Death Sentences
- Thread starter Chic 2k6
- Start date
xmrsvindieselx
Well-known member
Usually, I'd say "well how can they kill someone as a punishment for killing someone" but I've been thinking about it..and I think if the person was someone I know ( who was killed) I would stick the bastard with the needle myself.I guess there are many diferent perspectives on this and I respect them all..I hope what I said doesnt cause any drama because I know it kind of sounds hypocritical..but I deffinatly lean more towards the death penalty is ok ( depending on circumstances-like if they are deffinatly guilty as shimmer said)
Bre
Well-known member
"They're guaranteed 3 meals a day.
They get recreation time.
They get free studies.
They get to learn crafts and tools and things of that nature.
They get to go outside and garden and work for the betterment of the community.
They get airconditioning in the summer.
They get heat in the winter.
They never once question where or when they're going to eat.
They get clean clothes.
They never have to work for any of this.
Granted they trade their freedom for that but honestly, is it a bad trade given what their crime was?
Likely not.
They get to surf the internet.
They get to make websites and have fangirls send them letters and pictures.
They get to look at porn." - Originally posted by Shimmer
Bre - I'm confused, why do US prisoners, who some claim should be on death row, get all these extensive privilages when those incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay without charge get none? Sounds like a pretty inconsistant system to me
They get recreation time.
They get free studies.
They get to learn crafts and tools and things of that nature.
They get to go outside and garden and work for the betterment of the community.
They get airconditioning in the summer.
They get heat in the winter.
They never once question where or when they're going to eat.
They get clean clothes.
They never have to work for any of this.
Granted they trade their freedom for that but honestly, is it a bad trade given what their crime was?
Likely not.
They get to surf the internet.
They get to make websites and have fangirls send them letters and pictures.
They get to look at porn." - Originally posted by Shimmer
Bre - I'm confused, why do US prisoners, who some claim should be on death row, get all these extensive privilages when those incarcerated at Guantanamo Bay without charge get none? Sounds like a pretty inconsistant system to me
LisaR
Well-known member
Quote:
I'm not quite sure where you get information regarding the release of prisoners who are in for life with "no chance for parole". We had a family member murdered more than 30 years ago...gunned down execution style in the Trinity River bottoms of Dallas. The family is notified of all aspects of any appeals, movement from one facility to another, any attempts at overturning convictions and, of course, any chance for "getting off the hook" or appeals. Overcrowding and parole are non-issues for life with parole prisoners.
...and just for the record, in spite of the above, I'm against the death penalty.
| Originally Posted by youbeabitch Mischief, as much as I want to agree with you I just can't. Because even with this life in prison you have 2 factors that really stand out to me and thats 1) Overcrowding 2) life with no chance of parole. The problem with the later. Time. I can guarentee you someone will come along and start appealing and eventually that guy will get let off the hook or allowed parole. Someone will say oh he/she has suffered enough and will then be granted perole. I mean I dunno but thats just me. |
I'm not quite sure where you get information regarding the release of prisoners who are in for life with "no chance for parole". We had a family member murdered more than 30 years ago...gunned down execution style in the Trinity River bottoms of Dallas. The family is notified of all aspects of any appeals, movement from one facility to another, any attempts at overturning convictions and, of course, any chance for "getting off the hook" or appeals. Overcrowding and parole are non-issues for life with parole prisoners.
...and just for the record, in spite of the above, I'm against the death penalty.
Hawkeye
Well-known member
Before we go on in this Lisa, let me remind you that I was responding to another persons suggestion. I would suggest you go read what all Mischief suggested before wondering where I got my facts-as the matter remains-it wasn't a fact at all-it was a response to someones idea.
Wattage
Well-known member
Quote:
OMG PLEASE come live in Canada. Then you can work in the tax bracket that pays for these people to keep living - people like Clifford Olson who get MANDATORY PAROLE HEARINGS (yes someone in Canadian law actually thinks that Clifford Olson has the RIGHT to a parole hearing).
Not only do these people get parole hearings, they get access to university education, good meals, gymnasiums and television.
I am not saying that the death penalty is the end all be all. But, when you committ such horrid crimes, how is it fair that you expect the rest of the honest, hard-working society (whose members you rape, steal from, kill, toture, terrorize, etc.) to pay to keep you alive "because it's the right thing to do?"
In my eyes, by being this type of person, you have already opted out of society - on your own terms. Trust me, there is nothing better to piss me off when my Grandmother (who is the most amazing, hard working woman in the world) has to wait 3 months for an MRI, but Clifford Olson gets a fucking parole hearing. No offense, but seriously, kill the bastard already.
...I know that there are a lot (and I mean A LOT) of problems with prison system, particularly in the United States. I have done a number of prison studies, as a lot of my degree has been psych. I agree, that there are many, many issues that can be aggrevated by sending someone to prision.
Still - what is the answer? Does either system really seem to be working? Do we just pat these people on the back and say "Hey, it's OK?" (like we do in Canada...) I mean, it would be nice if it worked - but it doesn't. The type of problems that arise from people going to and being in prision are markers of problems in our society as a whole.
But really, speaking from Canadian law, can you really tell me that people like Robert Pickton and Cliffford Olson deserve to live? That they deserve to go out in the prison yard and feel the sunshine on their face? Ship them off to Bangladesh for a while, or maybe to Lebanon. See how good life is there. See what type of treatment ANYONE gets. I am so sick of people whining and saying "poor me, poor me". Seriously - if being in a US prison is the worst these people ever experience in their life, they don't even know the half of the evil shit that goes on on this earth. These people in wealthy nations who go to prison HAD a chance... if only everyone on this earth were so fortunate.
Sad, sad world
| Originally Posted by Tyester For execution, if isn't because it IS justifiable, then simply because it's a serious waste of taxpayer dollars. I work hard for my $$$ and a good chunk of it get's raped away from me every 2 weeks. And I don't remember the correct figure, but here in Texas it costs somewhere around $20,000 to feed, clothe, and house a prisoner here for just 1 year. I'd rather my money go to a crooked politician who's going to blow it on booze and hookers. At least that would make for an interesting news story. |
OMG PLEASE come live in Canada. Then you can work in the tax bracket that pays for these people to keep living - people like Clifford Olson who get MANDATORY PAROLE HEARINGS (yes someone in Canadian law actually thinks that Clifford Olson has the RIGHT to a parole hearing).
Not only do these people get parole hearings, they get access to university education, good meals, gymnasiums and television.
I am not saying that the death penalty is the end all be all. But, when you committ such horrid crimes, how is it fair that you expect the rest of the honest, hard-working society (whose members you rape, steal from, kill, toture, terrorize, etc.) to pay to keep you alive "because it's the right thing to do?"
In my eyes, by being this type of person, you have already opted out of society - on your own terms. Trust me, there is nothing better to piss me off when my Grandmother (who is the most amazing, hard working woman in the world) has to wait 3 months for an MRI, but Clifford Olson gets a fucking parole hearing. No offense, but seriously, kill the bastard already.
...I know that there are a lot (and I mean A LOT) of problems with prison system, particularly in the United States. I have done a number of prison studies, as a lot of my degree has been psych. I agree, that there are many, many issues that can be aggrevated by sending someone to prision.
Still - what is the answer? Does either system really seem to be working? Do we just pat these people on the back and say "Hey, it's OK?" (like we do in Canada...) I mean, it would be nice if it worked - but it doesn't. The type of problems that arise from people going to and being in prision are markers of problems in our society as a whole.
But really, speaking from Canadian law, can you really tell me that people like Robert Pickton and Cliffford Olson deserve to live? That they deserve to go out in the prison yard and feel the sunshine on their face? Ship them off to Bangladesh for a while, or maybe to Lebanon. See how good life is there. See what type of treatment ANYONE gets. I am so sick of people whining and saying "poor me, poor me". Seriously - if being in a US prison is the worst these people ever experience in their life, they don't even know the half of the evil shit that goes on on this earth. These people in wealthy nations who go to prison HAD a chance... if only everyone on this earth were so fortunate.
Sad, sad world
Jessica
Well-known member
Say what you will about the death penalty.....but until someone in your family has been mowed down by someone who could care less for humanity....well, I guess you wouldn't understand.
For the murderer to live for years, even decades after he/she has taken the life of innocent individuals, left their family to deal with the loss.........f*ck it, they get to say goodbye to their loved ones, to rectify themselves with God and whomever else they feel the need to and then go to sleep.
To say that lethal injection is barbaric.....hmmmmmmmm.....they use the same drugs that are used in any modern OR for routine surgeries. The only difference is that the anesthetics are used in combination and at doses that in an of themselves are lethal. So to say that it would take SEVEN MINUTES for someone to die is simply the biggest load of bullsh*t I have heard of.
Of course, lets not remember how some of these MURDERERS tortured their victims, or how frightened someone was as they lie there dying of multiple gunshot wounds......
My words are not directed at any particular post here, I simply scanned the posts. But I thought I would offer a different point of view....one from a family member who lost 2 cousins. Of someone who was at one time undecided re: the death penalty...
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/alvarezjuan.htm
For the murderer to live for years, even decades after he/she has taken the life of innocent individuals, left their family to deal with the loss.........f*ck it, they get to say goodbye to their loved ones, to rectify themselves with God and whomever else they feel the need to and then go to sleep.
To say that lethal injection is barbaric.....hmmmmmmmm.....they use the same drugs that are used in any modern OR for routine surgeries. The only difference is that the anesthetics are used in combination and at doses that in an of themselves are lethal. So to say that it would take SEVEN MINUTES for someone to die is simply the biggest load of bullsh*t I have heard of.
Of course, lets not remember how some of these MURDERERS tortured their victims, or how frightened someone was as they lie there dying of multiple gunshot wounds......
My words are not directed at any particular post here, I simply scanned the posts. But I thought I would offer a different point of view....one from a family member who lost 2 cousins. Of someone who was at one time undecided re: the death penalty...
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/alvarezjuan.htm
moonrevel
Well-known member
I know that this is a very emotional topic, and I don't really want to address my feelings on the death penalty at length because I feel all of you have given very good points for both sides of the argument. However, I do want to mention something that I feel bears mentioning when we are talking about the consequences of incarceration. An undercurrent to this discussion has been, in addition to capital punishment, the treatment of prisoners, namely the notion of violent criminals getting what they deserve from unpleasant prison atmospheres and the death penalty. The problem is, a lot of the overcrowding in prisons doesn't come from violent and property criminals (what the FBI labels "index crimes," which are murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny, grand theft auto, and arson), but rather those in prison for some drug related offense. While we may be at odds over what a violent criminal "deserves" in the way of punishment, I think we have to remember that not all prisoners are incarcerated for hurting another person.
Where am I going with this? The United States really needs to consider where we're going with our criminal justice policies. As it is, we incarcerate a higher percentage of our population than any other western industrialized country. We do not have a widespread policy of reforming or treating criminals of any kind, regardless of their offense, so while we believe that a child rapist may be beyond reform (an issue I will not speculate on without proper statistics), we generally act under the assumption that NO criminal can be reformed, even if that criminal is in prison for possessing a few ounces of crack cocaine.
What's my point? Criminals of all kinds are lumped together in increasingly overcrowded prisons, and whether or not you approve of the laws which have convicted them (like strict drug laws), you must consider the effect of putting those who may be beyond redemption (like violent criminals) together with those that are not (drug users). This issue is more than whether or not you agree with the death penalty or lengthy prison terms, it's about the overall system and whether or not that system is really achieving the ends we would like it to achieve (reform versus retribution). I believe that we need to refocus on punishing those who deserve to be punished (violent and property criminals) and helping those who have not slipped past the point of no return rather than lumping them in with the helpless and returning them to the streets after a few years with the effects of prison life that can turn them into repeat offenders.
I hope that made sense, and please pardon my rant. I have done a lot of research on these topics and I feel they deserve serious consideration before making blanket statements about the over two million people we currently incarcerate in federal and state prisons. Like it or not, we are still a country that purports zealously to defend the rights laid out in our Constitution, rights that center around our beliefs in justice, equity, and freedom. I know it sounds like a faulty slippery slope argument, but if you allow those beliefs to faulter at this level, the whole thing falls apart. There is a reason why half of the Bill of Rights deals with preserving the rights of criminals and possible criminals: abuse of power at this level threatens the balance of power at the rest.
Where am I going with this? The United States really needs to consider where we're going with our criminal justice policies. As it is, we incarcerate a higher percentage of our population than any other western industrialized country. We do not have a widespread policy of reforming or treating criminals of any kind, regardless of their offense, so while we believe that a child rapist may be beyond reform (an issue I will not speculate on without proper statistics), we generally act under the assumption that NO criminal can be reformed, even if that criminal is in prison for possessing a few ounces of crack cocaine.
What's my point? Criminals of all kinds are lumped together in increasingly overcrowded prisons, and whether or not you approve of the laws which have convicted them (like strict drug laws), you must consider the effect of putting those who may be beyond redemption (like violent criminals) together with those that are not (drug users). This issue is more than whether or not you agree with the death penalty or lengthy prison terms, it's about the overall system and whether or not that system is really achieving the ends we would like it to achieve (reform versus retribution). I believe that we need to refocus on punishing those who deserve to be punished (violent and property criminals) and helping those who have not slipped past the point of no return rather than lumping them in with the helpless and returning them to the streets after a few years with the effects of prison life that can turn them into repeat offenders.
I hope that made sense, and please pardon my rant. I have done a lot of research on these topics and I feel they deserve serious consideration before making blanket statements about the over two million people we currently incarcerate in federal and state prisons. Like it or not, we are still a country that purports zealously to defend the rights laid out in our Constitution, rights that center around our beliefs in justice, equity, and freedom. I know it sounds like a faulty slippery slope argument, but if you allow those beliefs to faulter at this level, the whole thing falls apart. There is a reason why half of the Bill of Rights deals with preserving the rights of criminals and possible criminals: abuse of power at this level threatens the balance of power at the rest.
*Stargazer*
Well-known member
If our justice system was actually allowed to punish people for the crimes they commit, I would agree with abolishing the death penalty but for some reason people still refuse to accept that people who abuse little children, rape and murder are recidivists. They will NEVER be rehabilitated and when given the chance to be among society, they will victimize people until their time on Earth is over. Instead of sentences that fit the crime, we get judges who give rapists 2 months in jail when they should be locked up for life.
http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=4319605
If the US quit screwing around with all this "first degree" "second degree" "manslaughter" BS and sentenced anyone who killed someone (and not accidentally) to life in prison, then I would agree with abolishing the death penalty. Until then, my sympathy begins and ends with the victims.
Our prisons would probably be a lot less crowded if we got rid of mandatory minimums for drug charges and implemented mandatory minimums of life in prison for rapists, murderers and child molesters.
On a related note, we need to exploit DNA advances to make sure that all condemned prisoners are indeed guilty, if at all possible. And we should all demand that police officers are equipped with video and recording devices when conducting interrogations.
http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=4319605
If the US quit screwing around with all this "first degree" "second degree" "manslaughter" BS and sentenced anyone who killed someone (and not accidentally) to life in prison, then I would agree with abolishing the death penalty. Until then, my sympathy begins and ends with the victims.
Our prisons would probably be a lot less crowded if we got rid of mandatory minimums for drug charges and implemented mandatory minimums of life in prison for rapists, murderers and child molesters.
On a related note, we need to exploit DNA advances to make sure that all condemned prisoners are indeed guilty, if at all possible. And we should all demand that police officers are equipped with video and recording devices when conducting interrogations.
macjunkieTURKEY
Well-known member
Quote:
death sentence is banned in Turkey since 2002
Originally Posted by Chic 2k6
Mods, if you want to remove this topic, do so. What's your opinions on Death Sentences? Here in the UK we dont have death sentences, the last person to be hanged was in the 60s sometimes. Do you think its right or wrong? IMO its a mixture of both but in the past people were wrongfully hanged for something they never did, but with technology and proper trials of today to make the trail fair, what would you say about it? I know it still happens in places like Texas US, Eastern Europe like Isreael, Turkey, Saudi Arabia etc.. I'm not trying to cause a contriversal arguments here, i'm just interested in people's opinions as I studied this topic in Religious Education. here's one case that happened 13 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bulger the Jamie Bulger story, read what happened on bottom of the webpage then read the top part of the webpage, for what those boys did, they should be sentenced to death. How can a 10 year old boys be released and given new lives and identity but a grown up man would be jailed for the rest of his life? I dont think that's fair really, the boys would've known what they were doing. |
death sentence is banned in Turkey since 2002
GreekChick
Well-known member
Wow,
2007...
and people actually believe in the death penalty....
The fact that more than half of the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty in law or practice speaks for itself.
Why now?
It is a failure of justice.
You might strongly support the death penalty and give arguments on how your system prevents people from committing future crimes, yet you live in a place with the highest crime rate in the world.
Even Brazil hasn't executed anyone since 1855!
88 countries and territories have abolished the death penalty, with the US and China figuring with the rest that still practice it...say that again? Two of the most advanced countries in the world? Practicing such a "medievalesque" tradition?
In that case, screw Amnesty International. Seriously.
Whether with lethal injection, electrocution, hanging, shooting, or stoning, not one way of employing the death penalty is better than the other....you have still decided that this person should die. I don't think in death she will remember the number of watts that were used to end her life.
Sorry but the goal here isn't to seek revenge on the killer. I guess authors famous for their work and studies in criminology and sociology, such as Beccaria, whose arguments are the basis of today's modern justice system, were wrong when they claimed the death penalty is a thing of the past. Beccaria said (imagine now, 18th century) that the goal of the death penalty and other forms of torture is to prevent the criminal from being a threat to the country and to impose on him the suffering and ending he imposed on the victim(s). It never worked,according to him, because the severity of the of the sentence didn't correspond with the gravity of the crime. He has some pretty interesting things to say on the subject of prison.
As for victims of crime not getting what they want by slashing their killers throat, blame that on the slow progress of victimology in the last few decades. Generally, in today's society, the damage the crime has imposed on the society is more important than that of the victim's.
To those who said prisonners actually live a sweet life in prison, with birds chirping and everything, I admit the conditions are a bit too "nice", however, these prisonners are deprived of one thing: Freedom. And that to me is something that is even sweeter than a satellite TV with HBO or a Nintendo Gamecube. They obviously can't live in unhygienic conditions, but I bet you to them it's not as important as having their freedom.
Oh, and yes, it has been proven, time and time again, that a criminal can be resocialised and rehabilitated. Some people do change...if others don't, then let them be in prison for the rest of their life.
A person's upbringing *is* an important factor in assessing whether she will resort to criminality (Lombroso Theory). Can't it be the other way around? In short, our society makes the criminals, and then hangs them.
"A society only has the number of criminals it deserves." (Lombroso)
Again, education plays such an amazing role here.
In the Saddam Hussein thread, half of you claimed you weren't sure about how you felt after he was finally executed. Some said they felt it wasn't that great, others felt strange...
In all cases, alot of people said they felt it didn't change anything.
There is your answer.
2007...
and people actually believe in the death penalty....
The fact that more than half of the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty in law or practice speaks for itself.
Why now?
It is a failure of justice.
You might strongly support the death penalty and give arguments on how your system prevents people from committing future crimes, yet you live in a place with the highest crime rate in the world.
Even Brazil hasn't executed anyone since 1855!
88 countries and territories have abolished the death penalty, with the US and China figuring with the rest that still practice it...say that again? Two of the most advanced countries in the world? Practicing such a "medievalesque" tradition?
In that case, screw Amnesty International. Seriously.
Whether with lethal injection, electrocution, hanging, shooting, or stoning, not one way of employing the death penalty is better than the other....you have still decided that this person should die. I don't think in death she will remember the number of watts that were used to end her life.
Sorry but the goal here isn't to seek revenge on the killer. I guess authors famous for their work and studies in criminology and sociology, such as Beccaria, whose arguments are the basis of today's modern justice system, were wrong when they claimed the death penalty is a thing of the past. Beccaria said (imagine now, 18th century) that the goal of the death penalty and other forms of torture is to prevent the criminal from being a threat to the country and to impose on him the suffering and ending he imposed on the victim(s). It never worked,according to him, because the severity of the of the sentence didn't correspond with the gravity of the crime. He has some pretty interesting things to say on the subject of prison.
As for victims of crime not getting what they want by slashing their killers throat, blame that on the slow progress of victimology in the last few decades. Generally, in today's society, the damage the crime has imposed on the society is more important than that of the victim's.
To those who said prisonners actually live a sweet life in prison, with birds chirping and everything, I admit the conditions are a bit too "nice", however, these prisonners are deprived of one thing: Freedom. And that to me is something that is even sweeter than a satellite TV with HBO or a Nintendo Gamecube. They obviously can't live in unhygienic conditions, but I bet you to them it's not as important as having their freedom.
Oh, and yes, it has been proven, time and time again, that a criminal can be resocialised and rehabilitated. Some people do change...if others don't, then let them be in prison for the rest of their life.
A person's upbringing *is* an important factor in assessing whether she will resort to criminality (Lombroso Theory). Can't it be the other way around? In short, our society makes the criminals, and then hangs them.
"A society only has the number of criminals it deserves." (Lombroso)
Again, education plays such an amazing role here.
In the Saddam Hussein thread, half of you claimed you weren't sure about how you felt after he was finally executed. Some said they felt it wasn't that great, others felt strange...
In all cases, alot of people said they felt it didn't change anything.
There is your answer.
Dizzy
Well-known member
Quote:
And how is letting them sit in jail, their every need attended to, an example of justice when their victim is dead/incapacitated for life? In cases that would warrant the death penalty I honestly think that taking someone's life and getting the "punishment" of having your freedom taken away is a slap on the wrist in comparison.
They still have their phone calls and their visitors. They get their three meals a day and time outside every day. They can attend college, work on skills, get assigned to work on jobs inside the jail (food service, cleaning, etc.). They get a TV, and plenty of time to watch it.
Their victim? Will never be able to do those things again.
So yes, they might lose their "freedom", but how is that comparable? It's a freedom that is NOT undeniable- they decided to give it up when they commited the crime.
An eye for an eye and everyone goes blind- but at least they'll remember not do to it again.
Quote:
But again, realize that we don't have to follow what other countries do. Agreed, we do have a lot of vested intrests in other countries but first and foremost we have to think of the safety of our people. You think it's barbaric, I think it's highly appropriate. Different strokes, and all.
Quote:
You're right that the goal isn't for revenge, but putting them in jail is questionable as well.
Jail cells aren't meant to become their home until they die on the taxpayers dime. They're meant to rehabilitate those who have a chance, with their ultimate goal of getting these people back into society as hard-working and productive members. Leaving them in there to rot does nothing but give more work to those COs who work the jail and waste money.
Quote:
Can criminals be rehabilitated? Sure- theives, extortionists and drug dealers don't get life in jail for a reason. But do you really want to take a chance that a murderer, a serial killer, a child rapist will commit their crime again? It's unethical to use people in such risky experiments, and in this case it's a hugely uncontrollable variable. That person could commit their crime, go to Mexico and get away scott-free with his freedom still intact. Where's the punishment? Where's the rehabilitation?
And the Lomboso Theory no longer holds its weight, to me. Cesare Lombroso based his work on his assumptions on Social Darwinism. He believed that people would evolve from "lower life forms" to "higher life forms" and that their traits would follow until, eventually, the "undesirable" traits regarding human behavior would weed themselves out. We've seen this disproven time and time again in society- we have more jails, and people in those jails, then we did twenty years ago. They're not getting weeded out.
He also believed that whites were superior by heredity and that you could tell who would be a criminal by their skull and facial features. He also argued that females were more passive and that they lacked the intelligence to become a criminal. Again, we have a good portion of women in our jails to suggest that Lombroso didn't think his theory out to levels beyond a reasonable doubt, which is why it stays just that- a Theory, which is not necessarily backed by fact.
Quote:
That's also a case that you have to take the situation into account. We might not feel anything- most of us are from the West who had no personal reason to get inovled with Saddam. He didn't kill our familes, he didn't oppress us, he didn't infringe on our rights. In all, he didn't directly affect us. Now ask someone whose family ended up missing because of his actions, to the people who are refugees in surrouding nations because of him, and see if they have a different opinion on his death.
| Originally Posted by GreekChick
Wow, 2007... and people actually believe in the death penalty.... The fact that more than half of the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty in law or practice speaks for itself. Why now? It is a failure of justice. |
And how is letting them sit in jail, their every need attended to, an example of justice when their victim is dead/incapacitated for life? In cases that would warrant the death penalty I honestly think that taking someone's life and getting the "punishment" of having your freedom taken away is a slap on the wrist in comparison.
They still have their phone calls and their visitors. They get their three meals a day and time outside every day. They can attend college, work on skills, get assigned to work on jobs inside the jail (food service, cleaning, etc.). They get a TV, and plenty of time to watch it.
Their victim? Will never be able to do those things again.
So yes, they might lose their "freedom", but how is that comparable? It's a freedom that is NOT undeniable- they decided to give it up when they commited the crime.
An eye for an eye and everyone goes blind- but at least they'll remember not do to it again.
Quote:
| You might strongly support the death penalty and give arguments on how your system prevents people from committing future crimes, yet you live in a place with the highest crime rate in the world. Even Brazil hasn't executed anyone since 1855! 88 countries and territories have abolished the death penalty, with the US and China figuring with the rest that still practice it...say that again? Two of the most advanced countries in the world? Practicing such a "medievalesque" tradition? |
But again, realize that we don't have to follow what other countries do. Agreed, we do have a lot of vested intrests in other countries but first and foremost we have to think of the safety of our people. You think it's barbaric, I think it's highly appropriate. Different strokes, and all.
Quote:
| Whether with lethal injection, electrocution, hanging, shooting, or stoning, not one way of employing the death penalty is better than the other....you have still decided that this person should die. I don't think in death she will remember the number of watts that were used to end her life. Sorry but the goal here isn't to seek revenge on the killer. |
You're right that the goal isn't for revenge, but putting them in jail is questionable as well.
Jail cells aren't meant to become their home until they die on the taxpayers dime. They're meant to rehabilitate those who have a chance, with their ultimate goal of getting these people back into society as hard-working and productive members. Leaving them in there to rot does nothing but give more work to those COs who work the jail and waste money.
Quote:
| Oh, and yes, it has been proven, time and time again, that a criminal can be resocialised and rehabilitated. Some people do change...if others don't, then let them be in prison for the rest of their life. A person's upbringing *is* an important factor in assessing whether she will resort to criminality (Lombroso Theory). Can't it be the other way around? In short, our society makes the criminals, and then hangs them. "A society only has the number of criminals it deserves." (Lombroso) Again, education plays such an amazing role here. |
Can criminals be rehabilitated? Sure- theives, extortionists and drug dealers don't get life in jail for a reason. But do you really want to take a chance that a murderer, a serial killer, a child rapist will commit their crime again? It's unethical to use people in such risky experiments, and in this case it's a hugely uncontrollable variable. That person could commit their crime, go to Mexico and get away scott-free with his freedom still intact. Where's the punishment? Where's the rehabilitation?
And the Lomboso Theory no longer holds its weight, to me. Cesare Lombroso based his work on his assumptions on Social Darwinism. He believed that people would evolve from "lower life forms" to "higher life forms" and that their traits would follow until, eventually, the "undesirable" traits regarding human behavior would weed themselves out. We've seen this disproven time and time again in society- we have more jails, and people in those jails, then we did twenty years ago. They're not getting weeded out.
He also believed that whites were superior by heredity and that you could tell who would be a criminal by their skull and facial features. He also argued that females were more passive and that they lacked the intelligence to become a criminal. Again, we have a good portion of women in our jails to suggest that Lombroso didn't think his theory out to levels beyond a reasonable doubt, which is why it stays just that- a Theory, which is not necessarily backed by fact.
Quote:
| In the Saddam Hussein thread, half of you claimed you weren't sure about how you felt after he was finally executed. Some said they felt it wasn't that great, others felt strange... In all cases, alot of people said they felt it didn't change anything. There is your answer. |
That's also a case that you have to take the situation into account. We might not feel anything- most of us are from the West who had no personal reason to get inovled with Saddam. He didn't kill our familes, he didn't oppress us, he didn't infringe on our rights. In all, he didn't directly affect us. Now ask someone whose family ended up missing because of his actions, to the people who are refugees in surrouding nations because of him, and see if they have a different opinion on his death.
Hawkeye
Well-known member
ITA Dizzy.
Sometimes as much as we want to say we don't believe in the death penalty I find it hard to believe that if someone were to come in and do something to you or your sister or someone you love like rape them, murder them ruthlessly in front of you, torture them I have a feeling 99% of the people on here-least they be saints-will be out looking for blood.
And then when the option comes down to it- and someone asks you point blank-what do you want to happen here? Death-or a prison sentence where they will get all the comforts of home? I have a strong feeling many would say- Death.
I admit I was the one who didn't feel that sure about how I felt about Saddam Husseins death-but the reason was simple-He simply didn't harm anyone in my family. However, he did rape women. His sons raped women. And they killed anyone that disagreed with his rule.
I have to look at both sides of the death penalty but I gotta say-when it comes down to it-when I put myself in those who have been hurt by whoevers on the green mile's place-I suddenly have no sympathy for them.
If they have no regard for human life, if they have no regard for a person, then why should I have regard and compassion for them?
I can pray for them and hope that there is a God that will judge them justly and hopefully will forgive that perso but I as a human cannot and I can make only the logical reasoning that I can.
Sometimes as much as we want to say we don't believe in the death penalty I find it hard to believe that if someone were to come in and do something to you or your sister or someone you love like rape them, murder them ruthlessly in front of you, torture them I have a feeling 99% of the people on here-least they be saints-will be out looking for blood.
And then when the option comes down to it- and someone asks you point blank-what do you want to happen here? Death-or a prison sentence where they will get all the comforts of home? I have a strong feeling many would say- Death.
I admit I was the one who didn't feel that sure about how I felt about Saddam Husseins death-but the reason was simple-He simply didn't harm anyone in my family. However, he did rape women. His sons raped women. And they killed anyone that disagreed with his rule.
I have to look at both sides of the death penalty but I gotta say-when it comes down to it-when I put myself in those who have been hurt by whoevers on the green mile's place-I suddenly have no sympathy for them.
If they have no regard for human life, if they have no regard for a person, then why should I have regard and compassion for them?
I can pray for them and hope that there is a God that will judge them justly and hopefully will forgive that perso but I as a human cannot and I can make only the logical reasoning that I can.
GreekChick
Well-known member
Quote:
Hmm, so what your basically saying here is that the last resort is to kill the criminal, instead of letting him live happily in jail. You are paying taxes for your prisons...Quite frankly, blame the system. I'd rather send an enormous complaint stating why I think prisons are far too comfortable and why I think the situation should change, instead of saying "Ok well, prison isn't for you, it's too pretty...so I guess my only choice now is to kill you?"
Um, NO! I'm going to be blunt here and say it's one of the most backward ways of thinking.
Sure, you don't have to follow what other countries do. However- like I said in my previous post- the fact that more than half of the planet has abolished the death penalty surely suggests there is a problem with it. The US use to not only impose the death penalty on adults, but on children also, in theory. Doesn't surprise me since it is also completely legal for a child to posess a weapon. I guess it was better to execute a minor then to have him walk the streets. Way too dangerous.
I guess the rest of the countries that have abolished it don't know what they're thinking right?
Justice isn't driven by passion. If it were, the world would be a jungle.
| Originally Posted by Dizzy
And how is letting them sit in jail, their every need attended to, an example of justice when their victim is dead/incapacitated for life? In cases that would warrant the death penalty I honestly think that taking someone's life and getting the "punishment" of having your freedom taken away is a slap on the wrist in comparison. They still have their phone calls and their visitors. They get their three meals a day and time outside every day. They can attend college, work on skills, get assigned to work on jobs inside the jail (food service, cleaning, etc.). They get a TV, and plenty of time to watch it. Their victim? Will never be able to do those things again. So yes, they might lose their "freedom", but how is that comparable? It's a freedom that is NOT undeniable- they decided to give it up when they commited the crime. An eye for an eye and everyone goes blind- but at least they'll remember not do to it again. But again, realize that we don't have to follow what other countries do. Agreed, we do have a lot of vested intrests in other countries but first and foremost we have to think of the safety of our people. You think it's barbaric, I think it's highly appropriate. Different strokes, and all. You're right that the goal isn't for revenge, but putting them in jail is questionable as well. Jail cells aren't meant to become their home until they die on the taxpayers dime. They're meant to rehabilitate those who have a chance, with their ultimate goal of getting these people back into society as hard-working and productive members. Leaving them in there to rot does nothing but give more work to those COs who work the jail and waste money. Can criminals be rehabilitated? Sure- theives, extortionists and drug dealers don't get life in jail for a reason. But do you really want to take a chance that a murderer, a serial killer, a child rapist will commit their crime again? It's unethical to use people in such risky experiments, and in this case it's a hugely uncontrollable variable. That person could commit their crime, go to Mexico and get away scott-free with his freedom still intact. Where's the punishment? Where's the rehabilitation? And the Lomboso Theory no longer holds its weight, to me. Cesare Lombroso based his work on his assumptions on Social Darwinism. He believed that people would evolve from "lower life forms" to "higher life forms" and that their traits would follow until, eventually, the "undesirable" traits regarding human behavior would weed themselves out. We've seen this disproven time and time again in society- we have more jails, and people in those jails, then we did twenty years ago. They're not getting weeded out. He also believed that whites were superior by heredity and that you could tell who would be a criminal by their skull and facial features. He also argued that females were more passive and that they lacked the intelligence to become a criminal. Again, we have a good portion of women in our jails to suggest that Lombroso didn't think his theory out to levels beyond a reasonable doubt, which is why it stays just that- a Theory, which is not necessarily backed by fact. That's also a case that you have to take the situation into account. We might not feel anything- most of us are from the West who had no personal reason to get inovled with Saddam. He didn't kill our familes, he didn't oppress us, he didn't infringe on our rights. In all, he didn't directly affect us. Now ask someone whose family ended up missing because of his actions, to the people who are refugees in surrouding nations because of him, and see if they have a different opinion on his death. |
Hmm, so what your basically saying here is that the last resort is to kill the criminal, instead of letting him live happily in jail. You are paying taxes for your prisons...Quite frankly, blame the system. I'd rather send an enormous complaint stating why I think prisons are far too comfortable and why I think the situation should change, instead of saying "Ok well, prison isn't for you, it's too pretty...so I guess my only choice now is to kill you?"
Um, NO! I'm going to be blunt here and say it's one of the most backward ways of thinking.
Sure, you don't have to follow what other countries do. However- like I said in my previous post- the fact that more than half of the planet has abolished the death penalty surely suggests there is a problem with it. The US use to not only impose the death penalty on adults, but on children also, in theory. Doesn't surprise me since it is also completely legal for a child to posess a weapon. I guess it was better to execute a minor then to have him walk the streets. Way too dangerous.
I guess the rest of the countries that have abolished it don't know what they're thinking right?
Justice isn't driven by passion. If it were, the world would be a jungle.
Hawkeye
Well-known member
So basically-if I understand this reasoning correctly-because everyone else does something-that means we should do it as well? I guess if we should take it to the individual it's sort of like taking drugs-as long as everyone else gets high then I guess its OK.
I just-Greek, I understand what you are saying-you obviously don't agree with the death penalty, but instead of bashing the U.S. why don't you write to Speaker Pelosi, and see what response you get. Or why not President Bush?
And I would advise to keep any hostilities that are blatant to yourself if you should write to either of them.
The problem is is that you have to stop looking at things from one side. That's a problem a lot of people have they look at things ONLY through their point of view but failing to realize other people have other points of views.
Even the US has said we would've done something different with Saddam-that was an Iraqi thing.
But Being the blatant person that I am-
Let us refrain from going further with the Saddam Discussion. There is another thread regarding that in the Deep Thoughts board.
HERE it is
http://specktra.net/showthread.php?t=61650
I just-Greek, I understand what you are saying-you obviously don't agree with the death penalty, but instead of bashing the U.S. why don't you write to Speaker Pelosi, and see what response you get. Or why not President Bush?
And I would advise to keep any hostilities that are blatant to yourself if you should write to either of them.
The problem is is that you have to stop looking at things from one side. That's a problem a lot of people have they look at things ONLY through their point of view but failing to realize other people have other points of views.
Even the US has said we would've done something different with Saddam-that was an Iraqi thing.
But Being the blatant person that I am-
Let us refrain from going further with the Saddam Discussion. There is another thread regarding that in the Deep Thoughts board.
HERE it is
http://specktra.net/showthread.php?t=61650
GreekChick
Well-known member
Quote:
See that's the thing, youbeabitch, my reasoning wasn't understood. Consider the death penalty to be the consumption of the drug. Saying it the other way around wouldn't correspond with reality. Everyone else has stopped consuming it, but one person continues because she hasn't clearly understood it's negative side effects. Blame it on education, if you want.
However, with all parallels put aside, you can't exactly compare falling into the drug trap because everyone else is doing it, with simply following an example of morality, and above all, progress-something MANY countries have caught up with.
I have looked at other point of views, I understand them completely. It's only natural to want to place yourself in the other's shoes and ask yourself "If this were to happen to me, what would I do? How would I want to punish the criminal?". Don't get me wrong, I would be so posessed by anger and desire to seek revenge, torture would be the nicest thing I would do to him. Again, what drives me in this situation? Passion. Anger. Betrayal. But then when I put what my heart wants aside, I see it from a much more mental point of view. To kill him? Nah. He would just rest in peace. Or worst of all, go to heaven...Who knows what happens? And my children, if I ever have any , when they're going to ask me "So what finally happened to the person that killed so-and-so?", the last thing I would want to answer is "Well we killed him back." Wow, I could really see the pride in their eyes.
Also, I don't consider it US bashing...I am so in awe with the North-Eastern States that don't practice the death penalty anymore. I'm just more disappointed with some people's mentalities, living in such a powerful, if not, inspirational country such as the USA. Like I said, in my opinion, it is simply a matter of education, and values that transcend from generation to generation.
Oh, and I think President Bush would be too busy playing golf to actually make time to read my letter haha
| Originally Posted by youbeabitch
So basically-if I understand this reasoning correctly-because everyone else does something-that means we should do it as well? I guess if we should take it to the individual it's sort of like taking drugs-as long as everyone else gets high then I guess its OK. I just-Greek, I understand what you are saying-you obviously don't agree with the death penalty, but instead of bashing the U.S. why don't you write to Speaker Pelosi, and see what response you get. Or why not President Bush? And I would advise to keep any hostilities that are blatant to yourself if you should write to either of them. The problem is is that you have to stop looking at things from one side. That's a problem a lot of people have they look at things ONLY through their point of view but failing to realize other people have other points of views. Even the US has said we would've done something different with Saddam-that was an Iraqi thing. But Being the blatant person that I am- Let us refrain from going further with the Saddam Discussion. There is another thread regarding that in the Deeper Discussion board. |
See that's the thing, youbeabitch, my reasoning wasn't understood. Consider the death penalty to be the consumption of the drug. Saying it the other way around wouldn't correspond with reality. Everyone else has stopped consuming it, but one person continues because she hasn't clearly understood it's negative side effects. Blame it on education, if you want.
However, with all parallels put aside, you can't exactly compare falling into the drug trap because everyone else is doing it, with simply following an example of morality, and above all, progress-something MANY countries have caught up with.
I have looked at other point of views, I understand them completely. It's only natural to want to place yourself in the other's shoes and ask yourself "If this were to happen to me, what would I do? How would I want to punish the criminal?". Don't get me wrong, I would be so posessed by anger and desire to seek revenge, torture would be the nicest thing I would do to him. Again, what drives me in this situation? Passion. Anger. Betrayal. But then when I put what my heart wants aside, I see it from a much more mental point of view. To kill him? Nah. He would just rest in peace. Or worst of all, go to heaven...Who knows what happens? And my children, if I ever have any , when they're going to ask me "So what finally happened to the person that killed so-and-so?", the last thing I would want to answer is "Well we killed him back." Wow, I could really see the pride in their eyes.
Also, I don't consider it US bashing...I am so in awe with the North-Eastern States that don't practice the death penalty anymore. I'm just more disappointed with some people's mentalities, living in such a powerful, if not, inspirational country such as the USA. Like I said, in my opinion, it is simply a matter of education, and values that transcend from generation to generation.
Oh, and I think President Bush would be too busy playing golf to actually make time to read my letter haha
Dizzy
Well-known member
GreekChick I don't think my point got across in the way that I intended it. I don't believe that we should just kill people because we don't want to spend the money, I'm suggesting that the death penalty is a viable option for those who cannot be rehabilitated. I firmly do not believe that everyone can be rehabilitated, and in those cases it's irresponsible of us to send them back into society for them to commit their crime again. I don't belive in sacrificing the masses to spare the few.
And the fact that we still impose the death penatly doesn't suggest a problem, it suggests that we have a different value system then the rest of the world. Do you have to agree with it? Of course not. But does that mean that we're going to change because a few people feel that it's unfair to kill someone? Again, of course not. The death penalty is ONLY used on children when they are tried as adults, and that only happens after s/he turns 18.
But please remember- guns don't kill people, people kill people. I feel like you're taking the personal responsibility away from these criminals. Remember- their rights end where another persons begin. Their rights ended when they committed their crime, they should be punished to an appropriate extent. They chose to commit their crimes, and we're just holding them accountable. Society isn't responsible for everything that people do wrong, people make their own choices in life. They have to live with them.
And again, it's not that the rest of the countries that have abolished this don't know what they're doing, it's that it's their choice. They make the laws and rules that they feel are appropriate for their own particular situations, and we do the same for us. I don't care either way what they choose, but then again I tend to be a bit of an isolationist myself.
But you're 100% right when you say that "justice isn't driven by passion." I agree with you, which is why I see the death penatly as an equal method of justice for our more henious crimes. That's not passionate, it's logical. Again, it's an eye for an eye concept.
Edited to Add:
Quote:
I live in New York, a state that no longer participates in the death penalty. We get praised for it, but what the state will never tell you is the financial burden that's currently weighing on the state. My mother works in one of the more local jails, where people who've committed crimes wait until they get sentenced or for those who have sentences of less than a year to serve their time. Their budget has been slashed so low that they are operating on a skeleton staff most of the time, the administrative staff is fighting a pay cut, and they're so over crowded that cells that once housed two inmates have three or four shoved in there. This creates more problems: more fighting, more dangerous behavior, more gang-related violence within the jail and they just don't have the manpower to keep it in check. And this isn't even a state-facility, it's a county facility. Imagine how this will be in ten years? What, are we going to start building more jails when what my county really needs is more housing and schools? I truly think that my state's lawmakers didn't think their actions through with this one.
And I don't think that it has much to do with education. I'm a pre-law student at one of New York's top institutions, and I know people (classmates, in particular) who are so out of touch with reality that they know what the names of Britney Spears' children is, but can't tell me who the Secretary of State is. It's a matter of values- people simply aren't interested in politics anymore, they don't care, but they rely on the media to tell them to who to vote for instead of doing their own research. After all, they're too busy having fun instead of taking care of their own personal responsibilites.
And really, reconsider your Bush-bashing. It really brought your post down.
And the fact that we still impose the death penatly doesn't suggest a problem, it suggests that we have a different value system then the rest of the world. Do you have to agree with it? Of course not. But does that mean that we're going to change because a few people feel that it's unfair to kill someone? Again, of course not. The death penalty is ONLY used on children when they are tried as adults, and that only happens after s/he turns 18.
But please remember- guns don't kill people, people kill people. I feel like you're taking the personal responsibility away from these criminals. Remember- their rights end where another persons begin. Their rights ended when they committed their crime, they should be punished to an appropriate extent. They chose to commit their crimes, and we're just holding them accountable. Society isn't responsible for everything that people do wrong, people make their own choices in life. They have to live with them.
And again, it's not that the rest of the countries that have abolished this don't know what they're doing, it's that it's their choice. They make the laws and rules that they feel are appropriate for their own particular situations, and we do the same for us. I don't care either way what they choose, but then again I tend to be a bit of an isolationist myself.
But you're 100% right when you say that "justice isn't driven by passion." I agree with you, which is why I see the death penatly as an equal method of justice for our more henious crimes. That's not passionate, it's logical. Again, it's an eye for an eye concept.
Edited to Add:
Quote:
| Also, I don't consider it US bashing...I am so in awe with the North-Eastern States that don't practice the death penalty anymore. I'm just more disappointed with some people's mentalities, living in such a powerful, if not, inspirational country such as the USA. Like I said, in my opinion, it is simply a matter of education, and values that transcend from generation to generation. Oh, and I think President Bush would be too busy playing golf to actually make time to read my letter haha |
I live in New York, a state that no longer participates in the death penalty. We get praised for it, but what the state will never tell you is the financial burden that's currently weighing on the state. My mother works in one of the more local jails, where people who've committed crimes wait until they get sentenced or for those who have sentences of less than a year to serve their time. Their budget has been slashed so low that they are operating on a skeleton staff most of the time, the administrative staff is fighting a pay cut, and they're so over crowded that cells that once housed two inmates have three or four shoved in there. This creates more problems: more fighting, more dangerous behavior, more gang-related violence within the jail and they just don't have the manpower to keep it in check. And this isn't even a state-facility, it's a county facility. Imagine how this will be in ten years? What, are we going to start building more jails when what my county really needs is more housing and schools? I truly think that my state's lawmakers didn't think their actions through with this one.
And I don't think that it has much to do with education. I'm a pre-law student at one of New York's top institutions, and I know people (classmates, in particular) who are so out of touch with reality that they know what the names of Britney Spears' children is, but can't tell me who the Secretary of State is. It's a matter of values- people simply aren't interested in politics anymore, they don't care, but they rely on the media to tell them to who to vote for instead of doing their own research. After all, they're too busy having fun instead of taking care of their own personal responsibilites.
And really, reconsider your Bush-bashing. It really brought your post down.
Hawkeye
Well-known member
GreekChik-I think again you failing to realize peoples points of views. I can see clearly your thoughts on this matter. And you say that it doesn't correspond with reality but in a way it does.
Just so you are clear we get your point of view- let me spell it out:
You hate the death penalty and you think it should be abolished.
The nations countries- they do their own thing. Just because everyone else does something, doesn't mean that I as an individual or my country has to do it. That in a way is bringing sheep to the slaughter.
BUt I think it's quite funny-that you are so vehemantly against the Death Penalty but you refuse to write letters. Even if you are in a different country-you still refuse to do anything about it. But it's something YOU have the right to do and YOU have the power to do. You just sit like every other person because that's what everyone else is doing, and you refuse to write a letter of dissent. Who knows? Your letter may be the one that President Bush or Speaker Pelosi actually read.
Just so you are clear we get your point of view- let me spell it out:
You hate the death penalty and you think it should be abolished.
The nations countries- they do their own thing. Just because everyone else does something, doesn't mean that I as an individual or my country has to do it. That in a way is bringing sheep to the slaughter.
BUt I think it's quite funny-that you are so vehemantly against the Death Penalty but you refuse to write letters. Even if you are in a different country-you still refuse to do anything about it. But it's something YOU have the right to do and YOU have the power to do. You just sit like every other person because that's what everyone else is doing, and you refuse to write a letter of dissent. Who knows? Your letter may be the one that President Bush or Speaker Pelosi actually read.
