Why we should enforce the death penalty

[xoxoxoBruce]

.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by Troubleshooter
Upon what information are you basing this?

Good catch. I guess what I meant to say was that that was the maximum effect, if any, that guilt or innocence could have on how far the process went.

I think that it is valid, though. A certain number of people on death row do not want to appeal, and I suspect that a majority of them are guilty.

[Lady Sidhe]

Good one, Bruce!!

[Lady Sidhe]

Serial Killer Receives Life Sentence While 3,500 Others Face Execution
In a plea agreement reached with Washington state prosecutors, Gary Ridgway, a Seattle-area man who admitted to 48 murders since 1982, will serve a sentence of life in prison without parole. Prosecutors spared Ridgway from execution in exchange for his cooperation in leading police to the remains of still-missing victims. (Associated Press, November 5, 2003) The state's plea agreement raises questions of proportionality in sentencing when compared with the other inmates on the state's death row. The arbitrary and unpredictable application of capital punishment once led the U.S. Supreme Court to hold that the death penalty was unconstitutional in 1972. In Furman v. Georgia, one of the concurring Justices described receiving the death penalty as random as being "struck by lightning"--the facts of the crime carried little weight in predicting who would receive capital punishment.



THIS is part of the problem with the death penalty.


I have a suggestion that would make the debate moot: tax only the anti-death penalty folks for the upkeep of death row prisoners. That way, us pro-deat penalty folks will have one less thing to bitch about. Create death-row prisons, which will only house death-row inmates--only instead of death row, it will be life imprisonment, for however long that turns out to be, and if they end up getting paroled, they will be sent to the aforementioned little town.



Sidhe

[Skunks]

Originally posted by DanaC
Skunk...I just read that poem. I hadnt followed the link before. Damn thats beautiful.

The bio I linked to isn't the greatest, or isn't the story I've heard; I was reminded of it because he was imprisoned for a significant chunk of his life after a mostly-faked trial on sort of bullshit charges.



LS:

Judging from your general stance on the issue and the example you quoted, your rationale presently seems to be "because one guy isn't going to be executed while a bunch of others will, we should just execute them all."

That seems a little silly. I think someone else pointed it out earlier, but using one flaw of the system as your reason for fixing a different flaw of the system doesn't make much sense. The toilet's running, so we should remodel the bathroom?

[be-bop]

In Europe we consider Capital Punishment to be barbaric and unfair. [/quote]

No in Europe only some people think Capital Punishment to be barbaric and unfair.

If it went to a public referendum in the UK it would be voted back in no question.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe

And what's the problem with revenge? I feel it's a necessary part of the recovery of the victim's friends and family, to know that the guilty party paid for the victim's life with his own. Justice and revenge aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.

I've found that many death-penalty opponents change their tune when someone close to them is murdered.

I had a friend whose aunt was killed while in a phone booth, by a Crip. Why? He wanted her car. Guess what? The car had a coded lock, so he couldn't use it anyway. She died for nothing (as if dying because someone wants your car is a good reason) People like the one I just mentioned need to die. They might target YOU next. Or your parents. Or your child. Or your partner.

I just don't feel sorry for them at all. If you kill someone, intentionally, in cold blood, and it's not in self-defense, or defense of other people or your property, then IMO, they can't execute you fast enough for me. I don't see the point in us having to pay for you for the rest of your life. We have our own bills to worry about, without having to pay yours, too.
Sidhe

Amen.

They arrested Travis, Shawna and Ron, and Travis confessed to the whole thing, as long as Shawna got off (she was there, and under Oregon law, if you're there and don't report it, you get indicated just like you did it. Which is a good thing.). So, since Travis copped a plea, they decided not to fry him.

He is comfortable in his new home. He got life without possibility of parole. So the good people of Oregon have to pay to make sure he has cable, and has a great set of weights and activities to keep him occupied. This is a convicted, confessed murderer. He never has to work another day in his life, and he gets 3 squares, a cot, cable, exercise equipment, a sexual partner (voluntary), free medical and letters from stupid people who believe his bullshit and "feel sorry" for him.

I say fry his ass, and if they need someone to pull the switch, and they are willing to pay my airfare, I'll be happy to oblige. In addition, even if he DID get the chair, it would not be close to matching up to the suffering and torture he put Steven through. I say we put hundreds of little cuts all over HIS body, and rub salt water and lemon juice into them, and then cut HIS leg off at the knee and let him bleed to death, taunting and humiliating him until he blacked out from blood loss.

THAT is justice. Do unto that fucker as he did to the victim.

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar



Amen.

They arrested Travis, Shawna and Ron, and Travis confessed to the whole thing, as long as Shawna got off (she was there, and under Oregon law, if you're there and don't report it, you get indicated just like you did it. Which is a good thing.). So, since Travis copped a plea, they decided not to fry him.

He is comfortable in his new home. He got life without possibility of parole. So the good people of Oregon have to pay to make sure he has cable, and has a great set of weights and activities to keep him occupied. This is a convicted, confessed murderer. He never has to work another day in his life, and he gets 3 squares, a cot, cable, exercise equipment, a sexual partner (voluntary), free medical and letters from stupid people who believe his bullshit and "feel sorry" for him.

I say fry his ass, and if they need someone to pull the switch, and they are willing to pay my airfare, I'll be happy to oblige. In addition, even if he DID get the chair, it would not be close to matching up to the suffering and torture he put Steven through. I say we put hundreds of little cuts all over HIS body, and rub salt water and lemon juice into them, and then cut HIS leg off at the knee and let him bleed to death, taunting and humiliating him until he blacked out from blood loss.

THAT is justice. Do unto that fucker as he did to the victim.

That just warms my heart, Onyx....I knew I could count on you.


Sidhe

[Lady Sidhe]

Oh, Bruce, btw...we have one more here in La., in addition to regular and extra crispy....Cajun injector.

Hahahahahahahahahah!



For those who don't get lethal injection joke...


Sidhe

[Troubleshooter]

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
Good catch. I guess what I meant to say was that that was the maximum effect, if any, that guilt or innocence could have on how far the process went.

I think that it is valid, though. A certain number of people on death row do not want to appeal, and I suspect that a majority of them are guilty.

While that may be a reasonable assertion is it possible that there has been a study to that effect?

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
Life in prison is never life in prison. "Life" generally means seven years, then parole.

Depends on the state or jurisdiction.

I guarantee you that an executed murderer will never kill again. 0% recidivism rate.

Guarantee that no mistakes will be made in administering the death penalty.

It would seem that a better way to judge society would be by the way it treats the victims of its criminals....

Would you say that we treat them badly, and if so, could you provide some examples/evidence?

You know what? That's not my problem. I'm poor, and I don't use that as an excuse to go out and commit crimes. And I once WAS accused of something I didn't do. I had to use a public defender. I won.

Do you think the poor deserve adequate representation at trial?

Good for you in your situation...it doesn't always work like that though.

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.

Broad generalization...back it up.

I don't want to risk becoming a victim of a crime, or someone in my family becoming a victim, because a defendant was given a slap on the wrist, got out early because of time served and good time, just because he was poor.

Are you saying that you think they let people out early or let people off light because they are poor?

I've read a shitload of true crime (it comprises most of my rather extensive personal library), and murderers tend toward recidivism. They get let out, and just go on killing.

Sad, isn't it? Too bad our society is so reactive and less proactive...maybe we wouldn't have such high recidivism rates.

Class war, my tailfeathers! It's a war between law-abiding society and criminal society. You notice how little crime they have in Saudi Arabia, don't you? That's because justice is swift and sure.

Apples and oranges: Saudi Arabia is a completely different society from the US.

I agree with that. Murderous children often become murderous adults. Sociopathy is usually in evidence by age 15, and it cannot be cured. Some sociopaths can live in society fine, but for those who can't, why should I have to worry that one may kidnap my daughter, rape her, strangle her, and throw her body in the bushes because he was let out at age 18?

So, if a sociopath cannot live in society, they should be killed, even if they've never killed? Not to mention, the brain is still developing at age 15.

The question is dangerousness. If they are a continuing danger to society, then they should be eliminated rather than warehoused. Not all mentally retarded people are like Forrest Gump. I've worked with retarded children who are cunning and sneaky, and would jump you at the drop of a hat. One of those retarded children sent a psychiatric worker to the hospital in an ambulance. Why? The PA woke her up. There are varying degrees of retardation, some so slight as to be unnoticable, but the media jumps on the word, and people see Forrest Gump.

This is essentially eugenics. Why are some of those retarded kids cunning and sneaky and unruly? Ummm, gee, could it be because their brain is fucked up?

The public is told that mentally disturbed people aren't dangerous. That was the same drivel they fed us in training for the psychiatric ward. BULLSHIT. If you've got a schizophrenic who refuses to take his meds, odds are you're going to feel the impact of his psychosis sooner or later. The fact is, some of them ARE dangerous, and if they commit a violent crime, they should pay for it. If they refuse meds, they're refusing to control the illness, and thus have a built-in excuse for any dangerous acts they commit. In the psych ward, we had several patients who refused meds. We had to watch our backs constantly if we wanted to walk off our shift under our own power.

If a person is a danger without being on meds, and those meds will not produce life-threatening side effects, then I think they should be forced to take them. Or they should be committed to an institution.

Not only is the death penalty justice, it's society's revenge. The only problem I see with the death penalty is that it isn't used swiftly enough, and it isn't sure enough.

The term "revenge", to me, hints of a lack of impartiality...it seems to be based on emotion, not logic.

When you fuck up and break the law, society deems that one should be punished (and hopefully) rehabilitated. It's not about revenge...it's more like penance.

Society must be protected from predators, or it won't survive. Warehousing them and providing them with all the amenities that many law-abiding citizens can't afford is a slap in the face.

Again, you're making a broad generalization...not all prisoners live in luxury. Most of them don't, actually.

As I see it, we rely too much on the law to protect us. We must be more proactive in stopping crime before it starts. This is easier said than done though...I think it would take a massive overhaul of society to accomplish this.

And how about in England, where those children lured the little boy out of the mall and killed him on the railroad tracks? That deserves the death penalty, as far as I'm concerned. If children that young are killing already, all they're going to learn is that they can get away with it. They lured an innocent child to his death. For the fun of it. I have no sympathy for them. They deserve to die. A life for a life. It may not bring the little boy back, but it may save someone else's life in the future. That's what's important, not the feelings of the poor killer.

Link, please?

The way I see it, people in America know the penalty for certain crimes; therefore, if you commit a crime for which the punishment is death, you're taking your chances. You KNOW what the penalty will be if you're caught, therefore, don't whine when you get it. It's not like we sprung it on you unawares. You took the chance, and you lost. Poor baby.

And do you really think the death penalty has been that strong of a deterrent?

The high cost of the death penalty isn't the execution--it's the endless appeals. If DNA testing were mandatory, I think we'd find a lot fewer innocent people convicted; but it's NOT mandatory. And I feel that a lawful execution is no more murder than lawful confiscation is stealing.

DNA testing, if relevant to the case, should be mandatory. But until that happens, a person condemned to death should have every possible legal avenue open to them. Better safe than sorry, right?

[richlevy]

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
Life in prison is never life in prison. "Life" generally means seven years, then parole.

Why should I have to support these people? Why should I have to pay for their cable, their medical treatment? I can't afford cable for myself, and I can't even afford medical insurance for myself, but I have to pay for theirs??

Sidhe

There is life without parole, which the most heinous crimes do get as penalties.

As far as the $20-30K we spend on each prisoner. Talk to your Congressman. Tell them to decriminalize non violent drug offenses and make room for the violent felons.

[Lady Sidhe]

"Guarantee that no mistakes will be made in administering the death penalty."


Not possible, until and perhaps if, DNA testing becomes mandatory in death penalty cases, which I think it should be.



"Would you say that we treat them badly, and if so, could you provide some examples/evidence?"

Yes, I do think we treat them badly. Just look at the way the court system titles trials: "The STATE vs. the murderer," not "THE VICTIMS' FAMILIES vs. the murderer." Look at how the victims of rape are dragged through the mud by defense attorneys; look at how dead victims are dragged through the mud--all in an attempt to prove that the victim brought it on themselves. The rights of the victims/victims' families are practically nonexistent, because everyone is so worried about the rights of the accused, and after conviction, the rights of the criminals, that the people who have been destroyed are further destroyed in the process.





"Do you think the poor deserve adequate representation at trial?"

Yes, I do. However, I don't think that someone should get a slap on the wrist because of race or economic status. What should matter is not race or economics, but GUILT.




"Are you saying that you think they let people out early or let people off light because they are poor?"

I think that people are more vocal when a poor person is convicted, yes. It's one more way to exacerbate the resentment between the classes. When a poor person is convicted, the first thing that people jump on is "he wouldn't have been convicted if he were rich." Not necessarily true.



"Sad, isn't it? Too bad our society is so reactive and less proactive...maybe we wouldn't have such high recidivism rates."

And what would you suggest to be proactive? How can one be proactive with a sociopath? Sociopathy cannot be cured. Period.



"Apples and oranges: Saudi Arabia is a completely different society from the US."

I was referring to the "Swift and sure"





"So, if a sociopath cannot live in society, they should be killed, even if they've never killed? Not to mention, the brain is still developing at age 15."

I didn't say that. I said that people who murder in cold blood should be eliminated so that they can no longer prey on society. They serve no purpose, and we should not have to pay for their upkeep. And sociopathy is evident by age 15 through a group of behaviors. This isn't something that was pulled out of someone's ass...this information is the result of study of these individuals. Sociopaths cannot be cured.



"This is essentially eugenics. Why are some of those retarded kids cunning and sneaky and unruly? Ummm, gee, could it be because their brain is fucked up?"

No. It's not because their brains are fucked up. I.Q. and cunning don't necessarily go together. Ask Troubleshooter about some of these kids; I'm sure Wolf has had to deal with her share. Retardation is not always as debilitating as people think. Severe retardation is one thing. Mild retardation does not prevent violence, sneakiness, or cunning.



"If a person is a danger without being on meds, and those meds will not produce life-threatening side effects, then I think they should be forced to take them. Or they should be committed to an institution."


You can't force them. It's a violation of their rights. Most of them ARE in an institution. That doesn't change their dangerousness. They can escape, or they're let out because they seem to be doing better (ie, they take meds long enough to even out, then quit once they're released.)


"The term "revenge", to me, hints of a lack of impartiality...it seems to be based on emotion, not logic."

Hell yes. If someone I loved was a victim, I'd pull the switch myself. The law says "if you do this, this will happen." That's the logic part.

"When you fuck up and break the law, society deems that one should be punished (and hopefully) rehabilitated. It's not about revenge...it's more like penance."

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


"Again, you're making a broad generalization...not all prisoners live in luxury. Most of them don't, actually."

They have more amenities than I do. I can't get health care if I get sick. If my eyes go, I can't go to the eye doctor. I don't have cable. Any of the downsides are not my problem. They got themselves into it. They knew the penalty if they got caught.

"As I see it, we rely too much on the law to protect us. We must be more proactive in stopping crime before it starts. This is easier said than done though...I think it would take a massive overhaul of society to accomplish this."


That's what the law is THERE for. People will be people, and some people will be predators. We kill rabid dogs. Why do we hesitate to do the same to rabid humans? At least the rabid dog has an excuse for his behavior....


quote:And how about in England, where those children lured the little boy out of the mall and killed him on the railroad tracks? That deserves the death penalty, as far as I'm concerned. If children that young are killing already, all they're going to learn is that they can get away with it. They lured an innocent child to his death. For the fun of it. I have no sympathy for them. They deserve to die. A life for a life. It may not bring the little boy back, but it may save someone else's life in the future. That's what's important, not the feelings of the poor killer.



"Link, please?"

These are just two of the many articles on the Bulger Murder:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/bulger/art...5276%2C00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,38...103494,00.html

Here's one if you want more articles:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/...pe=all&tab=www

"And do you really think the death penalty has been that strong of a deterrent?"

If used swiftly and surely on those who are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, YES. But we don't use it swiftly and surely. You're more likely to rot in jail than you are to get fried.


Here's another website, this one on murderous children. Notice the ages, and notice their attitudes.

http://www.petercoad.co.uk/033.htm



Sidhe

[Lady Sidhe]

"Tell them to decriminalize non violent drug offenses and make room for the violent felons."


I SO agree with that!


Sidhe

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe

The question is dangerousness. If they are a continuing danger to society, then they should be eliminated rather than warehoused. Not all mentally retarded people are like Forrest Gump. I've worked with retarded children who are cunning and sneaky, and would jump you at the drop of a hat. One of those retarded children sent a psychiatric worker to the hospital in an ambulance. Why? The PA woke her up. There are varying degrees of retardation, some so slight as to be unnoticable, but the media jumps on the word, and people see Forrest Gump.



"I read of one case for instance of a fellow who had schizophrenia .....He was sentenced to die and before he died he was given medication which gave him a temporary measure of normality ( some kind of ati psychotic agent) so that he would fully understand his fate."

The public is told that mentally disturbed people aren't dangerous. That was the same drivel they fed us in training for the psychiatric ward. BULLSHIT. If you've got a schizophrenic who refuses to take his meds, odds are you're going to feel the impact of his psychosis sooner or later. The fact is, some of them ARE dangerous, and if they commit a violent crime, they should pay for it. If they refuse meds, they're refusing to control the illness, and thus have a built-in excuse for any dangerous acts they commit. In the psych ward, we had several patients who refused meds. We had to watch our backs constantly if we wanted to walk off our shift under our own power.


I couldn't give a rat's ass LESS if they suffer. They deserve it. No, they should not die painlessly. Odds are, their victim(s) did not die painlessly, and the victim's family and friends will live with the pain of their loss forever. We should be more concerned with the victims. It seems to me that anyone who takes the side of the murderer is by default taking the side AGAINST the victim.


"Or is it necessary that the condemned suffer mortal agony in order for justice to be served?"


IMO, YES, it IS necessary. Not only is the death penalty justice, it's society's revenge. The only problem I see with the death penalty is that it isn't used swiftly enough, and it isn't sure enough...

And I feel that a lawful execution is no more murder than lawful confiscation is stealing.


Sidhe

OK, I'll buy your arguments. I have just declared myself winner in the next presidential election. My first action as president will be to order everyone on death row to be executed at once. I will also order that their deaths be as long drawn out and brutal as possible. Naturally, the families of the victims will get front row seats, so they can enjoy every scream, every moan, every spasm of agony. They will also be given their very own video-tape of the event to take home, so they can relive the experience again and again. These are good, moral people and they need their revenge, so they can continue to be noble, upstanding members of society.

The next item on my agenda will be to make our streets safe for our citizens. Those retards are potential killers. Everybody with an IQ less than 80 gets the death sentence. Same for the mentally ill - they are out of their minds, after all. God knows what they might do. Anybody with a mental disorder, please get in line with the retards. Let's see, in the US, one out of three of every young black males between the ages of 18 and 32 is currently incarerated. Now this has nothing to do with poverty or lack of a good lawyer since in your experience you were poor and unjustly accused and got off. Since poverty has no bearing on crime in our culture, then neither does racism. After all, look at all those orientals who don't commit crime. In the case of young black males, its probably a case of bad genetics. Let's get rid of them! Young black men, please line up behind the crazies. And while I'm at it, I think I'll rid the country of the disabled - bunch of useless eaters sitting around watching cable at the tax payer's expense. Everyone in a wheel chair, line up behind those black gang members, thank you. One of my advisors has just informed me that homosexual males may have a proclivity for episodes of senseless rage. That's good enough for me. All you people with limp wrists and attending acting school, get over there behind those yucky handicapped people. That should do for a start. Oh! Wait! Almost forgot those Godless pagans with their satanic rituals. They're the worst! Witches, please go stand behind the guys in tights. There.

I will then direct that the execution of hese people be done publicly and I will pass a law making it mandatory for the public to attend. Anyone who tries to close their eyes will be executed along with the rest. I want the American people to be satisfed that this is a just country and I want them to go to bed at night content that the evil doers suffered a suitable end. This should go a long way to induce in the populance a peaceful, contented out look. We will then live in Nirvana, at last.

"All deeds are led by mind, created by mind.

If one acts and speaks with a corrupt mind,
suffering follows
As the wheel follows the hoof of an oxen pulling a cart.

If one speaks and acts with a serene mind,
happiness follows,
As surely as one's shadow.

'He abused me, mistreated me, defeated me, robbed me.'
Holding on to these thoughts keeps hatred alive.

'He abused me, mistreated me, defeated me, robbed me.'
Letting go of these thoughts destroys hatred for all time.

Hatred does not win over hatred
Only by love is hate defeated.
This is the law which is true for all time."

- The Buddha