Death Penalty, when?

[Darkside55]

Ah, first off, it wasn't a friend. It was a thread on the forums. I said, "one of the forumites," not a friend of mine. Someone from Wales I believe...jeez the thread was like, earlier this month, doesn't anybody remember it? Matter of fact Stern I'm pretty sure you were a poster in that thread.

In any case the point I was making--and thank you for twisting my words to derive the worst possible conclusion about my ideology, and in fact go completely off point--was not that the Black race is "bred for crime." The point I was making was that people in these areas grow up with a different value set imposed on them by their peers and their environment. They grow up hearing they're living in a world where they cannot get ahead because of racial issues, and that one of the only possible ways of "getting out" is to live on the fringe. Joining gangs, selling drugs, committing crimes, etc. This isn't "bred for crime," it's simply misinformation that permeates the ideas of who live in shall we say less-than-affluent areas. Which is certainly not to say that everyone who comes out of such areas is like that, by all means no. I could tell you some of the places I've lived, or where my family has lived, and you'd be quite surprised. I am simply saying that impressionable youths growing up hearing these things, especially those who are unfortunately without a "ground" (that is, a parent or guardian or any responsible adult who takes the time to teach the child and raise them right, and against such fallacies that are spouted around them) can be led to a life of crime. Which is, you must agree, something we must guard against.

what's wrong with life in prison? why must they, and you did say most should be executed?

Let me ask you a question. What is the difference, the real difference, between life in prison and execution? It seems an absurd question with a simple answer, doesn't it? The difference is life, right? In one instance you have an inmate who will never see the outside, yet still lives, and in the other instance you are killing this person off.

And yet here you have a person who, for all intents and purposes, is already dead to society. It has been deemed that this person can no longer function in our world as a free man or woman, they are condemned to serve out their entire life in a cell. So eventually they are going to die. The difference is that you are waiting for the term of their entire life to pass by, essentially waiting while they rot, for no particular reason! They are taking up space and draining the resources of society, for no reason. They eat food that could be better served given to the poor. Taxpayers have to pay for prisons, prisons which are continuously being built to house all these criminals. You have criminals being RELEASED due to overcrowding! Due to overcrowding, think about that! Does that not sound absurd to you? So basically you have this leech, a sponge who is serving his/her time in prison for life, being given resources that can be put to better use elsewhere and taking up the space in our prisons that could be better served given to less-serious offenders or even just to make way for those incoming prisoners, rather than releasing current felons just to make some room.

you're either very young/naive or are functionally retarded ..sorry but to condemn someone to death because it's too expensive to reopen their case (they just dont do it arbitrarily, they need grounds to reopen it...this is where the naiviete comes in)

I am aware of that. I assure you I'm neither young, nor naive (and everybody's retarded on the internet ), and I have actually studied criminal law as well so I know that there has to be grounds to reopen a case. Actually anyone who has a working knowledge of the law whether having studied it or not knows that. I'm simply saying that it's not worth it to go in and open cases that have minor discrepancies that suggest evidence against it being the person if the overwhelming evidence suggests that it is. I would imagine that, if this solution were ever to come to pass, there'd be a lot more leniency in what would be considered grounds to reopen a case, considering the severity of the punishment.

so simple possession of marijuana, a crime punishable up to 25 years in jail merits captial punishment? all manners of crime that usually recieves a life sentence meits capital punishment ..even repeat offenders? (cumulative, ie: 3 strikes law)

Yes, it is. It's not about the severity of the crime so much as it is the willingness to repeat the crime, and showing a willful disregard for our laws. Possession of marijuana, a "simple" crime, as you put it, is in fact against the law. That's the bottom line. 25 years in prison even shows how seriously our government takes it. Now I'm not going to get into the war on drugs here, that's a whole 'nother thread, but realistically it's the same scenario as I described above: you have a person in jail for a sizeable chunk of their life living off of resources better spent helping those who actually NEED them. Instead you're giving food, shelter, excercise and recreation, spending money on rehabilitation programs, etcetera etcetera etcetera on a person who will probably lapse once again and be caught on the same charge after being released.

 

[CptStern]

Ah, first off, it wasn't a friend. It was a thread on the forums. I said, "one of the forumites," not a friend of mine. Someone from Wales I believe...jeez the thread was like, earlier this month, doesn't anybody remember it? Matter of fact Stern I'm pretty sure you were a poster in that thread.

In any case the point I was making--and thank you for twisting my words to derive the worst possible conclusion about my ideology, and in fact go completely off point--was not that the Black race is "bred for crime." The point I was making was that people in these areas grow up with a different value set imposed on them by their peers and their environment. They grow up hearing they're living in a world where they cannot get ahead because of racial issues, and that one of the only possible ways of "getting out" is to live on the fringe. Joining gangs, selling drugs, committing crimes, etc. This isn't "bred for crime," it's simply misinformation that permeates the ideas of who live in shall we say less-than-affluent areas. Which is certainly not to say that everyone who comes out of such areas is like that, by all means no. I could tell you some of the places I've lived, or where my family has lived, and you'd be quite surprised. I am simply saying that impressionable youths growing up hearing these things, especially those who are unfortunately without a "ground" (that is, a parent or guardian or any responsible adult who takes the time to teach the child and raise them right, and against such fallacies that are spouted around them) can be led to a life of crime. Which is, you must agree, something we must guard against.

yes but those are true for any community in any part of the world .... low income neighbourhoods have high crime ..not because they're influenced by gang culture but because they're poor ...crime did not invent itself with the advent of rap/gangster culture

Let me ask you a question. What is the difference, the real difference, between life in prison and execution? It seems an absurd question with a simple answer, doesn't it? The difference is life, right? In one instance you have an inmate who will never see the outside, yet still lives, and in the other instance you are killing this person off.

yes I understand the difference between life and death ...in any event life in prison is for the extreme cases ..the same sort of people who would be on death row ..not for pedestrian criminality (which you seem to think should warrent capital punishment

And yet here you have a person who, for all intents and purposes, is already dead to society. It has been deemed that this person can no longer function in our world as a free man or woman, they are condemned to serve out their entire life in a cell. So eventually they are going to die. The difference is that you are waiting for the term of their entire life to pass by, essentially waiting while they rot, for no particular reason!

yes there definately is a reason: punishment ..why else would people be in prison?

They are taking up space and draining the resources of society, for no reason.

punishment again ..oh and being on death row for years while waiting for execution if far more expensive

They eat food that could be better served given to the poor.

you've never been to prison ..the food is sub par soup kitchen standards. The poor in shelters are given better meals

Taxpayers have to pay for prisons, prisons which are continuously being built to house all these criminals.

crematoreums, gas chambers, electric chairs, gallows, lethal drugs, bullets = all expensive

You have criminals being RELEASED due to overcrowding!

appeal to emotion logicval fallacy ..most are near the end of their sentence or up for parole ..they dont release murderers

Due to overcrowding, think about that!

I have and your point has proven to be lacking ..address the reasons why they're in jail ..simple possession gets you prison time in many states ....simple possession

on court tv I watched a just barely above fuctioning mentally retarded man get 25 years in jail for simple possession of 2 grams of weed ..25 years for 2 ****ing grams of weed ..in most civilized places in the world this would have been thrown out ..to be fair it was his 3rd strike ..1st was breaking and entering at age 19 (less than $1000 was stolen), the second was for breach of parole (he missed a date with parole officer), and the third was for simple possession ...25 years ..if that's not a miscarriage of justice I dont know what is. Btw how many people involved with the enron scandal (which robbed thousands of people of millions of dollars) are serving a life sentence? how many are not serving any time at all?

Does that not sound absurd to you?

yes it does but not for the reasons you're thinking

So basically you have this leech, a sponge who is serving his/her time in prison for life, being given resources that can be put to better use elsewhere and taking up the space in our prisons that could be better served given to less-serious offenders or even just to make way for those incoming prisoners, rather than releasing current felons just to make some room.

again appeal to emotion logical fallacy ..why not just decriminalise certain things ..wonder how many people are serving for simple possession (remember possession is not the same as trafficing)

I am aware of that. I assure you I'm neither young, nor naive (and everybody's retarded on the internet ), and I have actually studied criminal law as well so I know that there has to be grounds to reopen a case. Actually anyone who has a working knowledge of the law whether having studied it or not knows that. I'm simply saying that it's not worth it to go in and open cases that have minor discrepancies that suggest evidence against it being the person if the overwhelming evidence suggests that it is. I would imagine that, if this solution were ever to come to pass, there'd be a lot more leniency in what would be considered grounds to reopen a case, considering the severity of the punishment.

doubtful ..the criteria for re-opening a case (not appeals process) is no different in a captial case as any other case ..so no

Yes, it is. It's not about the severity of the crime so much as it is the willingness to repeat the crime, and showing a willful disregard for our laws.

so according to you in the above example I mention he merits a death sentence? he has a disregard for law (as you put it) off with his mentally challenged head!

Possession of marijuana, a "simple" crime, as you put it, is in fact against the law.

]

so is public drunkeness, spitting in public and jaywalking <- perfect candiates for lethal injections

bottom line. 25 years in prison even shows how seriously our government takes it.

your government is, pardon my bluntness, idiotic ..the war on drugs does nothing ...btw the CIA trafficed drugs in south america for decades ..George H Bush was director of the CIA at the time I DEMAND he be executed immediately

Now I'm not going to get into the war on drugs here, that's a whole 'nother thread, but realistically it's the same scenario as I described above: you have a person in jail for a sizeable chunk of their life living off of resources better spent helping those who actually NEED them. Instead you're giving food, shelter, excercise and recreation, spending money on rehabilitation programs, etcetera etcetera etcetera on a person who will probably lapse once again and be caught on the same charge after being released.

so anyone who shows any sign of criminality should be put to death? ...lets take this one step further: sterilising all people with criminal records and abortions for those currently pregnant ...how many people here have commited some form of petty crime? if we were to listen you our current membership would be significantly less. I stole sporting goods/toys and was caught when I was 11 ..since I was 11 at the time police could have predicted that I was headed for a life of crime and put me the death ..thereby ensuring that this conversation will never take place

 

[Darkside55]

yes but those are true for any community in any part of the world .... low income neighbourhoods have high crime ..not because they're influenced by gang culture but because they're poor ...crime did not invent itself with the advent of rap/gangster culture

And I never said it did. Poverty begets desperation, which in turn begets crime. However you cannot deny the connection between gangster "culture" and criminality, especially when songs blatantly glorify shooting, stealing, selling drugs, and pimping.

The point here is simply that these ideas should be nipped in the bud, and poverty should be addressed as well. Nobody should have to live in poor conditions--and that's really a topic unto itself--; with the renovation of such areas crime would drop significantly.

yes I understand the difference between life and death ...in any event life in prison is for the extreme cases ..the same sort of people who would be on death row ..not for pedestrian criminality (which you seem to think should warrent capital punishment

When does criminality cease becoming "pedestrian?" Should severe punishment only be limited to those who commit crimes we feel are particularly heinous? Why is that? If someone repeats a crime, continuously, showing absolute contempt for the law, should this person receive a slap on the wrist each time? "Well you've broken the law several times now, but they were all minor crimes so we're just going to give you a couple years to think about what you've done and then set you free again, and we'll see you back in here next time!"

yes there definately is a reason: punishment ..why else would people be in prison?

Heavens, they're being punished. They get meals. They get interaction. They get recreation. They can get visitors. What's the worst they suffer? Beatings every now and then from other inmates? A little buttrape? They just join gangs for protection. Lockdown and lights out? Goodness.

Obviously their agonizing torment isn't enough to stop many of them from committing the same acts again.

punishment again ..oh and being on death row for years while waiting for execution if far more expensive

The simple answer to that is to eliminate death row. Cut out the "years" portion of it. In fact why not just reduce it to DAYS?

you've never been to prison ..the food is sub par soup kitchen standards. The poor in shelters are given better meals

I've heard first-hand accounts of what prison food is like. I've even spoken to a prison cook. Please stop assuming I'm naive. I know what they eat. Food is food. ANY food would be a good meal to someone starving and hungry, and that I can say from PERSONAL experience.

crematoreums, gas chambers, electric chairs, gallows, lethal drugs, bullets = all expensive

You're probably going to think I'm being facetious, and probably after that cold and monstrous, but listen...a sharp object and some fire to burn the bodies don't cost anything, if you really want to go for the lowest bidder.

appeal to emotion logicval fallacy ..most are near the end of their sentence or up for parole ..they dont release murderers

No, they do not. However it would be interesting to see how many of these released criminals relapse. Of course not all might, good for them, but it'd be interesting to find out.

I have and your point has proven to be lacking ..address the reasons why they're in jail ..simple possession gets you prison time in many states ....simple possession

on court tv I watched a just barely above fuctioning mentally retarded man get 25 years in jail for simple possession of 2 grams of weed ..25 years for 2 ****ing grams of weed ..in most civilized places in the world this would have been thrown out ..to be fair it was his 3rd strike ..1st was breaking and entering at age 19 (less than $1000 was stolen), the second was for breach of parole (he missed a date with parole officer), and the third was for simple possession ...25 years ..if that's not a miscarriage of justice I dont know what is. Btw how many people involved with the enron scandal (which robbed thousands of people of millions of dollars) are serving a life sentence? how many are not serving any time at all?

First off I'd like to say that as much as you call it "simple" possession, and how "civilized" places in the world would find our laws on drugs foolish, mind that they're drugs, A, and that they're against the law, B. I personally don't advocate the use of narcotics for recreational purposes, but this isn't about my opinion, or even your opinion on the subject. The fact is possession is a crime in this country. That means that even if you have a LITTLE of it, just a teensy, tiny bit of it...guess what? You're getting busted. That is a fact that is not open to debate in this particular discussion. We are talking about the fact that it is against the law, and people are breaking that law.

You know the only thing I could call a "miscarriage of justice"--and to call it that I would be, on a leniency scale of 1-10 with 10 being most lenient, an 11--would be for his second offense. Question is, what was the reason he missed his parole date? That's an important thing. If you are on parole, that should be one, if not THE, top priority. He completely missed the date. Why? Without the answer to that I can't judge him and I'm not going to jump the gun and start making assumptions on why. Could you provide that information, is it available?

As for the Enron scandal, you should probably take it up with the government, not me, as you can clearly see I believe ALL criminals should be punished. No one should be exempt from the law. NO ONE.

again appeal to emotion logical fallacy ..why not just decriminalise certain things ..wonder how many people are serving for simple possession (remember possession is not the same as trafficing)

Why should we decriminalize it? So people can get high, have their joint to relax? Yeah, it's your time, it's your money, it's your braincells...hell I'm not even going to argue about it being a gateway drug or what it leads to. I'm on the fence with my belief in that anyway. But the point is, again, not how debatable the law is, or the reasons behind the law, why we should even HAVE that law...the point is that it is the law.

Yeah, sure, we could decriminalize it...it's just simple possession, and it'd reduce the number of inmates. Sounds like a good idea. Hey, while we're at it, y'know, some of these other laws are pretty ridiculous too. Let's knock a couple off the list here...maybe reduce sentencing for this one...how's everybody feel on this law right here, everybody good? Ah we don't need this one.

When you start cutting down the laws for the sake of sparing adding a few more convicts to the list you aren't left with laws, you're left with a pick-and-choose menu. I don't think that's severe enough, let's just let him go free!

doubtful ..the criteria for re-opening a case (not appeals process) is no different in a captial case as any other case ..so no

Noted. However I maintain that there could still be the possibility of criteria changing.

so according to you in the above example I mention he merits a death sentence? he has a disregard for law (as you put it) off with his mentally challenged head!

If he's mentally challenged we should be sending him to an institution, not a prison. Those without proper command over their mental facilities should not be lumped in with those who commit crimes out of impulse or premeditation.

so is public drunkeness, spitting in public and jaywalking <- perfect candiates for lethal injections

Now I think YOU'RE being facetious. Spitting in public is not a crime in North America or the UK, unless you are spitting ON another person. Spitting in public is only a crime in Singapore.

Jaywalkers are rarely arrested. People who jaywalk needn't worry about lethal injections as much as being hit by a car anyway.

People shouldn't be drunk in public. You ever have a drunk come up in broad daylight, stumble over your car while you were parked at the light, get obscene with you like it was YOUR fault, and start rubbing themselves on your hood? You're goddamned right that's a crime. Get off my hood you drunks!

your government is, pardon my bluntness, idiotic ..the war on drugs does nothing ...btw the CIA trafficed drugs in south america for decades ..George H Bush was director of the CIA at the time I DEMAND he be executed immediately

You are preaching to the choir about the US government's idiocy. The American people, many of us, are ashamed of our own government. In the case of the war on drugs, many Americans are strongly oppossed to it (I, however, am not one of those people and I support the effort to rid the world of narcotics). And yes, we know all about the government's dealings in drugs. Our country is full of wonderful paradoxes.

so anyone who shows any sign of criminality should be put to death? ...lets take this one step further: sterilising all people with criminal records and abortions for those currently pregnant ...how many people here have commited some form of petty crime? if we were to listen you our current membership would be significantly less. I stole sporting goods/toys and was caught when I was 11 ..since I was 11 at the time police could have predicted that I was headed for a life of crime and put me the death ..thereby ensuring that this conversation will never take place

Have I not continuously said repeat offenders? Is there something in that statement that you have not yet grasped?

Have I not said, many times now, that I believe rehabilitation can work for some and that we should at least attempt it?

And did I not ALSO say that criminal records should be kept private for people who have served their time and go on to be productive members of society? Furthermore, what use would there be in sterilizing reformed criminals? Criminality is not passed down through the genes. Could you not ALSO infer from a previous statement in a previous post that I feel we should not go looking for mental or genetic markers in order to profile criminals, lest we begin wrongfully accusing or viewing with suspicion those who have committed no crimes? I said so. It's all there. You've been taking the time to quote me and yet on many accounts it seems like you're missing what I'm saying.

You stole at 11. Ok. Did you steal again? (You can, of course, plead the 5th on this one, I'm not gonna call you out on your criminal record here) The point I'm trying to make is that most people would learn their lesson and not attempt another infraction. But you have those who WOULD try their luck again, see if they could get away with another theft. Maybe they'd succeed. So they'd try another. And another. Until they get caught. And we try to rehabilitate this person, but what if they do it again? We put them in for the long term and just...go about sustaining their life? Does that really make sense to you? Prison time seriously sounds like adequate punishment? I think you should take a look at who you've been pointing the word "naive" at.

 

[hasan]

Don't you think it's off-topic to discuss prisons in the US and the costs of money for maintaining the prison system over there? I think that's totally irrelevant to the issue.

The real issue is whether a killer should be killed or not; in principle, not in the US prison system.
If you say the answer is no, then why do you bother arguing about the US prison system when you can take a shortcut and undermine the idea from its root?
If you say the answer is yes, then you do you have to go to such lengths and use the very poor "it costs us money and it's pointless" argument?

 

[Darkside55]

It's not irrelevant. The initial question was when should the death penalty be used. Unless you want to reduce the conversation to simple, "yes" and "no," then the reasons behind the opinion need to be presented.

Basically if you're saying this topic's just about the principle of whether to kill criminals or not, everybody who has suggested alternatives or criticised/approved of the current system of handling the death penalty has been off topic.

 

[Flyingdebris]

For the death penalty. Because something like rehab isn't going to work on the most hardened or depraved criminals. Nothing short of lobotomies or brainwashing.

Anyway, if someone tortures and kills a member of my family, and that person is caught and found guilty, you had better believe that I'd want that person dead.

At any rate with the amount of details that are gone over in court thanks to technology, it becomes increasingly harder for an innocent man to be convicted. Instead thanks to court laws about what evidence is allowed to count, it becomes easier for a guilty person to go free. I don't understand why courts can claim that certain types of damning evidence are not allowed.

 

[Solaris]

For the death penalty. Because something like rehab isn't going to work on the most hardened or depraved criminals. Nothing short of lobotomies or brainwashing.

Anyway, if someone tortures and kills a member of my family, and that person is caught and found guilty, you had better believe that I'd want that person dead.

At any rate with the amount of details that are gone over in court thanks to technology, it becomes increasingly harder for an innocent man to be convicted. Instead thanks to court laws about what evidence is allowed to count, it becomes easier for a guilty person to go free. I don't understand why courts can claim that certain types of damning evidence are not allowed.

Not true. Very few murders cases involve high tech CSI foresnics.

 

[DeusExMachina]

I wasn't aware the Justice Department let you in on how they solve murder cases.

 

[Aenama]

Solaris I find it hard to believe that a person like you exists outside the Internet.

 

[kirovman]

He doesn't! He's Stalin's ghost trapped inside the internets! :shh:

 

[15357]

Solaris I find it hard to believe that a person like you exists outside the Internet.

I have a friend that thinks like solaris. He's a nice guy and all, but his thoooouuuuggghhhhttttssss! Dangerous.

 

[PvtRyan]

Anyway, if someone tortures and kills a member of my family, and that person is caught and found guilty, you had better believe that I'd want that person dead.

Me too.

In fact, I'd want the murderer tortured. Slowly, painfully tortured to a horrible death.

But if you're gonna base your justice system on what's emotionally satisfying, you're a long way from home. By the same logic, thieves would be treated to a physical beating because that's what I would do to them or want to see done to someone who steals from me.

 

[kirovman]

Yeah let's put people on the rack, and cut their hands off too.

Oh don't forget about the eye-gouging.

 

[0mar]

I don't understand why courts can claim that certain types of damning evidence are not allowed.

Criminal rights man. It's absolutely sickening to see criminals being treated better than the vic nowadays.

 

[Absinthe]

I don't understand why courts can claim that certain types of damning evidence are not allowed.

It's very simple. Don't be a retard and collect your evidence through illegal means.

The rights of the criminal may seem ridiculous, but they exist for a very good reason. They ensure that convictions take place under the most fair and legal conditions, and so that those who uphold the law also act within the law as well.

If a criminal walks free because some ****ing idiots in the police force get some macho vigilante mindset stuck in their heads, then that's their fault. They should know better. This isn't the set of Dirty Harry.

 

[0mar]

It's very simple. Don't be a retard and collect your evidence through illegal means.

The rights of the criminal may seem ridiculous, but they exist for a very good reason. They ensure that convictions take place under the most fair and legal conditions, and so that those who uphold the law also act within the law as well.

If a criminal walks free because some ****ing idiots in the police force get some macho vigilante mindset stuck in their heads, then that's their fault. They should know better. This isn't the set of Dirty Harry.

Until that crackhead is fiending for a hit, breaks into your home, and ends up molesting your little kid. I doubt you'll be defending criminal rights then.

For the death penalty. Because something like rehab isn't going to work on the most hardened or depraved criminals. Nothing short of lobotomies or brainwashing.

Who cares about rehab? Rehab is not punishment, the gas chamber is. Life in prison is more than any murderer deserves. Rehab won't put another police officer on the force after he took 6 in the chest. Rehab won't bring back the kid that got sliced and stuffed down the drain. Rehab won't help the mother who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and ended up bleeding out. Even the most repetenant, penitent, remorseful murderer deserves nothing less than the firing squad or the gas chamber. Coddling criminals is no way to reduce crime. Sending the criminals six feet under is.

 

[Absinthe]

Until that crackhead is fiending for a hit, breaks into your home, and ends up molesting your little kid. I doubt you'll be defending criminal rights then.

If this is the best counter-argument you can come up with, then I suggest you shut the **** up and stop wasting my time.

You're a massive ****ing idiot, and while I have neither the time nor inclination to explain as to why, you can be rest assured that you are.

 

[0mar]

If this is the best counter-argument you can come up with, then I suggest you shut the **** up and stop wasting my time.

You're a massive ****ing idiot, and while I have neither the time nor inclination to explain as to why, you can be rest assured that you are.

Go play some Super Mario Bros and leave the real debate to people who actually understand what's going on.

****ing 12 year olds, I swear to god.

Stupid ****ing ****.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Excellent way to prove you can counter his argument effectively, there.

Somewhat surprisngly, not everybody who is put on trial in a criminal court is a criminal. 'Criminal rights' exist in part to protect the innocent as well as the guilty.

Until that crackhead is fiending for a hit, breaks into your home, and ends up molesting your little kid. I doubt you'll be defending criminal rights then.

Because vengeance and rage should be the foundations of justice.

Appeals to emotion such as "if YOUR brother was killed, would you?" are not only inherently stupid (I like to think that people can conquer their instincts), but attempt to exclude the person they are directed at from the argument while simultaenously insulting their humanity. Yay.

1. "If your brother had been killed, wouldn't you want revenge?"

Wouldn't you want revenge? Of course you would. You would want revenge because you would be overwhelmed by the feelings of grief, despair and rage that would flood you as soon as you heard the news. But actions motivated purely by these feelings are as far from the logic and calm that are essential to dealing with matters that concern a human life, or fifty, as America is from Australia or Britain. People do lots of crazy things when they're pissed off. Most murders are motivated by anger, and often the killer is extremely sorry they did it. Ever seen Star Wars? Anakin was wrong for slaughtering all them Tusken just because a few of them killed his mother.

Yes, the Star Wars reference is clearly ridiculous; I find it amusing to cite Star Wars in political or intellectual debates. Even though I'm not a big fan of the films. ANYWAY.

 

[Absinthe]

Yes, because doomsday scenarios that involve crackheads breaking into my house, raping my child, burning down the neighborhood, then driving my Honda Civic down to the nearest nuke factory, letting loose their alien parasites onto the workers, and initiating global nuclear warfare, epitomize reasonable discussion among people who "understand what's going on".

You're a clueless, slackjawed dumbshit that can't come up with anything better than slippery slopes and appeals to emotion. Don't pretend like you're knowledgeable about a damn thing when the height of your argument essentially translates into "DURRRRR KILL 'EM ALL", your wet dream apparently being some Orwellian dystopia in which law enforcement agencies can do whatever they damn please.

Let's not even get into the disturbing precedents that would set up and the abuse of power that would inevitably lead to. Because hey, the criminals are dead and you're too damn ignorant to see two steps beyond the sort of shit you're talking. **** criminal rights. Never mind that they exist to ensure a fair trial and justice. Never mind they protect the innocent and the wrongly accused as well. Am I right? Tell me if I am.

 

[PvtRyan]

Rehab won't put another police officer on the force after he took 6 in the chest.

Neither will the gas chamber.

Rehab won't bring back the kid that got sliced and stuffed down the drain.

Neither will the gas chamber.

Rehab won't help the mother who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and ended up bleeding out.

Neither will the gas chamber.

Are you actually going anywhere with this?

I still don't see any reason why the death penalty is better than just putting someone away to protect society, I just see emotion. And your tears of anger are salty..

Even the most repetenant, penitent, remorseful murderer deserves nothing less than the firing squad or the gas chamber. Coddling criminals is no way to reduce crime. Sending the criminals six feet under is.

Except that it doesn't have any effect on crimerates.

 

[0mar]

Neither will the gas chamber.



Neither will the gas chamber.



Neither will the gas chamber.

Are you actually going anywhere with this?

I still don't see any reason why the death penalty is better than just putting someone away to protect society, I just see emotion. And your tears of anger are salty..



Except that it doesn't have any effect on crimerates.

Newsflash, people get shivved in jails everyday over stupid shit. You could be in there on a simple assault, look at a guy doing 4 life sentences the wrong way and wake up with a pen in your neck.

Nothing will bring back the deceased, but punishment should fit the crime. Giving murderers and cop-killers a way to get back on the streets is defintely not deserving punishment.

Oh yea, the reason I'm so ****ing pissed at the state of criminal affairs is that my own brother got stabbed (he's okay btw, it was only about an inch of penetration) after a guy who was convicted of robbery, double murder and rape got out on "good behavior", meaning he didn't shiv anyone in prison. He only served 12 years. Yea, real upstanding citizen that guy was.

Everyone's attitude here on criminal rights, the death penalty, and such, will change instantly when something like that happens. I'd kill the mother****er first if the police didn't arrest him within a few hours.

Yes, because doomsday scenarios that involve crackheads breaking into my house, raping my child, burning down the neighborhood, then driving my Honda Civic down to the nearest nuke factory, letting loose their alien parasites onto the workers, and initiating global nuclear warfare, epitomize reasonable discussion among people who "understand what's going on".

You're a clueless, slackjawed dumbshit that can't come up with anything better than slippery slopes and appeals to emotion. Don't pretend like you're knowledgeable about a damn thing when the height of your argument essentially translates into "DURRRRR KILL 'EM ALL", your wet dream apparently being some Orwellian dystopia in which law enforcement agencies can do whatever they damn please.

Let's not even get into the disturbing precedents that would set up and the abuse of power that would inevitably lead to. Because hey, the criminals are dead and you're too damn ignorant to see two steps beyond the sort of shit you're talking. **** criminal rights. Never mind that they exist to ensure a fair trial and justice. Never mind they protect the innocent and the wrongly accused as well. Am I right? Tell me if I am.

EDIT: overreaction

 

[Absinthe]

**** off, you're not fit to talk to me.

I'm not surprised by this response, since it fits well with all your others: Moronic, insubstantial, and worthless.

I'm sure your opinion of black people would change if your mother was gang-raped by five of them. Kill black people!
No wait, don't. Because a justice system built on blind emotion is completely retarded. This is a very simple concept that you can't seem to grasp.
In fact, you exemplify everything that's wrong with the emotional reasoning you insist upon.

The justice system is not without its flaws. But its current state is infinitely better than your idea of what it should be.

 

[Absinthe]

You know what, we're getting off track. So let's bring it back to basics.

On which grounds should a conviction take place?

A) A fair trial by a jury of peers in which evidence presented is not only substantial, but gathered in a way in which the law enforcement agencies have acted within the very law they are meant to uphold, thus minimizing the possibility of bias and wrongful incrimination.

B) GRRRR I AM SO ANGRY

 

[0mar]

I'm not surprised by this response, since it fits well with all your others: Moronic, insubstantial, and worthless.

I'm sure your opinion of black people would change if your mother was gang-raped by five of them. Kill black people!
No wait, don't. Because a justice system built on blind emotion is completely retarded. This is a very simple concept that you can't seem to grasp.
In fact, you exemplify everything that's wrong with the emotional reasoning you insist upon.

The justice system is not without its flaws. But its current state is infinitely better than your idea of what it should be.

I'm half-black. I hate criminals, not ethnic groups, religious groups, or people in general. All I want is murderers and cop-killers hung high (or shot, or gassed, or LI'ed).

You know what, we're getting off track. So let's bring it back to basics.

On which grounds should a conviction take place?

A) A fair trial by a jury of peers in which evidence presented is not only substantial, but gathered in a way in which the law enforcement agencies have acted within the very law they are meant to uphold, thus minimizing the possibility of bias and wrongful incrimination.

B) GRRRR I AM SO ANGRY

A conviction I'm fine with. The jury system is fine as it is. The problem is that the punishment is not communsate with the crime. How is letting a robber, double murderer and raper out in 12 years any semblence of justice? That isn't justice. It's an insult to the families, to the vics, to everyone in society.

Society also puts too much on remorse and penance. Criminals lie, cheat and work the system anyway they can. They are no different than celebrities selling a product. They'll say whatever they need to say to get a lighter sentence or their time reduced, much like a celebrity will say anything to promote the product they are selling. Remorse should play no part in the sentencing. It doesn't lessen the crime one iota. A penitent, remorsefull double murderer is still a double murderer, and deserves nothing less than death.

 

[Acepilotf14]

I belong to the independent party of tree-huggers, and NO, I am not a hippie, I dont believe in all that crap, but I just love trees. dunno why. I just looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooove them. They are soo cool. But here is what the independent party of tree-huggers believes in-
Oh, we have a population of 700 billion and 1. Me, and and 700 billion trees! Okay, we believe in this-
All trees should be treated equal, whether white, black, brown, or green.
Innocent until proven guilty. Even if they kill a tree.
NO TREE-RAPING!
Trees hate democrats.
The government of Treepire. Where tree's should rule and make descisions. With me as their representative cause I can speak tree.
Wood houses should be outlawed, cement was invented for a reason!
Every house should have a tree, except the ghetto, cause we just dont like them.
Tree's are always right.
If a tree is wrong, see above law.
Canada is the shiz cause they ahve a leaf on their flag. (w00t.)
DONT DISRESPECT THE LEAF!
Tree's may rant.

 

[PvtRyan]

Newsflash, people get shivved in jails everyday over stupid shit. You could be in there on a simple assault, look at a guy doing 4 life sentences the wrong way and wake up with a pen in your neck.

Saying the death penalty is OK because they might go stabby stabby on someone in prison is akin to saying:
"Hey, our system is flawed, lets kill those that might exploit it!"

Not to mention those that are sentenced to death also spend many years in a prison.

Nothing will bring back the deceased, but punishment should fit the crime. Giving murderers and cop-killers a way to get back on the streets is defintely not deserving punishment.

Punishment should fit the crime? So torture and death for cruel murderers, just death for normal murderers, beating up the thieves etc.

Revenge is a stupid thing, prison should only be for the protection of society from the psychos and rehabilitation if at all possible.

Oh yea, the reason I'm so ****ing pissed at the state of criminal affairs is that my own brother got stabbed (he's okay btw, it was only about an inch of penetration) after a guy who was convicted of robbery, double murder and rape got out on "good behavior", meaning he didn't shiv anyone in prison. He only served 12 years. Yea, real upstanding citizen that guy was.

Like I said: emotion.

Everyone's attitude here on criminal rights, the death penalty, and such, will change instantly when something like that happens. I'd kill the mother****er first if the police didn't arrest him within a few hours.

Like I said before, I'd want whoever killed a family member or something, tortured and executed. Or I would do it myself.

But is that how you want your justice system to work? On emotion? Justice shouldn't be based on the emotion of a few individuals (the victims). Justice should reflect what's best for society, and that's simply locking the bastard away for ever.

 

[0mar]

Saying the death penalty is OK because they might go stabby stabby on someone in prison is akin to saying:
"Hey, our system is flawed, lets kill those that might exploit it!"

Not to mention those that are sentenced to death also spend many years in a prison.

Yea, but when someone on death row gets shivved, it's called a public service homicide. Having people with nothing to lose in the general prison population is not a good solution. There are people with felony murder convictions sitting in the same halls as a person with minor possession or a simple assault. You piss off the wrong guy, and you wake up with a pen in your neck.

A person with any felony murder charge should be on death row, no ifs ands or buts. Even if it's a Noble Laureate. You can't coddle criminals. This isn't a playground fight, or a bar room brawl. This is felony murder we are talking about.

Punishment should fit the crime? So torture and death for cruel murderers, just death for normal murderers, beating up the thieves etc.

Revenge is a stupid thing, prison should only be for the protection of society from the psychos and rehabilitation if at all possible.

I never advocated torture. All murderers should get a ticket to the gas chamber. A single murder is just as bad as a dozen murders. Any loss of life should be met in kind.

I have no problem with putting misdemeanors or minor felonies or even major felonies in prison. For a person who really made a bad mistake (robbing a liquor store, or getting into a bar brawl or something similar), prison and rehab is possible. For someone who commits a murder, nothing should prevent their entry to the chamber. There are orders of magnitude differences between someone who sticks up a liquor store (with no intention of killing anyone) and someone who guns down a kid during a drive-by.

Like I said before, I'd want whoever killed a family member or something, tortured and executed. Or I would do it myself.

But is that how you want your justice system to work? On emotion? Justice shouldn't be based on the emotion of a few individuals (the victims). Justice should reflect what's best for society, and that's simply locking the bastard away for ever.

Doing what's best for society is sending those ****ers off to the chamber. Penance, remorse, rehab for murderers and cop-killers is insulting to those who died. And, remember, these people are criminals. They'll say anything to get a lesser sentence. Hell, if it was my ass, I'd say whatever the **** I needed to get a lesser sentence. I can cry, fake remorse, whatever if it means I can get parole in 10 years instead of 25.

The ONLY justice is the death of that person. How is letting someone out in 12 years for double murder/rape justice? It happens all the time. Like I said, even if a Nobel Laureate killed someone, I'd advocate the death penalty for him. The only justice in murder is the death of that individual.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

I think it is nessercary...unless the killing was in self-defence or the persons mental. Also, there should be absoulote proof of the murder.

 

[Solaris]

Mr. Omar, you say that we should have the death penalty to protect other prisoners from murderes? Is this not what high security prisons are for? Should we not make sure that dangerous people are kept apart from other prisoners, instead of just killing them becuase we belive them to be dangerous?

You say people come out of jail after 12 years and thus should be killed. Your problem is that people don't (in your opinion) get long enough jail sentances for things like rape. Would the logical demand not be to argue that rapists should get longer prison sentances and demand tougher prison sentances, rather than the death penalty? And besides, unless you want to make it mandatory, then if a Judge wants to give someone two years for murder, just becuase he has the option of killing this person does not mean the person will get a longer prison sentance.

You are mentioning problems that could be solved just as well, if not better through other means.

 

[0mar]

Mr. Omar, you say that we should have the death penalty to protect other prisoners from murderes? Is this not what high security prisons are for? Should we not make sure that dangerous people are kept apart from other prisoners, instead of just killing them becuase we belive them to be dangerous?

High security prisons are expensive. More often than not, most people end up in the general population. Shivving people doesn't usually put you in maximum security, unless it's very frequently. Most guards don't really care either.

The only real way to get put into high security or maximum security is to threaten, harass and assault guards on a regular basis. Other than that, most violent offenders stay with the general population.

Your solution won't happen because it's too expensive.

You say people come out of jail after 12 years and thus should be killed. Your problem is that people don't (in your opinion) get long enough jail sentances for things like rape. Would the logical demand not be to argue that rapists should get longer prison sentances and demand tougher prison sentances, rather than the death penalty? And besides, unless you want to make it mandatory, then if a Judge wants to give someone two years for murder, just becuase he has the option of killing this person does not mean the person will get a longer prison sentance.

You are mentioning problems that could be solved just as well, if not better through other means.

I'm saying that a person convicted of double murder & rape should be sent to the gas chamber instead of life in jail. People like that don't deserve life after committing such heinous acts.

Tougher prison sentences doesn't protect other people in the general population. Prisons are also very overcrowded (thanks to the war on drugs). There's been a big push lately to get people out of jail before they serve their sentence, even if they don't qualify for parole. I'm fine with most of the sentencing, to be honest. I wouldn't shed a tear if rapists/child molesters got the death penalty, but their current sentences are for the most part fair.

The thing that irks me is that people convicted of multiple felony murders still have a chance to re-enter society. There is no justice until that criminal is cremated or buried.