DescentBB

I've been following this since the day it happened and my wish is getting closer to reality...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17615925/

Bettina

Unfortunately, Canada gave up CP long ago. I am for it. It costs about $100,000 a year to keep someone in prison.

1) Someone like this guy doesn't deserve to be kept in prison
2) 3 square meals a day
3) Free education
4) And possibly get released for good behaviour.

Thing is, you have to have absolute proof the guilty one is guilty. There have been many cases that have been proven wrong because of new DNA evidence. So what happens if you CP someone and in 5 years you find out they were innocent? How do you explain that to the family? Compensation?


Don't get me wrong, I'm still for it.

Compensation? In america there are laws preventing you from suing the legal system for making a \"honest\" mistake.

What I mean is if you kill someone and then the Police finds that man innocent because of new DNA evidence, the family deserves compensation for their loss of innocent life.

And in case you think that it is an unlikely scenario there have been something like 5 high profile cases in Canada of people acquitted of murder after decades in prison.

Mind you if some one is found guilt of two separate premeditated murders in two separate court cases I'm all for turning off their lights. Not as some kind of revenge but just because they clearly don't belong in this society.

Capital punishment is not about the crimes of the condemned it is about us as a society. Most people will claim that they would not torture another human and the majority of people in the U.S. at least claim to believe in the teachings of Jesus. Applying WWJD to the question I don't think he would be voting for the death penalty. Yet there is call after call for those found responsible for heinous murder to be put to death usually in some grotesque way because they \"deserve\" it.
I think it lowers us as a society when we call for the blood of murderers as revenge and punishment rather than the protection of our society from harm.

I just want to say...

...I think killing is wrong...

...no matter who does it.

Whether it's me or y'all or your government.

Dead Man Walking.

I would not sentence anyone to death unless I was 100% sure. In this case, her fingerprints in his closet and his fingerprints on her, the plastic bags, and the wire used to bind her coupled with the DNA evidence was enough. I won't tell you what they found on his mattress that was his and hers because its not appropriate here but you can find out for yourself on the web.

I have a personal interest in her and I want him dead as soon as possible. I want him cremated too so he won't be buried in the same earth as her.

Bee

EDIT:

I think it lowers us as a society when we call for the blood of murderers as revenge and punishment rather than the protection of our society from harm.

Not me. I want revenge. I want justice. I want him dead.

Some people just don't belong in our society and until we can send them to some far distant planet to live alone and fend for themselves, CP is the way to go.

Aye, CP is in many cases a good end all be all, Im for it. todays prions are becomming more and more like resorts, free food, free medicine, free free free, hell its a mazing more people arent clamoring at the gates...oh wait, they are.

when it comes to a life term or death, yeah, a life term doesn't sound scary at all anymore does it, but what if prisons were more...prison like, work camp-ish, etc, then wouldn't a life term be worse then death, probably.

Here in Bama i see the classic chain gangs, out picking litter off the roads, or striping roads with paint rollers, thats how it should be imo, not a pleasure cruise through your life, but a work your ass off environment. and a majority of the prisons Ive seen here have been in the vicinity of a dump and/or a paper mill. in the case of Talladega, right between a paper mill and a dump.

Bet51987 wrote:EDIT:

I think it lowers us as a society when we call for the blood of murderers as revenge and punishment rather than the protection of our society from harm.

Not me. I want revenge. I want justice. I want him dead.

I don't support CP. But if I'm honest with my feelings... I want justice and revenge, too.

However, despite being barely 30 years old, I know enough about my emotions to know that my initial response isn't always the best one.

The way I see it, there are flaws in both CP and life-imprisonment, at least the way they're often handled in the US. There have been way too many cases of murderers going free, as well as innocent people being put to death.

For people who commit horiffic crimes, like the one currently happening in BC (pig farmer), he deserves to die a painful horrible death.


And don't tell me 99% of the world wouldn't enjoy seeing Bin Laden tortured for years for the attrocities he has commited.

For lesser crimes, prison is ok. But the bad ones need to go away for good. They can't be saved or helped.

But justice is not vengeance.

It's called cutting a cancer out of society. Make it know and less cancer grows. That's a statical fact.

Duper wrote:

But justice is not vengeance.

It's called cutting a cancer out of society. Make it know and less cancer grows. That's a statical fact.

Not really. It's more like cutting out some cancerous tissue except if we lock them up without possibility of release then, unlike in a cancer case, we will have sucessfully isolated the cancerous tissue from the rest of the body, but there is no guarantee new cancer won't develop.
In fact in the analogy of society being the 'body' you can guarantee more cancer will develop regardless of what you do with the cancerous parts you find.
Since on the whole we lose more than we gain from executions (wrongful execution of innocents vs. little to no deterrent factor) and we could lock them up indefinitely, by eliminating the automatic appeals and the other expenses involved in maintaining a separate death row wing of the prison it really doesn't make sense to have a death penalty.

If there really was a preventative component to it I'd go along but most murders aren't premeditated they are spontaneous so it's really more like revenge than it is managing a threat.

CDN_Merlin wrote:For people who commit horiffic crimes, like the one currently happening in BC (pig farmer), he deserves to die a painful horrible death.


And don't tell me 99% of the world wouldn't enjoy seeing Bin Laden tortured for years for the attrocities he has commited.

For lesser crimes, prison is ok. But the bad ones need to go away for good. They can't be saved or helped.

Agreed. The punishment needs to fit the crime. Quite frankly, like a previous poster mentioned, prison is a paradise not a punishment. Thanks to douchebags like the ACLU, its REQUIRED that prisoners have ★■◆● like cable tv, etc. I say its high time they start busting rocks with sledgehammers, working on chain gangs, etc.

CP should be legal everywhere, but they definatley need 100% certainty that the person did the crime.

And no CP for robbery or possesion of marjuana of course. Only for murder.

I have a personal interest in her and I want him dead as soon as possible. I want him cremated too so he won't be buried in the same earth as her.

Tisk tisk Bettina, this is Florida, we have the Kennedy Space Center, we can fly his dead self to the moon!

Although who would want to haul the body from Miami to Cocoa is another question...

I am against it in order to save me money as the taxpayer

Birdseye wrote:I am against it in order to save me money as the taxpayer

It costs less to send electricity to kill someone then to keep him alive for 30yrs in prison.

CDN_Merlin wrote:

Birdseye wrote:I am against it in order to save me money as the taxpayer

It costs less to send electricity to kill someone then to keep him alive for 30yrs in prison.

It costs more in other expenses to execute someone under our current system than it does to keep them locked up for life. Electricity is the cheapest thing on the list of expenses.

Death Penalty has Cost New Jersey Taxpayers $253 Million
A New Jersey Policy Perspectives report concluded that the state's death penalty has cost taxpayers $253 million since 1983, a figure that is over and above the costs that would have been incurred had the state utilized a sentence of life without parole instead of death. The study examined the costs of death penalty cases to prosecutor offices, public defender offices, courts, and correctional facilities. The report's authors said that the cost estimate is "very conservative" because other significant costs uniquely associated with the death penalty were not available. "From a strictly financial perspective, it is hard to reach a conclusion other than this: New Jersey taxpayers over the last 23 years have paid more than a quarter billion dollars on a capital punishment system that has executed no one," the report concluded. Since 1982, there have been 197 capital trials in New Jersey and 60 death sentences, of which 50 were reversed. There have been no executions, and 10 men are housed on the state's death row. Michael Murphy, former Morris County prosecutor, remarked: "If you were to ask me how $11 million a year could best protect the people of New Jersey, I would tell you by giving the law enforcement community more resources. I'm not interested in hypotheticals or abstractions, I want the tools for law enforcement to do their job, and $11 million can buy a lot of tools."

they shouldn't include the use of publicly owned vehicles as a \"cost of the\" death sentence.



My point? That the quote makes a statement and expects us to accept it. What was in that report and what were the exact expenses incurred over the last 23 years? Normal pay of salary and the like might have been added into that. 1/4 of a billion over 23 years??? I'm sure the state has spent a whole lot more money on things FAR less important that this mystical death sentence fund pool.

Let's keep things in prespective here.

ok duper, so because the state has spent more irresponsibly before, we should turn a blind eye here?

That is your perspective, or did I misunderstand you?

Birdseye wrote:ok duper, so because the state has spent more irresponsibly before, we should turn a blind eye here?

Oh heck no. I apologize for coming off half cocked there. I take no issue with Will. I just mis-trust what I read in print more and more these days. .. from BOTH "sides". Statistical data is all too often slanted and information omitted. Irresponsible spending should always be watched....and stopped. It's just that throwing a figure like a 1/4 of a billion dollars out like that for a states expense over 23 years (that's almost as long as I've been out of school) seems a bit absurd. I would be interested in seeing how those expenses actually stacked up. ...and I'm not asking Will to produce them. That would be silly and not really further the discussion.
(bad spelling here.. sorry.)

Bettina:

Not me. I want revenge. I want justice. I want him dead.

I'm sorry you feel that way Bettina. Negative emotions can come to rule your life without any reward. I'm not saying I don't understand because I do. I have felt anger and the desire for revenge on those that have wronged me but the truth is these feelings are a dead end. He will die. You will too. In the end it is not the manner of his death but the manner of your life that will matter to you.
Popular culture in the U.S. holds revenge as a holy principle. Movie after movie is based on some character who has been wronged or whose family is wronged and then the glory of his revenge as he butchers his tormentors. I guess it makes a good movie but in real life it seldom works that way. And what ever happened to the teachings of Jesus whom so many of the people in the U.S. claim as their saviour? It that what he taught? Is that how he wanted us all to live? Looks much more like the teachings of Mohamed to me. As for what the Buddha taught.. well it's not the way to nirvana if that is where you want to be.

I am against capital punishment.

Here's some of my rebuttals for a few of common reasons given by pro-CP people:

Deterrence

As someone else already pointed out, most people aren't going to plan killing someone. They'll just do it on the spur of the moment. There's not much you can do to help them reason while they're in that position, punishment or no.

Revenge

I'm quite curious how revenge is justified in any case. I've never been able to justify it. Many people (of many religions) love the idea of \"justice\" - eye for an eye - but I honestly can't reconcile revenge with moral action.

Protection of Society

This is one I almost would agree with, at least in principle. However, if you've got the guy in custody already, then how is he a continuing threat? If he's not a threat, then obviously there's no justification for killing him for \"protection.\"

Now, I know that guy in the OP is a total scumbag. That doesn't mean we just off him now that he's completely incapable of harming anyone now. If anyone's come up with a real reason for doing so, I'd like to hear it. Until then, I'm against killing even him.

The problem with our society is the punishment never fits the crime.

Some people get away with murder (literally).

If harsher sentences were given out for crimes, most people I bet would not even consider starting down that path.

Think of it this way, you steal, cut off your fingers. You rape, you get castrated, etc.

Would not take long before we'd realize it's not worth it. True, some would still do it but the majority wouldn't.

Is the majority killing people now? The first chart indicates that the murder rate is under 10 people per 100,000 for whites. Less than 1 in 10,000 is a fairly small number of people. This number is greater for blacks, but even that is nowhere near majority status.

Also, one of the circumstances under which people are likely to kill is while engaged in arguments. I venture to suggest that if you're angry enough to kill you're probably beyond the ability to reason with regard to your own future. \"Deterrence\" would most likely have little effect in these kind of situations.

And as I said previously, if you have the murderer in custody, he isn't capable of more harm. If he's not, then you've simply decided to kill him out of vengeance, not a desire to help anything. And, like I said, I have found zero justification for vengeance.

I used to be for capital punishment but not anymore. The event that pushed me the other way was the story of a man of African descent a few years back who was sentenced to life in prison and castration for a rape/murder. At the time ( 30 years or so back ) everyone knew he was guilty with no doubts but DNA and new testimony set the record straight and he was freed. Now this mans life is ruined and he is maimed. I mean his whole life is just shot because of over confidence in what people knew to be the truth at the time. Who knows what tomorrow will bring as to how accurate DAN is as the almighty catch all. I could only vote for the death penalty if there are eye witnesses who have no association with either party, and even thats a maybe because people lie, cheat and steal every day for money or even for less.

Samuel Dravis wrote:I am against capital punishment.

Here's some of my rebuttals for a few of common reasons given by pro-CP people:

Deterrence

As someone else already pointed out, most people aren't going to plan killing someone. They'll just do it on the spur of the moment. There's not much you can do to help them reason while they're in that position, punishment or no.

Revenge

I'm quite curious how revenge is justified in any case. I've never been able to justify it. Many people (of many religions) love the idea of "justice" - eye for an eye - but I honestly can't reconcile revenge with moral action.

Protection of Society

This is one I almost would agree with, at least in principle. However, if you've got the guy in custody already, then how is he a continuing threat? If he's not a threat, then obviously there's no justification for killing him for "protection."

Now, I know that guy in the OP is a total scumbag. That doesn't mean we just off him now that he's completely incapable of harming anyone now. If anyone's come up with a real reason for doing so, I'd like to hear it. Until then, I'm against killing even him.

I will give you a reason if you would answer this one question for me.

If someone came after you with the intent to kill you, would you kill him if it was the only way you could defend yourself?

For example, he was a big guy coming at you with a knife and you had a gun, would you kill him?

Bettina

Bet51987 - I think your confusing the right to \"self defense and the second amendment \" with capital punishment. It's one thing to defend yourself it's another to take a life X amount of time down the road for a murder conviction.

Murdering is by definition \"killing for lower morals\". And I'm 100% convinced that revengence is one of those lower morals.

Punishment of crimes should accomplish these goals:
- Prevent further victims
- Deterrence
- Rehabilitation

Of course Capital Punishment and lifelong imprisoning will fit these goals.

But Punishment should not be for revengence which will ease the personal motions of the victim's family.


Honestly, I rather see a murderer suffer 50+ year of imprisoning than give him the opportunity to be shot after a few years.

░

Merlin:

If harsher sentences were given out for crimes, most people I bet would not even consider starting down that path.

Harsh penalties exist in many countries such as China where embezzlement can get you a bullet in the back of the head.
Guess what? There are still lots of embezzlers.
Criminal types are not much given to considering the consequences of their actions. If they were they would likely be in a different line of work.
As for CP acting as a deterrent for murder... It hasn't worked in any country that has it. In the U.S. there are just as many if not more murders per capita as there are here in Canada where there hasn't been a hanging in 50 years.
And total sickos like Clifford Olsen and this creep in Florida don't give a damn about possible punishment. It is just not up for consideration. For some of the really messed up the possibility of punishment down the road suits their self-loathing just fine.

Bet51987 wrote:

Samuel Dravis wrote:I am against capital punishment.

Here's some of my rebuttals for a few of common reasons given by pro-CP people:
...
If anyone's come up with a real reason for doing so, I'd like to hear it. Until then, I'm against killing even him.

I will give you a reason if you would answer this one question for me.

If someone came after you with the intent to kill you, would you kill him if it was the only way you could defend yourself?

For example, he was a big guy coming at you with a knife and you had a gun, would you kill him?

Bettina

If (as I assume you meant to imply in your question) killing him is the only way to stop him, yes, although I would of course have looked for any alternative I could find, and I would hate to be forced to do it.

Now, my guess is that you plan to respond with an argument that says something like (paraphrased) "CP = this scenario" or "if you would protect yourself from a knife-wielding psycho, then you would support CP to protect yourself/family/society as well". The weakness of that argument has already been pointed out at least once by Samuel Dravis in his section "Protection of Society": with the exception of the few life-sentence murderers who are released (which is utterly inexcusable in my book), life imprisonment protects us just as well as CP.

Now, on the topic of deterrence as a stated reason for CP, I have to agree with those who point out that un-pre-meditated murders won't be affected. So what about pre-meditated murders (where the killer has a chance to ponder the consequences)? Think about it for a second... which one would scare you more, honestly: death, or spending the rest of your days imprisoned? I've visited prisons before, they're places I don't want to be. So for me, it's the latter... life imprisonment scares me more than the death penalty.

Bet51987 wrote:For example, he was a big guy coming at you with a knife and you had a gun, would you kill him?

If that were the only option I had for self-preservation. I would try to find an option that did not involve killing him, but if need be I would. However, like Cuda said:

Cuda68 wrote:Bet51987 - I think your confusing the right to "self defense and the second amendment " with capital punishment. It's one thing to defend yourself it's another to take a life X amount of time down the road for a murder conviction.

So you see, the death penalty is not about self-preservation or the protection of others. It must occur after the fact, and with the murderer in custody. This is inherently different than the situation you provided.

I still say work camps or some form there-of is the best option, need to make people more afraid to break the laws

Spooky wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:I will give you a reason if you would answer this one question for me.

If someone came after you with the intent to kill you, would you kill him if it was the only way you could defend yourself?

For example, he was a big guy coming at you with a knife and you had a gun, would you kill him?

Bettina

Were I a young man of strength and was very familiar with The Martial Arts I think there would be no problem in disarming this knife bearing person. Ultimately then, a charge of "assault with a deadly weapon" would be brought against this person. There are circumstances to consider in this argument for discussion sake that no time would be provided for if this case were an actual scene. In an actual scene reaction would have to be immediate and decisive.

To directly answer this question . . . . The knife bearing individual would be dead in an instant of gunshot wounds.

"Capital Punishment" for that individual would never be an option . . . . by his action this individual would have "opted out"

Spooky, thanks and this is not aimed at you.

This is where I'm coming from. Jessica Lunsford wasn't as smart as you, knew nothing of martial arts, and wasn't able to defend herself from being tortured for those three days because her boogeyman was bigger and stronger than she was. At 9 years old, she was a lightweight and with her hands tied with stereo wire, she had virtually no chance of escape. If she was like you, you can bet she would have killed him to get away. I know she would have tried.

So, I believe its up to the justice system to do what she was unable to.... to kill her attacker and get away. This also goes for that innocent Iraqi girl where some GI's broke into her home and carried out a planned gang rape while half a dozen others held her down, then when they were done they shot her dozens of times until she was dead. This was not part of war, this was rape and murder.

I'm very heavily driven by emotion, but its that trait which allows me to feel what Jessica or the Iraqi girl went through right down to the crying and the pain...all of it. Its hard to explain, but I really loved Jessica.

In this life there has to be a line that your not allowed to cross and killing innocent little girls and boys is the line that I've always drawn. Think of me as you wish, but those of you who want to save this person or those GI's from the death penalty have no idea just how precious life really is. You may think you do, but you don't. Don't try to interpret that because I know exactly what I just said. My empathy lies solely with Jessica and not with those who wish to protect child killers.

If the law doesn't carry out what she should have been allowed to do then its failed her and all the victims like her.

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:If the law doesn't carry out what she should have been allowed to do then its failed her and all the victims like her.

Bettina

The problem is the law can never "do what she should have been allowed to do" because you can't defend her from the attack after the fact.
Whether or not the attacker dies now it does nothing to defend her.
And since it doesn't necessarily defend anyone else we have to consider, does it really serve us at all to kill him now?

░

The early settlers also quickly realized that the over zealous lawmen and mob rule was creating as much suffering and death as it was preventing and they civilized their sheriffs and marshals by weeding out the type that thought they were dealing out ultimate justice. In that vein of wisdom I'd go along with weeding out anyone who wants to have me live under the fire and brimstone - old testament, rule-of-gods-law-as-interpreted-by-[whoever]!

My theory on law is, if you can't make a rationale argument for something without invoking the supernatural or your favorite supreme being then you need to go back and re-think your position. So if you want me to not murder then give a mortals reasoning line of thought to back it up, if god happens to agree with that position then good on him....

░

To my knowledge molesting of little children was never mentioned. It is fair to say that the heinous nature of this was not even thought of

Just because it's not mentioned doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Crime rates are rising every year. The murders are becoming more and more grotesque and bizarre. Children are becoming the targets now also.

With the advent of television, we are bombarded with the attrocities of mankind. It makes me sick seeing what happens in today's times that most times I don't watch the news.

░