The Chair
Moderators: Tunnelcat, Jeff250
The Chair
I think we should still use the electric chair instead of "lethal injection." What do you guys think?
-
SSC BlueFlames
- DBB Ace
- Posts: 144
- Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2001 2:01 am
- Location: Knoxville, TN
You'll find some interesting stuff if you look through state laws about the death penalty. There's still one or two states that allow hanging and lethal injection. Texas only got rid of the firing squad a few years ago. I don't remember if Florida is still using the infamous "Sparky" or if they went over to lethal injections too...
Personally, I prefer the notion of decapitations. Let the criminal see his headless corpse before facing the afterlife.
The problems with the various forms of death penalty besides lethal injection is that there's a chance of them going wrong and then falling under "cruel and unusual punishment." "Sparky" got its nickname when it started setting people on fire rather than shutting down their nervous system. What a way to go from quite possibly the least painful form of death to the most painful form. Hangings, though available, typically aren't used because there were many cases of people dropping, and instead of having their neck snapped, they had their airway cut off and suffocated over the course of several minutes. Various forms of decapitation were given up because...well...they didn't always work. For example, there were cases in Britain in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries where traitors were decapitated by an axeman, only the axeman was a rookie and had a hard time hitting the neck. One case in particular took six swings to kill the criminal, with each swing taking part of the head off, but not all of it. I think the problem with firing squads is fairly obvious.
Lethal injection is a little more of a sure-fire approach to killing someone. It doesn't rely on someone's aim, or the fit of a noose, or the quality of the electric grid (which was recently demonstrated to be pretty crappy in the northeast US). All that has to be done is give someone a calculated dose of a drug. If the executioner miscalculates too high, the criminal dies the same way as if he was spot-on. Too low, and the mistake just gets corrected before the victim wakes up, though I would think they aim for an overdose every time.
What's so bad about "cruel and unusual punishment"? Well, let's forget that the United States Bill of Rights bans it for a minute, because their are other countries that don't have to abide by it. If the western world brought back torture chambers and all the previously abandoned forms of death penalty for capital offenders, how would the general population feel about the death penalty? Considering how wishy-washy an issue it tends to be with voters when just lethal injections are being used, they'd be completely turned off of capital punishment by going back to older means. Personally, I'd rather see violent criminals killed, even if the means is too merciful, than know that they're sucking $30,000 per year from the state/national budget for the rest of their natural lives in the prison system. That said, I would rather stick with lethal injection than be the next nation to ban the death penalty altogether.
Personally, I prefer the notion of decapitations. Let the criminal see his headless corpse before facing the afterlife.
The problems with the various forms of death penalty besides lethal injection is that there's a chance of them going wrong and then falling under "cruel and unusual punishment." "Sparky" got its nickname when it started setting people on fire rather than shutting down their nervous system. What a way to go from quite possibly the least painful form of death to the most painful form. Hangings, though available, typically aren't used because there were many cases of people dropping, and instead of having their neck snapped, they had their airway cut off and suffocated over the course of several minutes. Various forms of decapitation were given up because...well...they didn't always work. For example, there were cases in Britain in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries where traitors were decapitated by an axeman, only the axeman was a rookie and had a hard time hitting the neck. One case in particular took six swings to kill the criminal, with each swing taking part of the head off, but not all of it. I think the problem with firing squads is fairly obvious.
Lethal injection is a little more of a sure-fire approach to killing someone. It doesn't rely on someone's aim, or the fit of a noose, or the quality of the electric grid (which was recently demonstrated to be pretty crappy in the northeast US). All that has to be done is give someone a calculated dose of a drug. If the executioner miscalculates too high, the criminal dies the same way as if he was spot-on. Too low, and the mistake just gets corrected before the victim wakes up, though I would think they aim for an overdose every time.
What's so bad about "cruel and unusual punishment"? Well, let's forget that the United States Bill of Rights bans it for a minute, because their are other countries that don't have to abide by it. If the western world brought back torture chambers and all the previously abandoned forms of death penalty for capital offenders, how would the general population feel about the death penalty? Considering how wishy-washy an issue it tends to be with voters when just lethal injections are being used, they'd be completely turned off of capital punishment by going back to older means. Personally, I'd rather see violent criminals killed, even if the means is too merciful, than know that they're sucking $30,000 per year from the state/national budget for the rest of their natural lives in the prison system. That said, I would rather stick with lethal injection than be the next nation to ban the death penalty altogether.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Personally, I'd rather see violent criminals killed, even if the means is too merciful, than know that they're sucking $30,000 per year from the state/national budget for the rest of their natural lives in the prison system. That said, I would rather stick with lethal injection than be the next nation to ban the death penalty altogether.
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Site your source. Also compare it to how much it costs to execute someone.
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Site your source. Also compare it to how much it costs to execute someone.
You neglect, though, that the cost of the criminals appealing the verdict repeatedly often means it costs more to enforce the death penalty than it does to support them for their entire life.
Personally, I think violent criminals who don't get the death penalty should face a life sentence that makes them wish they would have. Go back to the days of hard labor and chiseling rocks, instead of PlayStations and DVD entertainment systems. Even Charles Manson has his own web site, isn't that insane?
As for "cruel and unusual punishment," I think certain criminals upon committing their heinous acts surrendered whatever so-called freedoms they once had. Just think of how the victims died and it's pretty easy to stop caring about how the criminal dies, or if it feels pain.
Personally, I think violent criminals who don't get the death penalty should face a life sentence that makes them wish they would have. Go back to the days of hard labor and chiseling rocks, instead of PlayStations and DVD entertainment systems. Even Charles Manson has his own web site, isn't that insane?
As for "cruel and unusual punishment," I think certain criminals upon committing their heinous acts surrendered whatever so-called freedoms they once had. Just think of how the victims died and it's pretty easy to stop caring about how the criminal dies, or if it feels pain.
After watching the movie "Dead Man Walking," which is based on the true story of a man on death row, I can't say that I'm fond of the death penalty by any means. Go out and rent this movie; it might change the way you think.
I've also heard statistics from several sources that state that it is much more expensive overall to put a convict to death than to keep them alive for their entire life. All of those appeals, legal fees, etc. really add up.
I've also heard statistics from several sources that state that it is much more expensive overall to put a convict to death than to keep them alive for their entire life. All of those appeals, legal fees, etc. really add up.
Ah yes, the irony that our own form of justice prevents itself from actually carrying out the justice to be served. If more people were to see actual executions from before the electric chair, they'd have a better respect for the law if those means of execution were still available.
Public hangings and be-headings were meant to show the masses that "if you break the law, this is what happens to you". How expensive is it to take a guy convicted of multiple murders sentenced to death out to a facility at the court house and shoot him point blank in the skull. If he is still alive, you shoot him some more until he is dead. I have no sympathy for these people whatsoever.
Top Gun, those movies are almost as bad as the people they're based on. I don't need a movie trying to make me feel guilty because a guy who was sentenced to death for a crime that warranted the sentence feels guilty about what hes done. He SHOULD feel guilty, atleast that means hes somewhat normal before he finally gets put down. The thought that anyone could take a human life for any reason other then self preservation is beyond me.
These dumbasses that shoot somebody and kill them because they said something they didn't like are the ones that get my official "Way to go RETARD" award and should get drilled between the eyes as soon as they're sentenced. Rapists who murder their victims *BLAM*, serial killers *BLAM*, just plain ol murderers *BLAM*, they do something that warrants the death penalty, they go bye bye.
If it costs to much damn money to do it, I'll drive the hell out to where they need me and shoot them myself, all the gov/state has to do is pay me for gas, food, lodging & ammunition expenses. I might even miss on the first shot on purpose just to fack around with the sobs.
If anything I'd maybe allow a couple weeks to prove they're innocent or try to get a reduced sentence Not this BS where its taking people like 20 years to finally be executed. You already raped the tax payers over that timespan when they should have been iced years ago, wheres the reimbursement? oh, er, uh.....nope, don't get squat, just a dead criminal that was long overdue and a couple thousand other whackjobs that sprung up while they were sitting in prison that we keep having to pay for.
oh, and after I shot them I'd turn and shoot their lawyer(s). Any ******* who defended a convicted criminal aught to be shot with them
Public hangings and be-headings were meant to show the masses that "if you break the law, this is what happens to you". How expensive is it to take a guy convicted of multiple murders sentenced to death out to a facility at the court house and shoot him point blank in the skull. If he is still alive, you shoot him some more until he is dead. I have no sympathy for these people whatsoever.
Top Gun, those movies are almost as bad as the people they're based on. I don't need a movie trying to make me feel guilty because a guy who was sentenced to death for a crime that warranted the sentence feels guilty about what hes done. He SHOULD feel guilty, atleast that means hes somewhat normal before he finally gets put down. The thought that anyone could take a human life for any reason other then self preservation is beyond me.
These dumbasses that shoot somebody and kill them because they said something they didn't like are the ones that get my official "Way to go RETARD" award and should get drilled between the eyes as soon as they're sentenced. Rapists who murder their victims *BLAM*, serial killers *BLAM*, just plain ol murderers *BLAM*, they do something that warrants the death penalty, they go bye bye.
If it costs to much damn money to do it, I'll drive the hell out to where they need me and shoot them myself, all the gov/state has to do is pay me for gas, food, lodging & ammunition expenses. I might even miss on the first shot on purpose just to fack around with the sobs.
If anything I'd maybe allow a couple weeks to prove they're innocent or try to get a reduced sentence
Not this BS where its taking people like 20 years to finally be executed. You already raped the tax payers over that timespan when they should have been iced years ago, wheres the reimbursement? oh, er, uh.....nope, don't get squat, just a dead criminal that was long overdue and a couple thousand other whackjobs that sprung up while they were sitting in prison that we keep having to pay for.oh, and after I shot them I'd turn and shoot their lawyer(s). Any ******* who defended a convicted criminal aught to be shot with them
What if the person convicted is innocent?
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/c ... /index.htm
http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/wrong/wrong.html
Do a mile in this dude's shoes;
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/c ... rth_MD.htm
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/c ... /index.htm
http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/wrong/wrong.html
Do a mile in this dude's shoes;
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/c ... rth_MD.htm
Thats the whole point. Make damn sure the people are innocent and/or guilty before coming to a verdict. The problem with our judicial system is you can pretty much make anyone look guilty of a crime, all you have to do as a prosecutor is make the jury BELIEVE that he/she is guilty.
Especially in Bloodworth's case where the prosecution withheld evidence which would have exonerated him right on the spot for the most part. That isn't right, it isn't right that lawyers treat trials like a win/loss statistical rating just like in sports. It isn't a game when you're dealing with serious matters in human lives.
You look back on a lot of cases though, that were that way, and DNA testing wasn't even around or was in the very early stages of use. DNA testing has come a LONG way even since some of the later exonerations from like 1999.
Especially in Bloodworth's case where the prosecution withheld evidence which would have exonerated him right on the spot for the most part. That isn't right, it isn't right that lawyers treat trials like a win/loss statistical rating just like in sports. It isn't a game when you're dealing with serious matters in human lives.
You look back on a lot of cases though, that were that way, and DNA testing wasn't even around or was in the very early stages of use. DNA testing has come a LONG way even since some of the later exonerations from like 1999.
heh<font face="Arial" size="3">If anything I'd maybe allow a couple weeks to prove they're innocent or try to get a reduced sentence ....Thats the whole point. Make damn sure the people are innocent and/or guilty before coming to a verdict.</font>
1. The system is not perfect and never will be. So why do we risk people's lives on it?
2. It has never been shown to be a deterrent.
"Public hangings and be-headings were meant to show the masses that "if you break the law, this is what happens to you."
I'm pretty sure if you go up to the average person on the street and ask them what happens to you when you kill someone else, they can tell you. Again, it has never been shown to be a deterrent. We kill people to show that killing people is wrong.
3. The system is proven to be racist. Blacks are way more likely then whites to be executed, especially if the victim is of the opposite race. It also greatly favors the rich.
4. It costs more money to kill someone then keep them alive.
5. It does not bring the victim back to life.
I think if you asked most people what would happen if you killed somebody they would tell you that you'd probably get a couple life sentences or the death penalty, in which case it might take years for you to finally be executed. Lets take into consideration that the average joe hasn't been to a public execution in their entire lives.
I don't think anybody is alive today thats been to a "public" execution sanctioned by a United State. I'm not talking viewing a lethal injection either, or even a guy frying on the chair or being hung. That wasn't what I was refering to, I mean something that would be so horrible it would leave a lasting impression on you for the rest of your life, which is the point.
Firing Squad, decapitations, etc...etc...
Lets get something straight though. It doesn't cost more money to execute somebody then to keep them alive for a life sentence. Not when you add up all those serving life sentences versus those that are sitting waiting to be put out. It isn't like the guys sitting in prison got nothing to do all day and just sit in a cell 24/7 twiddling their thumbs. They have certain liberties that I think are a load of crap, considering they're supposed to be in there being punished for a heinous crime or crimes.
Also, sure the judicial system is racially biased. What do you want them to do? Impliment affirmative action for whites in the prison systems just so the color differential balances out? A lot of guys being put in prison, regardless of ethnicity deserve to be there. Those that don't are just a small percentage of the overall picture. They're not the majority, they're the minority (no pun intended).
Our Judicial system is VERY far from being perfect. It will never be perfect ever, but as we advance it will be more and more less likely of there being a chance that people wrongly accused of crimes punishable by death get sentenced to be executed, regardless, once again, of color. The biggest load of crap I keep hearing is "oh, there are too many african americans in prison, the judicial system is racist, us white people are holding them down" old activist rhetoric being preached by the white people now.
Yes, the system isn't fair, I realize that. Just don't believe for a second that most of the people there don't deserve to be there at all.
I don't think anybody is alive today thats been to a "public" execution sanctioned by a United State. I'm not talking viewing a lethal injection either, or even a guy frying on the chair or being hung. That wasn't what I was refering to, I mean something that would be so horrible it would leave a lasting impression on you for the rest of your life, which is the point.
Firing Squad, decapitations, etc...etc...
Lets get something straight though. It doesn't cost more money to execute somebody then to keep them alive for a life sentence. Not when you add up all those serving life sentences versus those that are sitting waiting to be put out. It isn't like the guys sitting in prison got nothing to do all day and just sit in a cell 24/7 twiddling their thumbs. They have certain liberties that I think are a load of crap, considering they're supposed to be in there being punished for a heinous crime or crimes.
Also, sure the judicial system is racially biased. What do you want them to do? Impliment affirmative action for whites in the prison systems just so the color differential balances out? A lot of guys being put in prison, regardless of ethnicity deserve to be there. Those that don't are just a small percentage of the overall picture. They're not the majority, they're the minority (no pun intended).
Our Judicial system is VERY far from being perfect. It will never be perfect ever, but as we advance it will be more and more less likely of there being a chance that people wrongly accused of crimes punishable by death get sentenced to be executed, regardless, once again, of color. The biggest load of crap I keep hearing is "oh, there are too many african americans in prison, the judicial system is racist, us white people are holding them down" old activist rhetoric being preached by the white people now.
Yes, the system isn't fair, I realize that. Just don't believe for a second that most of the people there don't deserve to be there at all.
A friend of mine once visited Virgin Gorda, an island in the Virgin Islands. He found that in the British Virgin Islands public hanging was still practiced, and the crime rate was much lower there than in the US Virgin Islands where public hanging was not practiced.<font face="Arial" size="3">2. It has never been shown to be a deterrent. -Gooberman</font>
If punishment is proven to be swift and deliberate, it is a deterrent to crime. Why? Because all those who commit the crimes are immediately punished (and if needed, executed). Which leaves the law-abiding to consider the consequences, and perhaps think twice before taking that misstep into crime.
The death penalty removes the bruden from society of supporting indiviuals who have proven themselves to be unworthy of being a part of society.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Shoku:
<b> He found that in the British Virgin Islands public hanging was still practiced, and the crime rate was much lower there than in the US Virgin Islands where public hanging was not practiced.
..
The death penalty removes the bruden from society of supporting indiviuals who have proven themselves to be unworthy of being a part of society. </b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
1) Good job extrapolating data from a whopping TWO data points
2) That point may be good, but there are a whole lot of legal fees associated with killing somebody. Either way, keeping somebody in jail and putting them to death are both really freakin' expensive, and I would much rather put more weight on other issues.
What issues you may ask? I dunno, death being both cruel and unusual punishment. The possibility of killing innocents. The fact that money makes such a huge issue regarding convictions.
<b> He found that in the British Virgin Islands public hanging was still practiced, and the crime rate was much lower there than in the US Virgin Islands where public hanging was not practiced.
..
The death penalty removes the bruden from society of supporting indiviuals who have proven themselves to be unworthy of being a part of society. </b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
1) Good job extrapolating data from a whopping TWO data points
2) That point may be good, but there are a whole lot of legal fees associated with killing somebody. Either way, keeping somebody in jail and putting them to death are both really freakin' expensive, and I would much rather put more weight on other issues.
What issues you may ask? I dunno, death being both cruel and unusual punishment. The possibility of killing innocents. The fact that money makes such a huge issue regarding convictions.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">
Good job extrapolating data from a whopping TWO data points -Tetrad</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Regarding those data points - this is a BB, not a collage term paper.
If the government decided to take firmer control of things, and took all convicted murderers, (those who had an unmistakable amount of evidence against them, like DNA, fingerprints, body fluids, eyewitnesses, etc., or those who admitted their crimes), and killed them say, next Tuesday. And then a statement was made that all such evil-doers would find the same fate without regret, I think any furture convicted murders would probably deserve their punishment, because the average criminal (robbers, drug dealers, etc) would make very sure to avoid such capital crimes like murder.
Good job extrapolating data from a whopping TWO data points -Tetrad</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Regarding those data points - this is a BB, not a collage term paper.
Capital crimes deserve capital punishment.<font face="Arial" size="3">. . . death being both cruel and unusual punishment. -Tetrad</font>
If the government decided to take firmer control of things, and took all convicted murderers, (those who had an unmistakable amount of evidence against them, like DNA, fingerprints, body fluids, eyewitnesses, etc., or those who admitted their crimes), and killed them say, next Tuesday. And then a statement was made that all such evil-doers would find the same fate without regret, I think any furture convicted murders would probably deserve their punishment, because the average criminal (robbers, drug dealers, etc) would make very sure to avoid such capital crimes like murder.
-
Will Robinson
- DBB Grand Master
- Posts: 10135
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2000 3:01 am
It's not much of a deterent because most murders are not premeditated, so the killer doesn't have the opportunity to think "..yea, but then they'll kill me so I better not!"
Usually it's a crime of passion or an unplanned by-product of an assault, robbery, etc.
It only works as a deterent if the authorites are so repressive that a persons every move is in fear of a thug-like policeman beating on them.
There should be two kinds of prisoners, those who are working to change and earn a release and those who go away and never come back.
If you are convicted of murder you go away, no chance to get out. That leaves the wrongly convicted a chance to be discovered, removes the cost of appeals, death row etc.
There would be as much deterence in punks on the street knowing that their buddy who got busted for murder was gone and no-one was ever going to see him again as there is in the current system.
When you go to prison you start out in "Condition-1": a 4 x 8 concrete box where you stay 24/7 (except when working) where you get water and food and a toilet.
From there you can earn additional privilages by hard work, drug rehab, joining education classes etc.
Privilages like: toilet paper, sunshine, better food, exercise, etc....all the way up to removal from Condition-1 into Condition-2: visitation, outdoor exercise, job training, higher education, etc.
In all instances you must work and pay as much of your own way as possible ie; why have Nike use chinese slave labor when San Quentin prison labor can be had just as cheap (maybe a little government tax code incentive at work here to intice the company).
Usually it's a crime of passion or an unplanned by-product of an assault, robbery, etc.
It only works as a deterent if the authorites are so repressive that a persons every move is in fear of a thug-like policeman beating on them.
There should be two kinds of prisoners, those who are working to change and earn a release and those who go away and never come back.
If you are convicted of murder you go away, no chance to get out. That leaves the wrongly convicted a chance to be discovered, removes the cost of appeals, death row etc.
There would be as much deterence in punks on the street knowing that their buddy who got busted for murder was gone and no-one was ever going to see him again as there is in the current system.
When you go to prison you start out in "Condition-1": a 4 x 8 concrete box where you stay 24/7 (except when working) where you get water and food and a toilet.
From there you can earn additional privilages by hard work, drug rehab, joining education classes etc.
Privilages like: toilet paper, sunshine, better food, exercise, etc....all the way up to removal from Condition-1 into Condition-2: visitation, outdoor exercise, job training, higher education, etc.
In all instances you must work and pay as much of your own way as possible ie; why have Nike use chinese slave labor when San Quentin prison labor can be had just as cheap (maybe a little government tax code incentive at work here to intice the company).
Loth, mercy shouldn't be given to those who show no mercy. The dead victims are a testament to that. We have a unfortunate knack in this country of forgetting about the people that were killed and making the people who killed them out to be the victims.
Don't paint me out to be the bad guy here. I realize these people have families of their own and people who care about them as well, but you know what, that should have been a HUGE reason NOT to do something of this nature in the first place.
If you killed a couple people over something stupid then regret it later after you've already been sentenced to death, you should have thought about it more clearly beforehand. I don't tolerate the guilt trip that is enforced on to the public by the media or other outlets that tries to gain sympathy for the criminals.
We're talking about cold killers here. Whatever conscience they develop after the fact is irrelevant to me. Most people have that conscience WAY before anything of this nature can ever take place.
Eye for an Eye....
Anyways, it is besides the point. The death penalty is usually reserved for mass murderers or brutal killers. The average murder cases or rape/murder cases end up with multiple life sentences anymore.
Don't paint me out to be the bad guy here. I realize these people have families of their own and people who care about them as well, but you know what, that should have been a HUGE reason NOT to do something of this nature in the first place.
If you killed a couple people over something stupid then regret it later after you've already been sentenced to death, you should have thought about it more clearly beforehand. I don't tolerate the guilt trip that is enforced on to the public by the media or other outlets that tries to gain sympathy for the criminals.
We're talking about cold killers here. Whatever conscience they develop after the fact is irrelevant to me. Most people have that conscience WAY before anything of this nature can ever take place.
Eye for an Eye....
Anyways, it is besides the point. The death penalty is usually reserved for mass murderers or brutal killers. The average murder cases or rape/murder cases end up with multiple life sentences anymore.
What benefit does keeping a convicted murderer/child molester/rapist in prison for life without possibility of parole serve? We law-abiding taxpayers are just paying through the nose so that someone can sit and rot in a jail cell all day. They might as well be dead; they're dead to those on the outside.
Capital punishment will never work as a deterrent though. Everyone who does something of the magnitude for which capital punishment is an option is so confident in their ability to pull it off that they don't even stop to consider the ramifications of if they're found guilty. (There's a distinction in the law between crimes of passion and premeditation, a distinction that I'm very glad we have.)
One of the problems with the death penalty is the whole issue of "what if he's found innocent afterwards?" For one thing, that didn't stop governments from hanging people for centuries. But on a more important note, if a group of twelve people can sit in a room and decide that someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and then decide unanimously that said person deserves to die, I think there's a pretty good chance that the case is solid.
But what about those cases where people are found innocent after they've already been sentenced and/or executed? Unfortunately, that's going to happen. I honestly think that prosecutors should be held MUCH more accountable for such gaffes. If the DA puts someone to death and evidence emerges that was witheld by the prosecution or even just overlooked, the DA should be put on trial for murder (or an equivalent penalty for such a purpose). Might actually bring the burden of proof back to the prosecution.
Capital punishment will never work as a deterrent though. Everyone who does something of the magnitude for which capital punishment is an option is so confident in their ability to pull it off that they don't even stop to consider the ramifications of if they're found guilty. (There's a distinction in the law between crimes of passion and premeditation, a distinction that I'm very glad we have.)
One of the problems with the death penalty is the whole issue of "what if he's found innocent afterwards?" For one thing, that didn't stop governments from hanging people for centuries. But on a more important note, if a group of twelve people can sit in a room and decide that someone is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and then decide unanimously that said person deserves to die, I think there's a pretty good chance that the case is solid.
But what about those cases where people are found innocent after they've already been sentenced and/or executed? Unfortunately, that's going to happen. I honestly think that prosecutors should be held MUCH more accountable for such gaffes. If the DA puts someone to death and evidence emerges that was witheld by the prosecution or even just overlooked, the DA should be put on trial for murder (or an equivalent penalty for such a purpose). Might actually bring the burden of proof back to the prosecution.
Thats not true at all. I actually know a woman whose father was executed. It scared her for life. While Im sure she would still be scared, I don't think it would be as bad if she could go visit him today.<font face="Arial" size="3">They might as well be dead; they're dead to those on the outside.</font>
She has always been why I have been so adamantly against the death penalty. By taking someoneâ??s life you do create more innocent victims.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by DCrazy:
What benefit does keeping a convicted murderer/child molester/rapist in prison for life without possibility of parole serve?</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
To keep society safe. To me, prison isn't about punishment, it's about removing those who cannot function in society.
What benefit does keeping a convicted murderer/child molester/rapist in prison for life without possibility of parole serve?</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
To keep society safe. To me, prison isn't about punishment, it's about removing those who cannot function in society.
You might as well just remove the death penalty altogether. No DA is going to push for the death penalty with that possiblity hanging over their heads.<font face="Arial" size="3"> I honestly think that prosecutors should be held MUCH more accountable for such gaffes. If the DA puts someone to death and evidence emerges that was witheld by the prosecution or even just overlooked, the DA should be put on trial for murder (or an equivalent penalty for such a purpose). Might actually bring the burden of proof back to the prosecution.</font>
-
Lothar
- DBB Ghost Admin
- Posts: 12133
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
- Location: I'm so glad to be home
- Contact:
Tyr, you have heard it said "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", but I tell you, do not resist an evil person. As long as you're going to try to use a Bible quote, try to understand the purpose of the thing you quoted. Here's something you should realize: Jesus' words in Matthew 5 are all about going above and beyond what the law required -- so "do not resist an evil person" is above and beyond "an eye for an eye". The only way that makes sense is if "an eye for an eye" was a LIMITATION (ie, an eye for an eye is the maximum) rather than a POLICY (ie, an eye for an eye is the norm). Recall that in other ancient societies, if you poked out someone's eye, depending on your social status you might face the death penalty.
Now, as for not showing mercy to those who showed no mercy... that's a morally deficient position. If you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you?
Don't try to play like I'm forgetting the victims and making the murderer out to be some poor victim, or like I'm some poor sap who's listened to the media's perspective on this and gotten my heartstrings pulled all wrong. I just realize that both the victim and the killer are human. When my uncle Rudy killed my aunt Dorothy, he showed no mercy -- but I still show mercy to him. I don't forget he killed aunt Dorothy, I just know that even so, he's still human, and there's no sense in killing him to satisfy some immature craving for vengeance. There's also no sense in saying "hey man, I know you show remorse now, but screw you, we're killing you anyway. You should've thought about this sooner." It's just... well... senseless.
Now, as for not showing mercy to those who showed no mercy... that's a morally deficient position. If you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you?
Don't try to play like I'm forgetting the victims and making the murderer out to be some poor victim, or like I'm some poor sap who's listened to the media's perspective on this and gotten my heartstrings pulled all wrong. I just realize that both the victim and the killer are human. When my uncle Rudy killed my aunt Dorothy, he showed no mercy -- but I still show mercy to him. I don't forget he killed aunt Dorothy, I just know that even so, he's still human, and there's no sense in killing him to satisfy some immature craving for vengeance. There's also no sense in saying "hey man, I know you show remorse now, but screw you, we're killing you anyway. You should've thought about this sooner." It's just... well... senseless.
To keep society safe. To me, prison isn't about punishment, it's about removing those who cannot function in society. --Tetrad
Prison should be about punishment, but that's another point... there's no use punishing someone if there's no chance for that punishment to be of any good and result in a person fit for society. But aside from that, using your logic "removing those who cannot function in society" would be most efficiently served by dropping the axe, pulling the 10kV switch, or sticking the needle in the arm. Besides, with lethal injections, the point is clear: not to punish the perpetrator through a painful death, but instead to remove him/her from society. That's why they're given knockout drugs.
You might as well just remove the death penalty altogether. No DA is going to push for the death penalty with that possiblity hanging over their heads. --Tetrad
True, lawyers might be a bit more reserved when it comes to seeking the death penalty, but that's part of my aim. To limit it to cases where it's warranted, and only when it's undeniably proveable. Maybe charging the prosecutor with murder isn't the right thing to do if it was a genuine reason (i.e. evidence that wasn't uncovered until well after the trial or execution), but if it is discovered that the prosecution witheld evidence from the defense, or the police witheld evidence from either side, someone's gotta be held responsible for possibly wrongly sentencing someone to die. That's where my murder charge comes in. On second thought, maybe charging with manslaughter is a better idea.
Tyr, you have heard it said "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", but I tell you, do not resist an evil person. --Lothar
Hehe, whipping out the Bible quotes. One testament vehemently supports the eye-for-an-eye agenda, the other professes the "morally superior" option of granting mercy. They're products of different times intended to serve the contemporary people, and that's a statement with which anyone who has studied the Bible in any more depth than Sunday-school memorization can agree. I don't think that one can fall back on scripture for a matter such as this, but instead must rely on modern, rational thought. But the Bible is nice for guidance and alternative viewpoints.
Prison should be about punishment, but that's another point... there's no use punishing someone if there's no chance for that punishment to be of any good and result in a person fit for society. But aside from that, using your logic "removing those who cannot function in society" would be most efficiently served by dropping the axe, pulling the 10kV switch, or sticking the needle in the arm. Besides, with lethal injections, the point is clear: not to punish the perpetrator through a painful death, but instead to remove him/her from society. That's why they're given knockout drugs.
You might as well just remove the death penalty altogether. No DA is going to push for the death penalty with that possiblity hanging over their heads. --Tetrad
True, lawyers might be a bit more reserved when it comes to seeking the death penalty, but that's part of my aim. To limit it to cases where it's warranted, and only when it's undeniably proveable. Maybe charging the prosecutor with murder isn't the right thing to do if it was a genuine reason (i.e. evidence that wasn't uncovered until well after the trial or execution), but if it is discovered that the prosecution witheld evidence from the defense, or the police witheld evidence from either side, someone's gotta be held responsible for possibly wrongly sentencing someone to die. That's where my murder charge comes in. On second thought, maybe charging with manslaughter is a better idea.
Tyr, you have heard it said "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", but I tell you, do not resist an evil person. --Lothar
Hehe, whipping out the Bible quotes.
One testament vehemently supports the eye-for-an-eye agenda, the other professes the "morally superior" option of granting mercy. They're products of different times intended to serve the contemporary people, and that's a statement with which anyone who has studied the Bible in any more depth than Sunday-school memorization can agree. I don't think that one can fall back on scripture for a matter such as this, but instead must rely on modern, rational thought. But the Bible is nice for guidance and alternative viewpoints.I don't think the judicial system is good enough to worry about efficiency in that particular regard. There have been way too many cases of people wrongfully put to death for me to sit back and say that "if he was convicted for serious crime X, he shoudl be put to death".
Sure it's easy to say that oh such-and-such is well known for killing so many people, and he deserves to die. I don't necessarily disagree with the extreme cases as far as the death penalty is concerned, but I don't see losing that as big of a deal as losing the ability to get a second chance if someone was wrongly accused.
Or something to that effect.
Sure it's easy to say that oh such-and-such is well known for killing so many people, and he deserves to die. I don't necessarily disagree with the extreme cases as far as the death penalty is concerned, but I don't see losing that as big of a deal as losing the ability to get a second chance if someone was wrongly accused.
Or something to that effect.
Lothar, I could say your rationale voting for Bush based just on his pro-life policy and nothing more is senseless too, but that is a whole different can of worms
This is pointless with you though because you and I are on completely different ends of the spectrum. You could take almost any bible quote anyways and toss in a double meaning or more, its called interpretation.
I interpret "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" to mean exactly how it is written. You take something from someone and something equal should be taken from you. In this case, we're talking about life. Make no mistake, sitting in prison is still living, you may not be free, but you're alive and taken care of unless you get yourself into trouble.
While the person you killed is decomposing in a box. Fare trade? Newp, I think not.
How about this one..."Do unto others as you would have others do unto you". Know what this one means to me? It means if you kill people then people have the right to kill you as payment for something that was taken away. If you don't agree with that, then you have a double standard because it applies to everything. Be nice to people and you will be rewarded by kindness etc...etc...
It's a two way street, not a one way. You call it a immature craving for vengeance. I call it justice and a fair trade for something like taking a persons life for no justifiable reason.
This doesn't say I'm not charitable. I give things out all the time expecting nothing in return. You're less likely to get anything if your a complete ******* about things though, but that is my choice to make. You're hardly in a position to lecture me on whether my morals are right or wrong because that matter is completely up to me and me alone. Moral deficiency....I'd like to think my morals are quite sound thank you very much
Besides, you don't know me in person, so regardless of how much you observe of me here on the DBB and as long as we've known eachother on Kali, this hardly constitutes as overwhelming information in judgement of my character.
Tet, I think with the advances of DNA testing, its a pretty safe bet that the vast majority of people convicted of capital crimes and sentenced to death are guilty.
This is pointless with you though because you and I are on completely different ends of the spectrum. You could take almost any bible quote anyways and toss in a double meaning or more, its called interpretation.
I interpret "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" to mean exactly how it is written. You take something from someone and something equal should be taken from you. In this case, we're talking about life. Make no mistake, sitting in prison is still living, you may not be free, but you're alive and taken care of unless you get yourself into trouble.
While the person you killed is decomposing in a box. Fare trade? Newp, I think not.
How about this one..."Do unto others as you would have others do unto you". Know what this one means to me? It means if you kill people then people have the right to kill you as payment for something that was taken away. If you don't agree with that, then you have a double standard because it applies to everything. Be nice to people and you will be rewarded by kindness etc...etc...
It's a two way street, not a one way. You call it a immature craving for vengeance. I call it justice and a fair trade for something like taking a persons life for no justifiable reason.
For starters you are rewarded for kindness by being kind, as I already mentioned above. So, those that do good to me are people that I've done good to as well. Again, it works both ways. Whoever initiated the whole thing is pointless because its one big cycle anyways. What it shows to me is a person who is genuinely kind and appreciates the gifts, however unnecessary they might be, that he receives and reciprocates the gestures.<font face="Arial" size="3">Now, as for not showing mercy to those who showed no mercy... that's a morally deficient position. If you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? - Lothar</font>
This doesn't say I'm not charitable. I give things out all the time expecting nothing in return. You're less likely to get anything if your a complete ******* about things though, but that is my choice to make. You're hardly in a position to lecture me on whether my morals are right or wrong because that matter is completely up to me and me alone. Moral deficiency....I'd like to think my morals are quite sound thank you very much
Besides, you don't know me in person, so regardless of how much you observe of me here on the DBB and as long as we've known eachother on Kali, this hardly constitutes as overwhelming information in judgement of my character.
Tet, I think with the advances of DNA testing, its a pretty safe bet that the vast majority of people convicted of capital crimes and sentenced to death are guilty.
For those of you who mentioned the Bible regarding this issue, please consider the following:
When God instructed Noah after the flood one of the things he told him was this: "Anyone shedding man's blood, by man will his own blood be shed." Genesis 9:6.
"Without fail the murderer should be put to death." Numbers 35:16-21
Jesus said we must "observe the commandmants . . .you must not murder." Matthew 19:16-18
Paul's letter to the Romans included this commentary:
"For God's wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness . . .filled as they were with all unrighteousness,. . . being full of envy, murder . . .Although these know full well the righteous decree of God, that those practicing such things are deserving of death, they not only keep on doing them, but also consent with those practicing them . . . Now we know that the judgement of God is, in accord with truth, against those who practice such things . . .he will render to each one according to his works."
"As for . . . the murderers . . .their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfer. This means the second death." Revelation 21:8
Paul also mentioned the role governments play in response to criminals: " . . . those ruling are an object of fear, not to the good, but to the bad. Do you, then, want to have no fear of the authority? Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it; for it is God's minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear; for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword; for it is God's minister, an avenger to express wrath upon the one practicing what is bad." Romans 13:3-4
When God instructed Noah after the flood one of the things he told him was this: "Anyone shedding man's blood, by man will his own blood be shed." Genesis 9:6.
"Without fail the murderer should be put to death." Numbers 35:16-21
Jesus said we must "observe the commandmants . . .you must not murder." Matthew 19:16-18
Paul's letter to the Romans included this commentary:
"For God's wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness . . .filled as they were with all unrighteousness,. . . being full of envy, murder . . .Although these know full well the righteous decree of God, that those practicing such things are deserving of death, they not only keep on doing them, but also consent with those practicing them . . . Now we know that the judgement of God is, in accord with truth, against those who practice such things . . .he will render to each one according to his works."
"As for . . . the murderers . . .their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfer. This means the second death." Revelation 21:8
Paul also mentioned the role governments play in response to criminals: " . . . those ruling are an object of fear, not to the good, but to the bad. Do you, then, want to have no fear of the authority? Keep doing good, and you will have praise from it; for it is God's minister to you for your good. But if you are doing what is bad, be in fear; for it is not without purpose that it bears the sword; for it is God's minister, an avenger to express wrath upon the one practicing what is bad." Romans 13:3-4
-
Lothar
- DBB Ghost Admin
- Posts: 12133
- Joined: Thu Nov 05, 1998 12:01 pm
- Location: I'm so glad to be home
- Contact:
DCrazy, actually, I explained what the OT quote meant there in my post. It was a different law for a different time -- but what Jesus did was strengthen, not weaken, what the law was intended to do. It's an important distinction.
Anyway, the point of whipping out the Bible quote was simply to say that Tyr's Bible-quote whip-outage wasn't at all convincing to me. I certainly don't intend to get into a Bible quote whip-out fest here, as this is the wrong place for it. (Shoku, check out this thread for such discussion; I believe every one of your points has been discussed at least a little bit, and it keeps me from having to repeat myself.)
Tyr, I'm not sure what you mean by "I have a double standard" -- I can't follow where you're trying to go with the "do unto others" quote in order to turn it into a double standard for me -- are you saying that "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" means that they're justified in "doing unto you"?
Anyway, the point of whipping out the Bible quote was simply to say that Tyr's Bible-quote whip-outage wasn't at all convincing to me. I certainly don't intend to get into a Bible quote whip-out fest here, as this is the wrong place for it. (Shoku, check out this thread for such discussion; I believe every one of your points has been discussed at least a little bit, and it keeps me from having to repeat myself.)
Tyr, I'm not sure what you mean by "I have a double standard" -- I can't follow where you're trying to go with the "do unto others" quote in order to turn it into a double standard for me -- are you saying that "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" means that they're justified in "doing unto you"?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Lothar:
. . . I explained what the OT quote meant there in my post. It was a different law for a different time -- but what Jesus did was strengthen, not weaken, what the law was intended to do. It's an important distinction.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Regarding the punishment of murderers it's important to recognize that God's standards do not change.
"I am the LORD, I have not changed." - Malachi 3:6
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow." - Hebrews 13:8
The law of Moses was a temporary set of regulations. "Before faith arrived we were being guarded under law . . .Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ . . . But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a tutor." Galatians 3:23-25. Christ's sacrifice abolished the need for the Law. However, this does not remove the mandate to punish murderers. God's instuctions to Noah predate the Law of Moses, and where intended for all humans, not just the Jews, and therefore are not to be set aside as the Law was set aside. God does not change. His values of justice do not change. The point to recognize is that those who PRACTICE wicked things should be punished. " . . . for if we practice sin after recieving knowledge of the truth, there is no sacrifice for sins left, but there is a certain fearful expectation of judgement and a fiery jealousy that is going to consume those in opposition. Any man that has disregarded the law of Moses dies without compassion . . .of how much more severe a punishment do you think will the man be counted worthy who has trampled upon the Son of God?" Hebrews 10:26-29
. . . I explained what the OT quote meant there in my post. It was a different law for a different time -- but what Jesus did was strengthen, not weaken, what the law was intended to do. It's an important distinction.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Regarding the punishment of murderers it's important to recognize that God's standards do not change.
"I am the LORD, I have not changed." - Malachi 3:6
"Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow." - Hebrews 13:8
The law of Moses was a temporary set of regulations. "Before faith arrived we were being guarded under law . . .Consequently the Law has become our tutor leading to Christ . . . But now that the faith has arrived, we are no longer under a tutor." Galatians 3:23-25. Christ's sacrifice abolished the need for the Law. However, this does not remove the mandate to punish murderers. God's instuctions to Noah predate the Law of Moses, and where intended for all humans, not just the Jews, and therefore are not to be set aside as the Law was set aside. God does not change. His values of justice do not change. The point to recognize is that those who PRACTICE wicked things should be punished. " . . . for if we practice sin after recieving knowledge of the truth, there is no sacrifice for sins left, but there is a certain fearful expectation of judgement and a fiery jealousy that is going to consume those in opposition. Any man that has disregarded the law of Moses dies without compassion . . .of how much more severe a punishment do you think will the man be counted worthy who has trampled upon the Son of God?" Hebrews 10:26-29
I was simply covering all the bases Loth and no, you must have missed what I had intended to convey, which was that that quote means that you get what is coming to you based on your actions.
The reason I said what I said was for a very simple reason which was that when debating things of this nature with you theres a nasty habit of getting things turned around and misconstrued in the process.
You already bent out of shape the "Eye for an Eye" based on YOUR interpretation of it, so when quoting "Do unto others" I made sure to follow it with what I feel that means. Basically I pointed out a double standard because a lot of people would argue that this quote doesn't apply here when it comes to capital punishment even though it does, it applies to both good and bad.
What I was saying is that "Do Unto Others" means that you get whats coming to you based on your actions. You murder someone and in turn you shall be murdered for justices sake.
oh and btw, I'm so sorry that being a non-believer I busted out a bible quote that you felt I had no right using or no understanding of. Thanks for the enlightenment that my understanding of an Eye for an Eye was all wrong.
The reason I said what I said was for a very simple reason which was that when debating things of this nature with you theres a nasty habit of getting things turned around and misconstrued in the process.
You already bent out of shape the "Eye for an Eye" based on YOUR interpretation of it, so when quoting "Do unto others" I made sure to follow it with what I feel that means. Basically I pointed out a double standard because a lot of people would argue that this quote doesn't apply here when it comes to capital punishment even though it does, it applies to both good and bad.
What I was saying is that "Do Unto Others" means that you get whats coming to you based on your actions. You murder someone and in turn you shall be murdered for justices sake.
oh and btw, I'm so sorry that being a non-believer I busted out a bible quote that you felt I had no right using or no understanding of. Thanks for the enlightenment that my understanding of an Eye for an Eye was all wrong.