Ok folks: I think that what Lady Sidhe is trying to say is that those who are 100% GUILTY...for instance, the horrible "person" that OnyxCougar mentioned that murdered Steven...he wasn't even sorry that he did what he did (if I have the story correct). So, it would be "wrong" to feel that that criminal should die a painful and horrible death??? WHY??? Not everyone who feels this way is destined to a life of horrible pain and suffering (just like not every woman who gets an abortion is so full of remorse and anguish). I say Let The Victim's Family/Friends Feel How They Want To Feel..my God, how RUDE would it be for someone to go up to a victim's loved one and say, "You are being irrational for feeling the way you do! Stop it now!" I'd be goddamned if someone came up in my face talking such mess! :angry::angry:

And that's fine and dandy: I notice that no one is telling YOU how to feel about THAT, but when it comes to feeling the opposite, then people want to say to NOT feel revenge, hate, etc. Why should feeling the way you do be any different from how I would feel if (God forbid) YOU were murdered??? I don't get it. :confused:

This isn't a religious issue for me, and it's only a moral issue in that I believe that to place the value of the life of the murderer over the life of the victim or potential victims is immoral.

And to tell the truth, I don't see the death penalty as murder at all, and I'll tell you why.

I see "murder" as being perpertrated on an innocent person, for a reason such as: being hired to kill them, wanting their possessions, trying to eliminate a witness, etc.

Now, the death penalty is out there for the world to see. It says, "if you do THIS, we will--ostensibly-- execute you if you are found guilty." Big, flashing neon sign.

Therefore, if I decide to murder someone, and it isn't in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of property, I know the possible consequence. So when you look at it like that, it's a type of passive suicide.

It's like, you know that jumping off a building will kill you, but you're taking the chance that there's gonna be a trampoline there to catch you. You know the consequence. We're not obliged to place a trampoline beneath every window. If you're stupid enough, or uncaring enough, to jump out of that window, don't bitch because you go splat.


I agree with LadySyc in that wanting revenge and feeling hatred towards these predators is just how some people are, and they have the right to feel that way. I don't see murderers as worthy of sharing the title of "person" with me, because there should be standards one must meet to be considered a person. Being human doesn't make you a person, any more than being a feline makes a housecat a tiger. I'm offended to have them in the same category as me.

I feel that by not acting in a manner agreed to by the rest of society, murderers have thus separated themselves from society, and, once convicted, should have the rights given to a member of that society revoked. Why is it ok for a farmer to kill coyotes who prey on his stock, but it's not ok for the state to kill the less-than-animal creatures that prey on society? Why is it ok to put down a rabid animal that is a danger, but not put down a predatory human being that is a danger?

If someone killed a member of my family, you bet I'd pull the switch, drop the floor, inject the drugs, pull the trigger, whatever. Like LadySyc, I'm vengeful by nature. I'd want to look into their eyes when I did it, too. Why should they live when my loved one is dead? It may not bring them back, but it would be a start on the healing process for me.

And you know what? I'd sleep like a baby afterward.

Sidhe

The death penalty takes life with malice (note the anger displayed by some of its proponents), with forethought, with intent, and with purposeful action. No individual or entity can retain a stance of integrity by saying one thing and doing another. "Human life is sacred, killing is wrong. We will now kill you." The dissonance inherent in this action is staggering, as well as the hypocrisy. Governments and countries must stand by the same moral values as an individual. The results of governments doing otherwise can be seen in Buchenwald, the killing fields of Cambodia, etc., etc.

Society harms itself by condoning acts of violence. If a government of a people sanctions violence, the individuals under that government will recieve the message, subconsciously at least, that violence is an acceptable response. The US alone among Western nations imposes the death penalty and also has one of the highest per capita murder rates in the Western World. I cannot help but wonder if our violent society is influenced by our violent government.


To make the first argument is not difficult at all. Atonement justice begins with a false premise: the belief that all wrongs can be atoned for. The hard truth is that many crimes can never be made up for to the victim. Their is no atonement to be made to the child who looses her virginity at 14 through a brutal gang rape. Their is no atonement to be made to the boy who grew up battered on a daily basis by his drunken father. There is no atonement that can be made to the dead or the loved ones left behind.

Justice should serve as a deterrent to further criminal acts and as a vehicle to insure that the individual is held responsible for his actions and pays their consequences. In some cases it is possible to achieve deterrance through rehabilitation programs. In the case of a sociopathic murder, there is no possibility of rehabilitation that we have been able to find. Such individuals should be locked up permanently. Work can be found for them that will defray the cost of their up-keep. Since I do not accept the premise of atonement justice, I feel no need to argue about the value of a life in proportion to its freedom. On a personal level, I will say, that given the choice between death and life in prison, I would choose death, without hesitation.

In my philosophy there is no such thing as "ONLY a moral issue." I did not insert that quote to argue any special religous belief, but rather to argue moral belief. The laws of a society must be based on moral values, otherwise they are meaningless. As members of society, we have the obligation to act as morally as we are capable of doing. The life of an individual is built upon morality, just as the structure of a civilization depends upon morality. We codify our moral beliefs into a system of laws and punishments.

Show me this malice. Sure there are certain people who would dance a jig over the grave of the killer of a loved one, but that doesn't mean that there is malice in the act of execution.

"Human life is sacred, killing is wrong. <important part you left out>And to prevent you from taking more lives</important part you left out>, we will now kill you."

The State should strive to the same ethics as the individual, but the state has responsibilities that we do not and must sometimes add corrallaries to those ethics to cover those situations. Otherwise it could not function in a way resembling it's goals.

I think that the lack of deterrent effect is due to the disparity between the ideal of capital punishment and its lack of proper implementation.

"The State should strive to the same ethics as the individual, but the state has responsibilities that we do not and must sometimes add corrallaries to those ethics to cover those situations. Otherwise it could not function in a way resembling it's goals."

Exactly, the State bears a heavy burden of responsibility to those it governs. All the more reason that its actions be ethical without resorting to the cop-out of situational ethics.

"I think that the lack of deterrent effect is due to the disparity between the ideal of capital punishment and its lack of proper implementation."

Then why do nations that do not embrace this "ideal" still have a lower murder rate per capita than we do?

They are basic arguments, but I don't think they're the basic arguments.

I could have sworn I made this clear...


Oh yeah...that's because I DID make it clear!

We've been through this before...you're a shitty debater. If you want to get off the emotional soapbox and chill with the finger-pointing, let me know. Until then, I'm going to discuss this issue with the more civilized folks here.

I'm not pointing fingers at anyone. Sorry if that's how you feel.

Besides, the death penalty DOES have an emotional aspect for me, as I'm pretty sure it has for everyone who's ever had to deal with the aftermath of a murder. Just because something is emotional doesn't make it wrong. If you consider being emotional, as well as making the point of what I believe to be the basic arguments between the pros and the cons, shit-throwing, I can't change that.


Everyone who has taken part in this debate (or almost everyone, anyway, with the exception of a few) have done so not only with what each believes as the facts but also with their emotions. Emotions always come up in debates like this. I don't expect anyone to act like a computer when it comes to people's lives. Perhaps some people can truly do that. I can't. It doesn't make me wrong.


My intentions, and your perception of my intentions, are apparantly not on the same wavelength.

So, in your all-knowing opinion, what ARE the basic arguments?


Sidhe

This is a pretty interesting debate, so of course, I'd like to throw a big left turn into it...

Question for the antis...if you are being attacked, is it alright for you to kill in self-defense? I mean, what if the assailant is insane and not responsible for their actions, or perhaps they were motivated by extreme need or hunger or something else that society was ultimately responsible for?

When *is* killing for protection, either personal or societal, justified?

Sure, the rich may elude punishment more, but I think that's more of an axiom that the liberals have said so many times that everyone believes it without question.

Penance my butt...they don't get punished, and they don't get rehabilitated. They just learn how to be better criminals.

Oh, I am SO sick of this "innocent person being executed" argument. Anti-death penalty folks always fall back on that argument, much the same as they've accused us of falling back on the "an executed murderer will never kill again" argument.

In other words, you're a goddamned liar.

See above...you make broad generalizations and are insulting. We're having a civil discussion about the death penalty...give me a fucking break.

Actually, it seems to me that most of the people that have been posting in this thread have been pretty mellow and civil.

There is nothing wrong with emotion per se...too much can make people sound or act irrational though.

Among the basic arguments for the death penalty:

--"An eye for an eye"
--0% recidivism rate
--Closure for the family
--Saves the state/federal government money

Among the basic arguments against the death penalty:

--It is cruel and unusual punishment
--Having to live to remember those crimes is punishment enough for the murderer
--Killing the murderer doesn't bring back the victim

When in immediate danger, and the assailant is not under your control.

Hopefully, you would be able to flee or subdue your attacker, but worst-case scenario, absolutely.

I can't worry about the other person in that situation...if I am being attacked and my life in danger, it will suck to be that other person, no matter what their situation is.

If there is an imminent threat to the community or a person...e.g. if you have killed 30 people and you have hostages and a sniper has a clean shot...sucks to be you.

I'm with syc.

The problem with emotion and this issue is emotion has no place in deciding justice.

Lady Sidhe: “What about taking people to task for their actions? ... Plenty of people are poor. They aren't criminals. Plenty of people were abused as kids. They don't murder. People who murder have something missing. It's not the parents' fault, and it's not society's fault. It's all them. They make a choice. They should have to pay for that choice.”

The question of choice.
This is Nature vs Nurture. Is an individual consciously responsible for his actions; ruled by instinct? Or are these actions ultimately a product of environmental socialisation? One could argue that nurture does not come into it, not least because nurture can only ultimately arise from nature, and, like you say, people respond differently to a similar (never the same) social situation, hence not everyone who is poor/psychopathic/asymmetrical resorts to murder. Are we all born the same? Your argument predisposes that we are not; that a murderer is an anomaly – they have ‘something missing’ – and murder is executed (forgive the pun) with intent and rationality (nevertheless based on irrational emotional experience, e.g. abuse etc.). Your argument for capital punishment can only hold strength if you believe that WE ARE BORN DIFFERENT. That a person has a predisposition to murder, be it genetic or sociopathic, and there is NO CURE. If this is the case, how can you advocate punishment? It would serve no purpose, achieve no reparation and could not function as a deterrent. It is an incredible paradox.

"I suggest we work with criminals ... to establish the root of the crime and eliminate the cause, not its product."

Lady Sidhe: "And how do you suggest we do that?”

So little is known about the cause, or at least the dominant set of characteristics inherent in a murderer. We must use the symptoms (criminals) to establish the root (cause) of the phenomena, like any scientific experiment. Cause and effect: nothing just happens – life, while unpredictable, is not arbitrary – there is always a cause, always a reason. Ergo treating insanity (murder) with a punishment that assumes sanity (i.e. that the individual exerts choice) is ineffectual.

The ultimate objective is to eradicate the phenomenon of murder. Utopian maybe, but surely the purpose - the end result - is for murder (and other violent crime) to cease to exist. The only way this can be achieved is through ongoing scientific research to determine WHY murder exists. Once we know the cause, we can treat it, respond (not react) to it and finally obliterate it.

Logistically, I would retain perpetrators in a secure environment whereby detailed physiological and psychological study could take place. Life would mean life: that would also be the deterrent/punishment.

And tell me, how old were YOU when you realized the difference between right and wrong? Did it take you until after you were a teenager to figure that out? I doubt it.

This depends on whether my morals are inherent, or educated (see above). To answer that question with authority would be incredibly arrogant.


Happy Monkey: When a human life is taken, nobody gets it

Quite. You cannot refund or replace a life, therefore it should not be treated akin to material crime. Like for like only works with quanitifiable objects - life is not a possession, therefore the issue of reparation is a non-entity.

Happy Monkey: I don't consider economics to be relevant when discussing whether to kill someone.

Economics have become an issue because people have attempted to quantify life (see above). As this is impossible, the influence given to the means of financing the death or life of a criminal is deplorable.


Lady Sidhe: Course, we could send them all to Europe, and let you guys rehabilitate them....

Good ole' USA: you are innovators, instigators, creators. You create the problems: we (and our Middle Eastern/African/Asian compatriates) deal with the consequences.

(*PS. I refer more to Western values in general than America itself.)

Lady Sidhe: But if we KNOW someone is guilty, I say FRY 'EM.

Fry 'em. Fry them? I just cannot comprehend this brutal animality. It is vulgar, reprehensible and reduces everything you have said to the same level as these vile individuals you would so relish seeing 'fried'. You are as guilty and sadistical as them:

If someone killed a member of my family, you bet I'd pull the switch, drop the floor, inject the drugs, pull the trigger, whatever. Like LadySyc, I'm vengeful by nature. I'd want to look into their eyes when I did it, too. Why should they live when my loved one is dead? It may not bring them back, but it would be a start on the healing process for me.

And you know what? I'd sleep like a baby afterward.

Sidhe

Remorse and forgiveness - terrible burdens, eh?


Ladysycamore: So what then? Just make that person deny their true feelings for the sake of people who don't agree?

I would never advocate denial as therapeutic or antidotal. By all means experience these emotions, just don't act on them.

Why is it so difficult to comprehend that some people are going to feel that way..period? Just because YOU wouldn't DARE feel that way, don't say that others don't have the right to do so.
"Your right doesn't make me wrong." (told to me by a very wise man)

Of course- no doubt I would feel just as much hatred, anger and desire for revenge as the next person, but emotions should not necessarily be translated into action. They are subjective and not a reflection of fact, or reality, and thus can only perpetuate the cycle of crime.


Lady Sidhe: I'm not pointing fingers at anyone

But you're quite happy to point guns?

:worried:

You selectively edited out the part that was most important.

"The State should strive to the same ethics as the individual, but the state has responsibilities that we do not...

Some ethics, by definition, have to be situational. Polar logic isn't always applicable.

My point was that it's possible that it doesn't have the desired deterrent effect because people know the liklihood that they will actully be executed is so slim as to be effectively zero and that their lives inside are better than their lives outside.

But the people that actually make the decision to issue the death penalty to a guilty murderer are not the emotional ones. It's the victim's family/loved ones left behind, so what's the harm if they wish the murderer dead?

That's my job.

How do you figure their lives will be better inside? Convicted murderers are not sent to "country club" prisons, by a long shot.:confused:


I would kill in self defense if forced to. In fact, I once actually made a plan to kill someone. This man had been stalking me for three years. He once pushed me out of a moving car. Another time he came after me in a parking lot at 2:00am with a length of re-barb. I got a restraining order on this individual and changed my phone number. Somehow, he got my new phone number and left threatening messages on my phone. He cruised my house on a daily basis. He stole my cat and actually held it hostage. The last straw was when he began to leave messages on my phone that he was going to kill my mother and my best friend. I had a friend who was a tough ass biker chick and I had my Dad’s military officer’s gun – a semi-automatic colt 45. My biker chick friend told me that the next time this creep came to my door that I should sit down in my living room with the gun and shout taunting remarks at him which would cause him to become enraged and break the door down (he’d done this once before). I was to wait until he was inside the room and then shoot him. My friend said that if I hit him and he kept coming, to shoot him again. We rehearsed the whole thing, and I was mentally prepared to do it. Colorado has a “make my day” law, and I would have been acting in self defense. Thank God, I never had to do this. The police picked up the guy on a warrant he had from out of state and I never saw him again.
I still do not believe in the death penalty, however. Had this monster killed my mother or best friend, frying him would not have brought them back. His death in the first scenario would have saved their lives. Life without parole would have prevented him from harming anyone else in the second.

We’ll be the last TWO liberals standing (see above).

LadySidhe:If someone killed a member of my family, you bet I'd pull the switch, drop the floor, inject the drugs, pull the trigger, whatever. Like LadySyc, I'm vengeful by nature. I'd want to look into their eyes when I did it, too. Why should they live when my loved one is dead? It may not bring them back, but it would be a start on the healing process for me.

And you know what? I'd sleep like a baby afterward.


Catwoman:
Remorse and forgiveness - terrible burdens, eh?

That may or may not come later. And why does it matter so much how the victims family reacts? They are not the ones that will issue the decision of whether or not the murderer gets the death penalty or not.

And I would sleep like a baby afterwards as well.


Ladysycamore: So what then? Just make that person deny their true feelings for the sake of people who don't agree?

Catwoman:
I would never advocate denial as therapeutic or antidotal. By all means experience these emotions, just don't act on them.

Never said that anyone SHOULD act on them. But, I wouldn't blame anyone for feeling that way. In other words, I would WANT to kill the person who has harmed my loved one, but more than likely, I would not act on that.


Lady Sidhe: But if we KNOW someone is guilty, I say FRY 'EM.

Catwoman:
Fry 'em. Fry them? I just cannot comprehend this brutal animality.

Then don't. That's how Lady Sidhe feels. Why should she change that just because you do not agree?

Catwoman:
It is vulgar, reprehensible and reduces everything you have said to the same level as these vile individuals you would so relish seeing 'fried'. You are as guilty and sadistical as them:

You forgot to say, "IMO" after your assessment. Ever think that you can be just as sadistical as the next person for allowing a criminal to live? I'm sure someone out there thinks that of people who are not pro-DP.

If all this is based on one's morals, then it doesn't (or maybe even shouldn't) hold water in this conversation (seeing as though morality isn't a fixed concept). One man's yin is another man's yang, etc.
.

LadySycamore: Why is it so difficult to comprehend that some people are going to feel that way..period? Just because YOU wouldn't DARE feel that way, don't say that others don't have the right to do so.
"Your right doesn't make me wrong." (told to me by a very wise man)

Catwoman:
Of course- no doubt I would feel just as much hatred, anger and desire for revenge as the next person, but emotions should not necessarily be translated into action. They are subjective and not a reflection of fact, or reality, and thus can only perpetuate the cycle of crime.

IMO, you are taking this a bit to the extreme. Just because someone would feel that way, doesn't mean that they would actually do it. And futhermore, you wouldn't be able to stop them from doing so anyway, so why even get all upset about it?
If Lady Sidhe feels the need to shoot the murderer, I say oh well, what am I going to do about it? The BEST I could probably do is try to talk her out of it, and not call her names as you have done (guilty, irrational, sadistic...how is that helping?) :confused:

Not necessarily...you've been on a jury before.

--"An eye for an eye"
Dated, as well as not alwas appropriate.
--0% recidivism rate
Logically true. Problematic in being sure of guilt, but sound essentially.
--Closure for the family
I'm not interested in closure for the family. I'm interested in protecting society. I'm not the guy you come calling on when you need to feel better about something.
--Saves the government money
[b]If implemented properly it will in the long run.

--It is cruel and unusual punishment
Punishment has to be cruel and unusual or it won't work. For punishment to work it has to stand out in the memory as TRAUMATIC results for poor decision-making.
--Having to live to remember those crimes is punishment enough for the murderer
You're kidding right?
--Killing the murderer doesn't bring back the victim
No, it doesn't, but that isn't the only goal of justice.

They can have influence though.

I doubt it...I suspect that you'd have a guilty conscience later.


No one is expecting her to change.

Ah, but they are if it's a jury.

How many lawyers do you think actually expect a jury to use their heads instead of their hearts in making a decision? Don't forget what the jury pool is made up of.

There is something of a difference between wishing the murderer dead and wishing the murderer to experience the maximum available pain and mortal terror and/or relishing the details of that pain and terror and/or finding it appropriate material for casual humour. Wishing the murderer dead may be a responsible and reasonable answer to the problem...delighting in their suffering is sadism, taking pleasure in the manner of their death is sadism.

I am sure there are those out there who think us antis are reprehensible and irresponsible but I think we are stretching the definition of sadism if they believe us to be sadistic on those grounds. If we said we wished that murderers could stay alive so we could watch them rape and slaughter virgins maybe.....but suggesting another solution beyond execution is not sadism and if theres someone out there who thinks that then they need to invest in a dictionary

I live in an area that is severly depressed. I've had interactions with people who have told me that they'd rather be in prison than have to worry about keeping food on the table.

Also, a friend of mine is a detective with the local PD and has had the same conversation with people.

Some people have lives that really are that bad.

In that case perhaps you chaps should invest in some sort of social security and then the lawabiding people who live in freedom wont be so desperate as to wish themselves in a place where they are likely to experience their first rape within the first 15 minutes of incarceration or where they have to share a tiny cell with no amenities and every single act from their toiletting to their sleep being dictated and observed by people who have power overthem.

I have no idea where people get the idea that prisons are a pleasant or even habitable place to exist in. If the prisons in America are anything like the prisons over here then the inmates are barely skirting a reasonable existence. Given some of the stories I have heard I am inclined to think they are probably marginally worse.
As to the fact they get three square meals a day...the meals in some prisons in the UK simply dont bear thinking about. They look ok on paper but much ofthe food is unfit for human consumption and cases of food poisoning abound.

I do think when people are so desperate as to wish they were in prison they maybe have in mind a prison more akin to a holding jail rather than the large industrial sized penitential facilities which they would actually find themselves in if they committed serious crimes

Imagine sharing a small, cramped and colourless space with four or five guys all of whom are pretty fucked up and desperate people......often spending 22 or 23 hours with them in the cell sharing a toilet with no privacy no release from the relentless boredom. Imagine never being able to make a choice for yourself again. Not the choice to sleepwhen you want or be awake when you want. Not the choice to read what you want or watch the tv channel of your choice. No choice in what you eat , no choice in what you wear no choice in any aspect of your life.


Before I am blown off my feet by the shouting, I know......they are criminals they made their choice and they now have to lie in the prison cot they made for themselves...I dont deny it. Nor do I think this is the best time to start a debate on the merits of prison and whether or not the concept of punishment is useful.....I just think that we would do well to recognise how harsh life in prison actually is.

Agreed. Plus, as I see it, because you used your brain to think about committing the crime, your brain should be removed...not your hand, foot, etc. I don't see much support for that.

I think we have to take the victim and their family into account, at least to a small degree. After all, they're part of the society we're attempting to protect. And if you lock a person up and "throw away the key," society is still protected.

I don't think the cost would be such a big deal in the long run if we cleared some of the prison population out (e.g. nonviolent drug felons). In addition, if we put the prisoners to work, then the money is not being wasted.

How do you propose reconciling this with the 8th Amendment?

Absolutely not. You are sent to live in an 8' x 8' cell, where you may or may not have a TV, where you will have to spend anywhere from 12-23 hours a day. You face the possibility of being killed or raped or infected by other prisoners...and this will go on for the next 30-50 years.

I don't know about you, but that sounds like hell to me. A death sentence almost seems kinder.

Remember when I said I was accused of something I didn't do? Well, I spent a single night, two days, in our parish prison. It sucked, but you know what?

You don't share a small, cramped cell. There were eight of us in a single cell about half the size of the house I live in now. There were two rooms, each of which had two bunk beds each; There were two shower/bathrooms, and a central common area with a tv. There was also a phone in the cell. You could order books if you wanted. You could go to church or classes. The lights went out at ten pm, and came on at seven am. Sure, the food sucked, but mostly because it was cold. No one ever threatened me.

This wasn't a jail; this was a permanent facility. I'm not saying they're all like this, but it can't be the ONLY one that is.


Sidhe

Welll.....without having the evidence in front of me to examine and without knowing much about the prison system of America I am going to take a wild stab in the dark and suggest that maybe rapists and murderers who have actually been convicted and sentenced and incarcerated in the State Penitentiary probably dont get the same luxurious conditions you describe. I am guessing that was a small local prison used mainly for lower grade crimes and people who are being held for a few days.

As I said, I think people who have come to the conclusion that prison is an easy option might have in mind one of the smaller holding jails rather than the large scale prisons in which your average rapist or murderer might find themselves.

Edited to say
I do beg your pardon. I assumed by the term Parish Prison that you were referring to a small institution.....I went seeking more information and have fund that "Parish Prisons" are seemingly just as likely to treat their prisoners in an appalling fashion as the larger prisons are.
Found this in an ACLU site Link to full paper

The section I found most disturbing was this

"There is something of a difference between wishing the murderer dead and wishing the murderer to experience the maximum available pain and mortal terror and/or relishing the details of that pain and terror and/or finding it appropriate material for casual humour. Wishing the murderer dead may be a responsible and reasonable answer to the problem...delighting in their suffering is sadism, taking pleasure in the manner of their death is sadism."



Maybe. But after all the crime accounts I've read of the murderers "relishing the details of the pain and terror" of their victims (ie, serial murders who visit crime scenes to relive the murder, and/or who kill their victims over a period of time, murderers who torture before they kill), I'm really not that concerned with whether or not the punishment they recieve is "cruel and unusual." What they did to the victim was cruel and unusual, so why should they be spared the same? Why do they deserve better treatment than they gave the victim? I agree with TS in that punishment should be such that it is never forgotten, and serves as a deterrent. At the very least, we should strive for "like for like."

If they're a serial rapist, give 'em to a guy named Bubba who hasn't seen a woman in twenty years.

If they cut off a body part, do the same to them.

..and so on...

If wanting the penalty to fit the crime is sadism, then yes, I'm the biggest sadist you'll ever meet.

(Incidentally, "sadism" actually refers to one who receives sexual pleasure from intentionally inflicting (generally unnecessary) pain to another person. I wouldn't say that fits me.)


Sidhe

Oh go on....admit it...you get moist.

:haha:

Catwoman:
Fry 'em. Fry them? I just cannot comprehend this brutal animality.

Here is where most people make a serious error in thinking, that if adjusted could possibly cause a major paradigm shift.

Only humans are this cruel, this often, and to this degree. "Inhumane" is a null-word as it is currently used. To use "animality" in the same context is equally incorrect.

Catwoman:
You are as guilty and sadistical as them

That may be a bit much.

She may be vindictive, sadistic, and unforgiving, but what woman isn't? :D

LadySycamore
If all this is based on one's morals, then it doesn't (or maybe even shouldn't) hold water in this conversation (seeing as though morality isn't a fixed concept). One man's yin is another man's yang, etc.

One essential part of this discussion is to come to terms with what morality and ethics can be agreed upon.

Catwoman:
Of course- no doubt I would feel just as much hatred, anger and desire for revenge as the next person, but emotions should not necessarily be translated into action. They are subjective and not a reflection of fact, or reality, and thus can only perpetuate the cycle of crime.

Emotion is a very real response to a stimulus. Regardless of of the subjectivity of that emotion, it is real. Fear, for instance is a salient responce to danger. Anger is a response to fear or danger.

Edit: fixed a coding error

I'm sensing sarcasm here...

I agree that victims are a part of the formula, but for me, personally, it's not as much a part as for others because ultimately I believe that reason is more important than emotion.

Agreed, but the inmate work program is a whole new, giant can of worms entirely.

I think that the founding fathers had a different view of what would be considered cruel and unusual. They lived in a harder time and probably had much more first hand knowledge of the effects of punishment.

Not quite so warm and fuzzy, as it were.

I think that we should all table this aspect of the conversation until we can get some people that are actually in, or have been in, this position

Edit: typos (I hate doing this at work sometimes)

" quote:The ACLU, since 1969, and its National Prison Project (ACLU-NPP), since 1979, has had the Orleans Parish Prison (OPP) in litigation over cruel, unusual and inhumane treatment of inmates in its care. This has amounted to "unquestioned and serious deprivations of basic human needs" and/or "the minimal civilized measures of life’s necessities," as defined by the US Supreme Court. In pursuing a minimal level of care at OPP, the ACLU has tried to prevent a tragedy such as the death of arrestee JoAnn Johnson, a brittle diabetic, on April 6, 1999.


The section I found most disturbing was this

quote:After interviewing over 100 women in OPP regarding medical care and conditions of confinement, the ACLU-NPP on December 8, 1998, filed a motion for emergency relief and enforcement of agreed entry on medical care provisions governing women’s OB/GYN and prenatal care ......... The ACLU found evidence of the following violations, which taken together "threaten the lives of women prisoners and their fetuses:"· Chronic and acute gynecological conditions such as ovarian cysts and vaginal discharge go untreated; Deputies tell pregnant women that they cannot go to the hospital to deliver their babies until 1)their water breaks; 2)they suffer heavy bleeding; or 3)the baby’s head emerges. "



Well, as far as having babies and such, I can't comment on that with any authority. However, I DO know that they tend to take the children away after birth, and either place them with a foster family or with someone in the prisoner's family. I know this because a friend of mine knows a girl who's a crack/meth addict, who spends most of her time in prison for drug use. This girl has had ten children, only two of which have lived, all born addicted, or dead in the womb from the drugs.

I do know that if you wanted a doctor, they didn't make you wait an inordinate amount of time.

The ACLU, from what I've seen, tends to melodramatize situations. I'm not saying that what you quoted is not true, just that it's not a constant, everyday, everyWHERE, ongoing thing. They make it sound as if EVERY prison in EVERY state ALWAYS does this. They don't.

One of the women I was in prison with was a murderer. The other was a crack whore. I didn't talk to the others. However, I don't think the murderer should've been in there. She killed an uncle who'd sexually abused her from a very young age up until the day she killed him. IMO that's self-defense. She'd reported him, and no one would believe her or help her, so she helped herself. However, she told me this: "I killed someone, and no matter what he did to me, I guess I deserve to be here because I did a killing." I've never forgotten that, because, like the people who put her there, she was casting herself in the wrong, when I really don't think she was.

Having been in a physically (not sexually) abusive relationship in the past, I know how hard it can be to "just leave." People act like it's the simplest thing in the world, and for many, many reasons, it's not. I won't go into it because that would be a whole different thread; but I will say that sometimes walking away isn't an option. When it comes down to your life or the abuser's, sometimes you just have to do what you have to do to escape.

She was a nice person. I felt sorry that she was there.


Sidhe

No sarcasm meant. I first wrote about that concept two years ago.

The Advocate--article
 

Slaying Suspect, 12, Ruled Juvenile

Carrollton, Ga.--A 12-year-old boy accused of strangling an 8-year-old neighbor cannot be charged as an adult in the girl's death and would face a maximum two years in prison if convicted, prosecutors said Wednesday.

District Attorney Pete Skandalakis said he had no choice but to try the boy as a juvenile. Under Georgia law, a defendant must be at least 13 to be tried as an adult, he said.

"I do not feel two years is sufficient as punishment in this case," Skandalakis said.

He said the victim's family was "heartbroken" that the boy could not receive a more severe penalty.

The boy, whose name is not being released by police, was ordered Wednesday to remain in a youth detention center. A Juvenile Court judge said that there was probable cause the boy committed a delinquent act.

The boy is accused of strangling Amy Yates on Monday evening when she disappeared while riding her bike to a friend's home. The boy also lived in the trailer park.

Yates' body was found hours later fully clothed in a nearby gully filled with tall weeds.




TWO YEARS for murder. Oh yeah. THAT'S justice. Somebody actually gonna tell me that a 12-year-old boy doesn't know that murder is wrong? There's this bridge for sale...


Sidhe

LadySycamore
If all this is based on one's morals, then it doesn't (or maybe even shouldn't) hold water in this conversation (seeing as though morality isn't a fixed concept). One man's yin is another man's yang, etc.

Troubleshooter:

Quote:

One essential part of this discussion is to come to terms with what morality and ethics can be agreed upon.

But that's the thing: in many instances, it can't be agreed upon. For instance, someone may say, "Killing is wrong...period..all kinds of killing". Someone else will say, "No, killing in self defense and the death penalty is not wrong". Another might say, "Self defense is ok, but abortion and the DP is wrong", and so forth. I would imagine that these opinions would be based (in some part) on each person's moral fiber (or ethics).

re: "Slaying Suspect, 12, Ruled Juvenile" posted by Lady Sidhe

I'd like to see someone go up to the victim's family and tell them that they are "wrong" for wanting a more tougher penalty. :(

There are differing levels of agreement. One level is personal, where you keep your ethics, another is the one that controls your ability to interact with others who have different ethics. There has to be some fudge factor there otherwise humanity would have eliminated itself a long time ago.

I have an idea....Me, Onyx, and Ladysyc can get together and go to the prisons and perform the executions, free of charge. That'll cut down on the cost of paying an executioner. Just buy us a nice dinner afterwards....:D

Sidhe

Sure. I can tell you all about jail. Can't comment on the pen' - never been there. I did spend 3 weeks in jail for the crime of driving without insurance. I was guilty as charged and paid the debt I owed society.

The jail I was incarcerated in was over-crowded to the max. 180 women were housed in a unit meant to hold 100. Old timers were the ones who got to have one of the highly coveted cells which contained two bunk beds and a toilet. The rest of us slept on pallets on the floor or in bunks in the common area. Pillows were prized possesions. There weren't enough to go around and many women just had to use their arm as a pillow. We were allowed one thin blanket and that could only be used if we were laying on our pallet or in our bunk. We were not allowed sweators. We were cotton short sleeved prison uniforms with no underware and this was mid-winter. Everyone was always cold. There were two toilets and two showers for us all. There was no seperation of women there on mis-demeanor charges versus women there on felonies. I had the dubious pleasure of spending 2 hours in a holding cell with a woman accused of murdering her own child. After 5 minutes conversation with her, there was not a doubt in my mind that she was guilty. She had an empty blank stare out of two eyes that were portals to some black hole in hell. There were no classes or any sort of rehabilitation offered. If you sent a "kite" (formal written request) to the guards, you were allowed to attend a Christian religous meeting for one hour every other week. We were given nothing to do to pass the time other than 3 decks of cards and two games of scrabble. Women would hide the scrabble boards and fights would break out over them. The food was inedible. I lost 15 pounds in 3 weeks. Some months after my release it was discovered that the company contracted to provide meals for the prisoners had been ripping the county off to the tune of $100,000's per year by shorting on portions. Prisoners who had the money supplemented their meals with ramen noodles bought from the prison commissary. If you didn't have money, you went hungry. That simple. There was not enough tables to sit at when the meager food trays did arrive. Space at tables was jealously guarded. If someone who was not a member of the group attempted to sit at the groups' table, there would be retaliation. Many prisoners ate standing up with their trays balanced on bunks. The medical care for prisoners was a joke. A woman went into an epileptic seizure while I was there and nothing was done for her. Then she had a second and nothing was done. Then a third. No medical help. A woman who was obviously schizophrenic was thrown in with the general prison population. Nothing was done for her. The area where we were housed was quite literally like some huge open warehouse with tall ceilings and exposed pipes. The noise was incredible and went on non-stop from 4:00am when we were supposed to eat breakfast to midnight when there was the final "lock down." Lock downs were frequent. During a lock down women lucky enough to have cells were supposed to remain in them. The rest of us had to lay on our pallets on the floor without getting up for one, two, three hours - however long the guards felt like having the lock down in effect. Women who were housed in a cell got to have a glimpse of the sunlight thru the tiny window in each cell. The rest of us never saw the sun. It was 24 hours florescent lighting. Day and night ceased to have any reality. Prisoners who had been there long enough got the much coveted privilege of working - such as that was. A trustee got to sweep and mop the floors, clean the bathrooms, etc. It was something to do and the ones who couldn't envied the ones cleaning the guards' restrooms. There WAS a cable TV bolted over-head in one area. The guards controlled what station it was on and how long it was on for.

It is hard for me to imagine ANYONE who's life is that desperate that they would wish to live under those conditions. And this was punishment for being too poor to buy car insurance and getting pulled over because I dared to drive my car to try to find work in a town that has no public transportation.

Troubleshooter: Emotion is a very real response to a stimulus. Regardless of of the subjectivity of that emotion, it is real. Fear, for instance is a salient responce to danger. Anger is a response to fear or danger.

I agree. The fight or flight mechanism, stimulated by fear, is probably our most valuable survival instinct. And the 'reality' of any given emotion can only be ascribed by the individual, not dictated by an external party.

A couple of people have got a little bit confused, thinking I am attacking their emotions. I don't care what you feel. It is your subjective (real to you) emotion and this should never dictate action, be it YOUR action or the action of the state. Imagine if you went through life taking all your emotions to their logical conclusions. You would have slept with (and impregnated) every woman you found attractive, have married every guy you thought you loved, and murdered everyone who stimulated that most potent of emotions: fear. You would kill them because they are a threat to you or your family. Every killing is an act of self defense - you are eliminating a threat. Survival of the fittest. What goes through the mind of a murderer? The man who kills his wife and kids because she had an affair and the pain is too much to bear: the kids are a reminder. The woman who kills her lifelong abuser because there's no other escape. It's all self-preservation, taken to its psychopathic extreme.

I do not advocate ANY killing. NO ONE has the right to kill. There are no exceptions. We are the only species that kill each other en masse. We are the only species who are aware of our own inevitable death and we are the only species that knowingly commit suicide. No surprise then that many of us escape to insanity. If one can reject immediate emotional gratification in favour of rational, objective, effective action, then maybe we can begin to evolve from our inhumanity.

Marichko that sounds like hell.

In your opinion she should not have been in there as it was self defense. Yet in legal terms it was not self defense and as such she was convicted of murder? Is it not possible that there are other such cases of abused and desperate people who have hit back at their abuser and yet are still considered murderers? Is it not also possible that these people may be sentenced to death if such a sanction is available in that state?

I can only relay what I was told and tha I feel it to be believable and the anecdotal evidence is from a reputable source. That source being someone who has put many people in jail and been told thank you for it.

Of this we have plenty of evidence. Many, many things go through the mind of a killer. Some are remorseful for having acted on impulse. Some are indifferent, having acted on impulse. Some are blissful reliving their experience as they describe it to you.

While I don't agree that a woman who does this should walk away without punishment, I don't believe it to be quite so psychopathic. I've seen psycho, that's not psycho.

There are no absolutes.

That we know of to date.

Wouldn't that be excessive humanity?

There are no absolutes.

That is a paradox and ineffable.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Catwoman

No surprise then that many of us escape to insanity. If one can reject immediate emotional gratification in favour of rational, objective, effective action, then maybe we can begin to evolve from our inhumanity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wouldn't that be excessive humanity?


Would that be a bad thing?

About that crack ho ...

Please remember that what was heard in the jail cell were the words of a woman working on her story ... that story alone will neither convict nor exonerate her. That's what the evidence is for.

She could have been entirely truthful. She could have been totally full of shit. She could have killed someone who was or was not a relative, who did or did not refuse to pay for services rendered, who did or did not use up all the rock (or that she THOUGHT used up all the rock), or she could have been acting irrational as a consequence of her extreme crack use.

Don't feel sorry for someone just because they claim they have been abused.

The governor of Massachusetts is trying to reinstate the death penalty in his state. He thinks he can make it fair and accurate.

It's a good thing for these guys he hasn't succeeded yet.

OK, more accurately, it's a good thing for future people in the same position as those guys.

Perhaps conditions are more humane in jails in your state. Also, while your source may be reliable, his informants may not:

Suspect (being handicuffed, desperately trying to think of a way out, tries the 'Please don't throw me in that briar patch ploy'):
"Officer, I want to thank you for arresting me. You are doing just what I hoped for. Thank you ever so much! (meanwhile wishing officer in hell).

When I was in jail, the person in charge of the county jail system was interviewed by one of the local TV stations. The wardens had switched the TV to that channel because they wanted to see their boss in the news. The man claimed that poor people went out and deliberately committed crimes so that they could get medical treatment thru the jail. Even the wardens sniggered at this one, and we women prisoners went into such a fury of cat calls and shouted comments and obscenities at the broadcast of this fairy tale that we were placed on lock down for the rest of the night.

Death IS available in La. Because she killed in self-defense, I believe she may have gotten voluntary manslaughter.

Oh, there are thousands of people in prison because they killed abusers. They're in prison because they weren't being attacked when they did it. What most people don't understand is this: when you're being attacked by someone bigger and stronger than you are, you're not going to risk getting a weapon that could be taken away from you and used against you. (Been there, done that) So you wait till they're vulnerable. It's the only chance you've got. I don't think they should be in prison. I think they should get medals...domestic abuse isn't taken seriously, and so these abusers are let loose to kill their accusers and/or go on to abuse more people and continue to get away with it.

The last stats I found on domestic violence leading to murder was that 80% of the women who are killed by abusers are killed AFTER THEY LEAVE. Not to mention the so-called "restraining orders" --cops can't do anything until the abuser actually violates the order--by which time the abusee is usually dead.

I don't have any sympathy for abusers. I've been there. I found out after I got away that he'd tried to stomp his ex to death and tried to kill his five-year-old daughter. These men are cunning and the process is so gradual that you don't realize what's going on until it's too late... let me tell you one thing--if I saw him on the side of the road bleeding to death, I'd grab a chair and some popcorn and WATCH.

Sidhe

Oh no. The crack ho and the murderer were two different people. The crack ho was completely unremorseful. All she could talk about was how she couldn't wait to get out and "get some dick so I can buy some crack." :haha:


Sidhe

The more you write, the less sense you are making.

Should we put murderers to death, or give them medals?

If you look into the history of most people in prison for murder, you will see that mostly they come from horrible backgrounds filled with abuse and neglect. You don't seem to care about any of that, and think they should be fried, but then you turn around and say other victims of abuse who commit murder deserve medals? So some victims of abuse can get away with murder, and some others can't? HUH?!

This is a prime example of why you should avoid basing opinions on emotion only. It just doesn't make sense.

Oh, and by the way, I'm not saying you have no right to your emotions.

Nope, it was a joke.

It is when taken in the context of the range of behaviors that humans are capable of. When we stay near the middle of the behavior spectrum we're good, but when we start reaching into the far ends of the curve you get blind rage and blind adoration and so on.

Animals don't have that problem, and it's a problem we need to get a handle on.

Here is the difference....(IMO)

People who murder people for no reason (Travis killing Steven for no damn reason.)

vs

People who kill other people in self defense. (If I were to kill Travis as he slept, or had Steven killed Travis.)

Those are two different things. Two different scenarios. Two different punishments.

I agree completely. Rationality is the antidote to irrationality - therefore punishment should be dictated thus and not by emotion. The dp only makes sense in its emotional context. There is no rational argument for it other than nil recidivism - and this can be achieved through a 'life means life' sentencing policy.

This is a prime example of why you should avoid basing opinions on emotion only. It just doesn't make sense.

Oh, and by the way, I'm not saying you have no right to your emotions.

Hear hear.:beer:

I don't think that people who kill in self-defense should go to prison. People who kill serial abusers should get medals.

There's a difference between protecting yourself and/or your children, and stalking someone to kill, killing randomly, or killing for profit of some sort.

You're right. I don't care if Ted Bundy or Charles Manson or any other serial killer had a bad background. I don't care if the guy who shot the convenience store clerk so as not to leave witnesses got his ass beat as a child. I don't care if the pedophile who raped and killed the five-year-old didn't get the bike he wanted when he was ten. No. I DON'T care.

They aren't defending their lives against anyone. Rather, they are exercising the ultimate control over the life of someone else, and they get off on it. There's a difference between someone who kills an abuser because they feel it's the only way to escape, and the punk who shoots you because he wants your shoes.


Sidhe

I believe the death penalty IS rational. By this, I mean that in order for society to not only survive, but flourish, we must rid it of the elements that would prey on society and thus lower the quality of life of citizens, as well as deplete funds that could be used to better that society.

We don't execute EVERYONE. Just those that our courts--which are here for just this purpose--decide are too much a risk to society.

Yes, the DP is an emotional subject for me. BUT, I didn't just wake up one day and say, "Hey! I think the DP is a great idea! Let's start killing everyone! Mwah hah HAAAAAA!" This is something I've thought about and read about a lot.

From a strictly logical point of view, I feel that if we are not allowed to make these people useful in some way, such as in a lab (life in prison is not being useful--all it does is take money I could be using to improve my life and giving it to the upkeep of someone who would think nothing of destroying that life for whatever reason), that if they're going to prey on society over and over until they're caught, spreading fear and misery, then they should be eliminated.

Read Robert Ressler. He's a serial killer profiler with the FBI.

http://www.robertkressler.com/

He was one of the first to develop profiling by going into prisons and talking with serial killers. He found that most of them tried to justify their actions in one way or another, tried to give excuses, outright lied, and talked to him mainly because it was a way to relive the crimes.

Some people just deserve to pay the ultimate price for what they've done. They serve absolutely no purpose except to drain society of resources.


Sidhe