Lethal Injection

[Darkside55]

But why stop at murderers? There's a whole fuckload of people who are detrimental to society, people who can be compared to cancers and should be "dealt with". Anyone who doesn't work with another in harmony - like healthy cells in a body - should be killed, by your logic. Which would be everyone in prison (besides perhaps the pettiest criminals), people that refuse to get a job, people who serve no purpose and only require care (mentally handicapped, the elderly) etc.

There are many people I feel deserve death, far more than just murderers, however you're taking my analogy to the furthest extremes. Bums, the lazy, The "useless," those with special needs do not apply. While in an actual body yes, these cells would be destroyed, but as human beings despite their (current) lack of contributions to society they are committing no crime. Their actions are unlikely to directly cause another harm or loss.

Hell, murderers have a pretty limited impact on society, they kill one, perhaps a couple of "cells". The biggest criminals would be those who commit fraud, they should definitely all be executed.

Depending on the level of fraud...you certainly are a base and greedy creature if you profit from swindling others. Does it warrant death? Likely not, no. I probably should've clarified I don't avocate death for all crimes--merely the severe ones.

Sorry, the analogy doesn't work. Humanity isn't an organism and people aren't cells. A cancer is a non-sentient blob of cells, humans - as horrible as they can be sometimes - still are sentient and have feeling. No act of them will change anything about that.

Sentience? Feeling? Where were those pretty words when victims needed them? Where was compassion then? Make no mistake: criminals do not share your touchy-feely notions of the sanctity of human life. Your reluctance to take life from a thinking, feeling organism is not echoed by those among our species who would do you harm without a moment's pause.

There's no rational reason to kill someone who is already in your custody, and "I'M AAANNGGRRYYY AT THOSE MURDERERS!" isn't one. Sentences should only be given to either rehabilitate the criminal if at all possible or to protect society from them. Revenge should never be a reason, and that's ALL the death penalty is.

EXAMPLES. There is your rational reason. Execute enough people and I guarantee it will curb those who at least have an ounce of sense in them. It will never stop all crime, but it will stop some. And stopping some, to someone who might have become a potential vic, is worlds better.

I'm pretty sure that's bullshit.

It isn't. For a few seconds there is enough oxygen in the brain to FEEL before the hemorrhaging and loss of blood pressure. Your autonomic systems still function at this time; you try to intake air, you blink, and for a few final agonizing seconds you know you are still alive. If you are lucky, the shock will kill you before this happens.

I just don't believe life is ever something to be deserved / not deserved. It's not on par with other material belongings, because we have no idea what exists beyond it or aside from it. But as far as economics, death row inmates - the countless trials to so called "prove guilt" and methods of executions currently implored cost far more than "life in prison" so from a moral and economic standpoint death penalty is just flawed in our country. There is really not getting past our fundamentally different views on humanity, but I think we can both agree that the way the justice system handles capital cases is EXTREMELY flawed.

Indeed, current methods are flawed and costly. The system can be fixed, thankfully.

As for life being off limits to our judgement, I disagree. Personally I care little for what exists beyond it; if someone chooses to waste the known portion of their existence then I believe their lives are forfeit. Indeed, the very reason we administer death to crminals, at least one among a few, is that we as a society feel that they cannot be allowed to live. We CAN judge who is deserving and undeserving of life, because we are all trying to coexist in this world. Those who disrupt that are worthy of whatever sentence we pass, even if it is for them to pay the ultimate price. I shed no tears over the loss of these individuals, they put themselves on the stand for our justice.

I also fail to understand what is cruel an unusual about keeping them locked up for life, it is rare these days that anyone escapes from maximum security prison (as in, it really doesn't happen except in movies sans 2000ish). I see capital punishment as hacking off the limbs of society to eradicate disease, and often times further damage than the original cancer is caused in the process.

Perhaps you can abide by watching criminals get three squares a day while starving people on the outside do not. Perhaps it is all right with you that they are afforded exercise, TV, and wages for their labor. Shelter, however crude and inhospitable, where others do not have it. I cannot.

Maybe you don't mind the jails springing up in your neighborhood to house these felons. Perhaps it hasn't reached you yet. Maybe even in your lifetime you will never be close enough to a prison to worry about it. And while there is only a fraction of a percent chance someone dangerous will escape, you have to wonder what it says about our country when the landscape becomes dotted with these holding facilities.

And as far as your "cells working in harmony" this couldn't be further from the truth, with this theory we'd have to eradicate people for non-capital crimes because they are also holding back our cellular structure; drug dealers / addicts, unethical business owners, politicians, lawyers, and the rest of the general soap scum, bottom feeders of society simply waiting for their handouts. It just doesn't work, lines of morality and terms of injustice are just too thin.

Drug dealers are among the lowest of the low. I have some minimal sympathy for addicts. But as I said, I propose death for only the most heinous crimes. Although, I could easily see peddling narcotics on that short, exclusive list.

As for the rest...I addressed that already.

Darkside, what does killing that crimanal achieve. You never know, that person could make some life-saving cure or stop war in the middle east or simply become a normal preson once he/she is realeased. Two wrongs don't make a right (at least in this case)

Unlikely. But I do strongly support rehabilitation attempts. For some, though, no rehabilitation should be given. A waste of resources if you ask me. Murderers, serial rapists, three-strike offenders...they should all be disposed of.

Thats all very well, but what if the person is innocent. YOu can't just say "oh heres compensation for your wasted time" like you can with other sentances. Besides, if the death penalty is gonna be done do it right! We've all heard about people on deaths row who have been waiting 20 years to be killed and still haven't.

Haven't you heard? Everyone in jail is innocent.

Possibility of innocence should not stay our hand unless there is substantial evidence to the contrary. And in most cases, this is not present. To say, "What if they are innocent?" could also appky to locking them up in the first place, where everyday there already exists the chance the inmate could die. Does it become so much worse if the state takes action first? That doesn't work.

 

[Absinthe]

Depending on the level of fraud...you certainly are a base and greedy creature if you profit from swindling others. Does it warrant death? Likely not, no. I probably should've clarified I don't avocate death for all crimes--merely the severe ones.

And white-collar crime can't be severe? Ken Lay sapped and destroyed the lives of thousands. He had more impact on the human "body" than any murderer did. Even though he croaked, would he have been viable for execution?

Also, I'd argue your scenario of a prison plague infesting the nation is based more on the continued upholding of frivolous laws (ie. regarding drug use) rather than inmates not getting killed quickly enough.

 

[CptStern]

the death penalty for drug dealers? that's just a little extreme ..where do you draw the line? stoner joe who sells a couple of ounces a weed or Tony Montana? ..if so then you should probably look at where/how/who the big deals go down because in many cases they couldnt function without inside help ..I mean should the cia be put to death for aiding/supporting/trafficing drugs and drug lords for decades? Why take out the small fish when the big fish is right there in plain view? Should ronald reagan be exhumed put on trial and then given a lethal injection for his support (with money made from the sales of guns/narcotics) of the contras in the 80's? why not? they're far more responsible for social ills due to drugs than your local crack dealer

and 3 strike offenders? are you kidding me? so if someone gets caught stealing 3 times they should have a date with a lethal injection? that's unreasonable and unconstitutional

at this point in time the only possible justification for the death penalty is one of retribution ..because as a deterrent it does nothing. So how is a system that punishes like with like any better than the criminality they're trying to punish? because it's state sponsored? the logic behind this pov is not sound

 

[Tyguy]

i think the ultimate punishment is to get a bunch of good looking girls, have them wear very slutty outfits, then they walk outside of the guys cell whispering in each others ears and laughing at him, while pointing. Do this a few times a day for a few years and he will be an emotional wreck.

 

[CptStern]

just waiting to get out so that he teach women a lesson for making fun of ....oh wait


the ultimate punishment for heinious crime?

life (not 25 years, natural life) in prison with no chance of parole ..rot in prison ..death is too quick and escape from life in prison

 

[15357]

I was only joking about the lions. When I was younger I kinda believed in it, I thought it was a viable idea to ship criminals to an island and have them be tortured in all sorts of ways (BTW Condemned totally stole my idea, except I'd never let a criminal go free) but these days I only use it as a way to show my contempt for criminals, namely those who I feel are deserving of the death penalty.

You have me a bit wrong. I don't view humans as lambs for the slaughter. In fact I view humans as precious; in my eyes, despite all we've done I find us a magnificent species worthy of life. I see humans with a past and future greatness. And this is why I can talk so coldly about criminals.

If I were to put my feelings toward humanity in a metaphor, I would call us a single organism. One body. There are billions of humans, all like the cells of a body, most of which are working together in harmony (or at least we should be). Criminals on the other hand are rogue cells, a cancer that eats away at us as a species. And what do you do with a cancer? You irradiate it. You expunge it from the body. You kill it as fast as possible--so that the rest of the body may live.

I can speak coldly about them because I don't view them as deserving of life. People who only exist to hurt others for their own pleasure or gain are not worthy of human rights, because they are no longer human. They are self-serving things. The man in the original post, the one who was lethally injected, robbed a bar, shot and killed a man, killed another man in his own country, and broke out of jail twice, and attempted a third time. For these types of people, death IS a viable means of punishment. At the very least I advocate a swift and relatively painless means of death, if only for its ease and the economy of it rather than because I care about "cruel and unusual punishment." It is cruel and unusual that these people are allowed to exist in our society, even locked up.

I support this product and/or event to the fullest posible, wholeheartedly and etc.


Seriously, you are one of the greatest minds in history. I take my hat/cap/helmet off to you.



I say we do whatever is the cheapest and efficient method for petty crime, and whatver is the most memorable and effective in curbing the minds of dissidents for sedition. Perhaps we could use them as human mine-clearers in the DMZ or something.

 

[CptStern]

good ..so that means you'll turn yourself in for bomb making/pyromania etc ..try not to wince when they slip you the needle ..I hear it's painful if done incorrectly

 

[Tagaziel]

Remember doc Killjoy? Who are we kidding, it's not like we're humane when doing the death penalty.

 

[Darkside55]

And white-collar crime can't be severe? Ken Lay sapped and destroyed the lives of thousands. He had more impact on the human "body" than any murderer did. Even though he croaked, would he have been viable for execution?

Never said it couldn't be severe. Severe enough to warrant the death penalty? Well, honestly that's up to public opinion. If you ask me, and certainly if you ask most of the people who lost out on their jobs and money due to Enron, they'd likely say yes, kill him (although it'd be motivated purely by revenge rather than what would be a necessary punishment). In cases like this it becomes difficult to mete out an extreme sentence because people are looking for vengeance, not justice, and that's not what the law should be about.

Should we give the death penalty to heinous characters who commit scandals and rob people of their money? I haven't suffered in any way from Enron or any similar white-collar fraud, but even I say that if you commit a crime affecting a large number of people then yes. My view isn't motivated by vengeance, but rather by my moral code, a code which I'm sure others believe in even if they wouldn't agree on my belief in the death penalty for a crime like this. Everyone can agree that people who swindle, who engineer schemes for personal gain at the expense of others are bad people and they should be put away. I just believe that if the magnitude is sufficient enough we should skip the lockup and go straight to the execution.

Also, I'd argue your scenario of a prison plague infesting the nation is based more on the continued upholding of frivolous laws (ie. regarding drug use) rather than inmates not getting killed quickly enough.

Well I've stated my opinion on drug use being illegal before. In brief, it's against the law, don't do it. If people want to get that changed then do what you will, but "frivolous" laws regarding drug use are anything but. Maybe your experience with drugs (I dunno if you use or not, or if you know anyone who uses) haven't been negative, but I can say from personal experience that I wholeheartedly support drug laws. I've never used drugs because I've seen them ruin lives, lives of people close to me. Lives that take years to recover from the effects of such, to the point where these people have spent decades trying to overcome. The law says using drugs is bad and I personally have seen why. I'm not just speaking out of my ass reflexively about drugs here...I've seen this shit happen.

Now that I've said that, let me say that there's still the fact that containing criminals, no matter how meager the crime or how pointless you see the infraction, the fact is that there are more of these people being housed every day. And a lot of them are lifers. What's the sense in keeping those people around? Because they're contained and supposedly no longer a threat? Just execute them. That way, even if you are getting more people in, you've got vacancies.

the death penalty for drug dealers? that's just a little extreme ..where do you draw the line? stoner joe who sells a couple of ounces a weed or Tony Montana? ..if so then you should probably look at where/how/who the big deals go down because in many cases they couldnt function without inside help ..I mean should the cia be put to death for aiding/supporting/trafficing drugs and drug lords for decades? Why take out the small fish when the big fish is right there in plain view? Should ronald reagan be exhumed put on trial and then given a lethal injection for his support (with money made from the sales of guns/narcotics) of the contras in the 80's? why not? they're far more responsible for social ills due to drugs than your local crack dealer.

You can't put the FBI on trial because, despite what they're doing, it's for the purpose of getting at those "big fish." It's exactly those people I'm saying you should execute. Small-time dealers should be incarcerated and not executed unless they explicitly continue to violate the law. A couple of ounces of weed might not seem a big deal to you unless it was your kids smoking. How many ounces does Joe sell a day? To whom? How many lives will he ruin? He sells a couple ounces of weed to some kids who eventually want to try something else and look for harder stuff. Yeah, Stoner Joe isn't a problem...until he's in YOUR neighborhood and dealing to people you know and you've got other people coming around your block scoring this shit from harmless old Stoner Joe, who carries just enough weed to stay under the limit to be charged with felony distribution. If he gets picked up he's back out on the street in a day. One day's loss of business, no big deal. Good old Stoner Joe.

You know my father was named Joe. 'Was' being the operative word. He did drugs for awhile too. Another reason I hate criminals. I wonder if he ever got clean. I'll never know, I can't ask him. I can't ask him because some people took him from me when I was just a boy. Just a ten-year-old boy.

That's completely unrelated to the drugs, though. But you can see, I have a lot of reasons to hate criminals.

and 3 strike offenders? are you kidding me? so if someone gets caught stealing 3 times they should have a date with a lethal injection? that's unreasonable and unconstitutional

You're absolutely right they should have a date with Mr. Needle. You steal, you get jailtime. You're punished, you know what you did was wrong and you pay the price. You get out and you steal again? You're punished again. You should've learned your lesson the first time. You get out and do it AGAIN? Boy, you just don't learn do you?

By now you've demonstrated that either you fail to see the error of your actions or you just don't give a shit. People like that, they don't care about the law, they don't even fear it. Well you'll fear it when they're dragging you down death row, won't you? You're afraid now, you're so sorry now, aren't you? You'll never do it again, please man, please, this isn't right, all you did was steal? Again, and again, and again. A plague on society. You don't learn? You don't CARE? Well you care now, and you're an example for everyone else who thinks the law's just fun and games and they can get away with it.

at this point in time the only possible justification for the death penalty is one of retribution ..because as a deterrent it does nothing. So how is a system that punishes like with like any better than the criminality they're trying to punish? because it's state sponsored? the logic behind this pov is not sound

The difference between state-sponsored executions and murder? Stern...my dear friend, you cannot seriously believe that just because death is the end consequence of both actions that they are similar.

I will never understand the mindset of those anti-capital punishment. Or rather I understand it but I cannot rationalize it. It's always the same:

"It's murder"
"You're taking human life"
"We don't have a right to pass such judgement"

At the end of the day you're being humanitarian just to say that you're better than these people. That because you don't want to take their lives you're somehow a better, more compassionate individual. That you're not going to do to them what they do to others, and for what? So that you can say such a thing? So that you can say, "I esteem human life in the highest regard even for those who're completely undeserving of it?" Oh yes, brownie points for that, because you know who really benefits from your compassion? The criminals.

You don't punish for retribution? For vengeance? To get back? What about justice, do you punish for that? Do you know the difference? The line is very thin there. I can say I want to see these people executed because it's just. You always punish for justice, always. But make no mistake--there is always feeling involved. To someone, somewhere, justice IS retribution. It IS their pound of flesh. You cannot separate the feeling from the sentence. It's why justice exists, because we feel that the punishment fits the crime based on the severity of it. And how do we judge severity? By what we find morally depraved, irreprehensible, and unforgiveable.

i think the ultimate punishment is to get a bunch of good looking girls, have them wear very slutty outfits, then they walk outside of the guys cell whispering in each others ears and laughing at him, while pointing. Do this a few times a day for a few years and he will be an emotional wreck.

Chop off their penises first.

just waiting to get out so that he teach women a lesson for making fun of ....oh wait

the ultimate punishment for heinious crime?

life (not 25 years, natural life) in prison with no chance of parole ..rot in prison ..death is too quick and escape from life in prison

And now who's being humane? There's no reason to keep people around like this. And it's not because of compassion. The fact is, the state now OWNS this person's life. You incarcerate them for life or mmultiple life sentences and then you keep them around? Because they're rotting? Oh yes, they're rotting. Rotting with their food and exercise and TV. Sure there's the chance they'll get shivved but hey, they're in there for life. They can make a lot of contacts. They can get real cushy. Rotting indeed.

This is one of the reasons prisons are overcrowded.

Remember doc Killjoy? Who are we kidding, it's not like we're humane when doing the death penalty.

We're not being humane. And as I said...those people are no longer human. They deserve less compassion than animals.

 

[Tagaziel]

I'd be laughing my ass off if through a bizarre set of circumstances you became the victim of your own system.

Remember, the revolution first devours its children.

EDIT: Also, would children who steal bread because they are hungry eligible for the death penalty?

 

[Darkside55]

Ah, but if the system is implemented and it works...well, then I die a happy man.

 

[Tagaziel]

You scare me.

 

[Jintor]

Justice is about protecting the innocent, not punishing the guilty.

 

[Absinthe]

Well I've stated my opinion on drug use being illegal before. In brief, it's against the law, don't do it. If people want to get that changed then do what you will, but "frivolous" laws regarding drug use are anything but. Maybe your experience with drugs (I dunno if you use or not, or if you know anyone who uses) haven't been negative, but I can say from personal experience that I wholeheartedly support drug laws. I've never used drugs because I've seen them ruin lives, lives of people close to me. Lives that take years to recover from the effects of such, to the point where these people have spent decades trying to overcome. The law says using drugs is bad and I personally have seen why. I'm not just speaking out of my ass reflexively about drugs here...I've seen this shit happen.

Yes, I am a drug user. And while I am sorry for whatever negative experiences you encountered in your life because of drug use, I still find your thinking regarding the matter to be downright fascist.

I do not necessarily wish to turn this into a topic about drug laws, but it is not up to the government to decide what is or isn't good to put in my body, mind you anything short of C4. It's even more inane if you think that such a governing body deserves the authority to mete out punishments for behavior that goes against its archaic and puritan concepts of morality. Drug use is not the only thing that can degrade a man. Prison sentences for consumption of illicit substances is outrageous, and it offers far more to the criminalizing process than cannabis or acid ever could.

You're saying you support mandatory minimum sentences for repeat offenders that... do what? Get high on their own time and money? How the hell can you rationalize this? Not to mention your caustic regard to prison population control... "Who cares if they really should be in here, let's just kill off people to make space." Jesus, man. You talk about an absence of humanity in those that would be executed, but I wonder if you're aware of the irony lingering about in the air.

And just to be clear, I don't have a concrete position on the death penalty. But you speak of it like something as mundane as a method of garbage disposal (no witticisms, please).

 

[15357]

Justice is about protecting the innocent, not punishing the guilty.

WRONG. Justice is about retribution and vengeance for those who take what is not their due.


Laws, and lawful authorities/enforcement, on the other hand, are made to keep order to protecct people.

 

[PvtRyan]

You don't punish for retribution? For vengeance? To get back? What about justice, do you punish for that? Do you know the difference? The line is very thin there. I can say I want to see these people executed because it's just. You always punish for justice, always. But make no mistake--there is always feeling involved. To someone, somewhere, justice IS retribution. It IS their pound of flesh. You cannot separate the feeling from the sentence. It's why justice exists, because we feel that the punishment fits the crime based on the severity of it. And how do we judge severity? By what we find morally depraved, irreprehensible, and unforgiveable.

Then your justice system sucks (which it does, juries lol).

I'm not gonna respond to the rest of your batshit insane post, but I'll respond to that. Justice shouldn't be based on emotion, ever. It should be about protecting society, not about giving people like you a wet spot in their pants. Tell me, if involving emotion in justice is acceptable, would torture to please the victims be acceptable as well? I mean, if someone would kill my family, death penalty wouldn't provide much satisfaction to me, I would want them to be tortured slowly and painfully. Or if someone would hurt my dog, I would want them dead, the life of someone who would do that would have zero value for me. But do you really feel animal cruelty should be punishable by death? For the less serious crimes, like someone stealing my bike, I would want them to get the shit beaten out of them. That would please me.

You see, that's because victims tend to be a little biased in these matters. I don't think you would want bias in justice.

Besides, Numbers agrees with you, what does that tell you?

 

[Darkside55]

Absinthe, you can spend your time and money putting whatever you want into your body, including C4. If this is what you wish, then you are welcome to it. But the law says that this is wrong. I did not make the law, I only adhere to it.

Perhaps one day we will find that, like prohibition, banning the use of drugs was a bad idea. Seeing what heavy drugs do to people and the people who care about them I cannot see this happening, but one never knows for sure what the future holds. After all, does not heavy alchohol consumption produce similar life-damaging results to its imbibers and those who interact with said people? It is still legal. Perhaps one day drugs will be too. Until that day, however, you are breaking the law and the law has a right to punish you.

And again, I am not here to be humane. I am not here to argue that the death penalty is a humane act, a compassionate act. I do comment on it as one might comment on taking out the trash. It is an emotionless act to me and I have no compunctions with saying so. Everyone here who can say that my words give them pause or frightens them, everyone who says that we should have more reverence for human life, you have my sincere respect. Not because you respect the lives of criminals, but because you respect life. In the future, I would be happy to see more people who are like you. I would be happy to see a world populated with such people, who respected life and others so much that crimes would not be committed. That is the future I hope for the descendants of humanity.

Yet in today's world compassion is rare, and while I find it noble that many of you extend it to everyone, it is sadly misplaced. These people are undeserving of your heartfelt compassion. It is a sad waste to see people care for those who do not.

Justice is about protecting the innocent, not punishing the guilty.

Numbers has already said it well. Justice is for those who have taken more than their due.

But I would like to add that justice does protect the innocent by punishing the guilty. They are one and the same. You protect the innocent by administering punishment to the guilty; I am simply advocating a more permanent punishment. There will never be harm from these people again. Think of it.

Then your justice system sucks (which it does, juries lol).

I'm not gonna respond to the rest of your batshit insane post, but I'll respond to that. Justice shouldn't be based on emotion, ever. It should be about protecting society, not about giving people like you a wet spot in their pants. Tell me, if involving emotion in justice is acceptable, would torture to please the victims be acceptable as well? I mean, if someone would kill my family, death penalty wouldn't provide much satisfaction to me, I would want them to be tortured slowly and painfully. Or if someone would hurt my dog, I would want them dead, the life of someone who would do that would have zero value for me. But do you really feel animal cruelty should be punishable by death? For the less serious crimes, like someone stealing my bike, I would want them to get the shit beaten out of them. That would please me.

You see, that's because victims tend to be a little biased in these matters. I don't think you would want bias in justice.

But it is based on emotion. You don't seem to understand, we have justice because of emotion. It is public emotion. Tell me, would capital punishment have existed if everyone felt it was morally wrong? To see that it is an accepted form of punishment means that the public feels certain people are deserving of it.

And you mistook my post. I did not say that emotion in justice is acceptable, I said that justice and emotion are tied. They are forever linked, because without emotion we would have no guide to tell us what is an acceptable punishment or not. Torture, for example, is not an acceptable punishment by majority feeling. Certainly a victim would like to see a perp get as much pain and suffering as they did, perhaps more, yet that is not justice. Justice is not there to satisfy the wants of the victims, it is to stop criminals. Whether you would be satisfied with that or not makes no difference to the law, nor should it.

But emotion will always be connected. For some victims the death penalty would suffice. Perhaps it wouldn't. There would always be feeling involved. Juries, by the way, do operate on emotion as much as they do on evidence. Judges operate on emotion in the same way. We have guidelines to follow, but we still attach feeling to these things. If we didn't, we might as well be robots. You cannot personally tell me that watching court cases, or god forbid you yourself ever suffer at the hands of a criminal, that you would not wish to see justice and get some emotion from that. It may not be what you want, because again, we don't give out punishments based on feelings, but these things always invoke some kind of emotional response.

Besides, Numbers agrees with you, what does that tell you?

It tells me that Numbers sees the world the same way I do. That he is progressive and harbors no undue compassion for criminals. It tells me that Numbers, at least, certainly knows what needs to get done to make this world a better place to live in.

 

[Tagaziel]

Sadly, what you write reminds me of the worst totalitarian regimes of the 20th century. Way to go Darkside.

 

[Jintor]

Kill everyone.

/EDIT After thinking for a couple of seconds (minutes), I may need to add that this post was in jest.

WRONG. Justice is about retribution and vengeance for those who take what is not their due.


Laws, and lawful authorities/enforcement, on the other hand, are made to keep order to protecct people.

Ah. Then the law is about protecting the innocent, not punishing the guilty.

 

[Absinthe]

Absinthe, you can spend your time and money putting whatever you want into your body, including C4. If this is what you wish, then you are welcome to it. But the law says that this is wrong. I did not make the law, I only adhere to it.

Perhaps one day we will find that, like prohibition, banning the use of drugs was a bad idea. Seeing what heavy drugs do to people and the people who care about them I cannot see this happening, but one never knows for sure what the future holds. After all, does not heavy alchohol consumption produce similar life-damaging results to its imbibers and those who interact with said people? It is still legal. Perhaps one day drugs will be too. Until that day, however, you are breaking the law and the law has a right to punish you.

You're not really addressing me straightly. Yes, the law says that illicit drug use is illegal and that I shall be punished for it. But do you support the imprisonment of drug users? Following the line of thinking that heavy drug use is damaging both to the individual and the pain it can cause to those close, how does a mandatory minimum sentence help the situation at all? That the law has a supposed right to punish me over such things is debatable, but it's not the response I was fishing for.

Yet in today's world compassion is rare, and while I find it noble that many of you extend it to everyone, it is sadly misplaced. These people are undeserving of your heartfelt compassion. It is a sad waste to see people care for those who do not.

I believe that this diagnosis is somewhat misplaced, at least for me. We both agree that there should be an emphasis on justice and rehabilitation. I'd say that's pretty good common ground, as I know many people who could care less about such things. Also, I too believe that some people are beyond rehabilitation. Our differences on this aren't as fundamental as you might be tempted to think. The contention lies with how such people are subsequently dealt with.

I find it difficult to accept the death penalty - let alone the lethal injection - for practical reasons such as the inherent fallibility of the justice system. And as long as we live in what can be considered a civilized society, the "humane" and expensive process that goes into ending a human life is going to remain. Accepting that, life imprisonment has been shown to be cheaper than execution. I have seen no proven effects of deterrence coming from the death penalty, nor have I ever seen much solace or comfort come from killing a convict. The emotional gratification seems largely cheap and superficial. The issue of how the practice reflects on society as a whole is too large for me to grapple with at this point in time, but surely we're both aware of the significance of that debate.

Essentially, I don't see any substantial benefit from it not only morally, but also in any practical sense. I do believe that there are people that could be considered evil and beyond redemption, so very little of this has to do with compassion towards such men and women. I am just not convinced that execution is the most efficient, practical, and healthy way of dealing with the problem. The issue of crime itself can be considered independent from the issue of the death penalty, because I've never seen any causal or correlated link between the two. And the matter of an expanding prison population seems to me best dealt with in other ways (ie. the abandonment of laws based on puritan ideals).

 

[15357]

Kill everyone.

/EDIT After thinking for a couple of seconds (minutes), I may need to add that this post was in jest.



Ah. Then the law is about protecting the innocent, not punishing the guilty.

What good is a law that doesn't punish? How will the innocents be protected with laws that forbid, but don't punish, therfore taking away the incentives to follow that law?

 

[Darkside55]

You're not really addressing me straightly. Yes, the law says that illicit drug use is illegal and that I shall be punished for it. But do you support the imprisonment of drug users? Following the line of thinking that heavy drug use is damaging both to the individual and the pain it can cause to those close, how does a mandatory minimum sentence help the situation at all? That the law has a supposed right to punish me over such things is debatable, but it's not the response I was fishing for.

Do I personally support the imprisonment of drug users? A difficult question. I am actually going to say no.

I believe that, for drug users, they should be helped rather than locked up. You're right, there is no help in sentencing a person to jailtime for drug use, with the exception of perhaps enforced, mandatory rehab programs. But such programs exist on the outside currently and they do good work. These are of course for people who want to get over their addiction. Unlike serving time, no one can be made to go to these programs. They don't work in jails anyway unless the person wants to be rehabilitated, so it's moot on both levels to place them in jail. You're only adding to the criminal pool here, and as you stated in your previous post it does just lead to overcrowding.

I find it difficult to accept the death penalty - let alone the lethal injection - for practical reasons such as the inherent fallibility of the justice system. And as long as we live in what can be considered a civilized society, the "humane" and expensive process that goes into ending a human life is going to remain. Accepting that, life imprisonment has been shown to be cheaper than execution.

Indeed. It is laughable, in a sad, mirthless way. To house criminals for the rest of their lives at such an expense because it costs too much to execute them with needles or chairs. We sacrifice cost and efficiency to be able to say that we are merciful.

I have seen no proven effects of deterrence coming from the death penalty, nor have I ever seen much solace or comfort come from killing a convict. The emotional gratification seems largely cheap and superficial. The issue of how the practice reflects on society as a whole is too large for me to grapple with at this point in time, but surely we're both aware of the significance of that debate.

With regard to the families of, or the victims themselves, death is rarely enough comfort. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. I think people have this natural desire for something like Hammurabi's code, an eye for an eye and all that. They want to see the offender suffer as they have, and often then some, just for good measure. Death does not seem adequate because it is fast and painless, rather than long and agonizing. But as I said, this is why we thankfully do not let emotions set the sentence.

As for deterrence...I don't think there's been a measurable effect because there hasn't been a large enough testbed. There's no precedent for it. One of the reasons the death penalty isn't stopping criminals is because few people ever get sentenced to death. Furthermore when they do, they can live on death row for years. Years! It's like saying, "We're going to execute you EVENTUALLY, but for now you're ok." That's not a very fear-inspiring thought.

Essentially, I don't see any substantial benefit from it not only morally, but also in any practical sense. I do believe that there are people that could be considered evil and beyond redemption, so very little of this has to do with compassion towards such men and women. I am just not convinced that execution is the most efficient, practical, and healthy way of dealing with the problem.

Current methods of execution are not. You know death penalty aside current methods of dealing with criminals period aren't even as efficient or as beneficial (to all parties involved) as they could be.

But I simply see no reason to keep people alive when you're basically giving them all the basics for survival and then some, giving them actual leisure time, when basically you own their life and they're in there for punishment. They're getting resources other people could benefit from. And yes, right now it just isn't economical. It seriously needs to be made that way. And it isn't like it's impossible, you know. It's just all for the sake, as you said, of us being in a civilized society and wanting to do the humane thing. It isn't just the system that needs a facelift, it's our way of thinking.


Edit: QFT on Number's last post. It was posted while I was typing up this reply.

How will the innocents be protected with laws that forbid, but don't punish, therfore taking away the incentives to follow that law?

 

[CptStern]

You can't put the FBI on trial because, despite what they're doing, it's for the purpose of getting at those "big fish."

cia not fbi ..so you're saying they're beyond the law? they can use monies made from the sale of drugs to fund murderous groups responsible for atrocities that claimed the lives of 30,000 + civilians? yet joe the neighbourhood crack dealer should get a lethal injection? you really have your head screwed on backwards if you cant see the moral imbalance of what you're suggesting

It's exactly those people I'm saying you should execute.

ah ffs no one ever reads anything linked ..it's obvious you didnt even look at it.. the big fish ARE the americans ..contra rebels ring a bell? oliver north? Iran contra affair? they used profits from the sale of cocaine to fund a regime responsible for the murder of over 30,000 innocent civilians

link <- read it, it'll only take a few seconds

Small-time dealers should be incarcerated and not executed unless they explicitly continue to violate the law.

by your logic all those involved with the Contra affair should be put to death

A couple of ounces of weed might not seem a big deal to you unless it was your kids smoking.

yes well I'd like to see you exxplain how a kid is going to get his hands on $480 worth of pot and smoke all of it ..it would literally take a month of smoking 6-7 big fatties a day ..you wouldnt have time to do anything else except smoke ..how many teens consume that much pot never mind have the money to pay for it?

How many ounces does Joe sell a day?

in comparison to the money made from the sales of cocaine given to the contras? probably miniscule in comparison ..even if he sold ten times as much as what an average dealer sells in a day it wouldnt compare ..we're talking millions of dollars in drug money

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_affair#Drug_money

To whom? How many lives will he ruin?

in comarison to the iran contra affair ..30,000 civilians murdered due to your governments direct support using drug money ..it affected people's lives on two fronts: the effects from drugs and the murderous regime that murdered 10's of thousands of covilaisn ..there is NO comparison to joe crack dealer working in the street

He sells a couple ounces of weed to some kids

please, what kid buys $480 worth of pot?

who eventually want to try something else and look for harder stuff.

slippery slope logical fallacy, you have no idea how individual sales affect people

Yeah, Stoner Joe isn't a problem...until he's in YOUR neighborhood and dealing to people you know and you've got other people coming around your block scoring this shit from harmless old Stoner Joe, who carries just enough weed to stay under the limit to be charged with felony distribution. If he gets picked up he's back out on the street in a day. One day's loss of business, no big deal. Good old Stoner Joe.

Iran contra affair ..deaths of thousands of innocents ..how can you compare that with Joe Stoner? either admit that the law should look at everything equally (call for the death penalty for those involved in government sanctioned drug trafficing) or readjust your idea of punative measures given out in what is essentially a petty crime

But I simply see no reason to keep people alive when you're basically giving them all the basics for survival and then some, giving them actual leisure time, when basically you own their life and they're in there for punishment.

you seem to missing a huge part of the picture here: the loss of freedom ..ever spent time in jail? no? I have it's no picnic (my stay was brief: 17 hrs ..I cant imagine 25 years) To say they have it "good" on the inside is just rediculous ...and please explain how exactly killing someone is serving justice? if anything it is a release from any sort of responsibility besides the obvious ...oh and you cant argue that it's cheaper because it's not ...those of death row incur costs much more than those serving a life sentence ..on average $90,000 more a year ..$114 million more a year for california alone ..that's $114 million more a year for only 650 people ..15% of the budget of prisons in california is set aside for death row inmates ..out of a possible 160,000 inmates in california prisons

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cpus9805.pdf
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/45798/californias_death_row.html
http://www.deathpenalty.org/index.php?pid=cost&menu=1"

 

[NeptuneUK]

It's frightening how apathetic I am.
If they brought this back in the UK.... well I wouldn't be bothered because seeing as I am unlikely to murder someone, it wouldn't affect me at all. How selfish am I?

 

[Darkside55]

I do apologize for not initially reading your contra link last time; I'd just gotten up and didn't really want to click on something else. Also, CIA. Read FBI for some reason. I was also under the impression that you were referring to one of those sting-type operations where agents sell drugs to keep up appearances so they can get to the high links in the trafficking chain. So I appologize for my presumption.

I'm going to start off by saying I don't know much about the Contras and the Nicaraguan conflict. I just read briefly on them and the FSLN. Looks to me like another case of America meddling where it shouldn't, but that's another rant. So the CIA funded these guys so they could dispose of a political party? If you have the evidence to implicate them, sure, go ahead and execute them. It's a little far back in the chain to call them on murder (they weren't the ones committing the acts, they were 'only' funding the group that did), but if that's their position on drug trafficking, that it's OK to use it to fund rebels for a conflict that we don't need to stick our nose in...of course, I'm assuming we didn't need to stick our nose in it. I'll read up more on it later, see what the reasons were and what came out of it. Some evils are, unfortunately, necessary, much as I loathe to even think that let alone put it down in writing. My limited knowledge of the incident as it stands right now, however, my verdict is execution. I can't call them on the murder, the murder statistics are a moot point because they weren't committed by the CIA, but the sale of drugs, there you go.

As for Joe, well I guess your message is that as long as he's selling a little bit that's ok. Great. Maybe I rolled out the slope but no offense, at least I can say I'm being wary if not forward-minded to what could occur. You're telling me the CIA is responsible for 30,000 deaths and sold millions in drugs, and that's bad, but not a guy selling a little bit of weed. Not the enabler. Is it just because of the magnitude of things that makes him OK? And I never said Joe should get the death penalty. Jail time, Stern, jail time. If he's caught and charged three times then yes, execution, but not immediate execution.

As to having spent time in jail, no, I personally haven't. But let me break a taboo of mine, just for you, Stern. Just for this thread. There was a thread a few years ago on this forum about "Things you never tell anybody," and I didn't even mention this then despite everything ELSE I mentioned, because I didn't want to attach a stigma to myself by association. But I've had family members in jail. Extended family all, thankfully, but let me tell you that their sentences go far, far beyond your seventeen hours. And you know for some of them, those who had the shorter sentences, the "loss of freedom" wasn't enough to deter them from going back in. We've had some success stories among some of them but it's only for other reasons, like family and coming into responsibility. So while I don't have personal experience I've heard it before. I've heard the life from first-hand accounts. You know what? It isn't enough, man. It just isn't enough. And YOU can't say that YOU know what it's really like when you weren't even there for a friggin' day! A DAY, STERN! Seventeen hours, Christ almighty. I don't mean to belittle your experience here but you're telling me how bad it is when you didn't even get it for a single, 24-hour period. You probably had time to cry and wet your pants and maybe somebody tried to make you their bitch, and that's what you got. Versus what I know? Sorry fella. You didn't even have time to make contacts. Did you know you can move up in a jail, in the hierarchy? Oh, you can have it pretty OK for a person who's there to be punished. It might not be roses but you're not quite down in the shit, either.

And yeah, it is more expensive to house a death row inmate. Judicial process...$114 mil a year for tax payers...$90k to house a death row inmate, just SHOOT them! Housing, for death row! How ironic does that sentence sound? "It's to make sure they're innocent." Well if that's in question it's either high time to find evidence or take them off death row. In fact there's little sense even putting someone on death row if you're not sure they're guilty.

And I've read the statistics. Thousands of innocent people jailed. Well that's a problem with the legal system as well, isn't it? That's something that should be fixed too. Make no mistake I'm not saying that we just round up everyone who's suspected in a crime and slit their throats. The jailing of innocents, actual innocents, is also something to be dealt with but that's not the purpose of this thread. This thread was talking about capital punishment and the inefficiency of current forms of capital punishment (lethal injection).

Also Neptuneuk that's not selfish at all. You're not going to commit a crime, why worry about what happens to criminals?

 

[Jintor]

What good is a law that doesn't punish? How will the innocents be protected with laws that forbid, but don't punish, therfore taking away the incentives to follow that law?

I didn't say the law shouldn't punish the guilty, that just shouldn't be it's ****ing focus.

 

[Lucid]

The more pain you can cause a death row inductee the merrier. :|

 

[15357]

I didn't say the law shouldn't punish the guilty, that just shouldn't be it's ****ing focus.

Criminal Code er... 87?

Basics:

Murderers will be punished <- Focus

And the rest of the details.

Murderers will get 10+ years/ life imprisonment/ or death. Sentence may be wavered if crime committed is deemed in self defence, or the defence of the nation.

Convicts may have special additional punishment if crime commited also falls into one of these categories: National Security Law, Criminal Code 78 ~ 83 (Sedition, Treason, Civil Disorder). Prosecutors may not, however, condemn person guilty of both Crime codes 86 and 87 at the same time.

Criminals may be additionaly punished if crimnal falls under the categories specified withing the Social Security Law.


Now if you see, without the details, the law is pretty much worthless.

 

[Jintor]

Pah, the focus should be on the prevention of the murders, not catching the bastards afterwards and running shocks through their heads.

Pretty damn hard to actually prevent murders though, especially if they're the first ones...

I don't know anymore. This is stupid. Numbers, get the ****ing state out of your head. I'm serious.

 

[15357]

I agree with that too, hence we have punishment to discourage acts of violence.


However, we should just do with CCTVs and mobile listening posts if we want complete safety.

 

[99.vikram]

However, we should just do with CCTVs and mobile listening posts if we want complete safety.

Tbh, it's not worth living in a state like that.

 

[CptStern]

I do apologize for not initially reading your contra link last time; I'd just gotten up and didn't really want to click on something else. Also, CIA. Read FBI for some reason. I was also under the impression that you were referring to one of those sting-type operations where agents sell drugs to keep up appearances so they can get to the high links in the trafficking chain.

yes, the issue of using drug money to fund a murderous regime is much worse

So I appologize for my presumption.

well it's kinda meaningless because in your next statement you make it clear you still havent read the article I linked

I'm going to start off by saying I don't know much about the Contras and the Nicaraguan conflict. I just read briefly on them and the FSLN. Looks to me like another case of America meddling where it shouldn't, but that's another rant. So the CIA funded these guys so they could dispose of a political party?

the link in question is just 2 paragraphs long. why do I a canadian have to school some of you on your own history? ..Iran Contra affair was a huge deal .. it's too in depth for us to discuss at any length because besides as an example of government sanctioned drug trafficing it has nothing to do with the topic at hand: executing drug dealers ..again stop evading the direct implication of your statements by posting paragraph after paragraph that essentially says nothing in regards to what we've been discussing all along ..you're either for captial punishment for drug trafficing or not ..there are no "special circumstances" that allows drug trafficing; not with the criteria you provide as reasoning as to why drug dealers should be executed ..suffice it to say your government is guilty of the very thing you find so abhorrent yet for some inexplicable reason you turn a blind eye to it

If you have the evidence to implicate them, sure, go ahead and execute them. It's a little far back in the chain to call them on murder (they weren't the ones committing the acts, they were 'only' funding the group that did), but if that's their position on drug trafficking, that it's OK to use it to fund rebels for a conflict that we don't need to stick our nose in

again how can you not see that you contradict yourself? You're saying that if the government makes exemptions for themselves it's ok because it's the government? By extension you're also saying that if the death penalty were implemented at and if at some further point in time that law is rescinded you've basically condemned people to death based on political whim ....no one is above the law, especially the state, that's the whole freakin point behind having a judicial branch. ...Darkside I cant help but think that you really dont understand the issues yet are content to write paragraph after paragraph of unsubstantiated opinion. Your responses clearly proves you havent thought your logic through to it's inevitable conclusions

back on topic: please morally justify executing a petty criminal yet turning a blind eye to what is fundamentally the same crime (drug trafficing) albeit in a much much larger scale (with a side helping of using funds to support a murderous regime breaking international laws in the process ..again read the link provided)

...of course, I'm assuming we didn't need to stick our nose in it. I'll read up more on it later, see what the reasons were and what came out of it. Some evils are, unfortunately, necessary, much as I loathe to even think that let alone put it down in writing. My limited knowledge of the incident as it stands right now, however, my verdict is execution. I can't call them on the murder, the murder statistics are a moot point because they weren't committed by the CIA, but the sale of drugs, there you go.

so you agree that government sanctioned drug trafficing should be grounds for the death penalty?

As for Joe, well I guess your message is that as long as he's selling a little bit that's ok.

no, I'm not saying that all ..dont put words in my mouth ..I'm saying that executing people for selling "a bit of weed" is abhorrent and rediculous ..and unconstitutional

Great. Maybe I rolled out the slope but no offense, at least I can say I'm being wary if not forward-minded to what could occur. You're telling me the CIA is responsible for 30,000 deaths and sold millions in drugs, and that's bad, but not a guy selling a little bit of weed. Not the enabler. Is it just because of the magnitude of things that makes him OK?

stop putting words in my mouth ..how did you manage to come to that wholly inaccurate conclusion? not once did I say anything even remotely resembling what you just said ...again I'm saying executing drug trafficers while ignoring the same crime albeit on a much larger scale is hypocritical. Not once did I say they should "get off" ..it's almost as if we're having 2 different conversations

And I never said Joe should get the death penalty.

yes I just imagined it:

Drug dealers are among the lowest of the low. I have some minimal sympathy for addicts. But as I said, I propose death for only the most heinous crimes. Although, I could easily see peddling narcotics on that short, exclusive list.

Jail time, Stern, jail time. If he's caught and charged three times then yes, execution, but not immediate execution.

nope you're back peddling ..you said:

Drug dealers are among the lowest of the low. I have some minimal sympathy for addicts. But as I said, I propose death for only the most heinous crimes. Although, I could easily see peddling narcotics on that short, exclusive list.

As to having spent time in jail, no, I personally haven't. But let me break a taboo of mine, just for you, Stern. Just for this thread. There was a thread a few years ago on this forum about "Things you never tell anybody," and I didn't even mention this then despite everything ELSE I mentioned, because I didn't want to attach a stigma to myself by association. But I've had family members in jail. Extended family all, thankfully, but let me tell you that their sentences go far, far beyond your seventeen hours. And you know for some of them, those who had the shorter sentences, the "loss of freedom" wasn't enough to deter them from going back in. We've had some success stories among some of them but it's only for other reasons, like family and coming into responsibility. So while I don't have personal experience I've heard it before. I've heard the life from first-hand accounts. You know what? It isn't enough, man. It just isn't enough.

? ...what the hell are you talking about? what does your family members re-offending have to do with the quuality of life in prison? are you saying they wanted to be incarcirated because they get "3 square meals, a roof over their heads, and a comfy existence working out in the sun making little rocks out of big rocks"? I wont point out the obvious but that's a rediculous implication

And YOU can't say that YOU know what it's really like when you weren't even there for a friggin' day! A DAY, STERN! Seventeen hours, Christ almighty.

and how many hours have you (you not cousin earl, or uncle jeb ..YOU) spent behind bars?

I don't mean to belittle your experience here but you're telling me how bad it is when you didn't even get it for a single, 24-hour period.

you belittle yourself because you admit you havent spent a minute in prison ..and I call bullocks to you saying you have "experience" ..if you did indeed have experience you'd know no one spends 17 hours in prison ..I was in a holding cell in a jail awaiting bail ..holding cells are not prisons and if that was shitty I can only imagine what a federal prison is like

You probably had time to cry and wet your pants and maybe somebody tried to make you their bitch, and that's what you got.

you're an idiot ..again you only prove you're an ignorant ass ..holding cell(jail) is not the same as prison ..holding cells(jail) is full of people awaiting trial ..technically they're innocent ..otherwise they would be in prison

Versus what I know? Sorry fella. You didn't even have time to make contacts. Did you know you can move up in a jail, in the hierarchy?

jeez you really go to extremes to make yourself look like an ignorant fool ..people who spend 17 hours in jail are NOT in general population that's why they're called "HOLDING CELLS" ..I think you just make up shit to support your rediculous pov

Oh, you can have it pretty OK for a person who's there to be punished. It might not be roses but you're not quite down in the shit, either.

so you're saying it's preferable to being free ...there's a line up of people just dying to go to prison so they can live the good life?

And yeah, it is more expensive to house a death row inmate. Judicial process...$114 mil a year for tax payers...$90k to house a death row inmate, just SHOOT them! Housing, for death row! How ironic does that sentence sound? "It's to make sure they're innocent." Well if that's in question it's either high time to find evidence or take them off death row. In fact there's little sense even putting someone on death row if you're not sure they're guilty.

"it's either high time to find evidence" ...lol you dont have a clue as to what you're talking about ..why not throw out the constitution, the bill of rights and the whole goddam judicial system right out the door

this is the problem with the politics forum ..so many people walk in here armed with NOTHING more than opinion

And I've read the statistics. Thousands of innocent people jailed. Well that's a problem with the legal system as well, isn't it? That's something that should be fixed too. Make no mistake I'm not saying that we just round up everyone who's suspected in a crime and slit their throats. The jailing of innocents, actual innocents, is also something to be dealt with but that's not the purpose of this thread.

then why bother bringing it up?

This thread was talking about capital punishment and the inefficiency of current forms of capital punishment (lethal injection).

yes you've given us your unsubstantiated opinion ..and I've proven that your opinion isnt logically sound ....end of debate

 

[15357]

Tbh, it's not worth living in a state like that.

Your life for less privacy, a fair exhchange, no?

 

[Jintor]

Not really. My life is pretty good here in Australia, there don't seem to be horrific outbreaks of death and destruction despite the lack of listening posts and CCTV. Unless, of course, there is, but the media covers it up. > >

< <

> >

Point being, what you're saying is sounding more like a "Protection scheme" than actual protection.

 

[99.vikram]

I don't want to get into the political implications of having CCTVs and mobile listening posts at every street corner. (V for Vendetta D: )

All I'm saying is, if I can't talk openly to my family without the state overhearing it, I'd rather not live at all.
It's the principle that all freedom struggles are based on.

 

[Jintor]

All I'm saying is, if I can't talk openly to my family without the state overhearing it, I'd rather not live at all.
It's the principle that all freedom struggles are based on.

It's an unfortunant accident of biology (well, not really, it's pretty much the foundation for life, tbh) that most people would rather be alive and imprisoned than free but dead.

 

[Darkside55]

yes, the issue of using drug money to fund a murderous regime is much worse

It is.

well it's kinda meaningless because in your next statement you make it clear you still havent read the article I linked

I did read your article. I read the wiki link you provided that barely told me anything I wanted to know about the Iran-Contra affair. I had to go do my own research on it earlier today. You want my internet receipt to show you I clicked the link? Sorry, I threw it away already.

Let's talk about Iran-Contra. Basically, it was the Reagan administration dealing arms to Iranian terrorists for hostages and then funneling some of the profits to the contras, as well as using drug money to fund them. And the point of that was to stop the spread of the deadly red menace, Communism.

So you've got people like Oliver North making deals with Noriega, and you've got Reagan and McFarlane and Poindexter circumventing the Boland Amendment, and they're giving this drug and arms sale money to the contras. I wasn't "turning a blind eye" toward it, I just wasn't educated on the details. And now that I know, my verdict is that yes, they should be executed.

I don't believe the government "should make exemptions for themselves" just because they're the government. You and I are actually in agreeance that nobody should be above the law. However I have to say that sometimes there ARE special circumstances where the ends justify the means. When in doing something, regardless of its legality, results in a measurable, quantifiable benefit to the nation equal to or above that of said means. That's not pretty but that's the truth. That's not even fair, but it's the truth. It isn't exemption because it's government, it's exemption because of the situation. And Iran-Contra isn't one of those times, so yes. Execute them.

so you agree that government sanctioned drug trafficing should be grounds for the death penalty?

Yes. Even with regard to "special circumstances" I really can't see there being any need for something like that, so in almost all cases where something like that would happen then yes. I would find it grounds for execution.

no, I'm not saying that all ..dont put words in my mouth ..I'm saying that executing people for selling "a bit of weed" is abhorrent and rediculous ..and unconstitutional

I'm reading what you've been saying and to me, you're defending Joe mighty strongly for his "petty crime." It's so abhorrent that this guy be put to death, right? Because he's just selling a little bit of weed. Much less than my wicked and terrible government who killed 30,000 people, yes, yes, yes. That's what you keep saying. That's what I'm reading. I'm not putting words in your mouth here.

Heh...it's so abhorrent. I dunno maybe you just don't care this guy's selling a little bit of weed. Maybe that's just plain it. You don't care. He gets a little jail time, he serves his little sentence and then he's on his way again and that's okay with Captain Stern. Because it's a petty crime. So Joe gets out.

And Joe goes back to the neighborhood and sells again, until he gets picked up again. And we repeat the pattern, because it's a petty crime. Because Joe's little bit of weed isn't a lot, so we only give him a tiny sentence. And that's what's acceptable.

I want to ask you a question. In fact I want to ask all of HL2.net that's in this debate a question: why is it so wrong to suggest this man's execution? Why is it so ridiculous, so abhorrent, so heinous and odious and perverse and unethical, so immoral to kill a man who, despite the size of his crime, repeatedly does so? He sells, he goes to jail. He gets out, he sells, he goes to jail. You have an individual here who is in absolute defiance, one might even say contempt of the law and we don't execute him...why? No really, why? And I know some of you are going to say that it's "unconstitutional" and it's "cruel and unusual," but why? Why is it all of that? Guy, breaking laws, doesn't care, harms others and brings absolutely no benefit to mankind and society, and we just...hold him for a little bit and turn him loose to go on his way because it's just a terrible thing to kill him. Why?

stop putting words in my mouth ..how did you manage to come to that wholly inaccurate conclusion? not once did I say anything even remotely resembling what you just said ...again I'm saying executing drug trafficers while ignoring the same crime albeit on a much larger scale is hypocritical. Not once did I say they should "get off" ..it's almost as if we're having 2 different conversations

It does seem like that. And I don't recall in my last post that you said it was OK to let him go. What's with the quotation tags, Stern? You only quote somebody if they actually said something; you know that, right?

What I was saying was that you think it's OK to execute people for the contra affair but not Joe Schmoe on the street because his crime is of lesser magnitude. That's what you're saying, right? Am I getting it right, are we mistaking each other? Because that's what I thought you were saying in my last post, but I don't know maybe I'm wrong. Let me know if I'm wrong. We'll chalk it up on the Wrong Board along with you saying that I'm turning a blind eye towards the government. It'll be one for one then, right? Unless I've actually been correct in what you've been saying all this time and then it's one-for-oh.

yes I just imagined it:

Drug dealers are among the lowest of the low. I have some minimal sympathy for addicts. But as I said, I propose death for only the most heinous crimes. Although, I could easily see peddling narcotics on that short, exclusive list.

Jail time, Stern, jail time. If he's caught and charged three times then yes, execution, but not immediate execution.

Ok, let me clarify a few things here:

First part: That's my opinion. Probably should've clarified that a little better. I find it a heinous crime and yes I do think people who sell heavy narcotics should get the death penalty, but it's probably not something that'd fly. To be completely honest, drug trafficking--while I still find it to be in the "extremely bad" degrees of crimes--is not something someone couldn't be rehabilitated from. I mean, you can STOP selling drugs. So it isn't a hopeless case. For that matter I probably wouldn't even hold it against a reformed person how many people they've f*cked up with drugs, if they changed their ways and actually tried to better themselves and their community.

Which is why I stated point two: three strikes rule. Now, that gives people a chance. Two chances, actually. Two chances to clean up your act. When I said, "And I never said Joe should get the death penalty," I meant first off. After three strikes yes. First strike no. Not for weed. I mean maybe for something heavier, but even then, y'know? Something like that you should at least get a chance for. I'm not the monster you might think me to be here. Criminals who aren't committing terrible crimes get the benefit of the doubt. You get the benefit of the doubt twice, and then that's it.

? ...what the hell are you talking about? what does your family members re-offending have to do with the quuality of life in prison? are you saying they wanted to be incarcirated because they get "3 square meals, a roof over their heads, and a comfy existence working out in the sun making little rocks out of big rocks"? I wont point out the obvious but that's a rediculous implication

The point is they didn't fear it. They reoffended for various reasons but those reasons were personal and unmotivated by the thought of jail AT ALL. As in, they weren't reoffending because they were cushy in there, they were committing crimes for their own personal reasons without fear of jail. I swear Stern you're right, we must be having two different conversations here because even in the paragraph you QUOTED I didn't say ANYTHING about them going back because of the "quality of life in prison." I said right in the quote dude, right there, jeez, look:

And you know for some of them, those who had the shorter sentences, the "loss of freedom" wasn't enough to deter them from going back in. We've had some success stories among some of them but it's only for other reasons, like family and coming into responsibility.

Loss of freedom wasn't enough...stayed out of jail for other reasons...where did I anything about 3 squares and exercise with regard to them? Stern man I know that quote button's fun to click but if you're not even going to read what you're quoting and then you REPLY to it...let's not put you around any big red buttons labeled "DO NOT TOUCH," hey?

and how many hours have you (you not cousin earl, or uncle jeb ..YOU) spent behind bars?

None, thankfully, because I was raised right and keep my ass clean. I have no desire to be a criminal. I have no desire to congregate among criminals. I don't want to spend time with criminals. Hell I only accept those family members who are out and staying out. I love my family but...that's just it, you know? That's IT. Family's family and criminals are criminals.

you belittle yourself because you admit you havent spent a minute in prison ..and I call bullocks to you saying you have "experience" ..if you did indeed have experience you'd know no one spends 17 hours in prison ..I was in a holding cell in a jail awaiting bail ..holding cells are not prisons and if that was shitty I can only imagine what a federal prison is like

I am ignorant of prisons, thankfully. I DON'T know the difference between holding cells and prisons, THANKFULLY. You know why? Because I've never been to one. I've never visited family members in one. I've never stopped to hear about my relations being in holding cells and then being moved to prisons or whatever the hell happens. My experience--which you can doubt all you want--comes from when they get OUT, and they tell me about PRISON. Not a holding cell. Prison.

And you know what? You're making your position worse because you're telling me you were HELD for seventeen hours? Not even IN the prison? Man...what do you really know about the loss of freedom? Honestly that's what's "rediculous"[sic]; you just put yourself in a worse position to argue with me about how prison life is because you weren't even IN there for that paltry seventeen hours. You were in a holding cell! I applaud your honesty, though. Seriously, not sarcastically.

you're an idiot ..again you only prove you're an ignorant ass ..holding cell(jail) is not the same as prison ..holding cells(jail) is full of people awaiting trial ..technically they're innocent ..otherwise they would be in prison

jeez you really go to extremes to make yourself look like an ignorant fool ..people who spend 17 hours in jail are NOT in general population that's why they're called "HOLDING CELLS" ..I think you just make up shit to support your rediculous pov

Yeah jeez I'm the ass who makes things up. Because I don't know about holding cells. Hey man, I'm glad I'm an ignorant ass about the ins-and-outs of prisons. It may be ignorant, but like I said, at least it's a clean ass. I gots no record so I wouldn't know. Likewise I've never gotten a play-by-play account. "So first they cuffed me and gave me my Miranda rights and then they put me in the squad car and brought me down to a holding cell and then I was found guilty so they put me in with the general populace and they took my belongings and gave me a blanket and a pillow and then we made merlot in the f*cking toilet."

I get snippets. I hear what they tell me, and who wants to talk about prison too much? I mean you top that off with how often I even see my extended family...I mean most of the shit I hear about prison is recipes they have for lunch and how the Chinese are the sneakiest mofos in there and they'll slit your throat. Not holding cells. So you believe that I'm making it up, Stern. Go right ahead if you think that improves your argument. Lord knows nothing else you've said is.

so you're saying it's preferable to being free ...there's a line up of people just dying to go to prison so they can live the good life?

I feel like singing. Just go with me on this; I feel like breaking into song to spice up the monotony of this routine where YOU put words in MY mouth.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII didn't say THAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT!
What never?
No never!
What neveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeer?
Hardly everrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

I said it's bad but it's not as bad as most people make it out to be. Did I say it's preferable to being free? Wow. Wow. I can't even really dignify that with a response. You think that's what I said? You think ANYONE would say...that someone could even think...wow. Next comment please.

"it's either high time to find evidence" ...lol you dont have a clue as to what you're talking about ..why not throw out the constitution, the bill of rights and the whole goddam judicial system right out the door

It's slow and needs to be fixed. You can't tell me it doesn't need to be. With innocent people being locked up? And I'm not saying throw those things out, I'm saying that we need to get better at finding evidence and getting innocent people in there so we can mete out appropriate justice to criminals. REAL criminals. That way you don't have people sitting in line for death when people are like, "Well he maaaaay be innocent."

this is the problem with the politics forum ..so many people walk in here armed with NOTHING more than opinion

As opposed to being armed with wiki articles, Judy Garland's friend the straw man, and the most awesome ability to totally say your opponent is putting words in your mouth when he isn't and you are. Oh also, "walking into the politics forum," yes, sorry, I forgot about your SENIORITY. I bow to you, master of all things political who has been here since the dawn of time. Forgive my intrusion.

Jesus you act like you're hot stuff in this forum dude. Sometimes I see your arguments and they're just trash. And then us people "walking in?" New Darkside rule, I'm gonna get some kinda smiley, maybe one that looks like this: -_- (I'll actually have to go looking) and post it whenever Stern posts a stupid argument. Let's count those up. To be fair when people call me on stupid arguments I'll post one for myself. Let's tally those up at the end of a few months, huh? Christ. Walking in. What arrogance.

This from the guy who said, "CCTV? What's next, THE FASHION POLICE?" Yeah, I didn't forget THAT gem, Stern.

then why bother bringing it up?

Preempting it being brought up. Figured someone, not necessarily you, might bring it up. Plus it went hand-in-hand with the fact that the judicial system needs to clean up their act. Not just here either; some of those statistics I pulled were from the UK. Thousands of people jailed who didn't commit a crime. People who were locked up in more than a holding cell for more than 17 hours.

yes you've given us your unsubstantiated opinion ..and I've proven that your opinion isnt logically sound ....end of debate

Welp let's pack it up people, he's declared himself the winner of the argument. WINNER OF THE ARGUMENT HERE. He won by telling me the US government funded 30,000 deaths and that Joe Schmoe getting the death penalty is "abhorrent" and "rediculous."[sic] I can't fight that kind of logic HL2. He's a political debate giant.

 

[15357]

Not really. My life is pretty good here in Australia, there don't seem to be horrific outbreaks of death and destruction despite the lack of listening posts and CCTV. Unless, of course, there is, but the media covers it up. > >

< <

> >

Point being, what you're saying is sounding more like a "Protection scheme" than actual protection.

Well, Austrailia must be a very fine nation. However, there is no "only" in the number of murders everyday. You can't say: "Oh, only 2 guys died today." (in which that isn't true, because in most 1st World nations, including yours, nearly 70 people die in a violence per 10000.)

If we could eliminate that to a near 0 a month, possibly a year, then the goverment has done its job to keep people safe..

I don't want to get into the political implications of having CCTVs and mobile listening posts at every street corner. (V for Vendetta D: )

All I'm saying is, if I can't talk openly to my family without the state overhearing it, I'd rather not live at all.
It's the principle that all freedom struggles are based on.

Heh, I don't want to get into the economic implications of having mobile listening posts at every corner. You know how much manpower costs these days?


Anyway, what makes you think they don't already? They could be watching you right now, and you wouldn't even know it. If people monitored secretly, than you wouldn't have a problem, would you?


From ignorance does happiness spout.

 

[Jintor]

Well, Austrailia must be a very fine nation. However, there is no "only" in the number of murders everyday. You can't say: "Oh, only 2 guys died today." (in which that isn't true, because in most 1st World nations, including yours, nearly 70 people die in a violence per 10000.)

If we could eliminate that to a near 0 a month, possibly a year, then the goverment has done its job to keep people safe..

Heh, I don't want to get into the economic implications of having mobile listening posts at every corner. You know how much manpower costs these days?

Anyway, what makes you think they don't already? They could be watching you right now, and you wouldn't even know it. If people monitored secretly, than you wouldn't have a problem, would you?

From ignorance does happiness spout.

The only ****ing solution here is obviously to go mad.

 

[15357]

Exactly. Then we, the collective brain-like entity, can lock you up.