Death Penalty - News, Thoughts, Info

[Nat]

This is a place to share news, thoughts and information regarding the Death Penalty.

[Tommi]

This is a place to share news, thoughts and information regarding the Death Penalty.

As long as they are breathing the violent criminal mind is active. They are always a threat and set free because of the system. See system below.

:fastdraq: The Really Old West Ruled. Kill someone. Get killed.:fastdraq:
Utah too
Then the progressive Old West added a sheriff, then the jail, then the judge, then the jury, then the bigger jail, then the lawyer, then the bail bondsmen, then the prison for criminals, then the lawyer teams, then the institution for the criminally insane, then the rogue cops, then the appeals, then...we have today's repeat offenders..

Okay, my cat woke me at 5 AM..on my day off. :mohawk:
PS. I do believe in forgiveness. Peaches is still Yowling...and safe.

[MysticOceansFL]

As long as criminals are killing people then it should stay inuse the death sentence, whats that saying and eye for an eye?

[betenoire]

whats that saying and eye for an eye?

I'm familiar with the "eye for an eye" quote. Apparently it "makes the whole world blind".

(I am opposed to the death penalty.)

[The_Lady_Snow]

Hot Hot Topic.


I'm cold when it comes to this subject, pro death penalty, that includes for me ANYONE who's raped,
messed with kids, or the elderly.

You can't reform child molesters or rapists they WILL do it again.

[Selenay]

Ron White says,

"I’m from Texas. In Texas we have the death penalty. And we USE it.

That’s right, if you come to Texas and kill somebody, we will kill you back. That’s our policy.

They’re trying to pass a bill right now through the Texas Legislature that will speed up the process of execution in heinous crimes where there’s more than three credible eye witnesses. If more than three people saw you do what you did, you don’t sit on death row for 15 years, Jack, you go straight to the front of the line.

Other states are trying to abolish the death penalty… my state’s putting in an express lane."

[always2late]

Touchy subject.

I admit that I have mixed feelings about the death penalty, especially with the recent spate of new evidence, DNA, etc..that has cleared several people on death row of the crimes they were convicted for. However, I am totally with Snow on executing those who victimize children and those who are sexual predators...studies have shown that these people can NEVER be rehabilitated. In their case, I not only believe in execution...I think it should be public.

[Diva]

I have 2 things to say.......

~I'm thinking I'm against the death penalty.....but if we're going to give them life, then NO PAROLE. If we're going to give them life, then NO PERKS. Prison is not vacation time, imho. Excuse ME, but you LOST your rights when you took someone's life. So maybe you'll get a book every now and then, but no internet. No law books. Limited visitor access. This is not a picnic. Will you go a little nuts? Well isn't that just too bad for you? Because you have NO IDEA the hell you have created for the victims.

You fuck up? You pay for the rest of your life. It might be the best punishment for you to sit in your cell and think about what you've done.


Second ~ so the guy who killed a man's entire family, raped the wife, tied his teenage girls up to their bedposts and then burned their home down gets NINE consecutive death sentences?????

Would that be considered "overkill"?




(Sorry.)

[Tommi]

I have 2 things to say.......

~I'm thinking I'm against the death penalty.....but if we're going to give them life, then NO PAROLE. If we're going to give them life, then NO PERKS. Prison is not vacation time, imho. Excuse ME, but you LOST your rights when you took someone's life. So maybe you'll get a book every now and then, but no internet. No law books. Limited visitor access. This is not a picnic. Will you go a little nuts? Well isn't that just too bad for you? Because you have NO IDEA the hell you have created for the victims.

You fuck up? You pay for the rest of your life. It might be the best punishment for you to sit in your cell and think about what you've done.


Second ~ so the guy who killed a man's entire family, raped the wife, tied his teenage girls up to their bedposts and then burned their home down gets NINE consecutive death sentences?????

Would that be considered "overkill"?




(Sorry.)
yes. Hot topic.
I used to be opposed to it, thinking suffering in prison was the best punishment. But we don't have those medieval dungeons any more. We have guys in prison with Facebook accounts and on dating sites, luring in naive women and writing to innocent children.

Overkill. 9 death sentences. That's good.

[The_Lady_Snow]

Isn't that ironic???


I bet if they find a mate they have the right to marry, we on the other hand do not. Just isn't right.

[Sachita]

I have mixed feelings. There are so many cases where people were wrongfully convicted. Today with DNA and advances in forensics its less likely. I don't think anyone should die and value life, however if a person abuses, kills a child, should we spend the HUGE amount of money to house him, feed him, for the rest of his life? Let's say it cost 20K per year for that one prisoner and thats no frills. Do you realize some people LIVE on 20K per year? That 20K could provide for another child and perhaps collectively prohibit reoccurrences in the long run.

We are paying for and housing thousands of violent repeat offenders. Studies show so many of them purposely repeating crimes because they are so institutionalized they don't want to be on the streets any more. Its sad but true.

At the same time who really gives us the power to exterminate our own kind? It's a tough agenda but I think i would lean more towards the death penalty when it came down to repeat offenders and pedophiles where it has been proven there is no cure. If they are conscious enough to consider their actions then they should know the repercussions. If they are mentally challenged but there is no successful therapy why should they be allowed to repeat offenses at our expense when so many people can use that money to contribute to our society.

I think they should take a big ass island and plop them on it. If they survive they can live there and torture each other. If they can't then they don't. We should not have to spend so much damn money to take care of them the rest of their lives.

[Nat]

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd43/Marvalissa07/12-4-death-penalty-1-1.jpg

What about the dispproportionate number of people of color sentenced to death for crimes where white folks are more likely to live?

What about those who are innocent but found guilty?

Death is irreversible and there have been many wrongly convicted who have later been exonerated.

What about the effect of the death penalty on a convicted person's innocent family and friends?

What about the execution of the developmentally disabled? What about the mentally ill?

Juries are filled with every day folks, often desperate to return to work, who have no training regarding racism or xenophobia or other diseases of the overculture. They convict based on "beyond a REASONABLE doubt" but some innocent people look guilty to jurors using their most conscientious reason.

I've served on a capital murder jury. It's not like matlock. The ends are not all neatly tied up. There are holes everywhere. I was not impressed with the process, the lawyers or most of the jurors.

[rlin]

the death penalty bothers me in many ways...
that said... i still believe that if there is no doubt... and i dont mean that a jury of so called peers decided or that someone confessed after grueling interrogation or that it is most likely that it happened... i mean if without a shadow of a doubt that a person committed a heinous crime that we should practice the death penalty....
i actually would like to see the family or friends of the victim get to decide the punishment... and even carry it out if there is no way that the person could be innocent...
our judicial system is so broken that the way we stand now there should be a review of all the cases that are awaiting execution... if there could be doubt then they need to be commuted to life.. if there is none then the execution should be immediate... none of this waiting 10 to 20 years for appeals and such...
yeah... let me be the decider... i know everything... i could fix it all... king blass to the forefront! (yes.. that was jest... i hate the thought of any one person deciding to kill someone... or twelve persons.... just because of a good legal team convinced them!)

[Sparkle]

I do not believe in capital punishment.
I do not believe in an "eye for an eye".
I do not believe in killing killers, raping rapists or abusing abusers.

I do not believe capital punishment is an effective deterrent to violent crime and more importantly I do not believe it brings healing or peace or closure to victims of those crimes.

I do not believe capital punishment is a more cost effective or time efficient method of justice.

And crucially, I do not believe our legal system is robust and/or fair enough to be given this kind of power. Our legal system is deeply flawed and deeply corrupt, it is inherently racist and classist.

"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

I have lived in countries that have abolished the death penalty. Those were not places overrun with violent criminals. In fact statistics show they have less, far less violent crime than we do.

An interesting & brief piece on a recent forum on the death penalty, members were from law enforcement agencies in the US and Europe.

On October 13, 2010, officials from the U.S. and Europe held what may have been the first international forum of law enforcement officers on the merits of the death penalty in reducing violent crime. The officers discussed whether capital punishment actually helps to keep citizens safe, assists healing for victims, and uses crime-fighting resources efficiently.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/international-police-forum-death-penalty

[dreadgeek]

This was posted on the Breaking News thread by me. Cross-posting here:

Well, if all of the above offends you we could just go back to a feudal system of crime and punishment where you didn't get a trial (no lawyers), there was no bail (no bail bondsmen), there were dungeons but those were for torture not imprisonment.

You can have a legal system, in which case you have to put up with the fact that the legal system must play by the rules or you can have an ad hoc system of crime and punishment for which there is another name: lynching.

ETA: Let me also point out that even WITH the current system of laws, we routinely execute the wrong person. In Texas a man was executed for killing his three children in an arson fire. Except that when actual fire experts looked at the crime, they determined not only was it NOT arson but it could not have been arson. Several studies have also found that black men are three or four times as likely to be given the death penalty for the *same* crime even if you hold every other relevant detail constant. And a disturbing number (approaching a third) of those death penalties are eventually overturned on DNA evidence. So if we go back to the Old West system of lynching--and once you pull out the legal system, all you're left with is mob justice--do you really think it will be any better? I'll tell you right now, since we've *run* that experiment--it wouldn't be.

In the Deep South, into the middle of the last century, a black man could go from having a nice day to being hung from a tree in an afternoon all because he bumped into a white woman. That was also swift and sure 'justice'. Thank you very much but I'll take the set of problems flowing from having a legal system--even one as flawed as ours--to ad hoc 'we think this person did the crime, so that's the person we'll punish for it' mob justice.

------

Some further thoughts on the matter

It seems as if we have forgotten both *why* we have the legal system we do and how long we struggled to get it. So I thought I'd remind folks that our legal system, flawed as it is, is still better than anything that had existed Western society before. (And by 'our' I am talking about the Western legal systems that are the descendants of British Common Law.)

There was a time when the sovereign could have you picked up and imprisoned for whatever reason he might wish. You had no right to a trial. Perhaps, if you were wealthy, you might be able to buy your way out of trouble but barring that you were going to be shuffled off this veil of tears and if you were lucky, it would be sooner rather than later because later *always* involved horrific tortures on your way out. This was changed by the introduction of habeus corpus which requires that the accused be brought before a court so that the legality of the imprisonment (it's justification) can be examined.

Okay, so you're alright with habeus corpus. Trials are fine as long as guilty verdicts are forthcoming, right? Well, this is where we get to the next great advancement in Western legal thought--the idea of the fair trial by jury. It was once the case that trials were more or less shows. One was highly unlikely to be acquitted. There were no rules for what constituted evidence, nor was there any right to have your accusers cross-examined. You could be compelled to testify against yourself and refusal to do so was considered admission of guilt. All of this was true into the 18th or 19th century in Western civilization. The long arm of the law could reach into your home, at the time of their choosing, and 'search' (read plant) for evidence. All of this began to change when Europe began the long, hard, transition from a Feudal system to democratic nation-states. The fourth and fifth amendments exist for a reason and it's not to provide cover for people who want to be 'soft on crime'.

So now we're a little closer to modern day. One poster has spoken eloquently on how great the legal system--meaning the lynching system--was in the Old West. Keep in mind that most crimes didn't necessarily go to trial. It was more along the lines of "that's the person we think did it, so that's the person who is going to be punished for it". This was usually done in a very ad hoc and quite arbitrary manner. The problem, of course, is that mobs aren't real intelligent and aren't really interested in justice they're interested in punishment. So as long as *someone* paid the price (meaning someone was killed) for the crime that was good enough for the time being.

I won't belabor the point about lynchings of black men.

Lastly, the rules and strictures that modern police forces have to work under. Again, while it might seem that these are just to provide cover for 'soft-hearted liberals' they are actually all there for fairly good reasons. For instance, before the Miranda law the cops could use all manner of dirty tricks to get you to confess to a crime. And they DID use tricks and coercion. So finally the Supreme court decided that the accused had a right to a lawyer and had a right to speak to someone who actually understood the law before having to say word one to the police.

I always find it quite remarkable that people have these romantic ideas that if only the law were not hamstrung by rules, we would have a crime-free society. Nothing could be further from the truth. At present, I'm listening to an audiobook called 'The Third Reich in Power'. In the chapter just finished, there was discussion on the system of denunciation of Germans for crimes against the State. What is germane here is not the particular crimes but how the legal system handled them. Trials in Nazi Germany were pretty pro forma affairs. If you were a Nazi, you would probably walk. If you weren't, you would find yourself either in prison, in a concentration camp, or executed. Evidence didn't really matter, accusation did. Now, I'm not saying anyone is suggesting the Western democracies become Nazi Germany. I am, however, curious as to what the substantive difference is between an arbitrary legal system whose real purpose is to grease the wheels to the executioners block and what is being advocated here?



Cheers
Aj

[Sachita]

I do not believe in capital punishment.
I do not believe in an "eye for an eye".
I do not believe in killing killers, raping rapists or abusing abusers.

I do not believe capital punishment is an effective deterrent to violent crime and more importantly I do not believe it brings healing or peace or closure to victims of those crimes.

I do not believe capital punishment is a more cost effective or time efficient method of justice.

And crucially, I do not believe our legal system is robust and/or fair enough to be given this kind of power. Our legal system is deeply flawed and deeply corrupt, it is inherently racist and classist.

"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

I have lived in countries that have abolished the death penalty. Those were not places overrun with violent criminals. In fact statistics show they have less, far less violent crime than we do.

An interesting & brief piece on a recent forum on the death penalty, members were from law enforcement agencies in the US and Europe.

On October 13, 2010, officials from the U.S. and Europe held what may have been the first international forum of law enforcement officers on the merits of the death penalty in reducing violent crime. The officers discussed whether capital punishment actually helps to keep citizens safe, assists healing for victims, and uses crime-fighting resources efficiently.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/international-police-forum-death-penalty


There is certainly no doubt our governmental system is corrupt and doesnt work. IMO. So I wouldn't be surprised if it worked elsewhere or that it would here IF we didnt have criminals running our country.

[dreadgeek]

There is certainly no doubt our governmental system is corrupt and doesnt work. IMO. So I wouldn't be surprised if it worked elsewhere or that it would here IF we didnt have criminals running our country.

I have often maintained that I don't have a problem with a *civilized* country exercising the death penalty option. But a civilized country doesn't have citizens throwing tailgate parties outside prisons where an execution is taking place. The United States does.

If a nation behaves as it if understands what it means to exercise the death penalty and treats it as a somber, solemn affair and not something to celebrate, then sure that nation can be trusted with this ultimate power over the life and death of the citizenry. Since my undergrad days, when I hit on my idiosyncratic reading of what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they wrote the Constitution, I have maintained the following: the government should not be trusted with the power of life or death over the citizenry any more than is *absolutely* necessary to maintain a legitimate state. This informs my thoughts on two hot button issues--the death penalty and abortion being legal.

In both instances, I do not think that the State has any vested interest in either killing any given criminal or in forcing any given woman to have any given child. I have not yet seen a compelling argument describing how executing any given criminal helps the state preserve itself. We already concede to the State a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. We empower police to carry deadly weapons and we empower the military to have weapons of unfathomable destructive power. I think that is quite a bit of power already.

My concern with the death penalty orbits around the problem of mistakes in conviction, the disparity between what a man of color can expect in a courtroom and what a white man can expect in a courtroom, the disparity between what a poor person can expect in a courtroom and what a rich person can expect, and lastly, the temptation to use the death penalty, ultimately, as a *political* tool. It would be insanely suicidal to presume that because we're talking about the United States that it could never come to pass that a future administration might use the death penalty for political ends.

I'm unconvinced that the death penalty has any deterrent value. Sure, the death penalty is going to deter law-abiding citizens like all of us here, but then so is the prospect of a prison sentence. Someone who is going to commit some heinous crime isn't going to be deterred by the prospect of execution any more than a prison sentence will. So it serves to make the law-abiding afraid but not the criminal. It seems to me more about revenge than justice. I don't think I want the State to be in the business of revenge.

Lastly, on this issue of how prisoners are treated. Do we want prisons to be 15th century snake pits? Another insight the West finally got around to was that loss of liberty is quite a punishment. I don't believe prisons are or should be resorts. However, there are plenty of examples that we can look to if we want to make our prisons more horrible than they already are--the thing is, every one of those examples is not in a country that could be called democratic in any meaningful sense. I'm sure that Chinese, Russian and North Korean prisons are all little slices of hell--do we really want to be China, Russia or North Korea?

Cheers
Aj

[DapperButch]

I voted other because I am so in the middle on this topic. Always have been.

[Mitmo01]

For someone like this--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_E._Duncan_III

a north korean or chinese prison is a gift that he doesnt deserve.....his dna should be wiped out of the gene pool permanetly and forever....these are the kinds of people that deserve the death penalty in my opinion...

[The_Lady_Snow]

My emotional side over rides any of my logical thinking, I'll be honest. I would not want the person to live if they harmed one of my own. I would want them dead.

[Mitmo01]

My emotional side over rides any of my logical thinking, I'll be honest. I would not want the person to live if they harmed one of my own. I would want them dead.

IM in total agreement because I know what i am capable of it anything ever happened to one of my loved ones.....i would demand retribution and vengence regardless of the outcome and you know what...I guess i would be prepared to pay the price for it....im still wondering how in the hell that joseph duncan is actually still alive, i thought for sure he wouldve been shanked in prison by now...

[Julie]

Absolutely AGAINST the Death Penalty.
My reasons...
POC as a rule are given unfair trials.
POC as a rule are not given the same legal help as White People.
I believe because of this, the risk of innocent people being put to death is far too great.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent

"Larry Griffin Missouri Conviction: 1981, Executed: 1995
A year-long investigation by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund has uncovered evidence that Larry Griffin may have been innocent of the crime for which he was executed by the state of Missouri on June 21, 1995. Griffin maintained his innocence until his death, and investigators say his case is the strongest demonstration yet of an execution of an innocent man. The report notes that a man injured in the same drive-by shooting that claimed the life of Quintin Moss says Griffin was not involved in the crime, and the first police officer on the scene has given a new account that undermines the trial testimony of the only witness who identified Griffin as the murderer. Based on its findings, the NAACP has supplied the prosecution with the names of three men it suspects committed the crime, and all three of the suspects are currently in jail for other murders. Prosecutor Jennifer Joyce said she has reopened the investigation and will conduct a comprehensive review of the case over the next few months. "There is no real doubt that we have an innocent person. If we could go to trial on this case, if there was a forum where we could take this to trial, we would win hands down," stated University of Michigan law professor Samuel Gross, who supervised the investigation into Griffin's case. (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, July 11, 2005). "

We will spend billions on weapons and war - We can spend some of that money on education and reform in the prison system, so the rate of recidivism drops.

I am a die hard liberal - even when it comes to those who have perpetuated crimes against me.

[dreadgeek]

My emotional side over rides any of my logical thinking, I'll be honest. I would not want the person to live if they harmed one of my own. I would want them dead.

Okay, so you would not, in principle, have a problem with returning to system of ad hoc vendetta such that if someone kills your brother you can kill one of their relatives? I mean at the point where we are talking about state-sanctioned revenge, why involve the state at all? Why not just go for the direct, personal route? Because now we're not talking about justice, now we're talking about vengeance.

And I'm not saying that if someone harmed my wife, son, granddaughter, sister et. al. that I wouldn't want revenge--but that's why I live in a (nominally) civilized nation because I need to check my *own* impulses as well as others.

Cheers
Aj

[LipstickLola]

I'm very uncomfortable with the death penalty, and am against it. I believe in a judgement much higher than that of man. I also believe there are things worse than death, and that if at all possible, criminals of these heinous, horrific, unspeakable crimes should be shown a life in a 10x10 cell. And I don't mean they should be able to "better themselves", or treated to Club Fed.

My human nature wants to run over, hang, shoot, torture those who commit crimes against the elderly, children, the incapacitated, any human life, or even certain crimes against animals, and that is my reason.......I do believe "they'll get theirs", it may not be when we want, or when we can see it, but 'they' will. Prisons are overcrowded, the justice system is more imprefect than it works, or so it seems, criminals walk the street, those who are unable to hire a great defense spend more time behind bars, all of these injustices don't change my mind. Having a very very close friend murdered, testifying, having been a crime victim, I still don't believe it's the right thing to do, for if it were, are we any better than the perpetrators themselves??

This is one of those discussions that can last forever with sooooo many different points of view, I can totally relate to wanting and eye for an eye, I just don't feel competent to actually make that decision regarding human life.

Just my thoughts and feelings. thanks!

[The_Lady_Snow]

Okay, so you would not, in principle, have a problem with returning to system of ad hoc vendetta such that if someone kills your brother you can kill one of their relatives? I mean at the point where we are talking about state-sanctioned revenge, why involve the state at all? Why not just go for the direct, personal route? Because now we're not talking about justice, now we're talking about vengeance.

And I'm not saying that if someone harmed my wife, son, granddaughter, sister et. al. that I wouldn't want revenge--but that's why I live in a (nominally) civilized nation because I need to check my *own* impulses as well as others.

Cheers
Aj



I am going to answer this honestly. If harm came to mine, I would do it myself or I'd want front row seats so they could look me in the eyes before they died. That way I can see my own in theirs, and they see what I feel in mine.

I know it's not clear thinking it's more emotional. So my answer is ugly

[betenoire]

Taken from Amnesty dot ca (http://www.amnesty.ca/deathpenalty/canada.php)

Twenty Years of Abolition: the Canadian Experience
Contrary to predictions by death penalty supporters, the homicide rate in Canada did not increase after abolition in 1976. In fact, the Canadian murder rate declined slightly the following year (from 2.8 per 100,000 to 2.7). Over the next 20 years the homicide rate fluctuated (between 2.2 and 2.8 per 100,000), but the general trend was clearly downwards. It reached a 30-year low in 1995 (1.98) -- the fourth consecutive year-to-year decrease and a full one-third lower than in the year before abolition. In 1998, the homicide rate dipped below 1.9 per 100,000, the lowest rate since the 1960s.

[Julie]

I am going to answer this honestly. If harm came to mine, I would do it myself or I'd want front row seats so they could look me in the eyes before they died. That way I can see my own in theirs, and they see what I feel in mine.

I know it's not clear thinking it's more emotional. So my answer is ugly

When it comes down to crimes against "Family," I completely understand this from an emotional stand point. I get it. If someone were to hurt one of my children and that could include anyone - a friend, an ex or family member - I will hurt them. I will find a way to hurt them. If not myself, then I will find someone to do it for me.

But what if... I am wrong? What if the person I am seeking vengeance on is not in fact the person who committed the crime? Many times, we never see our attackers. Many times there is no DNA. Yet, many times these people are sent to their death without proof, because of who they might be.

I believe, if it is a clear cut "I know it was you." -- I would seek it. But, if I am not 100% sure that this is the person - I cannot wish death on them, because what if I am wrong? Then I have placed death on an innocent person.

I am only against the death penalty because it has been proven innocent (far too many) people have been put to their death.

[Nat]

Okay, so you would not, in principle, have a problem with returning to system of ad hoc vendetta such that if someone kills your brother you can kill one of their relatives? I mean at the point where we are talking about state-sanctioned revenge, why involve the state at all? Why not just go for the direct, personal route? Because now we're not talking about justice, now we're talking about vengeance.

And I'm not saying that if someone harmed my wife, son, granddaughter, sister et. al. that I wouldn't want revenge--but that's why I live in a (nominally) civilized nation because I need to check my *own* impulses as well as others.

Cheers
Aj

This actually leads me to a question I've been asking myself lately:

Human sacrifice has been a practice in different societies in history. Did it go away or did it just transform into these types of things?

and

In a podcast of "Speaking of Faith," with Krista Tippett, she spoke with Michael McCullough, professor of psychology at the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida, where he directs the Laboratory for Social and Clinical Psychology and also teaches in the Department of Religious studies. He wrote a book called, "Beyond Revenge," where he analyzed extensive data from social scientific studies on humans and animals as well as biology and brain chemistry.

During that podcast, he mentioned that Japanese macaques are very status-conscious and intimidated by power. He said, "If you're a high-ranking Japanese macaque and you harm a low-ranking Japanese macaque, that low-ranking individual is not going to harm you back, right? *It's just too intimidating. It's too anxiety-provoking. But what they do instead, and this still astonishes me, is they will find a relative of that high-ranking individual and go seek that low-ranking cousin or nephew and harm him in retaliation...So it's as if they're saying, "You know, I'm not powerful enough to get you back, but what I'm going to do is I'm going to harm your nephew...Here's the kicker, is when they're harming this nephew, most of the time they're doing it while the high-ranking individual is watching. They want the high-ranking individual to know that, 'You can harm me, I know you can harm me, I know you're more powerful than I am. But rest assured, I know how to get at what you care about and what you value."

And then Krista Tippett's response intrigued me: "I had this realization a few years ago when we did a program on the death penalty. It might seem simple, but it seems so stunning to me to realize that the criminal justice system, and even, and especially, the death penalty in history, was progress because before there was any kind of criminal justice system, human societies regulated themselves by precisely that ind of revenge you're describing."

So, if she has a point, though I personally think the death penalty is extremely repugnant, maybe society demands a certain amount of blood-letting, a certain amount of human sacrifice, in order for peace to be kept and in order to keep people from taking the law back into their own hands?

I asked a few friends if they thought the death penalty was a modern form of human sacrifice. One said no way. Another said, yes - and also mentioned the religiosity around the deaths of soldiers to fill another part of that same societal yearning. So I guess I do wonder if the death penalty serves some sort of vestige blood lust. Humans are pack animals and predators and yet most of us live lives very far away from that reality.

[atomiczombie]

I am against the death penalty for this reason: killing people is wrong. And if it is wrong for a citizen to do it, then it is wrong for the state to do it. It makes no sense to kill people because they kill people. It is just state sanctioned violence and revenge. If killing people is wrong, then it is wrong for everyone and we need to be consistent, otherwise we are a bunch of hypocrites. There is no justice in revenge. We are no better than the criminals who commit these crimes if we commit the same crime against them. You can't sanitize murder with a syringe. Sorry, that's the truth people.

[Kobi]

I am on the fence on this one.

Part of me thinks we spend way too much money and resources
on prisons and the death penalty minus countless appeals. Thus it
would be fiscally prudent.

On the other hand, I would not want to execute someone who
might indeed be innocent. That would be ethically repugnant to me.

On the third hand...I cannot see me wanting to exact revenge if someone harmed someone close to me.
Inflicting harm on another after the fact is morally troubling for me.
It would make me a vigilante in my mind and that is not acceptable to me.

On the fourth hand....I would have no trouble defending myself, a loved, someone in danger if needed to do so.
That is simple self defense or coming to the aid of another in distress.
That, to me, is simple human survival instincts.

[dykeumentary]

I am against the death penalty. Also i oppose war -- another state mechanism where innocent people and beloved family members are killed.

[Isadora]

I do not in anyway believe in the death penalty. A lot of the reasons people have already stated, also, if I wanted everyone "killed" who hurt or harmed me or my family...well, let's just say there would already be a trail. Cause we hurt or harm each other a lot in our society. I prefer cursing said offenders.

As a witch, I believe that we are responsible for ourselves. We like to pursue the positive and give ourselves credit when we take a proactive approach and accomplish something. But when it comes to the anger, the betrayals, the abuse, murder, assault and so forth, too often we give the job over to someone else to do (e.g. the state, the universe, the God/dess).

I believe in cursing. It is a tradition of lots of cultures and I think it was Z Budapest that said that a Witch who cannot hex cannot heal.

Cursing can be about more than just the person who is your target. It can be healing for you. It can purge you of the hurt and anger and propel you towards a better place. I'm working on the assumption that you have been seriously wronged. I'm not talking about cursing your stylist because she gave you a bad haircut or just releasing misdirected anger. But if someone has injured you, why not hold them accountable? If you don't, who will? As a witch/Crone we must create the world we want. Do you want your world to be one where people just get away with injustices? It is just a matter of HOW, we as a society, want to handle injustice. I chose to handle it in my witchypooh way.

[moonfemme]

I believe in the death penalty. I also believe an eye for an eye... why should someone who has murdered in cold blood be allowed to continue to live albeit prison is not living, an hour of sunshine a day if you behave... if you had behaved in the first place... well ?????? Sorrow and remorse, where is that? and you want a TV and a play station cuz NOW you are bored. I am not sorry that I feel this way but I do feel sorrow for the families who are left behind, the children who are left behind and ALL the unansered questions cuz you plead out, escaped the death penalty and now instead of paying for what you did, you get to live. WHY??? Someone showed you mercy and you did not and now you live with that.

[atomiczombie]

I absolutely believe in justice, and those who commit heinous crimes need to be locked up. With todays supermax prisons, there is no need to fear someone will escape and re-offend. But that is justice, not revenge. I believe that revenge harms the one who seeks it as much as the one on the receiving end. It feeds off the pain caused by the perpetrator and allows that pain to fester. Revenge doesn't make things better. It just perpetuates the cycle of violence and injustice.

[Sparkle]

My emotional side over rides any of my logical thinking, I'll be honest. I would not want the person to live if they harmed one of my own. I would want them dead.

I understand.

Two of the people closest to me have been the victim of violent crimes perpetrated by people they/I know.
I have had overwhelming urges to harm those perpetrators physically. To destroy them.
My desire to harm them has been so great that I have consciously gone out of my way to avoid situations where my own emotions might overcome my rational thought, my ethics (regarding taking a life or harming another person) and my sense of self-preservation.

I also know, my job is to love and support those people closest to me to help them to heal and to carry on with their lives. That is the most important thing, I as an individual, can do. In my experience, vengeance doesn't heal.

As far as "the state" is concerned - I do not trust that our legal and justice systems are unbiased enough to be granted the power to take a life.

To me the natural question that should arise from this debate is -

The death penalty doesn't work - it neither reduces (nor deters) violent crime, so:

How do we prevent and reduce violent crime?

We talk about how much it costs to keep perpetrators on death row through their (rightful) due course of law, we talk about how overcrowded prisons are, how short sentences are, how rehabilitation doesn't work...

But we don't talk about tightening legislation around gun control. We don't talk about making weapons for personal use illegal all together (NRA-forfend). We don't talk about substance abuse as endemic to our nation. Or the "blind eye" law enforcement turns to domestic violence in so many cases. Or the reality that the impetus is upon a rape victim to prove s/he was raped...

And we don't discuss the NEED to dramatically alter our national fiscal priorities so that we can strengthen our social services, education and physical/mental health systems; provide more support for parents and children; and training for teachers and nurses and school counselors (those on the front line of raising healthy non-violent people).

[katsarecool]

When I was young I was very much against the death penalty. When I was 26 a close friend learned his sister was violently murdered by the mass murdered Paul John Knowles who went through a killing rampage from Washington DC to Florida killing without mercy men, women and children. Then I changed my mind.

Many years later there was the case of the African American man who was excecuted with very flimsy evidence and once again I had to search my soul about how I really feel about the death penalty. With all the dire statistics concerning the difference in how white and POC are treated by the justice system and the proven cases of once found guilty then DNA proved them innocent; I cannnot accept the death penalty.

As stated here unless there is absolute proof a life sentence is the proper punishment.

[The_Lady_Snow]

I'm reading, hearing, and listening to you all, it's a hot topic! I won't post much though cause it's ugly and it comes from an emotional place. I will be reading and learning from everyone though.:)

[Gemme]

Isn't that ironic???

I bet if they find a mate they have the right to marry, we on the other hand do not. Just isn't right.

They do have that right, unfortunately.



I'm sure I'm in the minority, but when someone acts in cold blood, I go cold towards them. I'm not talking about petty theft or small time crimes where no one was hurt but for murder, rape, torture, and maiming (and other similar and horrific (especially premeditated) crimes), they cease to exist as a human to me when they lose their humanity towards another.

I don't want money going to support their existence in this world for years or decades. Money that could go towards starving people whose only crime is to be a victim of hard times. Money towards educational programs for children to get out of bad locales and to become bigger and greater than they could ever imagine. Money to help people SURVIVE.

I don't want them breathing fresh air and laughing and experiencing joy. They stole that from someone else. Someone who doesn't get the chance to do those things anymore.

I'm especially cold towards those who harm children. I feel that children who are abused, especially sexually, are in effect murdered. They will NEVER be that innocent child again and who they could have been is gone forever. They are forced through a rebirth of sorts that is cruel and excrutiatingly painful and unnecessary. The people who prey on kids are the worst of the lot, imo, and should be spared absolutely no mercy.

I do realize that I am a cold, heartless bitch in regards to this topic. I'm okay with that. I've personally known someone who killed his partner and, though I liked him very much, would support the death penalty for him. No favoritism.

As for the advances in technology and DNA, I do believe that older cases should routinely be reevaluated to be absolutely certain since, as many have pointed out, "justice" has been carried out differently throughout time.

[dreadgeek]

So a quick question:

Hypothetical 1: We live in a culture where vendetta is allowed. I think your brother killed my father, so I kill him. Justice has been served, revenge has been had. It turns out years later, that another man killed my father.

Hypothetical 2: We live in a culture with the death penalty. The state thinks your brother killed my father so they try, convict and kill him. Justice has been served, revenge has been had. It turns out years later, that another man killed my father.

Question 1: What substantial consequential difference is there between these two?
Question 2: What is the substantial moral difference between these two?

Cheers
Aj

Cheers
Aj


They do have that right, unfortunately.



I'm sure I'm in the minority, but when someone acts in cold blood, I go cold towards them. I'm not talking about petty theft or small time crimes where no one was hurt but for murder, rape, torture, and maiming (and other similar and horrific (especially premeditated) crimes), they cease to exist as a human to me when they lose their humanity towards another.

I don't want money going to support their existence in this world for years or decades. Money that could go towards starving people whose only crime is to be a victim of hard times. Money towards educational programs for children to get out of bad locales and to become bigger and greater than they could ever imagine. Money to help people SURVIVE.

I don't want them breathing fresh air and laughing and experiencing joy. They stole that from someone else. Someone who doesn't get the chance to do those things anymore.

I'm especially cold towards those who harm children. I feel that children who are abused, especially sexually, are in effect murdered. They will NEVER be that innocent child again and who they could have been is gone forever. They are forced through a rebirth of sorts that is cruel and excrutiatingly painful and unnecessary. The people who prey on kids are the worst of the lot, imo, and should be spared absolutely no mercy.

I do realize that I am a cold, heartless bitch in regards to this topic. I'm okay with that. I've personally known someone who killed his partner and, though I liked him very much, would support the death penalty for him. No favoritism.

As for the advances in technology and DNA, I do believe that older cases should routinely be reevaluated to be absolutely certain since, as many have pointed out, "justice" has been carried out differently throughout time.

[Gemme]

So a quick question:

Hypothetical 1: We live in a culture where vendetta is allowed. I think your brother killed my father, so I kill him. Justice has been served, revenge has been had. It turns out years later, that another man killed my father.

Hypothetical 2: We live in a culture with the death penalty. The state thinks your brother killed my father so they try, convict and kill him. Justice has been served, revenge has been had. It turns out years later, that another man killed my father.

Question 1: What substantial consequential difference is there between these two?
Question 2: What is the substantial moral difference between these two?

Cheers
Aj

Cheers
Aj

I'm not saying that I wouldn't want the accused to go through the system and have good representation and the benefit of the doubt. I do believe in innocent until proven guilty. But I also don't want to not give the death penalty 'in case' he really didn't do it.

Each case is individual.

If there is sufficient proof that a person killed another, then why is it MY moral responsibility? S/he did it. May their punishment fit their crime.

The thing about posting in these type of threads is that the debate gets heated and, inevitably, someone tries to prove their point and sway others.

I won't be swayed on this matter.

[moonfemme]

I say Death Penalty to all those "Confessing or Plea Dealing Out" to avoid a Death Warrant... They Truely, Absolutely, WithOut a Doubt are 100% Guilty.

[Ebon]

I'm totally for the Death Penalty although I think it's an easy way out for the person that committed the crimes. People that hurt kids and shit get off too easy for me with the death penalty.

[dreadgeek]

I'm not trying to sway you. I'm assuming that you have given this all necessary thought and have gamed out the consequences to your satisfaction. Working on that assumption, I just want to know what are the consequential and moral differences between killing the wrong man in personal vengeance and killing the wrong man in state-sponsored vengeance.

I'm just not comfortable with executing innocent people and since there are now a number of posts complaining not just about the lack of sufficient numbers of executions but that the convicted get appeals and are housed in comfort while they wait, one cannot help but get the feeling that what people would prefer is that people are convicted, sentenced, taken out and executed directly.

I'm not talking about a case where someone *actually* committed the crime, I'm talking about a case where someone *didn't* commit the crime but are executed none-the-less. I'm also very uneasy about the punishment fitting the crime. Here's why:

Man breaks into home, kills everyone in the home. There are signs that rape and torture occurred. He gets the death penalty.

Man breaks into home, kills everyone in the home. There are signs that rape and torture occurred. He gets 50 - life.

The difference? It works like this:

White perp/white victim. Second scenario.
White perp/black victim. Second scenario.
Black perp/white victim. First scenario
Black perp/black victim. Second scenario as likely as first.

Now, I'm not saying that whites never end up on death row--obviously they do. I'm not saying blacks always end up on death row--obviously they don't. However, statistically, if you hold the relevant details of the crime constant what you see sketched above are the most likely scenarios.

If folks were talking about innocent beyond any reasonable doubt, perhaps but that's not the general sense I’m getting. Rather, I have the feeling that folks would prefer a judicial system that was even more stacked against the defendant than it already is, where it is far more speedy, where the police have far more leeway, where the prisons are closer to medieval dungeons than they are currently, and where the courthouse and the executioner are right next door to one another.


Cheers
Aj

I'm not saying that I wouldn't want the accused to go through the system and have good representation and the benefit of the doubt. I do believe in innocent until proven guilty. But I also don't want to not give the death penalty 'in case' he really didn't do it.

Each case is individual.

If there is sufficient proof that a person killed another, then why is it MY moral responsibility? S/he did it. May their punishment fit their crime.

The thing about posting in these type of threads is that the debate gets heated and, inevitably, someone tries to prove their point and sway others.

I won't be swayed on this matter.

[dreadgeek]

I'm totally for the Death Penalty although I think it's an easy way out for the person that committed the crimes. People that hurt kids and shit get off too easy for me with the death penalty.

So you don't have a problem with torture?

Cheers
Aj

[Ebon]

So you don't have a problem with torture?

Cheers
Aj

No not at all. For people that hurt children.

[Gemme]

*snip* I'm not talking about a case where someone *actually* committed the crime, I'm talking about a case where someone *didn't* commit the crime but are executed none-the-less.

Cheers
Aj

I was referencing situations in which the person, regardless of color, gender, or religion, has been proven guilty.

[dreadgeek]

No not at all. For people that hurt children.

Hmmm...what about rape? Should rapists be tortured? What about murderers? What about terrorists? What about people who don't molest children but, say, beat them? Break shovel handles around their ass or make them walk into a hospital on a broken leg?

Can you describe to me how what you are describing is justice and not simply revenge?

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

I was referencing situations in which the person, regardless of color, gender, or religion, has been proven guilty.

Issues of whether the United States exhibits the cultural maturity to actually exercise the death penalty to the side, my concern is not that we will execute the right people, it's that we will execute the wrong people. No one who is not convicted of a crime faces the death penalty, the problem is that in about a third of those cases it turns out the wrong person was convicted. As inconvenient as those cases are for proponents of the death penalty they should concern us and my view of the death penalty is seen through the lens of wrongful conviction and disparate treatment.

When we don't abstract this out but place it in the context of the real world, what we are talking about is a legal system that, left to its own devices, will kill black at up to four times the rate of white men holding every other relevant factor constant. When THAT is corrected and a black man is no more likely to receive the death penalty than a white man, I might be persuadable but at present, given the reality of the American criminal justice system as it is and not as we might like it to be I know that what we are talking about is a system that will fall most heavily on black and Hispanic men.

Cheers
Aj

[Naneegirl]

Issues of whether the United States exhibits the cultural maturity to actually exercise the death penalty to the side, my concern is not that we will execute the right people, it's that we will execute the wrong people. No one who is not convicted of a crime faces the death penalty, the problem is that in about a third of those cases it turns out the wrong person was convicted. As inconvenient as those cases are for proponents of the death penalty they should concern us and my view of the death penalty is seen through the lens of wrongful conviction and disparate treatment.

When we don't abstract this out but place it in the context of the real world, what we are talking about is a legal system that, left to its own devices, will kill black at up to four times the rate of white men holding every other relevant factor constant. When THAT is corrected and a black man is no more likely to receive the death penalty than a white man, I might be persuadable but at present, given the reality of the American criminal justice system as it is and not as we might like it to be I know that what we are talking about is a system that will fall most heavily on black and Hispanic men.

Cheers
Aj

It will also fall a lot more on men, in general, versus women correct?

[Ebon]

Hmmm...what about rape? Should rapists be tortured? What about murderers? What about terrorists? What about people who don't molest children but, say, beat them? Break shovel handles around their ass or make them walk into a hospital on a broken leg?

Can you describe to me how what you are describing is justice and not simply revenge?

Cheers
Aj

I didn't describe anything you did. But people that molest children should feel pain. I have no sympathy for them at all.

In the case of murder it depends.
I think male rapists should have their genitals cut off.
Someone beating their children is a different story.

[dreadgeek]

I didn't describe anything you did. But people that molest children should feel pain. I have no sympathy for them at all.

In the case of murder it depends.
I think male rapists should have their genitals cut off.
Someone beating their children is a different story.

Have I expressed sympathy for them? No. This isn't about sympathy, this isn't about them, this is about US. This is about what kind of society we choose to be.

Pardon me for saying so, but I think torture is barbaric. I think that prisons that are no better than medieval dungeons are barbaric. I think that trial by ordeal is barbaric. I think that vendetta is barbaric. I think that any society that does not torture is a better society, a more humane society, a society less likely to turn in on itself and start doing gratuitously horrible things to itself.

People think that my opposition to the death penalty has something to do with sympathy or softness on crime. That isn't it at all. While I like individual members of our species and while I am quite impressed with what our species can do when we put our minds to it, I'm very realistic about our species and we are NOT a nice species. We aren't as nasty and horrible as we could be, but we are nowhere near a pacific or fair-minded species. To me, torture and execution, the pursuit of revenge instead of justice, is in keeping with our nature. But as Kate Hepburn says so memorably in The African Queen, 'Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we were put in this world to rise above'. We do not and cannot have a perfect justice system, so in the absence of such, I think we should be as realistic about who we are--as a species and as a culture--and if we do that, I am drawn to the conclusion that putting the execution and torture in the hands of our species is always, at its very best, a risky venture. Putting it in the hands of our culture which seems to be positively drunk with blood-lust (there are enough murders *per year* in the United States to constitute a respectable death toll in low-intensity guerilla war) seems to me to be asking for trouble.

When torture stopped being part of law enforcement (until recently, that is) we became a better culture, a more civilized culture, more deserving of thinking of ourselves as a great nation. When we reach a point when we care more about justice than we do vengeance and when we, as a culture, tread carefully around the death penalty, recognizing what a solemn responsibility it is to execute another, then not only will be an even better culture we will be even more right to consider ourselves a great nation. Just as the only people who truly can be trusted with high and powerful office are those who don't want it, I think that the only cultures that can be trusted with execution are those that don't want to execute people. The United States *wants* to. We want vengeance. We want our pound of flesh. Whatever that is, it isn't justice.

Cheers
Aj

[Gemme]

Have I expressed sympathy for them? No. This isn't about sympathy, this isn't about them, this is about US. This is about what kind of society we choose to be.

Pardon me for saying so, but I think torture is barbaric. I think that prisons that are no better than medieval dungeons are barbaric. I think that trial by ordeal is barbaric. I think that vendetta is barbaric. I think that any society that does not torture is a better society, a more humane society, a society less likely to turn in on itself and start doing gratuitously horrible things to itself.

People think that my opposition to the death penalty has something to do with sympathy or softness on crime. That isn't it at all. While I like individual members of our species and while I am quite impressed with what our species can do when we put our minds to it, I'm very realistic about our species and we are NOT a nice species. We aren't as nasty and horrible as we could be, but we are nowhere near a pacific or fair-minded species. To me, torture and execution, the pursuit of revenge instead of justice, is in keeping with our nature. But as Kate Hepburn says so memorably in The African Queen, 'Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we were put in this world to rise above'. We do not and cannot have a perfect justice system, so in the absence of such, I think we should be as realistic about who we are--as a species and as a culture--and if we do that, I am drawn to the conclusion that putting the execution and torture in the hands of our species is always, at its very best, a risky venture. Putting it in the hands of our culture which seems to be positively drunk with blood-lust (there are enough murders *per year* in the United States to constitute a respectable death toll in low-intensity guerilla war) seems to me to be asking for trouble.

When torture stopped being part of law enforcement (until recently, that is) we became a better culture, a more civilized culture, more deserving of thinking of ourselves as a great nation. When we reach a point when we care more about justice than we do vengeance and when we, as a culture, tread carefully around the death penalty, recognizing what a solemn responsibility it is to execute another, then not only will be an even better culture we will be even more right to consider ourselves a great nation. Just as the only people who truly can be trusted with high and powerful office are those who don't want it, I think that the only cultures that can be trusted with execution are those that don't want to execute people. The United States *wants* to. We want vengeance. We want our pound of flesh. Whatever that is, it isn't justice.

Cheers
Aj

So what do you suggest? Locking the criminals up until they die? I'm genuinely curious what would be acceptable punishment for someone that has raped a child or murdered an innocent man because he took too long to serve him beer (going back to Nat's thread) or beat a woman to the point that she's now a vegetable and has very little, if any at all, brain function?

I hear what is unacceptable but what would be a better option?

[ravfem]

i remember debating the death penalty in college. We did a lot of research, read about people, almost always black, who had been put on death row and later found to be innocent.

More recently (cause i'm old like that), they actually have tv programs showing inside prisons, and interviews with the inmates, some of who are on death row. Definitely makes them more human and less killing machines...usually.

There are no easy, clean answers. There never have been and there never will be. Prison and the threat of being put to death doesn't deter the mind of someone who is mentally unwell. Nothing deters that sort of mind.

Prison, which is supposed to be for punishment and rehabilitation, is rarely ever successful. Recidivism rates and overcrowding prove that.

Personally, if someone has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be a child molester, i am so ok with the death penalty. Also for people with diagnosed sociopathic personality disorder who have killed and will continue to kill....again, i am ok with them dying.

The proof has to be solid. Not circumstantial, not even "just" the words of the person molested. But solid, viable proof. If the proof is lacking, no death.

Like Gemme mentioned, once i know for a fact someone has done something like this, i no longer look at them with any sort of compassion...i grow "cold" quickly.

Is it right? Is it moral? Is it my decision? *shrug*

It's just my opinion.

i wonder what the alternative is? What would be better? Obviously, America has some messed up legal systems, laws and ways.

What are some viable alternatives for the mentally insane who rape and kill? Hole them up in institutions for the rest of their lives? We don't want to give more money to help our brothers & sisters who are out of work and starving, living on the street....we're prepared to give more money for more institutions?

And then there is the whole argument regarding the "quality of life" in our institutions....so to improve that, it takes more money. That we don't want to give.

What is the answer?

[dykeumentary]

Well since the conversation has turned to "what do you suggest?" I suggest that stop killing people until our civilized society has figured out a rational and compassionate response to violent criminials. And I suggest we divert the entire war budget to solving this problem.

[Ebon]

Have I expressed sympathy for them? No. This isn't about sympathy, this isn't about them, this is about US. This is about what kind of society we choose to be.

Pardon me for saying so, but I think torture is barbaric. I think that prisons that are no better than medieval dungeons are barbaric. I think that trial by ordeal is barbaric. I think that vendetta is barbaric. I think that any society that does not torture is a better society, a more humane society, a society less likely to turn in on itself and start doing gratuitously horrible things to itself.

People think that my opposition to the death penalty has something to do with sympathy or softness on crime. That isn't it at all. While I like individual members of our species and while I am quite impressed with what our species can do when we put our minds to it, I'm very realistic about our species and we are NOT a nice species. We aren't as nasty and horrible as we could be, but we are nowhere near a pacific or fair-minded species. To me, torture and execution, the pursuit of revenge instead of justice, is in keeping with our nature. But as Kate Hepburn says so memorably in The African Queen, 'Nature, Mr. Allnut, is what we were put in this world to rise above'. We do not and cannot have a perfect justice system, so in the absence of such, I think we should be as realistic about who we are--as a species and as a culture--and if we do that, I am drawn to the conclusion that putting the execution and torture in the hands of our species is always, at its very best, a risky venture. Putting it in the hands of our culture which seems to be positively drunk with blood-lust (there are enough murders *per year* in the United States to constitute a respectable death toll in low-intensity guerilla war) seems to me to be asking for trouble.

When torture stopped being part of law enforcement (until recently, that is) we became a better culture, a more civilized culture, more deserving of thinking of ourselves as a great nation. When we reach a point when we care more about justice than we do vengeance and when we, as a culture, tread carefully around the death penalty, recognizing what a solemn responsibility it is to execute another, then not only will be an even better culture we will be even more right to consider ourselves a great nation. Just as the only people who truly can be trusted with high and powerful office are those who don't want it, I think that the only cultures that can be trusted with execution are those that don't want to execute people. The United States *wants* to. We want vengeance. We want our pound of flesh. Whatever that is, it isn't justice.

Cheers
Aj

There are certain situation's where people should rise above I totally agree with that. I think that revenge can also be justice. Especially if somebody does something horrific and doesn't feel any remorse from it. They obviously don't understand the difference between right and wrong. They forgot to pick up their conscience on the way to birth. People that don't want to forgive themselves in order to get forgiveness.

Terrorists are different because I think most of them are made up to scare the general public into giving away their freedoms when really they are defending their land or homes. I'm sure Native Americans were considered terrorists at some point in time.

What justice is to you and justice is to me are different. Let's agree to disagree.

The Barbarian

[dreadgeek]

So what do you suggest? Locking the criminals up until they die? I'm genuinly curious what would be acceptable punishment for someone that has raped a child or murdered an innocent man because he took too long to serve him beer (going back to Nat's thread) or beat a woman to the point that she's now a vegetable and has very little, if any at all, brain function?

I hear what is unacceptable but what would be a better option?

Yes, lock them up someplace where they will never again walk free. Keep them in a room where there is enough room for them stand up and lay down. Let their remaining years be a monotonous cycle of getting up, back breaking work, and food that sustains, and let the only thing they have to look forward to is the surety that the next day will contain only the same. Let this place be somewhere from which there is no possibility of escape.* Let them know that barring actual acquittal, they will never again be free and they will die in this prison, alone, nothing more than a number and an entry in a database. Let them know all of that.

You can only kill someone once. If you imprison them, however, you do that for every miserable and monotonous day that they live. Prison does not have to be medieval dungeon filled with the screams of the tortured to be a horrible place. You can create a prison that is filled with such sheer mind-numbing monotony, devoid of creativity in any form, that anyone who had to live in that environment, day after day, year after year, would come in short order to pray for death. If after a time, they wish to kill themselves either you let them or if you really believe that they should truly suffer, then medically intervene, going to whatever heroic efforts you think appropriate, to keep them alive. Let them live with whatever scars they leave themselves, but do not let them die. When, in the fullness of time, their body starts to break down their fate can be decided one of two ways. If, say, they have cancer let the disease take its course. Most forms of cancer, at the end-game, are horrible ways to go. If, on the other hand, they have a heart attack and, again, their suffering is something you relish revive them. Do not fix their heart, but do not let them die. So, for instance, if we are talking about someone who is arrested in their thirties they may be looking at another thirty, forty, possibly fifty years in prison. They have longed for death as the only possible surcease of the soul-killing, mind-numbing, unchanging, routine of monotony. And now, after decades of waiting they finally think that their meeting with Death has finally come and their one means of escape has opened up to them and you snatch it away.

You know what the most devious part of this is? You cannot even give them something to hate. This prison does not go out of its way to make the inmates lives miserable. No one is tortured, not in any conventional sense of the term. But they are cut off from the things that make us human. They need no books or exercise. They need no facilitation of their religion. They need no visitors, no contact with the outside world except their lawyers if some new evidence comes to light. The guards in this prison would, as far as possible, be removed from them so that the prisoners do not even have that contact. There are no recreation facilities, no sports. No art. No music. No games. No cards. No cigarettes. If it is not absolutely required to maintain metabolic functions at a nominal capacity, it is forbidden. I am not talking about an evil place, I am talking about a place that is it to be absolutely and completely impersonal. They will never again feel anything like human warmth.

The prison I am talking about is like exile but without even the hope that you could find another tribe.

If someone does something inhuman, let them live out the rest of their days under conditions that are as far removed from human as is possible. If it were ever possible to completely automate the place so that there need not be human guards *inside* the facility (while still being outside to prevent anyone from escaping) all the better.

Whatever you might want to say about me, having sympathy for the worst of criminals is not it.

*(If lifting out of the gravity well ever becomes inexpensive, I would suggest putting prisons on the moon. There is no possibility of escape, any attempt would bring the absolute certainty of death one way or another--where can you run? )

Cheers
Aj

[ravfem]

Yes, lock them up someplace where they will never again walk free. Keep them in a room where there is enough room for them stand up and lay down. Let their remaining years be a monotonous cycle of getting up, back breaking work, and food that sustains, and let the only thing they have to look forward to is the surety that the next day will contain only the same. Let this place be somewhere from which there is no possibility of escape.* Let them know that barring actual acquittal, they will never again be free and they will die in this prison, alone, nothing more than a number and an entry in a database. Let them know all of that.

You can only kill someone once. If you imprison them, however, you do that for every miserable and monotonous day that they live. Prison does not have to be medieval dungeon filled with the screams of the tortured to be a horrible place. You can create a prison that is filled with such sheer mind-numbing monotony, devoid of creativity in any form, that anyone who had to live in that environment, day after day, year after year, would come in short order to pray for death. If after a time, they wish to kill themselves either you let them or if you really believe that they should truly suffer, then medically intervene, going to whatever heroic efforts you think appropriate, to keep them alive. Let them live with whatever scars they leave themselves, but do not let them die. When, in the fullness of time, their body starts to break down their fate can be decided one of two ways. If, say, they have cancer let the disease take its course. Most forms of cancer, at the end-game, are horrible ways to go. If, on the other hand, they have a heart attack and, again, their suffering is something you relish revive them. Do not fix their heart, but do not let them die. So, for instance, if we are talking about someone who is arrested in their thirties they may be looking at another thirty, forty, possibly fifty years in prison. They have longed for death as the only possible surcease of the soul-killing, mind-numbing, unchanging, routine of monotony. And now, after decades of waiting they finally think that their meeting with Death has finally come and their one means of escape has opened up to them and you snatch it away.

You know what the most devious part of this is? You cannot even give them something to hate. This prison does not go out of its way to make the inmates lives miserable. No one is tortured, not in any conventional sense of the term. But they are cut off from the things that make us human. They need no books or exercise. They need no facilitation of their religion. They need no visitors, no contact with the outside world except their lawyers if some new evidence comes to light. The guards in this prison would, as far as possible, be removed from them so that the prisoners do not even have that contact. There are no recreation facilities, no sports. No art. No music. No games. No cards. No cigarettes. If it is not absolutely required to maintain metabolic functions at a nominal capacity, it is forbidden. I am not talking about an evil place, I am talking about a place that is it to be absolutely and completely impersonal. They will never again feel anything like human warmth.

The prison I am talking about is like exile but without even the hope that you could find another tribe.

If someone does something inhuman, let them live out the rest of their days under conditions that are as far removed from human as is possible. If it were ever possible to completely automate the place so that there need not be human guards *inside* the facility (while still being outside to prevent anyone from escaping) all the better.

Whatever you might want to say about me, having sympathy for the worst of criminals is not it.

*(If lifting out of the gravity well ever becomes inexpensive, I would suggest putting prisons on the moon. There is no possibility of escape, any attempt would bring the absolute certainty of death one way or another--where can you run? )

Cheers
Aj

i'm diggin it....and know that the possibility of it happening is about as likely as America ever being fair and just.

[JustJo]

Not snarky, but a real question....

So, in this barren, inhumane, devoid of anything worth living for place that Aj describes....what happens to that same wrongfully convicted person?

[dreadgeek]

Not snarky, but a real question....

So, in this barren, inhumane, devoid of anything worth living for place that Aj describes....what happens to that same wrongfully convicted person?

They suffer. That's what happens. But if evidence comes to light that would exonerate them, they can be released. Now, that depends upon some evidence coming to light but it at least holds out the possibility.

Now, I'm not sure what kind of person would emerge from this place. It might take some adjustment. There is no way to design a penal system where people are truly punished without the problem of there being innocent people inside that system. But if they are alive, they can be retrieved and hopefully, the human spirit is resilient enough to overcome even that. If they are dead, they are completely irretrievable.

We should build a criminal justice system that is as robust and accurate as it is possible to design and which gives to the defendant the means to establish their innocence if they are, indeed, innocent. That way we can minimize the chances of innocents being subjected to an environment that is, as you so accurately put it, devoid of any reason to live.

The difference is whether we can retrieve someone from our being error-prone or social prejudice.

Cheers
Aj

[Gemme]

Yes, lock them up someplace where they will never again walk free. Keep them in a room where there is enough room for them stand up and lay down. Let their remaining years be a monotonous cycle of getting up, back breaking work, and food that sustains, and let the only thing they have to look forward to is the surety that the next day will contain only the same. Let this place be somewhere from which there is no possibility of escape.* Let them know that barring actual acquittal, they will never again be free and they will die in this prison, alone, nothing more than a number and an entry in a database. Let them know all of that.

You can only kill someone once. If you imprison them, however, you do that for every miserable and monotonous day that they live. Prison does not have to be medieval dungeon filled with the screams of the tortured to be a horrible place. You can create a prison that is filled with such sheer mind-numbing monotony, devoid of creativity in any form, that anyone who had to live in that environment, day after day, year after year, would come in short order to pray for death. If after a time, they wish to kill themselves either you let them or if you really believe that they should truly suffer, then medically intervene, going to whatever heroic efforts you think appropriate, to keep them alive. Let them live with whatever scars they leave themselves, but do not let them die. When, in the fullness of time, their body starts to break down their fate can be decided one of two ways. If, say, they have cancer let the disease take its course. Most forms of cancer, at the end-game, are horrible ways to go. If, on the other hand, they have a heart attack and, again, their suffering is something you relish revive them. Do not fix their heart, but do not let them die. So, for instance, if we are talking about someone who is arrested in their thirties they may be looking at another thirty, forty, possibly fifty years in prison. They have longed for death as the only possible surcease of the soul-killing, mind-numbing, unchanging, routine of monotony. And now, after decades of waiting they finally think that their meeting with Death has finally come and their one means of escape has opened up to them and you snatch it away.

You know what the most devious part of this is? You cannot even give them something to hate. This prison does not go out of its way to make the inmates lives miserable. No one is tortured, not in any conventional sense of the term. But they are cut off from the things that make us human. They need no books or exercise. They need no facilitation of their religion. They need no visitors, no contact with the outside world except their lawyers if some new evidence comes to light. The guards in this prison would, as far as possible, be removed from them so that the prisoners do not even have that contact. There are no recreation facilities, no sports. No art. No music. No games. No cards. No cigarettes. If it is not absolutely required to maintain metabolic functions at a nominal capacity, it is forbidden. I am not talking about an evil place, I am talking about a place that is it to be absolutely and completely impersonal. They will never again feel anything like human warmth.

The prison I am talking about is like exile but without even the hope that you could find another tribe.

If someone does something inhuman, let them live out the rest of their days under conditions that are as far removed from human as is possible. If it were ever possible to completely automate the place so that there need not be human guards *inside* the facility (while still being outside to prevent anyone from escaping) all the better.

Whatever you might want to say about me, having sympathy for the worst of criminals is not it.

*(If lifting out of the gravity well ever becomes inexpensive, I would suggest putting prisons on the moon. There is no possibility of escape, any attempt would bring the absolute certainty of death one way or another--where can you run? )

Cheers
Aj

Isn't this the line of thinking that caused Australia to be populated by non-indiginous people?

[dreadgeek]

Isn't this the line of thinking that caused Australia to be populated by non-indiginous people?

Actually, no. Australia was both exile and colonization by another name. I'm not talking about exile. While an island is a perfect example a very secure prison can be built on the mainland as we already know. There was, in fact, possibility of human hope in Australia. There was variety. People could have human interactions. What I describe is nothing like that. Outside of the basics of medical care and sustenance, I'm talking a prison devoid of any other thing that makes life worth living. The idea with Australian penal colonies was to expand the the British empire. The prisoners would be going nowhere and outside of the exemption of their lawyer with new information, they would never again have contact with a living person from outside the walls of that prison.

Australia, a person could have hope. Outside of the truly innocent, who through some majestic act of will hold on to hope, no inmate would ever have anything to hope for again. There's no parole. There's no getting out unless you were actually innocent. Your sentence is up, when your life is over.

None of that is remotely like what happened in Australia. Even exile would offer more to hope for than this prison environment. At least in exile, you might be able to find a quiet place in the wilderness where you could live out your days. This isn't even that.

Cheers
Aj

[Gemme]

I agree that putting someone in a vaccum would be mental torture for the vast majority of the population. I just cannot justify the expense of keeping people that have been proven (through DNA, repeat identification, etc) to commit heinous crimes alive for decades and I can't imagine what the mental state of an innocent person wrongly accused and sentenced to that punishment would be like in the time it would take to discover the truth. In the end, to me, it would be more cruel to die a slow death every day and then down the road be thrust, unprepared, into the world as it stands at that moment than being sentenced to the death penalty.

But that's what is interesting about us humans. We're different and falliable and just doing the best we can.

[Medusa]

I am absolutely, unequivocally opposed to the death penalty under all circumstances.

It actually scares the shit out of me that we live in a world where other people get to decide if someone lives or dies based on breaking rules of society.

Now, before anyone twitches, Im not at all saying that people who rape, murder, commit child molestation, etc. don't need to be punished, but I am greatly bothered by different people receiving the death penalty based on the systemic oppressions in our world.

For example, adultery is punishable by death in countries such as Yemen and Iran. If adultery is defined as "sex outside of marriage", I would venture to guess that a great many of us would be dead had we lived in those countries.

Is it fucked up that these countries kill grown adults who want to have sex with one another consensually? I think so.

Now think about this, homosexuality is punishable by death in countries such as Yemen and some parts of Nigeria. 100% of the people on this website would be dead if we lived in those countries.
Is that fucked up?
I think so, but those are the laws of those countries.

My point is that I don't think that human beings, no matter their level of education, class, creed, or history, have a right to put another human being to death. Punish the shit out of them? Yes. Throw them in prison? Yes. Rehabilitate them? Yes.

Kill them? Not for me, no.

I think about the thousands of men of Color in the prison systems in this country and how the crimes they committed were often perpetrated under an oppressive and intentional system of power abuse. Does that mean that these people aren't responsible for their crimes? Absolutely not. I think that if you are an adult and you rob, rape, murder, etc. then you have to pay for your crimes.

Do I believe that many of these men raped, robbed, or murdered because they were trying (in a fucked up way) to gain power? Maybe.

Again, not diminishing the fact that there are people in this world who do terrible, evil things. There are.

Still, I think about the people who do terrible things because of what they have been through, people who are wrongfully accused, people who are mentally ill and still put to death.

I think of those people and know that there is a better, more humane way.

[dreadgeek]

I agree that putting someone in a vaccum would be mental torture for the vast majority of the population. I just cannot justify the expense of keeping people that have been proven (through DNA, repeat identification, etc) to commit heinous crimes alive for decades and I can't imagine what the mental state of an innocent person wrongly accused and sentenced to that punishment would be like in the time it would take to discover the truth. In the end, to me, it would be more cruel to die a slow death every day and then down the road be thrust, unprepared, into the world as it stands at that moment than being sentenced to the death penalty.

But that's what is interesting about us humans. We're different and falliable and just doing the best we can.

So let me ask you a question. What does justice mean to you? See, it seems that execution is about vengeance. What I'm talking about is punishment. Quite honestly, I think death is too good for some criminals. I want them to have quite a bit of time to sit and reflect upon their crime.

As far as the innocent person, I think that the issue is whether we can retrieve someone from it. I don't know what this would be like, although as I have developed this idea over years of writing, I have refined it in my mind for maximum psychic impact. If there is anything left in someone that can be called human, this place will have an impact on them. But I believe that people are astoundingly resilient. People survived the death camps, people survived the gulag, people survived Sarajevo and people survive war. Perhaps people could survive this. But if they're dead, they're gone.

Cheers
Aj

[Passionaria]

I am against the death penalty, for two reasons. I don't believe in taking the life of another, unless it is self defense. A trial isn't self defense. Two I think it is a cop out. The notion being death is the worst possible punishment. It's not. I am in favor of restorative measures for crimes. I believe the person who committed the crime should have to do something to make it right. Like work, and give the money to the family or person who was hurt, while incarcerated. Or, do something to make the world a better place like grow food for poor people, build housing for the homeless or single mothers.

On a more sadistic note. I think the real hard core criminals should be in the military, on the front line, rather than our sons. Let them do what they do best, while our children create lives and keep their bodies and souls intact. :cat: Pashi

[Gemme]

So let me ask you a question. What does justice mean to you? See, it seems that execution is about vengeance. What I'm talking about is punishment. Quite honestly, I think death is too good for some criminals. I want them to have quite a bit of time to sit and reflect upon their crime.

As far as the innocent person, I think that the issue is whether we can retrieve someone from it. I don't know what this would be like, although as I have developed this idea over years of writing, I have refined it in my mind for maximum psychic impact. If there is anything left in someone that can be called human, this place will have an impact on them. But I believe that people are astoundingly resilient. People survived the death camps, people survived the gulag, people survived Sarajevo and people survive war. Perhaps people could survive this. But if they're dead, they're gone.

Cheers
Aj

This isn't because I think anyone here doesn't know, but to show there's a wide variety in the definitions.

Justice
–noun
1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
3. the moral principle determining just conduct.
4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.
6. the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings: a court of justice.
7. judgment of persons or causes by judicial process: to administer justice in a community.
8. a judicial officer; a judge or magistrate.
9. ( initial capital letter ) Also called Justice Department. the Department of Justice.
—Idioms
10. bring to justice, to cause to come before a court for trial or to receive punishment for one's misdeeds: The murderer was brought to justice.
11. do justice,
a. to act or treat justly or fairly.
b. to appreciate properly: We must see this play again to do it justice.
c. to acquit in accordance with one's abilities or potentialities: He finally got a role in which he could do himself justice as an actor.


For myself, it's along the lines of Newton's Laws of Motion...action/reaction to be exact...like a pendulum. They (criminals) swing to the extreme left and the punishment is the corresponding swing to the right. Justice, to me, is not only the determination of a proper punishment but the administering of the punishment that should be equal to or greater than the crime.

As for any potential innocents surviving that sort of punishment....surviving is not living and my experience with people with who have survived extremely traumatic events has shown me that, in many of those circumstances, death would have been kinder.

Thanks for the debate and have a good night.

[Nat]

If I'm ever convicted of a crime I didn't commit, I would prefer life to death.

[Medusa]

People who are wrongfully convicted and given death sentences don't always give up hope, even if it's the hope that someone, somewhere might believe their story and fight for better rights for prisoners.

Check out the West Memphis 3: http://www.wm3.org/

These three were (I believe) wrongfully convicted of murdering 3 boys here in Arkansas and have been in prison for the last 17 years. Damien Echols has been on death row that entire time.

He has written a pretty thoughtful book and has given countless interviews about being wrongfully convicted and how it has affected not only his personal life but the people who believe him to be innocent. Some of these people have been fighting right alongside him for 17 years.

Briefly, these boys were convicted of murder by a backwoods judge here in Arkansas and a prosecuting attorney who painted them all as "devil worshippers" simply because they had black hair and wore Metallica t-shirts. The ENTIRE case was built on circumstantial evidence and it was recently found (as recent as last month) that new DNA testing has proven that NONE of these 3 boy's DNA was found at the crime scene.

It was a modern-day witch hunt by ignorant people and a prosecutor who was trying to win a campaignship for judge. He later DID win and has thrown out multiple requests for new trials and appeals even though he prosecuted the first case. Conflict of Interest anyone?

It's cases like these that bolster my stance on the death penalty. Damien Echols, Jesse Misskelley, and Jason Baldwin would all be dead right now.

A synopsis of the trial and convictions is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Memphis_3

Prepare yourself if you choose to read it. It will make you sick to your stomach at such a gross and obvious miscarriage of justice.

And these are 3 White boys from Arkansas. Imagine if they had been Black.

[katsarecool]

Web address:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/
090804090946.htm

Brain Difference In Psychopaths Identified
enlarge

Scientists have found differences in the brain which may provide a biological explanation for psychopathy. (Credit: iStockphoto/Hayden Bird)ScienceDaily (Aug. 5, 2009) — Professor Declan Murphy and colleagues Dr Michael Craig and Dr Marco Catani from the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London have found differences in the brain which may provide a biological explanation for psychopathy.

The research investigated the brain biology of psychopaths with convictions that included attempted murder, manslaughter, multiple rape with strangulation and false imprisonment. Using a powerful imaging technique (DT-MRI) the researchers have highlighted biological differences in the brain which may underpin these types of behaviour and provide a more comprehensive understanding of criminal psychopathy.

Dr Michael Craig said: 'If replicated by larger studies the significance of these findings cannot be underestimated. The suggestion of a clear structural deficit in the brains of psychopaths has profound implications for clinicians, research scientists and the criminal justice system.'

While psychopathy is strongly associated with serious criminal behaviour (eg rape and murder) and repeat offending, the biological basis of psychopathy remains poorly understood. Also some investigators stress mainly social reasons to explain antisocial behaviours. To date, nobody has investigated the 'connectivity' between the specific brain regions implicated in psychopathy.

Earlier studies had suggested that dysfunction of specific brain regions might underpin psychopathy. Such areas of the brain were identified as the amygdale, ie the area associated with emotions, fear and aggression, and the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), the region which deals with decision making. There is a white matter tract that connects the amygdala and OFC, which is called the uncinate fasciculus (UF). However, nobody had ever studied the UF in psychopaths. The team from King's used an imaging method called in vivo diffusion tensor magnetic resonance imaging (DT-MRI) tractography to analyse the UF in psychopaths.

They found a significant reduction in the integrity of the small particles that make up the structure of the UF of psychopaths, compared to control groups of people with the same age and IQ. Also, the degree of abnormality was significantly related to the degree of psychopathy. These results suggest that psychopaths have biological differences in the brain which may help to explain their offending behaviours.

Dr Craig added: 'This study is part of an ongoing programme of research into the biological basis of criminal psychopathy. It highlights that exciting developments in brain imaging such as DT-MRI now offer neuroscientists the potential to move towards a more coherent understanding of the possible brain networks that underlie psychopathy, and potentially towards treatments for this mental disorder.'

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff

[Blade]

I do believe in the death penalty. I voted other. I voted that way because I think for me it depends on the crime committed and the evidence shown at trial. Now I'm going to be a good boy and go sit beside Snowy and be quiet.......Maybe:cigar2:

[EnderD_503]

We don't have the death penalty here, which I think is a good thing. Even with forensics being what it is today, people are still wrongly accused. There are some people like Paul Bernardo that, if it were up to me, would get what's coming to them, but then the repercussions of legalising the death penalty for cases such as that aren't worth it, in my view.

[BullDog]

I am against the death penalty. Killing someone will not bring anyone back to life or erase someone being molested, raped or anything else. We need to figure out how to deal with criminals and people who are mentally ill in a rational and humane way (not for the criminal's sake but for ours) and above all try to figure out how to prevent more of these crimes from occuring in the first place. Otherwise we stoop to their level. Exacting revenge is not a way for me to show I love or care about someone.

Since it does cost a lot of money to imprison them, I think they should have to work for their keep if that is feasible. I agree with Aj, make their lives as monotonous as possible.

p.s. it doesn't surprise me that Canada doesn't have the death penalty. They also don't obsess over owning guns.

[Glenn]

We don't have the death penalty here, which I think is a good thing. Even with forensics being what it is today, people are still wrongly accused. There are some people like Paul Bernardo that, if it were up to me, would get what's coming to them, but then the repercussions of legalising the death penalty for cases such as that aren't worth it, in my view.

That trash has been locked up for 23 hours each day in a tiny cell with squat to do for the last 16 years...and he will live like that until he dies of old age...he wishes Canada had the death penalty.