somebody, they have no human rights whatsoever... If so, then maybe you'd propose that we come back to some true-and-tried methods of punishment, like impalement or skinning?

BTW. Have you considered that, one day, you might be one of those people who ended up sentenced for some crime? Wouldn't you want to be shown a basic degree of mercy in such a situation?

BTW 2. If I remember correctly, a brother of one of Tucker's victims was against her execution, too. So, he has no sympathy for his murdered sister, either?

[Retribution]

It is a very black and white issue in my view. I am sorry that offends you. As for the argument that execution is just vengance? Okay I am perfectly fine with vegance in cases like this. There are no gray areas as far as I am concerned. You have the right to believe as you do and so do I.

[Oniya]

While the Innocence Project has exonerated many people on death row, those have been situations where DNA evidence has proven conclusively that the person convicted did not do what they were convicted of doing.  This is why I don't get bent out of shape with regards to appeals and delays.  If Ms. Tucker had shown anywhere close to the remorse that she showed post-sentencing during her trial, or even seemed remotely appalled when talking to her friends afterwards (instead of bragging that she had multiple orgasms during the murders), she might have gotten that life sentence.

[Iniquitous]

Come on, this is just unfair. I don't agree with the fundamental concept of murdering people for their crimes (and yes, I agree that these are serious crimes), so I don't have any sympathy for the victims? Can't you see that this is completely black-and-white approach?

What you're saying is that because criminals hurt somebody, they have no human rights whatsoever... If so, then maybe you'd propose that we come back to some true-and-tried methods of punishment, like impalement or skinning?

BTW. Have you considered that, one day, you might be one of those people who ended up sentenced for some crime? Wouldn't you want to be shown a basic degree of mercy in such a situation?

BTW 2. If I remember correctly, a brother of one of Tucker's victims was against her execution, too. So, he has no sympathy for his murdered sister, either?

Personally? Bring back the more extreme punishments for crime. As for criminals having human rights? Some of them do not deserve them. They certainly did not respect their victims' human rights so why should they be accorded them?

I don't care if a death row inmate 'finds God' and 'repents'. There are consequences for every action. Not too mention I am not entirely convinced at these 'conversions' and 'repentance' claims. 1. Oh shit, I've been caught - claim I've found God now and might get off light! 2. You're in prison - aint that hard to live a 'virtuous' life when your ass is guarded 24/7 to make sure you don't do the shit you did before.

Found God? Good for you, now go meet your maker.

[Beorning]

If Ms. Tucker had shown anywhere close to the remorse that she showed post-sentencing during her trial, or even seemed remotely appalled when talking to her friends afterwards (instead of bragging that she had multiple orgasms during the murders), she might have gotten that life sentence.

Hm. Still, she did show remorse after the sentence. And did so for many years. So, maybe she did earn the re-sentencing?

Personally? Bring back the more extreme punishments for crime.

Which ones, specifically? Whipping? Hand-cutting? Impalement? Skinning? Burning at the stake? How about the breaking wheel? Or crucifixion?

How far would you be willing to go?

As for criminals having human rights? Some of them do not deserve them. They certainly did not respect their victims' human rights so why should they be accorded them?

Because we would be hypocrites, otherwise? How can the state punish people for killing someone, if it conducts killings, too?

I find the States' adherence to death penalty surprising especially in the light that it is, in many respects, a very Christian nation. Meanwhile, death penalty is utterly anti-Christian...

I don't care if a death row inmate 'finds God' and 'repents'. There are consequences for every action.

But must the consequences be so severe?

Remember that, one day, you might end up in prison, too!

Not too mention I am not entirely convinced at these 'conversions' and 'repentance' claims. 1. Oh shit, I've been caught - claim I've found God now and might get off light! 2. You're in prison - aint that hard to live a 'virtuous' life when your ass is guarded 24/7 to make sure you don't do the shit you did before.

So, you don't believe that one can change in prison? Isn't it why the prisons actually exist - to change people for the better?

[Rogue]

I'm honestly for the death penalty. Does every case deserve it? No. Did this one? Yes.

Honestly she should have been off the streets before this. Perhaps in a drug rehab program instead of prison. But if, when sober, you are still proud of yourself, as Oni said, then you don't deserve a second chance. (My assertion that she was sober while on the stand is based on the fact that she wouldn't be able to get a hold of drugs but I could be wrong.) There are many people who had the same circumstances occur (divorced parents, falling into drugs and prostitution and with a bad boyfriend etc.) who did not murder someone and felt remorse for their actions while sober.

But that's the difference. This person didn't feel remorse for their actions until they "found God"? Bull shit. She was plying for support from anti-death penalty groups and Christians.

This also implies that atheists are amoral people which simply isn't true. Because if she'd simply said "I'm sorry. I'm better now. I didn't mean it." without her "I found God" statement, no one would believe her. Why should they believe her because she found a religion that she could utilize for support?

If she actually "found God" as she said, she'd say something along the lines of "Let God judge me for my mistakes." and have gone to rest peacefully.

[Retribution]

Beorning with all due respect you asked a question so do not be offended or surprised if you do not get the answer that you might prefer. You have your opinion and that is cool, it just does not fit my world view or morality and that is cool also.

But on to the reason I chimed in again. You asked me and some others what if it was me or what if I was falsely accused. The answer is simple, I do not put myself in those situations where that is a concern. Even people who are exonerated often put themselves in questionable situations.  As for me I do not do drugs, I do not rob people, I do not do things to put myself in that sort of a predicament. So I do not worry about facing a capital charge. It is pretty simple really there are repercussions for actions and I do not take actions I do not like the repercussions for. The only time I could foresee myself in a possible situation like such would be if someone did something like this to a member of my family. If that was the case I will take my chances with the jury after I send my greeting to the perpetrator at 4000 FPS.

[Beorning]

I really don't understand why you are being so... cynical.

The idea behind the prison system is that it's supposed to change people. You put them into extreme conditions and make them re-think their lives. Now... why do you insist on claiming that it wasn't the case with Tucker? Okay, so she wasn't immediately regretful about her murders... but does it mean that she couldn't have come to different conclusions later on? Even if that conlusion came from her having faced the perspective of being executed... so what? She could've changed.

She married a minister, after all. So, she was fooling all the time? All these 14 years, she remained a cold-hearted manipulator who played a good Christian for the media in a desperate bid to save her life?

Beorning with all due respect you asked a question so do not be offended or surprised if you do not get the answer that you might prefer.

I'm not offended. I'm just discussing the issue. As we are on a discussion board and all :)

But on to the reason I chimed in again. You asked me and some others what if it was me or what if I was falsely accused.

Actually, I didn't asked about you being *falsely* accused. You need to realize that you might end up in prison for doing something criminal for real.

The answer is simple, I do not put myself in those situations where that is a concern. Even people who are exonerated often put themselves in questionable situations.  As for me I do not do drugs, I do not rob people, I do not do things to put myself in that sort of a predicament. So I do not worry about facing a capital charge.

Okay, maybe we're not talking capital charge here. But how about imprisonment... Do you drive, for once? If so, then every day, there's a chance that you'll kill somebody on the road. You can get many years of prison for that...

How about crimes of passion? How about assault? Can you can honestly say that you're absolutely sure you'll never beat up anyone?

[Rogue]

People who commit crimes of passion are typically regretful soon after. After the passion died down. That's why they're called crimes of passion.

As for the prison system being a reform system: There's a reason people go back to jail rather frequently and there are high chances you'll be a repeat offender.

Okay, maybe we're not talking capital charge here. But how about imprisonment... Do you drive, for once? If so, then every day, there's a chance that you'll kill somebody on the road. You can get many years of prison for that...

Yes you can get many years in prison for that. But there's this wonderfully beautiful thing you can do called driving safely. This means not using your phone while driving and keeping your eyes on the things around you. There may be a chance, but it's relatively low if you actually keep an eye on your surroundings and obey traffic laws.

As for me: yeah I sometimes use my phone while driving. I don't text but I'll call. And if I get into an accident that kills someone because of that and it was my fault there was an accident, it's my fault. And I'll put on my big girl pants and go to jail.

Edit:minor grammatical error.

[Retribution]

We could toss what ifs at one another from here to infinity and it really proves nada. Suffice to say Rogue summed up my feelings for the most part. Other than yes, I am that cynical I have worked for the government for 24 years after all  :-)

[Beorning]

As for the prison system being a reform system: There's a reason people go back to jail rather frequently and there are high chances you'll be a repeat offender.

So, you don't believe in criminals reforming? And every person who claims that they changed in prison is lying just to get sympathy?

Yes you can get many years in prison for that. But there's this wonderfully beautiful thing you can do called driving safely. This means not using your phone while driving and keeping your eyes on the things around you. There may be a chance, but it's relatively low if you actually keep an eye on your surroundings and obey traffic laws.

As for me: yeah I sometimes use my phone while driving. I don't text but I'll call. And if I get into an accident that kills someone because of that and it was my fault there was an accident, it's my fault. And I'll put on my big girl pants and go to jail.

And if that happened, wouldn't you want other people to treat you with a basic degree of decency? Of would you be okay with them saying "B***h had it coming, she's obviously evil and should rot in prison"?

[Blythe]

I happened to recall this case yesterday:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karla_Faye_Tucker

I actually remember that her pending execution in 1998 was in the news even back here. I was a Christian at that time and I remember praying for her at the hour she was being given the injection...

Never heard of the Tucker case before, so it was enlightening. I'll drop my two cents in on the topic.

Do you remember that case? Do you think that she should or shouldn't have been executed?

After doing some reading, she was guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt, and it was highly likely that her remorse was feigned. I don't like the death penalty. I really don't. In very extreme circumstances, though, when a criminal does not seem like they would genuinely reform and has committed a crime heinous enough, I understand the reasons behind the death penalty. I don't like it, but I understand it. I honestly prefer life sentences over the death penalty.

What's your opinion on death penalty in general?

The death penalty is a cruel necessity at best, in my opinion. I am against it, for personal reasons that I do not care to elaborate on.

BTW. I also recall from the news that the were pickets outside the prison at the time of her execution. While anti-death penalty pickets are nothing wrong, I can't help wondering about the people who were waving the "Let the B***h die" plackards. Is it a humane thing to do..?

If people were waving signs like that...for me, that crosses the line from insisting on a necessity about the safety of others/concern over taxpayers dollars and moving right into "angry mob with signs." The former is a concern about what is right, the latter is bloodlust.

[Rogue]

So, you don't believe in criminals reforming? And every person who claims that they changed in prison is lying just to get sympathy?

And if that happened, wouldn't you want other people to treat you with a basic degree of decency? Of would you be okay with them saying "B***h had it coming, she's obviously evil and should rot in prison"?

I do believe in criminals reforming. I just have a realistic view on it. And I don't believe someone with such a blatant disregard from life isn't capable of this level of manipulation.

As for the decency, I mentioned nothing on picketing. I said she deserved the death penalty. I honestly wished that trials and executions weren't publicized. Because making criminals famous isn't okay. Making a murderer famous isn't okay when people who make wonderful discoveries aren't celebrated.

Either way, my belief on the death penalty is that the crime has to fit and the criminal has to show no remorse for their actions. If a criminal brags about their exploits, they don't show remorse and reading a book won't change that. To believe so is naive in my opinion.

Also, there's no point in being reformed if you're not going to be reintroduced into society anyways such as with Life with no chance of parole sentences.

[meikle]

Personally? Bring back the more extreme punishments for crime. As for criminals having human rights? Some of them do not deserve them. They certainly did not respect their victims' human rights so why should they be accorded them?

We can't call ourselves better than criminals if schoolyard "she did it first" is the best justification we have for the things we do.

I appreciate that in light of overwhelming evidence to support the fact that the death penalty is inefficient, ineffective, and literally kills innocent people, people still maintain that sating their blood lust is the most important part of the criminal justice system.  Like Retribution is literally okay with innocent people dying because "Well, nobody's ever going to frame me."  This is insane.

Either way, my belief on the death penalty is that the crime has to fit and the criminal has to show no remorse for their actions. If a criminal brags about their exploits, they don't show remorse and reading a book won't change that. To believe so is naive in my opinion.

On the other hand, if the criminal does these things under the influence of drugs, while addicted to drugs, with the purpose of getting more of those drugs, then taking those drugs away from them for over a decade will probably change things.

Welcome to the US, the only first world nation that treats drug addiction as a moral failing rather than the health issue that it is.

Also, there's no point in being reformed if you're not going to be reintroduced into society anyways such as with Life with no chance of parole sentences.

Maybe this means that we shouldn't give life without parole to anybody.  If someone never truly reforms, that's what parole hearings are for.

[Rogue]

You know what. I'm just going to drop this article here.

I don't believe that a rapist or murderer deserves life. If they did, they would respect the lives of others.

However, my logic has been shot down so I will switch my position.

[Iniquitous]

Will I ever kill someone? The only way I would ever kill someone is in self defense - and I know the law well enough (father was a cop, brother was a cop, uncle was a deputy sheriff, my cousin and her husband are deputies) to know what is considered self defense and what isn’t. So no, I am not going to out and starting shooting up a walmart or getting so crazy jealous that I blow the brains out of a guy and another woman/man/goat/cow/whatever.

Will I ever deal drugs? Um. No. Why? Because I am a law abiding citizen.
Will I ever drink and drive? No. Again, I am a law abiding citizen.
Will I ever text and drive? No. Read above.
Will I ever perform terrorist activities? Nope. I am not an religious/political extremist.


Seriously? The chances of me ever ending up in prison is, well, zero. So, no I do not need to stop and go “well gee, what if I were to ever go out and brutally murder someone - wouldn’t I want some leniency for me?”. And in all honesty, if I was to ever flip my lid, completely lose it and do some heinous crime - I deserve the punishment.

As for the extreme punishments? I am all for stockades, I am all for making examples of people who break the law. Put ‘em on display. Embarrass them. Public canings? Sure. I honestly feel that if people were made examples of then other idiots would stop breaking the law.

And while I do understand that addiction is a medical and mental disease, there comes a point where that becomes an excuse. The alcoholic that has been arrested five times for drunk driving gets back out on the road drunk and kills someone. Sorry - at that point screaming ‘but I have a disease!’ doesn’t cut it.

Not even touching the whole ‘death penalty is anti-Christian’ beyond saying ‘an eye for an eye.’

[meikle]

Every time I see a debate like this I wonder where all the love and concern for the victims is because it seems to be all reserved for the criminals.

You know what. I'm just going to drop this article here.

I like #8.  We could reroute the billions of dollars we're presently spending on killing people toward supporting people, but that would be too sympathetic to criminals.

Seriously? The chances of me ever ending up in prison is, well, zero

If you believe that you have to commit a crime to end up in prison, you are delusional.  Reality simply does not support this at all.  You don't even have to commit a crime to end up on death row.  When discussing criminal law, we must always be conscious of the fact that whatever punishments we are willing to hand down to criminals will also happen to innocent people.  If you aren't willing to see the punishment dealt to yourself or someone you love -- even if you're innocent, even if they're innocent -- if that's absolutely not a worthwhile risk for the gain of keeping execution on the books, then you should not support it.

[Iniquitous]

Actually, I didn't asked about you being *falsely* accused. You need to realize that you might end up in prison for doing something criminal for real.

I will redirect you to what Beorning stated previously. I will not be breaking any laws that will land me in prison. I said nothing about being falsely accused/convicted. But, with that said, I agree with Retribution - I am not, nor will I ever, put myself in questionable situations that could lead to me being falsely accused. It's that simple. I am a law abiding citizen - I do not go to bars or clubs. I do not hang out with people of questionable repute. I do not act out. I do not go to places of questionable repute. I obey traffic laws, I follow the laws concerning weapons and registration. I do not threaten people, I do not get into fights, I do not have a life filled with drama, I do not have friends that have lives filled with drama.

And I already stated above - if I did the crime, I deserve the punishment. It's real simple. If I become a mass murdering fuck then by all means execute me. I deserve it. As much as I love my children, if one of them becomes a mass murdering fuck - they deserve the death penalty. I wont love them any less, but they would deserve it.

[meikle]

As much as I love my children, if one of them becomes a mass murdering fuck - they deserve the death penalty.

The issue is, one of them might end up laying on a steel table with a tube feeding sodium pentothal into their bloodstream for something they did not do.  They don't have to be a mass murderer.  They don't have to do anything.  They might be framed.  They might be unlucky.  They might have the same name as someone who did something awful, they might end up being picked off a list of faces mistakenly.  They might get a bad lawyer.

They might die on a steel table having done nothing wrong.  It has happened before.

And you're okay with that potentiality.

It's the death penalty.  It's not, "Do you think some people deserve to die?"  Of course some people deserve to die.  It's, "Are you willing to risk the lives of people you love, innocent people, to make that happen?"  Do you trust your government so much to never fuck that up?  I don't.

[Iniquitous]

Point blank answer.

Yes.

Because I believe that some people do deserve to die. Because I believe that some people cannot be rehabilitated and put back into society. Because I do not believe in paying for these people to live at my expense - I pay for their medical, I pay for their dental, I pay for their food, I pay for their cable, I pay for their recreational equipment. I do not agree with that. If they cannot be rehabilitated and put back into society then I should not be expected to pay for them to live a nice long life in prison.

[meikle]

You pay significantly more to kill them than you would to keep them alive, so your fiscal argument is stupid.

You're willing to kill your own children for it.  This is not reason, this is bloodlust.  Okay.

You cannot be okay with killing other people for hurting people if you're also okay with hurting innocent people yourself.  This is monumentally hypocritical.

[Rogue]

IO, please go read my article before you make that judgement.

Specifically the first like 5 points. Because it's more expensive to kill people than to keep them... unfortunately.

[lilhobbit37]

Personally I don't know whether I'm for or against the death penalty. I don't like the idea that killing people is ever ok. However, that said, I also don't want to pay for someone to live in prison for their whole life either.

If they did a crime that they can "pay penance" for and then return to society and be a positive addition, great. But if they did a crime such as this one, they can NEVER be put back in society. No one can take the chance that she really is reformed. Her entire life would have been in prison. Period.

When that is the case, do they deserve to live in prison their whole life? What positive thing comes out of us NOT killing them? They are never safe to release into society. That is why there IS a life WITHOUT parole option. Because those criminals are criminals that can not be trusted to NOT hurt people.

This isn't a case of maybe she didn't do it and really is innocent either. She did it. It was never in question. So using the "innocent people get killed" argument does nothing in this case. This is not a case of circumstantial evidence. She DID do this crime.

As for the whole blood lust thing, I disagree that anyone for the death penalty is just out for blood. It costs more to kill someone because of people like you who just keep throwing "well, they might be innocent" around, thereby making it so the courts have to do all sorts of crazy proceedings before they can actually complete the sentence given to the individual. I understand that in the past before dna testing there were many people found guilty who weren't. We also have people like OJ Simpson who WERE guilty and got off even while bragging as to how they got away with it. The system will never be 100%.

But I don't agree that it should take 10-20 years to carry out the sentence for someone. It makes the sentencing nearly pointless. Her murder partner died long before he could actually be killed.

Anyways I think I'm going off on a tangent, but those are my thoughts on the whole thing.

[meikle]

If they did a crime that they can "pay penance" for and then return to society and be a positive addition, great. But if they did a crime such as this one, they can NEVER be put back in society. No one can take the chance that she really is reformed. Her entire life would have been in prison. Period.

Why?  Because it was brutal?  Because she was on drugs?

In practice, she killed two people.  We release people who do much worse than that pretty much all the time.  Consider the case of the kid in Texas who killed 4 people under the influence of a drug, was sentenced to parole.  Should he also be executed?

This isn't a case of maybe she didn't do it and really is innocent either. She did it. It was never in question. So using the "innocent people get killed" argument does nothing in this case. This is not a case of circumstantial evidence. She DID do this crime.

This is not the only death penalty case, however, and whenever the death penalty is given, people believe exactly this at the time.  There is no 100% certainty.  There is never 100% certainty.

But I don't agree that it should take 10-20 years to carry out the sentence for someone. It makes the sentencing nearly pointless. Her murder partner died long before he could actually be killed.

People have been exonerated for being innocent of the crimes they were accused of after more than 10-20 years.  You are okay with killing them.

You are okay with killing innocent people.

. It costs more to kill someone because of people like you who just keep throwing "well, they might be innocent" around, thereby making it so the courts have to do all sorts of crazy proceedings before they can actually complete the sentence given to the individual.

Terrible, terrible people like me who don't want it to be easy for the government to kill citizens.

[Iniquitous]

Let me just say this first and foremost.

You are not going to change my opinion. You can call it bloodlust all you want. I call it being practical ... and I'll say why again since it seems that someone is only reading what they want to read.

IF a criminal cannot be rehabilitated and released back into society then they should be put to death. Some criminals do not deserve to live. Period.

[lilhobbit37]

Not to someone like you obviously.

There is no one arguing that she may have been innocent or falsely convicted.

No one thinks that.

And I already said yes there have been wrong convictions and deaths. I have never denied that.

Obviously there is a fundamental flaw in our prisons. People are so worried about the rights of criminals that prisons in America have become a place better than some people's actual home lives. Someone living homeless would be better off committing a crime so they are ensured 3 hots and a cot. 3 meals, free clothing, a bed, healthcare. Things that someone on the street has no access to or has to beg for. Being handed to them as "punishment" for breaking the law.

Now I can understand for SOME crimes, wanting to not have a harsh punishment. Rape and murder are not on that list.

Rapists and murderers should not get the decency of a mattress. They should not have pillows. They should not have blankets. They should be in a stone cell with bare minimum of essentials. No books. No libraries. No ability to learn and get degrees. No spending their time being "punished" getting access to things that many people can't afford.

I dropped out of college because I had no money. Yet an inmate can get that same education free during his/her "punishment".

So basically, I find the entire correctional system in America fundamentally flawed. It encourages law breaking, and encourages those released to return to their life of crime, because being in prison is easier than working in the real world.

[meikle]

My pragmatism ends at putting bullets into innocent people, yeah.  I call that insane, not practical.  What's even the point?  The system is meant to protect the innocent, it's broken if we're fine with killing the innocent to do it.

Obviously there is a fundamental flaw in our prisons. People are so worried about the rights of criminals that prisons in America have become a place better than some people's actual home lives. Someone living homeless would be better off committing a crime so they are ensured 3 hots and a cot. 3 meals, free clothing, a bed, healthcare. Things that someone on the street has no access to or has to beg for. Being handed to them as "punishment" for breaking the law. .. I dropped out of college because I had no money. Yet an inmate can get that same education free during his/her "punishment".

I will never understand how people believe that the solution to this is to hurt criminals more instead of to improve baseline human living conditions in the US.  Any other first world country in the world, crippling fucking debt would not be your only choice for continued education.  It is here because we value $$$ over people.  It's the reason our prisons are the way they are -- because we run them for profit, we imprison people who shouldn't be in prison in the first place to do it.

"It's too hard to kill criminals," isn't the problem you have, "It's too hard for people at the bottom to get by in the US" is.

encourages those released to return to their life of crime

WE don't allow those who are released to return to anything else.  Good luck finding a job if you're a felon.  Good luck getting by at all if you don't resort to crime.

But then you can go back to jail and start putting another fat paycheck into the warden's pockets, so the system is working as intended.

[lilhobbit37]

I'm not in the bottom first off. I live in the middle class.

And the problem isn't just the price of things in the U.S.

The problem is we are handing those expensive things free to the bad guys.

You keep focusing on the wrongly accused/innocent people.

There are thousands of people that ARE NOT wrongly accused or innocent.

You keep saying to treat all of them better because there MIGHT be innocent people there, who don't deserve to be treated bad. Don't kill them because someone innocent might die.

But if prison doesn't actually punish the offenders, what is the point of it?

Edit: It is very hard to respond to you when you keep editting your post to add more. Could you please wait and post it all at once?

There are plenty of jobs that felons can do. They may never be a CEO, but then again, since they get an education in prison, they might. But there are many jobs that people will hire convicts for. But it is easier for them to just go back to prison and have things handed to them than to have to pay rent, buy food, get out of bed and go to work daily, etc.

Some do. It isn't like there are NO reformed criminals.

But our prison system is set up so that prison is a vacation from crime rather than a punishment, then releasing them back to cause trouble to get back to vacation.

[Iniquitous]

Let's be honest here. Improving baseline living conditions in the US is not going to stop the sociopaths from going out and killing people. Whether you want to admit it or not, there are people out there that do not deserve to live. You can think locking them up in a mental ward for the rest of their lives is a grand idea - and hey, great. That's your opinion. I do not agree with it.

[meikle]

If you live in the middle class, you can afford to go to school.

A room with a bed, enough food to eat, and access to information should not be "expensive things".  That should be baseline living conditions.

I am ALWAYS going to focus on PROTECTING INNOCENT PEOPLE because I'm not vengeful.  The justice system exists to protect the innocent, everything else is secondary to that.

I keep saying not to kill them, not to torture them, because there's no reason to do that.  How do these things help to protect the innocent?  They don't.  They only make violent people feel justified in not acting on their own violent impulses.  Fuck that.

The point is to keep innocent people safe from harm.  As long as criminals can't hurt people, the system is working.  Punishment is functionally useless.  It does not do anything for us.

[lilhobbit37]

Middle class means that I live in a comfortable house. I can afford a car. I can afford health insurance. I can afford car insurance, cable, and internet.

I do not have 2-3k a semester plus books to enroll in college. Not to mention to be able to do that I would have to work 40 hours a week and go to school full time to get my degree or else take twice as long as I should to earn it.

While prisoners just have to sit and do their studying while serving their time. Not earning a cent. While my tax dollars feed and clothe them.

I'm working hard every day so they can get a degree while I'm unable.

And this makes sense?

[Iniquitous]

Protect the innocent? Ok... YES! Kill the little shithead that killed so many in Aurora Colorado when he opened fire in the theater. Why kill him? Because I do not want to run the risk that some idiot thinks he is rehabilitated and puts him back out in society to do it again! Or he somehow escapes to do it again.

How about the guy in Manchester, Tn (not too far from me) who was arrested for EATING PEOPLE. Do I want to run the risk that he somehow gets released and starts back up on his spree of eating humans? No thank you!

Again, there are some people who do not deserve to live. The death penalty is for those people. I'd rather have the death penalty for those people than not have it and need it.

[meikle]

Sorry homeslice, if your budget stops at insurance and internet access, you're hanging out at the bottom.  If you're making $50k a year, you can afford to go to school.

And this makes sense?

NO!  It doesn't!  We should be investing in an educated class of people!  It is good for the economy and for the nation! 

The solution isn't to starve our fucking prisoners, it's to feed our citizens!

I'd rather have the death penalty for those people than not have it and need it.

We've already established that you would kill your own children to avoid having to pay to keep a criminal in prison so I can't really engage with you.  You do not seem to hold any sense of humanity or essential human value and don't respond to reason so ???

[lilhobbit37]

Just wanted to add a note. I live in Rhode Island. My state actually has prohibited the death penalty.

We had a shooting in my city a few years ago. Literally right down the street from where I worked. A man was shot and killed.

The feds got involved and wanted to prosecute the shooter federally and my state fought for him to be prosecuted in Rhode Island so that he could not get the death penalty.

Spent money the state didn't have to fight for him so that he could be tried here. We won. Our state is going bankrupt. All our finances are in the red.

But the man who shot and killed a man in cold blood will not be tried where he could get capital punishment.

It is for reasons like this I am against getting rid of the death penalty. And against spending 10-20 years of court proceedings before carrying out the punishment.

If someone did a crime bad enough to deserve the death penalty (and let's be honest here, this country doesn't hand out the death penalty for just anything) then why should we spend the millions and billions of dollars to protect them, even when we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are guilty?

[Iniquitous]

You are an idealist. You seem to believe that if everyone is given a comfy house, a good schooling (assuming, of course, that they actually strive to learn anything in a good school instead of, you know, goofing off/skipping school/dropping out), and a spiffy middle class life is going to eradicate crime.

Wrong answer. It doesn't matter how good you make it for people, there are always going to be those that shun the law and will do what they want - be it legal or not. It's the human condition.

[meikle]

(and let's be honest here, this country doesn't hand out the death penalty for just anything)

No, let's be honest, this country hands out the death penalty essentially at random, and the biggest factor is "What color is your skin, what color is the skin of your victim?"

We don't know beyond a shadow of a doubt.  144 people since 1973 have been exonerated from death row for being innocent.  In only 18 of these cases was DNA relevant to their exoneration.  The argument that technological improvements have obviated the need for delays in execution does not hold up.

You seem to believe that if everyone is given a comfy house

No, it's not, and I didn't actually suggest this as a solution to any kind of crime.  You are bad at reading.

[Oniya]

Sorry homeslice, if your budget stops at insurance and internet access, you're hanging out at the bottom.  If you're making $50k a year, you can afford to go to school.

You might want to re-examine the annual cost of a college education.

[lilhobbit37]

A note meikle. Just because IO doesn't hold to the SAME values as you does not mean she does not value humanity or see the essential value of human life.

It just means she values it differently to you.

This does not make her wrong any more than you are wrong.

Let's not make this discussion into degrading others for disagreeing with beliefs that are not fact. Everyone's opinion is valid and should not be held against them.

Also when did this become a race argument? Up to now no one has once brought up race and suddenly you are saying the death penalty is completely based on race.

Especially considering Tucker was white.

[Iniquitous]

I am going to ask that you tone it down. I don't appreciate you twisting my words to say I would kill my own children when I certainly never said such a thing. If you cannot discuss this without resorting to such tactics then maybe you need to step away.

[meikle]

A note meikle. Just because IO doesn't hold to the SAME values as you does not mean she does not value humanity or see the essential value of human life.

Dude she said she'd let her own children get executed if it meant killing criminals.  She is more concerned with killing people than protecting people.

You might want to re-examine the annual cost of a college education.

If you're making $50,000 a year, you can afford to spend $22,000, especially considering that number includes the cost of food and housing.

What are you doing with the other $28,000?

I am going to ask that you tone it down. I don't appreciate you twisting my words to say I would kill my own children when I certainly never said such a thing. If you cannot discuss this without resorting to such tactics then maybe you need to step away.

I asked, are you okay with knowing that your children might one day be executed for a crime they are innocent of?

You said, "Yes."  In fact you said it in all caps, and bold.

[Valthazar]

Including college education as a "baseline" standard is a terribly bad idea.  Much of the reason college is so expensive in the US is because of this mindset, and people thinking that a diploma is an end to the ills of their environment (crime, poverty, etc.)

We need more plumbers, electricians, tradesmen, mechanics, etc.

[meikle]

We need more plumbers, electricians, tradesmen, mechanics, etc.

Many people in poor conditions are blocked out of these professions by the cost of education, as well.  Not everyone needs 4-year degrees, but yes, more programs to provide training into skilled trades would be excellent as well, and many of these are taught at colleges (2 year colleges, community colleges, etc.)  Directed educational support is ideal; paying people to study into things that we need people to do is ideal.

What we really don't want is what we're doing now, with millions of people fighting for cash register jobs because they're not qualified for and can't afford to learn to do anything else.

[Iniquitous]

I said if they committed the crime then yes, I am fine with the death penalty. If they did not do the crime then I would do everything in my power to prove them innocent. But I am not going to say 'get rid of the death penalty' just because a very small chance that my children MIGHT end up falsely accused.

And I'll say this as civilly as I can. You do not know me. You do not know what my other personal stances are. I'd appreciate that you not twist my words again. I do not appreciate you trying to make me out to be the villain just because I do not agree with you nor am I willing to change my mind to what you believe. You have your opinion, I have mine. Respect mine as I am respecting yours.

[meikle]

"Are you willing to risk the lives of people you love, innocent people, to make that happen?"

Yes.

IF killing innocent people is a crime worthy of death
AND you are willing to kill innocent people to punish the guilty
THEN

you fill in the blank.

[Oniya]

If you're making $50,000 a year, you can afford to spend $22,000, especially considering that number includes the cost of food and housing.

What are you doing with the other $28,000?

Rent or mortgage (more than likely rent).  Utilities.  Transportation.  Health care.  Food for the people in the household that aren't attending college.  If it's a dual-income home (which is the only way you're likely to get an average of 50K these days), then there's child care.

[Iniquitous]

One last time since you are not listening.

I have my opinion. You have yours. I am respecting yours no matter how silly I may think it is. I am asking that you respect mine no matter how horrible you think it is.

Real simple here meikle. I do not agree with you, you do not agree with me. You have not given me any proof that removing the death penalty is going to improve things for everyone while I have pointed out, repeatedly, that there are people out there that cannot be rehabilitated and put back into society and it is those people that should be executed.

You can stop trying to force your opinion on me now. My opinion isn't going to change.

[meikle]

Rent or mortgage (more than likely rent).  Utilities.  Transportation.  Health care.  Food for the people in the household that aren't attending college.  If it's a dual-income home (which is the only way you're likely to get an average of 50K these days), then there's child care.

Not every dual-income home has kids.  If you're living at home with your family, you're probably not paying for a significant portion of that $22,000 (on-campus housing.)   I mean, I guess if you decided to start a family before you decided to go to school, it's going to be a lot harder.

Fortunately, for a lot of people, there are alternative approaches to education that aren't universities and are much, much cheaper.  My point however was that if you're only making enough money to get by, you're probably not actually middle class.

[Oniya]

Not every dual-income home has kids.  If you're living at home with your family, you're probably not paying for a significant portion of that $22,000 (on-campus housing.) 

It's the kids in those families that I was talking about.  If you're making 50K a year, then you most likely already have a college education.  Otherwise, you're making considerably less. 

[Valthazar]

Not every dual-income home has kids.  If you're living at home with your family, you're probably not paying for a significant portion of that $22,000 (on-campus housing.)   I mean, I guess if you decided to start a family before you decided to go to school, it's going to be a lot harder.

Do you realize how expensive college is to afford?  It is out of reach for the majority of American families, which is part of the reason average debt is nearly $30,000.

[lilhobbit37]

Let me clarify. My family is middle class.

I personally am not. I live with my mom who makes 30 something k a year plus my dads pension which is another 20-30 k a year.

I make 17k a year with no college education working full time with no benefits.

I pay for my own car, my own health insurance, my own car insurance, rent, some groceries and house necessities, gas (which in itself is a significant portion of my weekly earnings), and other misc. bills.

My mom pays a morgage, electric, water, cable, internet, car, insurance (both health and car), the majority of groceries, home improvement necessities, housing items both big and small, and other misc. bills.

My mom has enough money to live comfortably. I make enough to live with my mom and live comfortably. She could afford to help me pay for college,  but that's because with my dad's pension she is in upper middle class rather than lower middle class, and has some extra to spare. However, that would mean she couldn't save for retirement.

And I'm not talking a 30k a year college. I'm talking about community college which is where I was going until the money ran out.

Regardless this is drastically off topic. I mentioned the education thing because it was a clear example of how our prisons do not serve to punish but rather to reward criminals for bad behavior by handing them something that is out of reach for many many people in the country.

[meikle]

Do you realize how expensive college is to afford?  It is out of reach for the majority of American families, which is part of the reason average debt is nearly $30,000.

Having attended both a community college (paid for out-of-pocket while working part time) and a state university, yes, I'm very aware of how much a college education costs.

I feel like there's an important distinction to be made between the Middle Class (as in the Dwindling American-) and middle class as in the median.  I guess maybe people are talking about the latter, and I'm talking about the former.

[Oreo]

Maybe unrelated but.. how on earth is it possible that a nation that is so prat on human rights still allows the death penalty? It's medieval and barbaric in my opinion.

What bothers me more than this is that more funds go toward housing criminals than toward helping the homeless.

[Tairis]

The death penalty costs more because of our convoluted legal system that allows for endless legal battles that take decades to resolve. The death penalty needs fixing, not removing. Establish a simple and final appeals process for those special cases. Set guidelines on when it can be issued (perpetrator admitting guilt, credible eye witness confirmation of crime, or confirmed DNA evidence). And then when it's done, it's done. You get the sentence, there's a one year appeal period (being generous) and then it's time to face the music.

I see the talk about 'reform' and 'repenting'... reforming and repenting is meaningless. You being sorry doesn't change the fact that someone was brutally murdered by your actions. And it's quite easy to have time to ponder your religion and repent when the taxpayers are housing and feeding you for the rest of your life, with no possibility that you'll ever have to actually do anything meaningful other than talk about how sorry you are.

Is there going to come a time when an innocent man suffers because of the perfect set of circumstances? Yes. But innocent men are killed by sleep deprived or drug addled doctors, government withholding of proper care like the VA incident, and hundreds of other unjust, unfair ways. This isn't the 1970s anymore. We do have DNA testing and superior forensic science. We do not embrace 'casual racism' as we did 50 years ago.

The law needs to do its job. You don't 'reform' from raping and murdering a woman and stuffing her in a barrel or beating a mans head in with a hammer so you can buy crack. You find a way to make whomever you murdered not dead and we can talk about how 'fair' the death penalty is. Because otherwise I see it as a simple balancing act.

[Beorning]

Okay, now what you say, Tairis, is very worrisome. What do you mean, the appeal process should be simplified? As meikle said, there are innocent people put into death row already. The "convoluted legal system" is meant as a safeguard about such cases. And you want to remove it?

Also, the idea that death penalty could be served because of the defendant pleading guilty... now this is just completely wrong-headed. If the law worked this way, you'd basically remove any incentive for criminals to admitting to their action. You cannot punish people for cooperating with the legal system!

And your notion that it's not a problem that innocent people die on deathrows, as there are unjust deaths already is just... scary.

[Formless]

Simply put , if someone murders me ( not a dear family member , not an innocent stranger... etc. ) Then they deserve to die.

The idea of someone killing me , then be put in some prison , fed , bathed , taken care of , protected from any odds of being wrongly killed just like I was , is wrong. When someone ends my life , or anyone else's , then they forfeit their right to live. Just because someone is dead doesn't mean their previous existence was worthless. Call it bloodlust , or call it what you wish. But don't expect me to agree with you that my life is meaningless.

Before you ridicule a severe punishment , look at the reason why it is so severe.

If you think you can label a price on someone's life , then you're in no position to judge the process of punishment.

Since life is far more valuable than anything else in the world , then the only thing to make up for a lost one is another life , the life of the one who took the first one.

[Oreo]

This is kind of along the same line as Formless' thoughts. I am personally not for the death penalty except in extreme cases, where pride is taken in the deed, and the crime undisputed; like Manson.

That aside, I would rather see the punishment being determined by the injured parties/family. Only they can determine the value of life lost, the wishes of the person murdered. It should not be the judge's decision, or the public's decision, nor their concern.

[Beorning]

Simply put , if someone murders me ( not a dear family member , not an innocent stranger... etc. ) Then they deserve to die.

So... would you be in favour of death penalty for vehicular homicides? Or medical errors resulting in a patient's death? There are many way one can cause another person's death.

BTW. Earlier this thread, someone said that death penalty is Christian because of the "eye for an eye" from the Old Testament. Let me answer that: this is not true. The big point of Christ was the annulment of the Old Covenant and introducing New Covenant. Christ taught that "eye for an eye" is wrong, as in the eyes of God, we are all guilty and worthy of judgement. Christianity is not about "eye for an eye", it's about "judge not, or you will be judged, too".

Not to mention, there's "You shall not murder" right there, in the Commandments.

[Oniya]

'To murder' is different from 'to kill'.  'Homicide' doesn't even have to mean 'murder'.  Taking your vehicular homicide example, there's a world of difference between hitting a patch of ice and careening into a busload of nuns, failing to see a pedestrian when you swerve to avoid something in the road, and driving around a parking lot three times, running over your victim each time.

Because of the unique circumstances of every death, we have a justice system that examines those circumstances in sometimes excruciating detail - more so when the crime is considered a capital offense.  You are not going to find a black and white 'death penalty for ______ crime' division.

[Beorning]

'To murder' is different from 'to kill'.  'Homicide' doesn't even have to mean 'murder'.  Taking your vehicular homicide example, there's a world of difference between hitting a patch of ice and careening into a busload of nuns, failing to see a pedestrian when you swerve to avoid something in the road, and driving around a parking lot three times, running over your victim each time.

That's true. But, regardless of the exact circumstances, the result is that the person is dead. So, I wonder what's Formless take on these cases, if he believes in "death for death" approach.

[Zakharra]

So... would you be in favour of death penalty for vehicular homicides? Or medical errors resulting in a patient's death? There are many way one can cause another person's death.

BTW. Earlier this thread, someone said that death penalty is Christian because of the "eye for an eye" from the Old Testament. Let me answer that: this is not true. The big point of Christ was the annulment of the Old Covenant and introducing New Covenant. Christ taught that "eye for an eye" is wrong, as in the eyes of God, we are all guilty and worthy of judgement. Christianity is not about "eye for an eye", it's about "judge not, or you will be judged, too".

Not to mention, there's "You shall not murder" right there, in the Commandments.

  Note, he said -murder-, with the intent to kill; not accidental death or killing, but specifically murder.  Please stop trying to make it out to be more than what he's actually saying, like meikle has been doing for much of this thread. Intentionally misstating what others have said to get something that they didn't say is very misleading and should be shameful for those who do it.

Pretty much everyone that is for the death penalty (which I am in favor for) have stated fairly specific reasons why. Tairis states it very well and I believe in what he says there. It's an easy and concise way of reforming it.

[Oniya]

Just for purposes of reference, and since the specification is that of murder, I'm linking in the legal definition of murder.  Link goes to a more extensive article on the finer points.


Under the Common Law, or law made by courts, murder was the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

[Oreo]

Just for purposes of reference, and since the specification is that of murder, I'm linking in the legal definition of murder.  Link goes to a more extensive article on the finer points.


Under the Common Law, or law made by courts, murder was the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.

Thank you, Oniya.

The Bible's terminology for 'Thou shalt not kill', also has the meaning of murder with blood lust. There were cities of refuge where the criminals could flee until judges determined if it was accidental or a blood lust crime.

[Oniya]

Most people recite that commandment as 'Thou shalt not kill' - the word in the Torah translates more properly as 'murder' (compulsive reader; the book was there).  I'm actually impressed when that much of a distinction is acknowledged in a discussion.

[Tairis]

Okay, now what you say, Tairis, is very worrisome. What do you mean, the appeal process should be simplified? As meikle said, there are innocent people put into death row already. The "convoluted legal system" is meant as a safeguard about such cases. And you want to remove it?

Also, the idea that death penalty could be served because of the defendant pleading guilty... now this is just completely wrong-headed. If the law worked this way, you'd basically remove any incentive for criminals to admitting to their action. You cannot punish people for cooperating with the legal system!

And your notion that it's not a problem that innocent people die on deathrows, as there are unjust deaths already is just... scary.

The US legal system as a whole is a byzantine web of contradictions and loop holes. It means that the only people that can fight court cases in the first place are those with the money to afford the skilled and powerful lawyers. But once you get into the appeals process it becomes a situation where any idiot can clog up the system. It needs a complete overhaul, not just for the death penalty but for everything from sentencing to jury selection.

The incentive for criminals to plead guilty would be the exact same one that gets them to plead guilty now: they're offered a plea deal. Otherwise they have no incentive to plead guilty as it is. Some of the most deranged (like Manson mentioned above) would plead guilty anyways. And if someone like the topic of this post that was truly repentant? Seems like they would too.

As for deaths... I'm not encouraging them. I'm simply stating one of the facts of life. Good people die every day. It is a tragedy. But we don't shut down our highways because thousands are killed in car accidents or stop building things because people are injured and killed on construction sights. The concept of 'we can't do this because someone undeserving might die' is a fallacy. Someone undeserving dies every day. Our job is to minimize that risk. Not try to eliminate it completely because it's a fools errand.

[Formless]

I couldn't have said it any better than Oniya and Zakharra.

Learn the difference between murder and an accident.

That is all I have to say in this matter.

And in regards to what Oreo said about the victim's family having a say in this , this is how it is done in my country. Or rather , the Islamic way. If the direct family members of the victim are all in favor of the murderer's death , then he shall beheaded. But if only one of these members forfeit that decision , then they are given a choice of two\

1- Forgive him completely , and thus the Murderer will be set free ( Which I am absolutely against. )

2- Demand compensation. Which is determined by the judge. ( It used to be a fixed number but recently there has been some changes. )

[Beorning]

Note, he said -murder-, with the intent to kill; not accidental death or killing, but specifically murder.  Please stop trying to make it out to be more than what he's actually saying, like meikle has been doing for much of this thread. Intentionally misstating what others have said to get something that they didn't say is very misleading and should be shameful for those who do it.

Wait. I'm not doing any intentional misstaking here: I know what he wrote. I'm simply trying to explore his logic more.

I know there's a difference between unintentional killing and premeditated murder... but the end result is the same: a person is dead. Should exact circumstances really matter?

And what about all these cases between accidental manslaughter and murder? Like reckless driving?

As for deaths... I'm not encouraging them. I'm simply stating one of the facts of life. Good people die every day. It is a tragedy. But we don't shut down our highways because thousands are killed in car accidents or stop building things because people are injured and killed on construction sights. The concept of 'we can't do this because someone undeserving might die' is a fallacy. Someone undeserving dies every day. Our job is to minimize that risk. Not try to eliminate it completely because it's a fools errand.

Note, thought, that we can't afford to shut down highways or stop building new infrastructure. Meanwhile, death penalty is not necessary: our civilization will not come to end, if criminals stop being executed...

[Tairis]

We could also function as a civilization without alcohol, yet it kills thousands of people too. The point is that the whole 'if one innocent person suffers because of X then we shouldn't do it' isn't a good argument. You can't operate a society that way.

There will always be a risk of punishing an innocent person, either via the death penalty or life in prison. Either way an innocent person would be suffering injustly.

[Beorning]

We could also function as a civilization without alcohol, yet it kills thousands of people too. The point is that the whole 'if one innocent person suffers because of X then we shouldn't do it' isn't a good argument. You can't operate a society that way.

Why not? Following the alcohol example, you should note that there are multiple rules in place that regulate its use. Also, there *are* countries when alcohol is illegal.

And what's up "you can't operate society that way"? Back where I am, there is no death penalty and no-one suffers because it. That proves that death penalty isn't really necessary. And what isn't necessary should be discarded, if it's too risky.

There will always be a risk of punishing an innocent person, either via the death penalty or life in prison. Either way an innocent person would be suffering injustly.

Yeah, but death penalty is irreversible. That's the difference.

You people keep telling how horrible is having one's loved one murdered. I agree. But what about the families of all those people who were executed while innocent? Why aren't you concerned about their suffering? Why is your answer basically "Oh well, shit happens"?

[Zakharra]

Wait. I'm not doing any intentional misstaking here: I know what he wrote. I'm simply trying to explore his logic more.

I know there's a difference between unintentional killing and premeditated murder... but the end result is the same: a person is dead. Should exact circumstances really matter?

And what about all these cases between accidental manslaughter and murder? Like reckless driving

You're purposefully ignoring the context the word he used. Yes someone is dead after the deed is done, but the intent meant was killing someone with the intention to kill them. ie 'Under the Common Law, or law made by courts, murder was the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.' Not accidental. There's a huge difference you're glossing over there.  The circumstances of the killing are very important and shouldn't be ignored just because someone was killed.

With accidental manslaughter (this happened to my dad when he didn't see a vehicle coming and pulled out onto the highway. He survived, a woman in the other vehicle was killed) and the like, those are deemed what they are. Accidents. It's a tragedy that people die in some accidents, but this doesn't mean that the person who might have caused it deserves to be killed or life in prison. It's nowhere near being on the same level of something like murder. That's something entirely different and accidental death and intentional death shouldn't be considered the same thing. Shame on you if you think they should be.

Yeah, but death penalty is irreversible. That's the difference.

You people keep telling how horrible is having one's loved one murdered. I agree. But what about the families of all those people who were executed while innocent? Why aren't you concerned about their suffering? Why is your answer basically "Oh well, shit happens"?

So? Life is irreversible. Everyone born is going to die. That's inevitable. People die all the time. When people die in accidents, it's basically; 'shit happens' because accidents do happen. You can do your best to see that they don't happen again and work to lessen them, but for most things, you will never stop them.  So yes some innocents will be charged, but in case you haven't noticed, those of us who are arguing for the death penalty are for those who -have- been convicted and their guilt can't be questioned. Ie, someone who is caught/seen doing it. It's damned hard to not consider them innocent when you have visual proof. As for the innocents, the best we can do is use better investigation techniques to clear as many of them as possible out of the system and start killing the rest so they keep from costing us so much money. Kill the ones who are 100% guilty, heavily investigate the rest and either let them go or kill them.  Better to let 1 innocent person be killed than to let 100 murderers (whose guilt is undeniable) go. Most of those 100 will return to lives of crime and cause more people to suffer because people like you wanted to spare a possible innocent.  It's one reason I dislike Batman. Because he doesn't kill, the Joker has been able to kill dozens if not hundreds of people. The Joker's insanity is being used as an excuse to not execute him. He should be killed, or at the least the Batman should break every bone and joint in the Joker's fingers, arms and feet and legs, or just snap his lower spine. The Joker would be much less a threat as a cripple. Leaving the Joker alive and unhurt when he -repeatedly- keeps getting out and killing people is directly the fault of the Batman's misplaced mercy.

[Beorning]

You're purposefully ignoring the context the word he used.

No, I'm just asking a question. I'm not purposefully ignoring anything. I'd be grateful if you refrained from you accusatory tone.

So? Life is irreversible. Everyone born is going to die. That's inevitable. People die all the time. When people die in accidents, it's basically; 'shit happens' because accidents do happen. You can do your best to see that they don't happen again and work to lessen them, but for most things, you will never stop them.  So yes some innocents will be charged, but in case you haven't noticed, those of us who are arguing for the death penalty are for those who -have- been convicted and their guilt can't be questioned. Ie, someone who is caught/seen doing it. It's damned hard to not consider them innocent when you have visual proof. As for the innocents, the best we can do is use better investigation techniques to clear as many of them as possible out of the system and start killing the rest so they keep from costing us so much money. Kill the ones who are 100% guilty, heavily investigate the rest and either let them go or kill them.  Better to let 1 innocent person be killed than to let 100 murderers (whose guilt is undeniable) go.

But nobody's talking about letting them go! Even in Tucker's case, there was no talk of having her pardoned and released. It was only about changing her death penalty to a lifetime in prison.

And personally? If we need to keep 100 murderers in prison, because otherwise we might end up killing 1 innocent person, then yes, it's a fair price.

Really, just imagine that it is *you* who is about to be innocently executed. Would you still advocate the "shit happens" approach, if it concerned you? Or your loved one?

[meikle]

We could also function as a civilization without alcohol, yet it kills thousands of people too. The point is that the whole 'if one innocent person suffers because of X then we shouldn't do it' isn't a good argument. You can't operate a society that way.

There will always be a risk of punishing an innocent person, either via the death penalty or life in prison. Either way an innocent person would be suffering injustly.

We've tried functioning as a civilization without alcohol.  It actually went really, really badly for us.

In the places where we just don't kill criminals anymore, nothing has actually changed except psychopaths don't get to enjoy people dying as often.

Comparing the death penalty to prohibition (impossible; people want drugs) or highways (necessary for the continued function of the nation) is dishonest and pretty idiotic.  There is 0 benefit to the death penalty.  It does not serve a purpose.  Policy should be driven by effect; if the effect of the death penalty is massive cost to the taxpayers and the lives of innocent people, what benefit makes those costs acceptable?

And nobody can provide one except that they think they should get to decide who lives and dies.

[Blythe]

This topic is becoming more heated than it needs to be.

This thread will be locked for 24 hours. Discussion can resume at that point.

[Blythe]

This thread is being unlocked, as it has been 24 hours. Civil discussion can continue.

[Silk]

I'm from the other side of the pond, but I do feel that a more expedient death penalty system should be in place for cases that are beyond a shadow of a doubt, such as repeat offenders, and people who there is no mistaking their involvement. But even that is purely to minimize the likelihood of a miscarriage of justice. Reforming and Repenting are great and all, but when 99.99% of the population can go about their lives without committing these crimes. (And I mean the serious crimes that warrant the death penalty) and the damage done to society as a result of these actions. It comes a little too late as far as I'm concerned.

As for the "it's Blood for Blood" rally, There is a few things to consider. 1. They have proven that they are unstable or incapable of living by society's rules, and therefore are not fit to live within society. 2. In many cases the Death penalty is actually a mercy. 3. By keeping them alive, you are only increasing the likelihood of them repeating the offense. I'd sooner remove the life of the guilty than risk the lives of more innocents. 4. It serves as a hard line for others of society to not follow suit as the ultimate punishment for severe actions. It's very much was the case in the UK until recently, a life sentence was like 20 years, And that was only overturned in response to Lee Rigby's murder.

[Jusey1]

Death penalty has it's place and it is for the truly evil minded people who will ALWAYS do wrong again if given the chance.

However, those kind of people are extremely rare... Everybody else should be given the chance to be reform and become a good individual for society.

[meikle]

I'm from the other side of the pond, but I do feel that a more expedient death penalty system should be in place for cases that are beyond a shadow of a doubt, such as repeat offenders, and people who there is no mistaking their involvement.

In the US, the criteria for conviction is that someone's guilt must be certain "beyond a reasonable doubt."  There is no 100% certainty.  Innocent people are still convicted.

As for the "it's Blood for Blood" rally, There is a few things to consider. 1. They have proven that they are unstable or incapable of living by society's rules, and therefore are not fit to live within society. 2. In many cases the Death penalty is actually a mercy. 3. By keeping them alive, you are only increasing the likelihood of them repeating the offense. I'd sooner remove the life of the guilty than risk the lives of more innocents. 4. It serves as a hard line for others of society to not follow suit as the ultimate punishment for severe actions. It's very much was the case in the UK until recently, a life sentence was like 20 years, And that was only overturned in response to Lee Rigby's murder.

We have prisons to segregate people who cannot live with society.  People get too often hung up on punishment and forget that a prison's function is to remove people from society.  In the US, our laws forbid (though we ignore those laws, yes) cruel and unusual punishment.  If prisoners are not treated cruelly, murdering them is not merciful.  Prisoners aren't going to kill innocent people from within prison (save, perhaps, prison guards.)  The death sentence has not shown to be an effective criminal deterrent in the US, and states that allow executions have, on average, higher rates of violent crime (as cited elsewhere in this very thread.)  It's almost as if the sort of culture that encourages violence against criminals is also the sort of culture that encourages violence in general.

[Zakharra]

In the US, the criteria for conviction is that someone's guilt must be certain "beyond a reasonable doubt."  There is no 100% certainty.  Innocent people are still convicted.

There can be 100% certainty. Being seen doing it, being caught -on- film/video, being literally caught red handed, admitting to guilt and such is one way of doing it. Forensic science is getting better and better and the preponderance of cameras, it's harder to get away with stuff anymore. Which means there are some cases guilt can be determined to be 100%.

[Beorning]

Just a note: admitting to guilt should *not* be treated as proof, not alone. There's been cases of people admitting to things they didn't do.

For instance, a recent case from my country: two women were murdered and the person who got sentenced is guy who admitted to doing it. The police had no other proof of his guilt. Right now, there's a legal battle to revise his trial, as the man is actually mentally handicapped, with IQ of 60 - and his family claims that he actually didn't understand what he was admitting to...

[Oniya]

Just a note: admitting to guilt should *not* be treated as proof, not alone. There's been cases of people admitting to things they didn't do.

Agreed.  Anyone who doubts this should revisit the story of Michael Crowe.

[DemonessOfDeathValley]

Cases like that are why do not and cannot support the death penalty.

[Iniquitous]

I honestly do not see a reason to rehash my stance on the death penalty. Everyone that has posted in favor of it has posted their reasons which are ignored, mocked, twisted and turned around on them by those that oppose the death penalty. This is a pointless "debate" because opinions are not going to change.

The only thing I am going to add to this is prisons were meant to not only segregate criminals from the general populace but to also rehabilitate the criminals so that they would, upon release, be productive and law abiding citizens. The only thing prisons have done is 1: become a profit center for corporations that own them and 2: segregate those convicted from the general populace. There is no actual attempts at rehabilitation done.

It's alright to have high ideals but do not expect everyone else to agree with them or accept them. This whole "no one should ever be killed" crap is just that... crap. There are some people who do not deserve to live.

[Passion and Desire]

There are some people who do not deserve to live.

And you think you are qualified to make that decision?

[Iniquitous]

And you think you are qualified to make that decision?

Pol Pot - he deserved death.
Hitler - he deserved death
John Wayne Gacy - he deserved death
Ted Bundy - he deserved death
Charles Manson - he deserves death

I can go on... but to answer your question in one word? Yes.

[Passion and Desire]

I can go on... but to answer your question in one word? Yes.

Ironically, one person from your list also had that attitude. He thought himself qualified to make the decision about who "deserves" to live, and who doesn't. That was some 70 years ago here in Germany, and it didn't end well for any of the involved groups.

I challenge you to show me a single court, a single judge, who has never made a wrong decision, who has never had one of his sentences reversed or overruled. As long as there can't be 100% certainty, you're willing to kill innocents. You'd rather kill a dozen innocents, then not kill one criminal. And that's complete and utter madness!

If you think the death penalty is okay in the USA (a nation that freely tortures, has government goals influence court decisions, and openly disobeys international conventions), do you also think the death penalty is okay in Russia, China, or North Korea?

Btw...
...do you think the investment bankers, who brought about the financial crisis with their infinite greed, and ruined countless existences, deserve to live?
...do you think George W. Bush, who plunged the US into several senseless wars based on lies and public deception for economical reasons, deserves to live?
...do you think Keith Alexander, who lied to Congress and led an unprecedented attack on privacy and civil freedom world wide, deserves to live?

Where do you draw the line? It's not okay to kill one other person, but it's okay to send thousands of soldiers to their deaths, even though one knows the war is wrong and the public deceived about the reasons? It's okay to ruin the lives of thousands, out of personal greed and corruption? It's okay to undermine the democratic foundations of several nations by errecting a totalitarian surveillance apparatus that would make the StaSi green with envy?

[Iniquitous]

First off - stop with the demanding what you know cannot be provided. No one is perfect. You know this, I know this, so stop demanding that my personal opinion be backed up by something that cannot be given.

It is MY PERSONAL OPINION. Don't like it? Tough. You do not get to choose what my PERSONAL opinion is.

Second - I really REALLY do not appreciate being likened to a mass murdering fuck. There is a HUGE difference in my saying "if you are a mass murdering fuck you deserve for your peers to judge you unworthy of living with the rest of us" and my opinion making me similar to a mass murdering fuck. I do expect an apology for that.

Third - stop trying to further muddy the waters by throwing in other countries. If I had my way about it anyone that killed with malicious intent would die for their actions. However, each country has it's own laws. I will stick with discussing the country who's laws I know no matter how much you decide to insult us Americans.

[Oniya]

This thread has been locked once already due to incivility.  If it is locked again, it will be permanent.  I'm also leaving a link here to Vekseid's stickied post about logical fallacies.

[Beorning]

Yeah, guys... please be civil.

Also, remember that being uncivil can get you banned. You don't want to be banned, believe me.  :-(

[consortium11]

I challenge you to show me a single court, a single judge, who has never made a wrong decision, who has never had one of his sentences reversed or overruled. As long as there can't be 100% certainty, you're willing to kill innocents. You'd rather kill a dozen innocents, then not kill one criminal. And that's complete and utter madness!

I challenge you to show me a single court, a single judge, who has never made a wrong decision, who has never had one of his sentences reversed or overruled. As long as there can't be 100% certainty, you're willing to imprison innocents. You'd rather imprison a dozen innocents, then not imprison one criminal. And that's complete and utter madness!

Subtle change there... but a subtle change that shows the weakness of that position.

And yes, I know... imprisonment is reversible, the death penalty is not. Although it sort of isn't. Yes, someone later found innocent can be released from prison... but they don't get their years behind bars back. We recently saw the death of Gerry Conlon, infamously wrongly convicted as part of the Guildford Four. Is spending 14 years in prison, then since release suffering two nervous breakdowns, attempting suicide and becoming addicted to drink and drugs "reversible" even with a £500,000 compensation payment?

If we're going to take the "innocent people may be sentenced to capital punishment, therefore the death penalty is wrong" line then surely the exact same line must be taken to all custodial punishments as well? Yes, dying may be worse than spending 14 years in prison for a crime you didn't commit... but spending 14 years in prison for a crime you didn't commit isn't exactly OK is it? I'd say it's still pretty damn wrong. To not take that approach actually strikes me as pretty offensive... we can't have capital punishment because it may (and quite likely will) lead to innocent people being subjected to it but we should keep custodial sentences even though innocent people may (and almost certainly will) be subjected to it. Why is the line drawn at death and not imprisonment? Or at least imprisonment for say life? Or 20 years+? Or 10 years+? Whatever was done to try to rectify Gerry Conlon's situation once he was released, nothing can give him back 14 years of his life. To act as if custodial sentences are reversible and thus it's sort of OK to have them strikes me as exceptionally trite if you're using that line of attack against the death penalty.

None of that should be taken as a defence of capital punishment. I'm against it. But the "there's no certainty, thus you'd be willing to harm innocents" argument doesn't hold up unless one is also willing to drop pretty much all custodial (or at least serious custodial) sentences as well.

[Zakharra]

I challenge you to show me a single court, a single judge, who has never made a wrong decision, who has never had one of his sentences reversed or overruled. As long as there can't be 100% certainty, you're willing to imprison innocents. You'd rather imprison a dozen innocents, then not imprison one criminal. And that's complete and utter madness!

Subtle change there... but a subtle change that shows the weakness of that position.

And yes, I know... imprisonment is reversible, the death penalty is not. Although it sort of isn't. Yes, someone later found innocent can be released from prison... but they don't get their years behind bars back. We recently saw the death of Gerry Conlon, infamously wrongly convicted as part of the Guildford Four. Is spending 14 years in prison, then since release suffering two nervous breakdowns, attempting suicide and becoming addicted to drink and drugs "reversible" even with a £500,000 compensation payment?

If we're going to take the "innocent people may be sentenced to capital punishment, therefore the death penalty is wrong" line then surely the exact same line must be taken to all custodial punishments as well? Yes, dying may be worse than spending 14 years in prison for a crime you didn't commit... but spending 14 years in prison for a crime you didn't commit isn't exactly OK is it? I'd say it's still pretty damn wrong. To not take that approach actually strikes me as pretty offensive... we can't have capital punishment because it may (and quite likely will) lead to innocent people being subjected to it but we should keep custodial sentences even though innocent people may (and almost certainly will) be subjected to it. Why is the line drawn at death and not imprisonment? Or at least imprisonment for say life? Or 20 years+? Or 10 years+? Whatever was done to try to rectify Gerry Conlon's situation once he was released, nothing can give him back 14 years of his life. To act as if custodial sentences are reversible and thus it's sort of OK to have them strikes me as exceptionally trite if you're using that line of attack against the death penalty.

None of that should be taken as a defence of capital punishment. I'm against it. But the "there's no certainty, thus you'd be willing to harm innocents" argument doesn't hold up unless one is also willing to drop pretty much all custodial (or at least serious custodial) sentences as well.

No court is ever perfect. No one is arguing that. But we who support the death penalty are saying that only those whose guilt is unquestioned (ie. caught in the act, it's caught on vid and there are plenty of witnesses and such) and are convicted of heinous crimes such as murder and such, -should- be killed. There's no reason to keep them alive for years or decades at great expense to the public.  I know you will bring up 'what about those wrongly convicted' line. Please -look- at the conditions we're saying the death penalty is fine. We would have someone put to death if they were caught red handed killing someone on TV. You would rather imprison him forever because you think he might have been wrongly convicted. There's a big difference there. Yes, we know some might be wrongly convicted, but you're ignoring that some people who do heinous acts of murder are rightfully convicted and sentenced and those people -do- get what they deserve. 

I'm not the type to spare ninety nine undeniably guilty murderers to save one innocent. Everything comes at a cost, sometimes the cost is high, other times it's lower. This has the potential to be a high price, but one that is reasonable.

[consortium11]

No court is ever perfect. No one is arguing that. But we who support the death penalty are saying that only those whose guilt is unquestioned (ie. caught in the act, it's caught on vid and there are plenty of witnesses and such) and are convicted of heinous crimes such as murder and such, -should- be killed. There's no reason to keep them alive for years or decades at great expense to the public.  I know you will bring up 'what about those wrongly convicted' line. Please -look- at the conditions we're saying the death penalty is fine. We would have someone put to death if they were caught red handed killing someone on TV. You would rather imprison him forever because you think he might have been wrongly convicted. There's a big difference there. Yes, we know some might be wrongly convicted, but you're ignoring that some people who do heinous acts of murder are rightfully convicted and sentenced and those people -do- get what they deserve. 

I'm not the type to spare ninety nine undeniably guilty murderers to save one innocent. Everything comes at a cost, sometimes the cost is high, other times it's lower. This has the potential to be a high price, but one that is reasonable.

I'm not sure if this was meant to be directed at me... the vast majority of my post was actually arguing against the "well, you might sentence an innocent to death" approach.

[Passion and Desire]

There is a HUGE difference in my saying "if you are a mass murdering fuck you deserve for your peers to judge you unworthy of living with the rest of us"

But that's not what you're saying. You're saying: "If you are a mass murdering fuck you deserve to die just because I deem it so." You're appointing yourself as the single instance deciding over someone else's life. Not the legislative body of a government. Not the judge or jury of a court. Only you. And - in my personal opinion (see what I did there?) - that puts you on the same level as those you want to punish by death.

no matter how much you decide to insult us Americans

Oh wow, that really struck a nerve.  ::)

Do you want to deny that Paul Singer and his vulture fond are willing to drive Argentina into national bankcrupty for their own personal profit, ignoring and refuting any sort of compromise? Do you want to deny that Keith B. Alexander made false statements in a congressional hearing about the extend of the NSA's spying on people all over the world? Do you want to deny that the USA still run the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, where people are imprisoned without any hope for a fair trial, but instead being subject to whatever treatment deemed fit no matter how cruel or inhuman?

There's nothing insulting in stating these facts, and asking why you don't want to see those responsible for that mess being put to death, despite all the misery and pain they've caused.

Subtle change there... but a subtle change that shows the weakness of that position.

That position isn't weak at all. No nation should readily dish out irreversible punishment. Especially not a nation where political, financial, economical, and military interests are so easily and so densely intermingled like in the USA.

But let's formulate it a bit differently:

Any $crime should be punished by $irreversibleSentence.

So far we have seen the argument for $crime = "murder" and $irreversibleSentence = "execution". How about we look at the situation for $crime = "rape" and $irreversibleSentence = "castration"? Or how about $crime = "theft" and $irreversibleSentence = "chopping off right hand"? Why is one form of irreversible punishment okay, but others are not? Why is the risk of killing an innocent okay, but castrating an innocent, or chopping off an innocent's hand is considered "barbaric"?

Yes, a person unjustly imprisoned won't get back the years he spent in jail. But he can get back his freedom, and be compensated for the wrong sentence. Can a person who was unjustly executed be returned to life and compensated for their death? Rather not. Could a person that was unjustly castrated be given back their fertility? "We're really sorry about ripping out your ovaries. Nothing personal. Here's a Starbuck's voucher. Good luck with that family planning thing!"

[Iniquitous]

Again - stop trying to muddy the waters Passion. This has NOTHING to do with the United States political position and it would be greatly appreciated if you would stop. Now.

Second - rape? By Gods yes castrate the fuckers. And I say that as a survivor of gang rape.

[Passion and Desire]

Second - rape? By Gods yes castrate the fuckers.

2 - 8% of all rape accusations are false. You sure are willing to accept an unacceptable amount of collateral damage.

[consortium11]

That position isn't weak at all. No nation should readily dish out irreversible punishment. Especially not a nation where political, financial, economical, and military interests are so easily and so densely intermingled like in the USA.

But let's formulate it a bit differently:
So far we have seen the argument for $crime = "murder" and $irreversibleSentence = "execution". How about we look at the situation for $crime = "rape" and $irreversibleSentence = "castration"? Or how about $crime = "theft" and $irreversibleSentence = "chopping off right hand"? Why is one form of irreversible punishment okay, but others are not? Why is the risk of killing an innocent okay, but castrating an innocent, or chopping off an innocent's hand is considered "barbaric"?

1) I'm against the death penalty, as mentioned in my post. My issue is with your argument, not your position. If you consider the death penalty wrong because you consider it barbaric then that's a rather different argument to the death penalty wrong because innocent people might be subjected to it... and thus has little to do with my own argument.

Following the first line of reasoning in a hypothetical world where guilt or innocence could be proven with 100% certainty the death penalty would still be wrong. Following the second line it would not. They are two separate arguments.

2) The US does actually have (chemical) castration as a punishment in several states.

Yes, a person unjustly imprisoned won't get back the years he spent in jail. But he can get back his freedom, and be compensated for the wrong sentence. Can a person who was unjustly executed be returned to life and compensated for their death? Rather not. Could a person that was unjustly castrated be given back their fertility? "We're really sorry about ripping out your ovaries. Nothing personal. Here's a Starbuck's voucher. Good luck with that family planning thing!"

This was what I was talking about when I mentioned that the approach you've taken comes across as somewhere between trite and offensive when applied to wrongful convictions which only led to a custodial sentence. To take your final statement...

"We're really sorry about wrongfully imprisoning you for 14 years (along with your father who died in prison). Nothing personal. Here's a cheque fr £500,000. Good luck with not having nervous breakdowns, attempting suicide and not getting addicted to drink and drugs."

Or, to use another real life example...

"We're really sorry about wrongfully imprisoning you for three and a bit years for supposedly killing your children. Nothing personal. Here's some compensation (but only after we really fight you to not have to pay it). Good luck with not suffering from severe psychological issues and alcohol addiction so bad that you drink yourself to death within four years of being released."

In fact, in either of those cases, can it really be said that the innocent ever actually got their freedom back? They may have been let out of prison but they were haunted by their unjust imprisonment all the same... and in both cases that likely (and in Sally Clark's case almost certainly) led to their eventual deaths.

As I said in my original post, being thrown in prison for a crime you didn't commit is less serious than being executed for a crime you didn't commit. But we're talking minor degrees in the pretty damn awful scale here. Gerry Cooney spent 14 years in jail. Sally Clark may have "only" spent three and a bit but as a former solicitor and an alleged child killer those years were as hellish as they could be. They never got those years back and they were never the same people when they came out.

If the key argument is that innocent people might be punished then why isn't spending 14 years in prison serious enough to mean that custodial sentences should be removed entirely or at least limited (and considering what happened to Sally Clark that limit would likely have to be less than three years)?

[Zakharra]

2 - 8% of all rape accusations are false. You sure are willing to accept an unacceptable amount of collateral damage.

There you go again, Passion. You're deliberately muddying the waters. You automatically take the side of, if one innocent is hurt by a sentencing, that NO person should ever be given a harsh sentence. Yes there are some cases of false rape charges, but to automatically assume that IO meant -all- rape convictions should be castrated, is very misguided of you. I am assuming she likely meant those cases that have been proven to be true. IE with cameras/vid and such (too many people now film their crimes because it's the 'cool thing to do'. You automatically seem to think that every case will never be 100% provable as guilty. Your constant ignoring that some cases -are- provable that the convicted is 100% guilty is getting annoying. 

[Iniquitous]

If a person is convicted of rape by infallible proof - DNA testing, the assclowns bragging about and posting the shit online, etc - then yes. Castrate them.

And I will say again - personal opinions are just that. Personal. Trying to muddy the waters and insult those with differing opinions isnt going to change their opinions. Or win you any friends.

[Rogue]

2 - 8% of all rape accusations are false. You sure are willing to accept an unacceptable amount of collateral damage.

Excuse you. Hold up. Yes, you're right. 8% of all REPORTED rape accusations are false. However, and most of these facts can be found on this article with sources attached, 54% of rapes are not reported and 97% of rapists are never incarcerated. That's just a few of the abysmal statistics on rape.

In addition to this, your formula, previously stated is flawed.

Murder and Rape are crimes against living people involving permanently damaging (physically or psychologically) a person. Petty theft or even grand larceny are material, involving money. A person can sacrifice that many hours of work to repay back the family. You can't do that with rape or murder. You just can't.

[Passion and Desire]

[...] but to automatically assume that IO meant -all- rape convictions should be castrated, is very misguided of you.

Excuse me? "By Gods yes castrate the fuckers." How the fuck does that not mean what it says?

I am assuming she likely meant those cases that have been proven to be true. [...]

"Assuming." "Likely meant." You're shifting goalposts and you know it. You're deliberatly interpreting what she could have meant just to match your opinion, while ignoring what she actually said.

Also, what do you mean with "proven to be true"? You're implying that a conviction is not enough proof. Well, what do you consider "proven to be true" then?

What about the case of Stanley Wrice? What about the cases of Alan Northrop and Larry Davis? What about the case of James Eugene Grissom? Weren't those cases "proven to be true" at some point as well?

If a person is convicted of rape by infallible proof - DNA testing, the assclowns bragging about and posting the shit online, etc - then yes. Castrate them.

Do you realize how utterly nonsensical your statement is? Should a person be convicted based on anything but infallible proof? How would that go? "Well, you were charged with rape, but we can't really prove anything. We'll only stick you in prison for a couple of decades instead of lopping off your balls. Consider yourself lucky!"

That's not how any civilized jurisdiction should work. Either you can be proven guilty, or you have to be considered innocent. "In dubio pro reo" has to be the defining principle of any civilized jurisdiction, not some primal lust for revenge. An offender always has to be proven guilty, they must never have to prove their innocence!

Yes, a penal code should protect the society from offenders, should teach the offenders a lesson, and - to some extent - punish the offenders to satisfy the victim's desire for revenge. However, it also should allow for resocialization; simply locking everyone away for decades without any chance to return to a "normal" life is not the solution. You just don't want people coming out of prison knowing nothing but crime, and immediately fall back into it because they have no perspective to get a normal job and have a normal life after serving their time. The same goes for irreversible sentences, like castration. That can never be undone, and completely takes away any chance for a normal life afterwards.

Murder and Rape are crimes against living people involving permanently damaging (physically or psychologically) a person. Petty theft or even grand larceny are material, involving money. A person can sacrifice that many hours of work to repay back the family. You can't do that with rape or murder. You just can't.

How about stealing someone's pension fund, damning them to spend the last few decades of their lives in complete poverty, perhaps even homelessness? How about stealing someone's savings for their childrens' education, damning those to a life of missed opportunities and low-wage jobs? How about stealing someone's car, causing them to lose their job, and subsequently their home?

Poverty can also greatly damage a person. Look at the misery caused by the financial crisis in Greece, and tell me again it's just "money:"

[...] In spring last year a 77-year-old retired pharmacist shot himself in the head in the central square of Athens, leaving a note saying that he could not bear the idea of "scavenging in dustbins for food and becoming a burden to my child..." [...]

[Beorning]

I'd like to agree with Passion that the whole idea of "being convicted with infallible proof" is some misunderstanding. In modern sentencing, every conviction should be considered to have been done with infallible proof. If there are reasonable doubts concerning the guilt, then the defendant isn't sentenced!

[Iniquitous]

Yes, a penal code should protect the society from offenders, should teach the offenders a lesson, and - to some extent - punish the offenders to satisfy the victim's desire for revenge. However, it also should allow for resocialization; simply locking everyone away for decades without any chance to return to a "normal" life is not the solution. You just don't want people coming out of prison knowing nothing but crime, and immediately fall back into it because they have no perspective to get a normal job and have a normal life after serving their time. The same goes for irreversible sentences, like castration. That can never be undone, and completely takes away any chance for a normal life afterwards.

NO. The assholes who raped me should NEVER have a chance at a "normal" life. They took away things from me that I'll never get back - normalcy being one of them. Why in the ever loving FUCK should they get to have a normal life after taking normalcy away from me? Where is the fucking fairness in that shit? They deserve to be castrated. And before you disrespect me yet again - why not ask me how I want the castration done? Hm? Instead of just assuming.

I am officially bowing out of this topic before I say something particularly nasty to Passion. I have said it more than once - these are personal opinions that are being attacked. If respect cannot be shown to the people participating then I have nothing left to say.

[Retribution]

I am not jumping into this debate again. I feel most things political anymore illustrate how vehement we become with someone of an opposing view and thus why the political system has become toxic.

But consortium11 even though we often have opposing views your posts are always thoughtful and well written and I often get your point again even if I may not concur. It is always a pleasure to read you. I wanted to say that in a public format and offer kudos where they are deserved.

~R~

[consortium11]

I am not jumping into this debate again. I feel most things political anymore illustrate how vehement we become with someone of an opposing view and thus why the political system has become toxic.

Indeed... I think this topic is worth looking at again.

At best debates should be a way to better express and formulate ideas while informing yourself of other views and taking on constructive criticism. At worst they should be intellectual sparring where you put an idea out there and defend it while trying to break down others... but any bloody noses are unintentional.

This is not The Bad and the Ugly where one can rant freely without being criticised (at least in theory). This is a sub-forum where if you put an argument or idea out there it will most likely be criticised. Accusing someone of attacking a personal opinion isn't a defence... by posting it here you're asking for it to be critiqued. But while attacking personal opinions is fine (and frankly is it possible to conceive of opinions that aren't personal?) attacking people is not. I've engaged in some fairly rigorous debates on here... but the key is to debate the idea, not the person. If I think someone's idea doesn't value human life I'll say so (similar to how I've said in this topic that I think people have been dismissive of the incredibly serious impact that custodial sentences for wrongful convictions can have) but I won't take the next step of saying they don't value human life.

But consortium11 even though we often have opposing views your posts are always thoughtful and well written and I often get your point again even if I may not concur. It is always a pleasure to read you. I wanted to say that in a public format and offer kudos where they are deserved.

~R~

Much appreciated.