|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
 Posted - 01/25/2005 : 19:15:56 [Permalink]
|
The way I look at it, civilization is a contract between individuals. Death is the penalty for breaking that contract. If you murder someone else, you forfeit the right to keep your own life. Society is no longer obligated to protect you.
Besides that, some people deserve death. I don't believe in supernatural justice, but that earthly justice is the only justice. Death is the ultimate penalty. There are some crimes that warrant it.
As far as the current problems in the justice system go, that is another topic. I agree that perhaps there are not enough stopgaps in place to protect the innocent. I could say I am in favor when the certainty of the convicted's guilt is 100%, but that would be the same as saying I am never in favor of the death penalty.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 01/25/2005 19:19:58 |
 |
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2005 : 07:40:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
But the issue is in order to get all murderers, you will get some innocent persons as well in our current imperfect system. So is the life saved by not allowing a murderer free worth more than the innocent person put to death in order to get all the murderers?
Our system will always be imperfect. Are you asking is one innocent life worth more than another innocent life? No, in my opinion they are of equal worth. The question then becomes how many innocent people are executed vs. how many innocent people are murdered by someone who was released or escaped from prison after having been convicted of a similar crime?
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Why not life without parole until the system is fixed?
I stated in an earlier post that if life in prison were really life in prison I would likely change my position on the death penalty. I would do so only because our system will remain imperfect. I will continue to believe there are crimes which warrant execution.
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
We should make our prisons places where people don't want to be. Run them under military discipline. Control every single aspect of the prisoner's minute to minute existance. Make those who are phisically able earn their own keep and buy their own health insurance. Ect...
Dude's suggestion of a tightly controlled prison system where prisoners support themselves is very appealing to me. However, I doubt there are enough prison jobs to sustain a self-supporting prison community, and the increased cost of security would (IMO) likely off-set the financial benefit of such a program.
|
Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a rainy afternoon.
-- Susan Ertz
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2005 : 08:08:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
On a personal level, I think anyone who murders someone should be punished brutally. Death is usually too good for them. Take the snipers, the Columbine kids, Jeffry Dahmer, the 9/11 highjackers, the beheaders in Iraq and so on. There is no earthly punishment suitable for these people - indeed death is often something they WANT. Furthermore, in the case where an execution is possible, there is some satisfaction that the criminal is deprived of his life, but that's not really any kind of balance for the crime they committed. It's a cheap stab at revenge, which is not particularly useful to civilization in general.
So, the Death Penalty is part of our criminal justice system, right? What kind of justice is obtained by killing the killer? Depending on who it is, it might be a relief for them to die - relief from guilt or the drudgery of incarceration. It certainly cannot balance the crime that was committed. The horrors that Jeffry Dahmer unleased on people were not in any way balanced by his execution. He took so much away from his victims and their families, there is no possible way to right that wrong. The same goes for any murder.
I think we've already established that the Death Penalty is useless as a detterant. It doesn't work.
So, the last possible justification I can think of is that the death penalty is used to remove bad elements from society so they can never harm society again. Ok, this is all well and good but it doesn't do anything incarceration wouldn't do just as well. Except that little bit of revenge. Although it's arguable that incarceration for a life time is no picknick. Of course, it's probably better than being murdered brutally, so I dunno.
I hate to correct you on this, but Dahlmer wasn't executed. He was beaten to death by a mentally disturbed inmate. The Columbine killers took their own lives. Ditto for the 9/11 hijackers.
My take on executing prisoners is that after all available appeals are exhausted and there is a very high probability that the person sentanced is the one who did it, you put the rabid human to sleep. If deterrence is the goal, then you need a nice public execution which is graphic.
VD - I know they took their own lives - does that make any of their crimes the least bit less? Would it have balanced their crimes at all if they'd been caught afterwards, tried, and imprisoned? I don't think so. Justice in those cases is an impossibility.
Regarding Dahmer, I wasn't sure if he was the one that was killed in prison or not. I was thinking of the murder-rapist that was executed ten years or so ago. I recall there were crowds of people cheering outside the prison the morning he was killed. Despite the name mixup, the point remains solid (never let the facts get in the way of a good argument, I always say). Killing either of them does not serve justice.
About putting the criminals 'to sleep....' First, I hate euphamisms. I don't put my dog to sleep, grandma isn't 'resting.' They're dead and it's not useful to pretend otherwise.  I found your use of the words 'very high probability' disturbing. You won't win many votes using words like those, despite how honest you're being. And lastly, I doubt public executions would make the least bit of difference. Most murders fall into three categories:
1. Crimes of Passion - my wife cheated on me so I gave her the gun.
2. Crimes of Insanity - serial killers.
3. Business - It's not personal, it's my job.
None of these are going to be deterred by public execution. However, if the government charged money to watch - like pay per view - it would be an excellant alternative revenue source. |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 01/26/2005 08:09:54 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2005 : 10:06:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Besides that, some people deserve death. I don't believe in supernatural justice, but that earthly justice is the only justice. Death is the ultimate penalty. There are some crimes that warrant it.
Death, to me personally, would be preferable to being locked in a cage for life.
quote:
Dude's suggestion of a tightly controlled prison system where prisoners support themselves is very appealing to me. However, I doubt there are enough prison jobs to sustain a self-supporting prison community, and the increased cost of security would (IMO) likely off-set the financial benefit of such a program.
The idea would be to get them fully indoctrinated into the system. Have like a prison bootcamp WAY out in the middle of nowhere and run them through a military system for about six months before sending them to places where they can earn their keep.
There will always be those intractable few, so a nice tight maximum security setup with 8x4 cells with a sink, toilet, and cot will do for them.
The jobs I had in mind were similair to the type of thing that all military personel perform as the routine most of the time. Maintain their living area, keep the grounds in perfect order, ect.. any prisoner with real world skills would be required to use those skills to support themself, if applicable. For example, an imprisoned mechanic would be required to work maintaining and repairing the vehicles in the prison motorpool, ect...
As an extension of this, the prison could offer the services of it's prisoners to people in the community where it would not directly compete with businesses already there.
Then, the unskilled prisoners can be hired out as cheap labor. Use them to do the nastiest shit-jobs that you can't pay free people to do. In FL we have extensive drainage systems in our cities to handle the tropical rains. These things collect trash like mad, and are only infrequently cleaned out by local government workers. Every summer (more or less) we have a small problem with a certain Dinoflagellate that chokes our beaches with dead fish. (red tide) In many places the fish sit on the beach and rot, rather than get cleaned up. And so on. There are MANY jobs to put prisoners to work.
As far as offsetting the financial benefit of such a system with increased security... I think that the actual ammount of security would be decreased under a system that runs on a strict military discipline protocall. The system would need to be run through a few trials to determine cost effectiveness.
Even if it were more expensive (the cost to keep one adult inmate in FL for one year is $65k, more than my annual income by a good bit) I like the concept better than just locking people up.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2005 : 11:29:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
As an extension of this, the prison could offer the services of it's prisoners to people in the community where it would not directly compete with businesses already there.
I wondered if this was what you had in mind. The risk of escape is (again in my opinion) too great for criminals of the sort we are discussing.
|
Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a rainy afternoon.
-- Susan Ertz
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2005 : 12:32:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
[..... I was thinking of the murder-rapist that was executed ten years or so ago. I recall there were crowds of people cheering outside the prison the morning he was killed. ....
Perhaps you meant Ted Bundy. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2005 : 12:37:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi
On a personal level, I think anyone who murders someone should be punished brutally. Death is usually too good for them. Take the snipers, the Columbine kids, Jeffry Dahmer, the 9/11 highjackers, the beheaders in Iraq and so on. There is no earthly punishment suitable for these people - indeed death is often something they WANT. Furthermore, in the case where an execution is possible, there is some satisfaction that the criminal is deprived of his life, but that's not really any kind of balance for the crime they committed. It's a cheap stab at revenge, which is not particularly useful to civilization in general.
So, the Death Penalty is part of our criminal justice system, right? What kind of justice is obtained by killing the killer? Depending on who it is, it might be a relief for them to die - relief from guilt or the drudgery of incarceration. It certainly cannot balance the crime that was committed. The horrors that Jeffry Dahmer unleased on people were not in any way balanced by his execution. He took so much away from his victims and their families, there is no possible way to right that wrong. The same goes for any murder.
I think we've already established that the Death Penalty is useless as a detterant. It doesn't work.
So, the last possible justification I can think of is that the death penalty is used to remove bad elements from society so they can never harm society again. Ok, this is all well and good but it doesn't do anything incarceration wouldn't do just as well. Except that little bit of revenge. Although it's arguable that incarceration for a life time is no picknick. Of course, it's probably better than being murdered brutally, so I dunno.
I hate to correct you on this, but Dahlmer wasn't executed. He was beaten to death by a mentally disturbed inmate. The Columbine killers took their own lives. Ditto for the 9/11 hijackers.
My take on executing prisoners is that after all available appeals are exhausted and there is a very high probability that the person sentanced is the one who did it, you put the rabid human to sleep. If deterrence is the goal, then you need a nice public execution which is graphic.
VD - I know they took their own lives - does that make any of their crimes the least bit less? Would it have balanced their crimes at all if they'd been caught afterwards, tried, and imprisoned? I don't think so. Justice in those cases is an impossibility.
It does not mitigate the heinous nature of their crimes.
quote:
Regarding Dahmer, I wasn't sure if he was the one that was killed in prison or not. I was thinking of the murder-rapist that was executed ten years or so ago. I recall there were crowds of people cheering outside the prison the morning he was killed. Despite the name mixup, the point remains solid (never let the facts get in the way of a good argument, I always say). Killing either of them does not serve justice.
It's the best we have under the Constitutional guidelines.
quote:
About putting the criminals 'to sleep....' First, I hate euphamisms. I don't put my dog to sleep, grandma isn't 'resting.' They're dead and it's not useful to pretend otherwise. I found your use of the words 'very high probability' disturbing.
This use of those words indicate the effects of a reformed criminal justice system which takes decades to find fact and an assumption that only those prisoners who clearly have committed the heinous crimes are executed. If there is any doubt, life imprisonment without possibility of parole would be a good alternative. Illinois has such a system whereby the number of appeals allowed the convicted criminal takes decades to wind through the justice system with ample opportunity to show innocence or mitigating factors to reduce the severity of the crime.
quote:
You won't win many votes using words like those, despite how honest you're being. And lastly, I doubt public executions would make the least bit of difference. Most murders fall into three categories:
1. Crimes of Passion - my wife cheated on me so I gave her the gun.
2. Crimes of Insanity - serial killers.
3. Business - It's not personal, it's my job.
None of these are going to be deterred by public execution. However, if the government charged money to watch - like pay per view - it would be an excellant alternative revenue source.
My point is that executions in private have no chance for a deterrent effect. Only graphic public executions have any chance of a deterrent effect. Even then, only the first and last class have a chance at being deterred. I agree that it is a poor tool for the job. In a way, it is a methodology of personalizing an execution which may turn public opinion away from using the death penalty capriciously for cases not involving premeditated murder.
However, I do believe that killing the murderers serves a limited monetary societal good. Societies will object to being saddled with the room, board, and security costs of keeping someone locked up for life.
I can understand and respect your stance on the death penalty. The system has many places for improvement. Prosecutorial misconduct and police brutality still have an effect on the prison roles. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2005 : 12:39:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wendy
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
As an extension of this, the prison could offer the services of it's prisoners to people in the community where it would not directly compete with businesses already there.
I wondered if this was what you had in mind. The risk of escape is (again in my opinion) too great for criminals of the sort we are discussing.
I think Dude was generalizing over the entire prison population and not just limited to those who are lifers. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2005 : 12:43:26 [Permalink]
|
First post on the topic...
I am of the ilk that 'right' and 'wrong' are entirly human constructs and will no longer recognise them. This is incredibly difficult because of the ideals that have been beaten into me by the system I live in. But in the end I know it to be true that the death penalty is not wrong because wrong does not exist unless you describe exactly which perspective from which you wish to view the situation.
1) The death penalty is right from the view that preventing a repeat of a particular groups idea of a crime is more benificial than indefinite housing of the accused.
2) The death penalty is wrong from the point of view of most of the accused.
3) The death penalty is, as a result of nearly infinite number of specific particle interactions, based on the rules of all particles (whether anyone understands them perfectly or not.)
I have decided that #3 is the only right answer to all questions of right and wrong. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2005 : 12:51:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wendy
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
But the issue is in order to get all murderers, you will get some innocent persons as well in our current imperfect system. So is the life saved by not allowing a murderer free worth more than the innocent person put to death in order to get all the murderers?
Our system will always be imperfect. Are you asking is one innocent life worth more than another innocent life? No, in my opinion they are of equal worth. The question then becomes how many innocent people are executed vs. how many innocent people are murdered by someone who was released or escaped from prison after having been convicted of a similar crime?
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Why not life without parole until the system is fixed?
I stated in an earlier post that if life in prison were really life in prison I would likely change my position on the death penalty. I would do so only because our system will remain imperfect. I will continue to believe there are crimes which warrant execution.
.....
I couldn't find good info without a lot of digging on how many convicted murderers kill again because the links were of poor statistical quality. Facts were distorted on the links I looked at. But there probably are more folks killed by released murderers than by wrongful death penalties from what I could tell. Still, there is something difficult to accept when it's the state doing the wrongful killing.
I see it as we need to fix the life without parole issue rather than executing innocent persons. Again, at least until convictions based on potentially faulty eye-witness testimony are excluded from the death penalty.
I can't see executing innocent persons to prevent someone from getting out in the future if laws might be changed. That just seems crazy. On the other hand, parole boards need to do a better job. Whoever let that guy out that chopped off a girl's arms while trying to murder and rape her should be jailed. You do have to wonder what education parole boards and judges have about serial criminals. |
|
|
|
Wendy
SFN Regular
USA
614 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2005 : 13:16:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I couldn't find good info without a lot of digging on how many convicted murderers kill again because the links were of poor statistical quality. Facts were distorted on the links I looked at. But there probably are more folks killed by released murderers than by wrongful death penalties from what I could tell.
I understand, beskeptigal. I had the same problem and reached the same conclusion.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Still, there is something difficult to accept when it's the state doing the wrongful killing.
Bad things happen either way. I guess I'm going with the lesser of two evils.
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
On the other hand, parole boards need to do a better job. Whoever let that guy out that chopped off a girl's arms while trying to murder and rape her should be jailed. You do have to wonder what education parole boards and judges have about serial criminals.
You nailed it. Having a family and learning about cases like that one is what brought me to my present stand on this issue. My profession has shaped me as well. |
Millions long for immortality who don't know what to do on a rainy afternoon.
-- Susan Ertz
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/26/2005 : 14:48:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I wondered if this was what you had in mind. The risk of escape is (again in my opinion) too great for criminals of the sort we are discussing.
Yes, I'm generalizing over all prison populations.
And, I wasn't considering letting prisoners out into the local community unsupervised. If they are out doing manual labor, they are chained, and skilled work can be setup in the prison facilities themselves when applicable.
The other thing (I don't know your level of experience with the military) is that people who have been living under strict military discipline for months are not going to be thinking of much other than how to avoid the wrath of the DI. I'm thinking that 2 or 3 DIs and a squad of armed and riot armored guards are all you'd need to keep 40 prisoners under total control outside of a prison doing some manual labor.
Add in the wonderfull ability we have to place a tracking device on the ankle or wrist of any person, and even if they escaped, it'd be very temporary.
The syetem would have to be pretty complex, but not more so than the prison systems we already have going.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2005 : 02:17:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Care to name the country that does this successfully?
My own does. Successfully? Guess that is a matter of opinion. I think its better our way.quote:
You are equating a mistake with a crime. What does your occupation entail? If you make a mistake, is it a crime?
No absolutely not! As a SW-development and it would be difficult for me to break the law by mistake in my job.quote:
As a health care practitioner, I can say no matter how good you are at your job, no matter how careful you are, human beings will still make mistakes. There is always room for improvement, and really bad health care workers need to be weeded out, but no system could function, health care or policing if you made every mistake a crime.
Some mistakes are honest, some are not. I'm not arguing that people who make mistakes should be punished more severely. My argument is that if we can prove a criminal guilty, letting him go because of other people make mistakes and break rules is stupid and unjust. (Some mistakes might of course make it impossible to prove the guilt.)
We all make mistakes and some mistakes might be unintentional but still illegal to make.
I really don't understand where you get the idea that I would have all mistakes made illegal. I'm sorry if I was unclear.
"Me fail english? That's unpossible!"
-- Ralph Wiggum |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2005 : 02:39:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Care to name the country that does this successfully?
My own does. Successfully? Guess that is a matter of opinion. I think its better our way.....
We all make mistakes and some mistakes might be unintentional but still illegal to make.
I really don't understand where you get the idea that I would have all mistakes made illegal. I'm sorry if I was unclear.
You are still unclear. Maybe if you explained what you see as the difference between a cop who thinks a search is legal and a cop who knows it isn't and both break the same rule. You seem to be saying both get equal punishment. In my example, even the courts didn't have an easy time deciding. |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2005 : 05:11:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
You are still unclear. Maybe if you explained what you see as the difference between a cop who thinks a search is legal and a cop who knows it isn't and both break the same rule. You seem to be saying both get equal punishment. In my example, even the courts didn't have an easy time deciding.
Ok, one final try!
This is not only off-topic but it also has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make.
If you break a rule, you should suffer some sort of sanction.
The sanction should depend on the transgression and the circumstances. A sanction can be anything from "Hey, you are not allowed to do that!" to the one this thread was about.
Only the one(s) responsible should suffer from the sanctions.
Other peoples unrelated activities should not be a concern.
If the cop in your case broke a rule, he should at least be rebuked. If he knew that he broke a rule but did it anyway the offence is greater. If he has a history of ignoring the rules, he should probably suffer some form of sanction. Maybe his superiors to.
If he had a special reason for breaking the rule this time, that might lower the offence and any sanction.
It's up to the legislators and the police to set the rules and the penalties for the police who break them. (I have not said anything about which penalties to impose in your examples.)
Any which way this did not in any way affect the suspects decision to have drugs in his trunk.
It should in no way affect the sanctions imposed upon him. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
