|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
 Posted - 05/05/2002 : 04:26:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Yes having the death penalty as a punishment option carries a risk.
What evidence is there that this is a risk we need to take? Separation from society is not sufficient?
quote:
police have the authority and capibility to use lethal force. They can and have killed innocent people, yet we do not take away their guns,why? because most people are willing to take the risk that they may accidently be shot and killed by a police officer in return for the protection they afford.
This analogy pertains to those in defense of our society, and I apologize for not including them in the self defense scenario. However, if a police officer kills an innocent person, then their guns ARE taken away if the act was negligent or unprovoked. Amazingly, they can even be prosecuted in a criminal court or sued in a civil court.
quote:
I am willing to risk being executed for a crime I did not commit in return for 1)punishing those that will commit murder and 2)removing the possibility of those same persons from commiting another murder.
1. I MAY be willing to be executed for a crime that I did not commit while standing by my convictions, but, please, excuse my cowardice for not being willing to allow my wife or children to be executed for principle.
2. I am not omniscient, and do not know who will commit murder.
3. I can remove the possibility of a repeat offense by locking the guilty party in a cell for the rest of his days, and keeping the level of awareness of his crime very high.
quote:
You seem to be confusing killing and murder.
I apologize if I gave this impression. I felt that I made a distinction between; a) killing a person in defense, b) unintentional or negligent, though illegal killing, and c)intentional killing which I usually refer to as murder, regardless of who plans and commits the act, or the reasons there of. I will try to be more precise next time. Thank you.
quote:
The agrument that taking a life is not allowed because then the state would be performing the same act they are punishing just does not fly.
Respectfully, this argument does not fly with you only because you support capital punishment, and, I feel, you believe that state sanctioned executions fall somewhere in the realm of killing in defense. I happen to disagree with this because I feel this falls somewhere in the realm of state controled vigilanteism, or revenge killing, which, I would hope are illegal in every state.
quote:
The state can do basically what ever it has legislated itself to do, period.
I was not aware of this. I have always believed that the states were governed by their respective constitutions, and by the federal constitution.
quote:
You can challenge the state in the Supreme court but that is irrevevant as to whether capital punishment is "right".
You are correct. A court challenge does not make anything "right", but I don't see the relevance to your argument. Our standing court would most probably rule in the favor of state sanctioned executions, but they would be unable to show any more evidence than you have in support of the death penalty, therefore, treating it as a 'moral' right of the state. Furthermore, the Court can be and has been wrong, and my opinion is that capital punishment is a violation of the VIII Amendment, but that's just my opinion, and another topic.
quote:
If you scan back to the original poll question you would see that about 44% of us disagree with you on this one.
Unfortunately, I must confess that you've got me here, too. And, above all else, it saddens me to know that so many people who claim to adhere to the evidence before making a decision can ignore the evidence, (or lack thereof), so completely when it comes to the sanctity of human life.
quote:
This is a conclusion developed from a moral position but is used as a premise. We have the right to decide what is best for our society and that may or may not include captial punishment.
You are absolutely correct. I do consider the intentional, well planned taking of a human life immoral when there are other alternatives. But, where is the evidence that capital punishment improves, or is in any way beneficial to society? We have discussed the several ways in which it can harm society in earlier posts, though I haven't seen where society is benefitted.
quote:
Please site the law that applys to all the states. I think you are confusing causing death with murder. See for example California penal code 187-190.
Again, you may be correct here. In the state laws prohibiting murder, or intentional manslaughter, a specific exemption for the state may be written into the law. I have not read any penal codes other than for the state that I reside. However, I do not recall such an exemption, but I may be mistaken. Plus, I haven't access to California penal code 187-190. could you, please, leave a link, or a quote? Thanks.
I am sorry, but having found no evidence that capital punishment has any affect whatsoever on the murder rate, or that any other need is satisfied other than the need for retribution, I find that a very high respect for human life, the danger of harming an innocent person, and the contradictions of an "eye for an eye" mentality far outweigh our cultural blood lust for revenge.
If you know of any other evidence promoting the use of capital punishment, please let me know, and I will certainly take that into account.
"The Constitution ..., is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. Bu |
 |
|
|
gator
New Member
Canada
8 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2002 : 04:40:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Well then, you might agree that the answer to that would be to improve prisons, not kill people for no good reason. There is no good reason. You say to protect the public, but you can restrain individuals for the rest of their lives so that they are no threat to anyone. You can spend the money you are now spending keeping 2 million people incarcerated for no good reason on learning how to help violent people change. Prisons need not be places to go to learn to be violent.
An interesting response, but I do not agree that improving the prison system and the death penalty are mutually exclusive. It is unlikely that you can incarcerate murders for life in a manner that makes them no threat to anyone, as these prisoners will still interact with guards and fellow inmates. As you are aware both guards and other inmates have been killed by convicted murders. If they have already been sentenced to life imprisonment what do they have to lose if they kill a guard? assuming there is no death penalty.
Furthermore, many prisoners have learned their violence long before arriving in prison. If society wants to improve prisons and teach violent prisoners how not to be violent so be it; I just do not think these prison reform activities affect the argument as to whether we should have or not have a death penalty.
quote:
THAT IS EXACTLY MY POINT,
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2002 : 04:56:42 [Permalink]
|
Okay. What you wrote sounded like you were saying that we should kill people (for no good reason) because life in prison sucked. Well, those two things are mutually exclusive, and that is my point.
Life in prison is dangerous because there are so many people who are being "punished" and there isn't enough for prisoners to do that is worthwhile. Again, what you need to focus on is making prisons safer, not making life in the U.S. more dangerous by showing people that killing people is the solution to problems.
quote:
An interesting response, but I do not agree that improving the prison system and the death penalty are mutually exclusive.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
gator
New Member
Canada
8 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2002 : 07:48:30 [Permalink]
|
Tim your last post brings up some interesting points.
Here are some other points somewhat random.
First regarding the police officer, although a negligent police offer may have his/her weapons removed, the officer is replaced by another. The overall risk does not change.As far as sueing the police, well that does not bring any one back from the dead. My point was as a society we take risks that not all people in the society want to take. Just like I may want a society in which the police do not have lethal force, I may be stuck without my own choice.
I did not say I would be willing to be executed while being innocent. What I said is that I would be willing to take the RISK of living in a society in which it is possible to be executed, even when you are innocent. The justice system can be improved to reduce this risk even further.
If my wife does not want a society in which it is possible for an innocent person to be executed then she can oppose the death penalty.
The murder rate is a non-issue as a punishment does not have to deter the crime its punishing to be valid. If it does, thats a bonus but not a necessity. The severity of a punishment does not always effect the incidence of a crime. The problem with trying to get accurate data is that 40 or 50 different variables are changing at once, making it almost impossible to figure out causality. Furthermore how do you get accurate data on detered crime? You can't count outcomes that did not occur. I am currently reviewing a website that has some very interesting numbers leaning towards the death penalty as a deterent to murder but I'm not finished yet. Also there is some horrifying data on the percentage of homicide repeat offenders, these I will post monday. There is only one certainty: people who are executed for murder do not murder again.
The point I made about state legislatures was meant within the realm of state and federal constitutions. These are challenged all the time and if the death penalty is found to be unconstitutional the convicted person is sent to prison or a retrial is ordered.
I have never heard of a convicted murderer separated from society, unless prison guards and other inmates are not part of society. I have heard of gang related murderers ordering hits from the inside of prison.
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2002 : 06:09:56 [Permalink]
|
Even if this is an unnecessary risk?
quote:
What I said is that I would be willing to take the RISK of living in a society in which it is possible to be executed, even when you are innocent.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2002 : 11:13:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
Garrette> I'm not really sure where to go with this. You refuse to answer any of my questions, and since you don't view the needless killing of 100.000 in Hiroshima as a crime against Humanity, I'm not sure we have the same foundation of premises to discuss from
Refused? I suggested another thread so as not to hijack this one. My only caveat was my limitation on time. It still stands. Start another thread and I'll discuss it with you.
I also required that you define Crimes Against Humanity (if it's okay, I'll just say CAH from now on) before I commit myself to a firm agreement or disagreement. As you are the one who is attaching the label to certain events, I think it reasonable for me to ask this of you.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
You seem to think executions work as deterrents. That the death-penalty is still being used, shows this is not the case.
No. It is true that I used to think so long ago, but have changed my mind on the issue. I have not used this as part of my argument on this forum.
I find that the deterrence issue is often thrown up as a strawman by those who are against the death penalty, who feel that when they demonstrate that it is not a deterrent then there is no argument left for the death penalty at all.
But if deterrence is the criterion by which we judge any legal sentence, then I suppose all sentences must be thrown out. Jailtime for murder is still being used; this shows that it is not a deterrent. Should we now throw out jailtime?
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
Badger somehow puts words on my vague definition. That people like Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin or other leaders who ordered the killing of millions have in a way lost their “humanity” or right to breathe.
Which gets back to my objection (echoing Tokyo's original objection). How have you determined this? On what basis or with what criteria have you judged Pol Pot, Stalin, and Hitler? Are you suggesting that it is self-evident in these cases? Or is there an argument behind your assertion?
If self-evident, then why can I not apply the same thing to individual murderers? And who determines ‘self-evidence?'
If not self-evident, then we get back to the definition of CAH. The one that is so far lacking.
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
This got me thinking on the admittedly vague definition I have of crimes against Humanity. And it is very much indeed emotional. I'm appalled by ethnic cleansing, completely random massacres and the horrors, terrors and uncertainty it breeds. I do see a difference between something like this and one murder.
Thank you for the admission that it is emotional.
I am just as appalled. I do not know your personal experience, so I will not presume to compare, but I can tell you that I have excellent reason to be as appalled as anyone, and I am.
But I am also as appalled at some single murders.
quote:
Origi |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2002 : 11:27:51 [Permalink]
|
Why wouldn't we?
quote:
But if deterrence is the criterion by which we judge any legal sentence, then I suppose all sentences must be thrown out. Jailtime for murder is still being used; this shows that it is not a deterrent. Should we now throw out jailtime?
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2002 : 03:32:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Why wouldn't we?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But if deterrence is the criterion by which we judge any legal sentence, then I suppose all sentences must be thrown out. Jailtime for murder is still being used; this shows that it is not a deterrent. Should we now throw out jailtime?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good question. What alternatives are you suggesting?
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2002 : 04:12:24 [Permalink]
|
Well, that was a question that meant, why wouldn't we? It didn't mean that we should, just asking for the reasons that we don't.
I think we need to keep those people like George Bush, who are dangerous to themselves and others away from other people until we can figure out what else to do with them.
Other than that, there seems to be no reason to lock people up except to get politicians elected and to keep the private prison trade happy. We need to eliminate the war on drugs first, using that money to fund education. I think education has been shown to be a deterrent to crime.
If we did nothing at all, I think one could almost make the argument that that would be better than what we're doing. We're running schools for violence and crime.
quote:
Good question. What alternatives are you suggesting?
My kids still love me.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2002 : 04:47:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
We need to eliminate the war on drugs first, using that money to fund education.
I think another benefit of the end of pretense of the war on drugs would be that we could get the weekend warriors that pay their taxes out of the crime colleges and future welfare lines, and make room for the guys, and girls, that like playing with guns.
Getting high and buying a night of pleasure have been around probably a lot longer than self serving, holier than thou politicians getting kick backs for thinking up new crimes so that we can profit from a new black market. I propose a war on politicians, but then there wouldn't be anyone around to dream up new ways to spend our money.
"The Constitution ..., is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society." P. Robertson |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2002 : 06:52:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
By Gorgo:
Interesting article:
http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0506-08.htm
Yes, interesting. If factual, then one hopes for a serious reckoning for Hodges.
What do you suppose Hodges' motives would be for allowing an innocent man to be executed?
It is, however, an article written primarily for emotional impact and from an emotional perspective. A Hallmark Tearjerker ending replete with the po' and downtrodden a-wailin' and a-weepin' outside the gated community of the rich and powerful.
If I can find the time, I may check up on this.
quote:
By Gorgo:
Well, that was a question that meant, why wouldn't we? It didn't mean that we should, just asking for the reasons that we don't.
I think we need to keep those people like George Bush, who are dangerous to themselves and others away from other people until we can figure out what else to do with them.
Other than that, there seems to be no reason to lock people up except to get politicians elected and to keep the private prison trade happy. We need to eliminate the war on drugs first, using that money to fund education. I think education has been shown to be a deterrent to crime.
If we did nothing at all, I think one could almost make the argument that that would be better than what we're doing. We're running schools for violence and crime.
One could almost make that argument, especially if one allowed free access to guns...
So the purpose for jail is to keep those dangerous to themselves and to others away from other people until we figure out what to do with them?
Then all sentences should be automatic life sentences, no? With the possibility of parole in case we figure out what to do with them.
I agree wholeheartedly about the war on drugs.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2002 : 07:05:54 [Permalink]
|
Well, the Russkies maybe had an idea when they "re-educated" people. Some folks need re-educating. The only problem is, some folks who probably ought to get out probably never would, and we run the risk of a Gulag Archipelago all over again.
Has anyone ever done a study of what it costs to defend the country against theft? How much does it cost to "process" someone who steals? Security devices, cops, courts, jails, prisons? ? Much more than the common criminal steals. Maybe much less than white collar crime that goes "unpunished."
quote:
Then all sentences should be automatic life sentences, no? With the possibility of parole in case we figure out what to do with them.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2002 : 07:07:03 [Permalink]
|
Just because you cried about it doesn't make it false. I didn't cry and I think there may be some truth to it.
quote:
It is, however, an article written primarily for emotional impact and from an emotional perspective. A Hallmark Tearjerker ending replete with the po' and downtrodden a-wailin' and a-weepin' outside the gated community of the rich and powerful.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn
Edited by - gorgo on 05/07/2002 07:07:38 |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 05/07/2002 : 07:31:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Just because you cried about it doesn't make it false.
Never said it did.
quote:
I didn't cry...
Glad to hear I'm not the only hardhearted, coldblooded, unfeeling bastard around.
There is undoubtedly some truth to it. It is doubtful that it is completely true. Possible, but doubtful.
quote:
Has anyone ever done a study of what it costs to defend the country against theft? How much does it cost to "process" someone who steals? Security devices, cops, courts, jails, prisons? ? Much more than the common criminal steals. Maybe much less than white collar crime that goes "unpunished."
I don't know of any society-wide studies as such, though I've been part of organization-wide studies.
You're right about white collar crime; it siphons biiiillyuns and biiiiillyuns every year.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
