Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

US ONLY Death Penalty Poll

Crime Punishment Death Penalty Poll of EI'ers

  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

Poll: Do you agree with the death penalty? (68 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you agree with the death penalty?

  1. Yes. (35 votes [51.47%])

    Percentage of vote: 51.47%

  2. No. (18 votes [26.47%])

    Percentage of vote: 26.47%

  3. I am definitively ambivalent (3 votes [4.41%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.41%

  4. I can't decide one way or the other (2 votes [2.94%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.94%

  5. Yes but not the way we do it (7 votes [10.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.29%

  6. I feel totally impassive (1 votes [1.47%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.47%

  7. Eh? I don't understand... (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  8. Other (2 votes [2.94%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.94%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#61 Smiley

Smiley

    harumph

  • Islander
  • 937 posts

Posted 06 December 2005 - 08:40 AM

I voted yes, but I would make them suffer just a bit. None of this lethal injection crap. The person they killed probably didn't get to die painlessly, so why should the killer?
Friends are just enemies that don't have the guts to kill you.
See Ya Space Cowboy

#62 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 06 December 2005 - 09:06 AM

I suppose because the intent is justice, not to prove that we are just as depraved as they are.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#63 Smiley

Smiley

    harumph

  • Islander
  • 937 posts

Posted 06 December 2005 - 02:44 PM

^ Yeah I know -sigh- oh well. *kicks can*
Friends are just enemies that don't have the guts to kill you.
See Ya Space Cowboy

#64 Kosh

Kosh

    Criag Ferguson For President!

  • Islander
  • 11,149 posts

Posted 06 December 2005 - 03:14 PM

Voted Yes.
Can't Touch This!!

#65 Cheile

Cheile

    proud J/Cer ~ ten years and counting

  • Islander
  • 10,776 posts

Posted 08 December 2005 - 03:25 AM

A Karas, on Dec 2 2005, 03:43 PM, said:

Julianus, on Dec 2 2005, 10:37 PM, said:

Zwolf666, on Dec 2 2005, 10:33 PM, said:

Quote

animal cruelty??

Yep.  The world doesn't need the kind of worthless mental defectives who get their jollies torturing animals, or people for that matter.  No sense wasting food and oxgen on 'em.

Cheers,

Zwolf

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yep, I can agree with Zwolf on this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I voted yes.  And I also agree to it being applied to animal cruelty.  They are living creatures who are all too often terribly abused and even mutilated and killed for pleasure and total disreguard for life.  If some one kills another living creature, that person automatically forfeits his own life.  These people spending the rest of their lives in prison isn't enough.  If that sounds cruel, I'm sorry.  But it was cruel for them to kill without mercy or even a second thought to their victims.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


i also agree with Zwolf.

because remember, all you naysayers (those who think animal lives do not count), freaks who murder and torture innocent animals use them as a starting point.  then they graduate to people--serial killing.

Edited by Cheile, 08 December 2005 - 03:26 AM.

Posted Image


"Andromeda may be over but it's not dead. Not as long as we have fanfic writers dedicated to keeping it alive.  Whether you accept everything as canon or stop at a certain point. Whether you accept and enjoy Nu Drom or only accept Classic Drom, it will never be over.  Not as long as we have each other [and Beka], who binds us all together." ~ Mary Rose

Twitter * Facebook * ExIsle at Facebook

icon by mercscilla @ LJ

#66 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 08 December 2005 - 06:56 PM

I believe, controversially, the following:

Understanding is one of if not THE most important thing in the world. Revenge is never right. A misguided sense of 'justice' can never hide the innate hypocrisy in Corporal Punishment. Where is the understanding in listening to a victim's story, and RIGHTLY feeling sympathetic and moved, so then deciding to kill the criminal? Zeal can never make up for the one-sided, pure and utter SUBJECTIVITY in "understanding". Thankfully my country is objective. It looks at the following facts:

People commit crimes for a REASON. It is more important to address the REASON for committing crime, the cause, not simply try to mindlessly cull the criminals, i.e. the consequence.

There is such a thing as reform. People have the ability to change and that should be encouraged. It can be done- through understanding. Repentence and forgiveness are far better means of closure than the SO-CALLED ""closure"" of killing the guy in revenge. Revenge is never sweet, it serves to harden the heart further.

The Death penalty is more expensive than life imprisonment and is not a deterrent.

There will always be innocent victims who die as a result of this so called 'justice'

Criminals commit suicide frequently in prison such as to suggest that for them at LEAST- the thought of imprisonment is far worse than death.

That the government especially should endeavour to practice what they preach. They cannot therefore, justifiably, exclaim killing as wrong, then kill people on a whim.

This is the way I see it: you know when sometimes, you really dislike someone, and you think - man, that guy is so annoying! and then you find out his parents just divorced or that his parents put immense pressure on him or he gets bullied or whatever and you think- ok, that doesn't EXCUSE his rudeness, but i was still wrong to be snarky to him, because that isn't understanding, or loving. I always believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt- I believe firmly that we have no choice in that. Because you know- when I say understand, there's something you have to...er, understand..:unsure: ...and that is that you can NEVER TRULY *truly* understand someone. Do you fully understand yourSELF even?! You can't analyse someone's entire life from their point of view- that's impossible, you can't go through their life FOR them. So be thankful you didn't end up that way. But- assume that something in there caused them to do this terrible thing. They would not have done it at the age of 5.

If you don't believe me, instead of going back in time to kill Hitler, why don't you go back in time, and bring him up from a baby in a loving environment. Do YOU think that he would still end up a dictator? If so we simply disagree at a basic level, and that's why we disagree on the finer points of life v. death.

Bearing in mind that you can never truly understand someone, what gives you the right to kill them? If you do understand- what in Hades gives you the right to kill them instead of love and be loving towards them?? As I say- understanding hte cause is NOT condoning - obviously. If you don't understand- why assume that's because there is NO reason behind the act? What arrogance! That's how I feel about it, anyhow.

And yes, I HAVE given up directing people to the other post ;)

Elín
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#67 Schmokie_Dragon

Schmokie_Dragon

    Crazy Fish Lady

  • Islander
  • 1,226 posts

Posted 08 December 2005 - 08:26 PM

Does that mean I can say something here? I'm gunna risk it ;)

Understanding is incredably important. However, if a teenager steps outa line, there is little practical merit in going to him and saying "now, what is the problem....can I help?". It may not be the compassioate and loving thing to do but compassion dis irrelevant in the face of an offending individual. You put him in his place. You show him that his behaviour is undesireable and intollerable. If his behaviour reccurs, then there may be an underlying cause that was not addressed and you, while maintianing that his behaviour is unacceptable, try to locate the source and do what you can for him.
In the case of criminals, you dont wait until the crime was commited, say "I wonder why he did that, lets address the problem". You prevent it before it even happens. You give out the message that, regardless of cause, such behaviour IS UNACCEPTABLE. The individual has the choice the break the law, he has the choice to take a life, he must understand the consiquences. There are very few motivations that I think are exempt from the most sevear punishment and they are:

revenge for a rape, GBH that leads to death, murder, attempted murder and similarly gratuitous and unacceptable acts. An enraged father, weeping over the body of his murdered child, cannot be dealt with in the same way as a cold blooded killer. Such a man is not a presistent danger to society and is unlikely to commit another such crime.

Crime of Passion. Basicaly encompasses revenge, I think it should apply to all cases where the offender went "berserk" and failed to take responsibility for thir actions. The cause of this "berserker" mode, however, must be serious. A woman who kills her hubby for cheating does not classify unless she has some underlying mental instability.

Mental illness or instability. Essentialy where the individual is deemed medicaly unable to take responsibility for their actions.

Self defense, as long as it is shown that the action was not disproportionate to the situation.

There may well be others, but they should be taken on a case by cases basis.

Reason? Oh, there may be a reason, but unless it is proven that the individual is unable to take proper responsibility for their actions then that reason is irrelevant. I dont care if he had a messed up childhood and was abused. I dont care if he was bullied. He broke the law, he took a life, he knew what he was doing and the consiquences. Anyone who breaks the law and knows the consiquences deserves NO protection by law. You take a life, that life was not yours to take, that life belonged to someone else, someone who had a family, was loved, had hopes and dreams. Gone, and it is your fault. You may have had a messed up life, but thanks to you they now have no life...

Reform is irrelevant. If Hitler was still alive and said "I'm sorry, I reform!" would he be welcomed with open arms? Even if he meant it? I doubt it. What someone may feel sorry for after the event it irrelevant. They still did it, they were still responsible for their actions and feeling sorry does not mean anything. I dont believe in forgivness for cold blooded murder.

Innocents will die. I am tempted to say collateral damage but I realise that is wrong. One life is equal to a million. One innocent death is too many. But... if the death of a small percentage of innocnents can prevent a greater percentage of innocents being murdered, it is neccessary. It is a mistake, unintentonal. There is nothing to be done except ensure the evidence is, for all intensive purposes, perfect. But this is the one area I am against capital punishment in. The application and the flaws of the system. The principle is one I whole heartedly agree with, its present application is what is flawed.

Criminals commiting suicide? Yes, death by their own hands may be preferable to incarceration at the hands of others. But in the end, they still maintain control. Capital Punishment removes that control and therefore is still a terrifying prospect, even for those who seek death.

Practice what you preach? Killing is not wrong. The act of taking an individual creatures life is not of itself wrong. It is the circumstances and motivation which makes it so. If killing was wrong, then many more people would be locked up than are currently. To kill for self gratification, for revenge of childhood insecurities, to kill a cheating spouse or a small child.... this is wrong. To rid the world of dangerous individuals who have been shown to kill arbitrarily and with no justification, to "cull" those who chose to break the law of their nation, despite the consiquences, is inherently diffarent. One is a lawbreaking individual, the other is a lawmaking nation. The differece is so explicit that I dont think I can really describe it! Its just... obvious.

Quote

you know when sometimes, you really dislike someone, and you think - man, that guy is so annoying! and then you find out his parents just divorced or that his parents put immense pressure on him or he gets bullied or whatever and you think- ok, that doesn't EXCUSE his rudeness, but i was still wrong to be snarky to him, because that isn't understanding, or loving.

Being snarky to a rude individual is not the same as removing a dangerous individual from society. And yes, I would still cease being snarky. But I wouldnt feel bad that I was. If his circumstances dont excuse his actions, coddling him give him the message that they do. You tell him you feel awfly sorry about xy and z and dont be snarky again, but dont feel bad about it! You have no reason not to, be snarky because he gave you no reason not to. He positively gave you a reason to.

Would I kill Hitler or try and bring him up better? I'm tempted just to kill him. The only merit in bringing him up in a loving family is to avoid him getting to the genocide point and thus saving lives. Not for his benifit, but for the benifit of the people he killed.

Revenge. If society wanted revenge, it would take revenge. It would go out there with is knives and guns and massacre those who commit the crimes. Soviety doesnt need the law to take revenge for it, it is perfectly capable of that on its own thank you very much. What society needs is the removal of criminals without decent citizens being locked up for taking matters into their own hands, and it needs a preventative. Capital punishment on its own will not solve societlys problems. However, a no tlerance policy such as CP will, when combined with firmer education, greater respect being drummed into youths, zero tolerance on drug abuse, alchoholism and the rest of societys recently exaccerbated ills, will nip most of it in the bud. It will not be instant, and anyone who looks at a report done over a few years that *proves * CP is not a deterrent is fooling themselves. These things take generations, but they do work.

I doubt many people are assuming there are no reasons for murder, I think most people accept they will never understand the person and their motivation. But as you say, understanding does not condone their actions. It simply tells them that its not the end of the world if they do it, there is a chance. What they need to be told is that they will not recieve any lienience for their actions, the motivation for their actions is in most cases irrelevant and they will not be given a second chance. They need to know that murder IS the end of the world. Understanding does not really come into it. We may not have the right to take a life, but they did not have that right either. As far as I am concerned, taking a basic right away from an innoccent, the right to life, invalidates the criminals rights.

The purposes of CP -

To give out a no tolerance message
To permanently remove dangerous people

Persoanly, I say bring back the gallows and the firing squad. Lethal injection is too good for them.

Now, its 01:30, I'm tired and probably ranted more than I should have done (probably didnt make much sense either). This is not a personal attack on anyone and is not intended to be taken as such. I love you all and bid you all a good night
Posted Image

#68 ShotenStar

ShotenStar

    Collector of Silly Mares

  • Islander
  • 182 posts

Posted 09 December 2005 - 09:33 AM

My core belief has always been that if it is wrong for an individual acting alone to take a life, it should be wrong for individuals acting as a group called 'the state' to take a life.

*star*
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." Douglas Adams

#69 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 09 December 2005 - 09:46 AM

Having seen a documentry on the crying killer.

This was a man who killed a number of young women in a number of states who would call up the 911 operators and in a high sobbing voice say where his last victim could be found. He killed something in the area of 23 women when he finally found one who fought back and wounded him enough she escaped.

The people who studied the case told of how this man if he could not find a victim in a particualr area would move on till he did. He just liked killing women.

That is why the penalty is there. To put down a person who simply looks at other people as something to kill.  What the state is doing is for our defense not to give us thrills or entertainment.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#70 Schmokie_Dragon

Schmokie_Dragon

    Crazy Fish Lady

  • Islander
  • 1,226 posts

Posted 09 December 2005 - 12:33 PM

precisely. There are people out there who are so twisted that they kill recklessly, violently and indescriminately. NOTHING excuses such people. As far as I am concerned, even a "insane" individual who murders repeatedly should be executed. They may not be acting as they would were they stable, but they had the brains and the forthought to execute such horrific murders. Such individuals needs to be removed, permanently.
Posted Image

#71 Rhiannonjk

Rhiannonjk

    Woof!

  • Islander
  • 1,507 posts

Posted 09 December 2005 - 12:43 PM

Schmokie_Dragon, on Dec 9 2005, 01:33 PM, said:

Such individuals needs to be removed, permanently.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Which a life sentence in prison accomplishes!  

I can't believe that you would admit that it is worth killing even one innocent person just to put other's to death when society can be free of them with a life sentence.

***Is easily distracted***


#72 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 09 December 2005 - 12:48 PM

Jail can be escaped from...

#73 Rhiannonjk

Rhiannonjk

    Woof!

  • Islander
  • 1,507 posts

Posted 09 December 2005 - 01:31 PM

^ yes, it can.  And I know there are prison breaks all the time, but just out of curiosity, are there any cases in the last twenty years or so where a murderer escaped and committed another murder before being caught?

Edited by Rhiannonjk, 09 December 2005 - 01:32 PM.

***Is easily distracted***


#74 Schmokie_Dragon

Schmokie_Dragon

    Crazy Fish Lady

  • Islander
  • 1,226 posts

Posted 09 December 2005 - 01:33 PM

and if someone is in jail there is the possibility of bail, release due to good bahavior, escape (SOME have managed it!).... and it costs more money to have someone in jail for their ENTIRE life than to kill em. How much money would gallows cost??? A small amount for set up costs and maybe the price of a new building. I dont see why it would cost to kill a criminal if you had non-comsumable facilities (like lethal injection).

And yes, I think the benifits are enough that a very tiny percentage of innocent lives lost in order to save many is acceptable. Its hardly an arbitrary decision to kill innocents, and one would hope that people would not go to death unless it was a cut and dry situation. There is a possibility of KNOWING someone commited a crime, there is the possibility of the case being cut and dry.

Essentialy we have two mind sets here. I dont think one will ever persuade the other.
Posted Image

#75 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 09 December 2005 - 07:05 PM

Quote

An enraged father, weeping over the body of his murdered child, cannot be dealt with in the same way as a cold blooded killer. Such a man is not a presistent danger to society and is unlikely to commit another such crime.

Again this double standard. It's ok so long as it's abundantly obvious why he did it. If the reason behind it is less obvious, what the hey just murder them. What's one MORE grieving father over the loss of his troubled son?
The ultimate IRONY of course is this: if reason behind the murder does not come into it - then how does the *reason* behind CP justify it's own actions? You killed them because they were a - ah, sorry, we have no interest in the reasons behind it here, you killed someone. Hmm, right that works...oh no....wait...

Quote

Reason? Oh, there may be a reason, but unless it is proven that the individual is unable to take proper responsibility for their actions then that reason is irrelevant.

Again, is this not a direct contrast to that of the example of a grieving father?

Quote

I dont care if he had a messed up childhood and was abused. I dont care if he was bullied.

I can't even begin to imagine how easy it must be for you to say that, Elanin.

Quote

I dont believe in forgiveness for cold blooded murder.

No one is saying that they can't still take responsibility, but taking a less extreme example than Hitler - a murderer, who regrets it badly, he deserves a second chance. Forgiving is practically irrelevant, he could go on to do amazing things, in fact I believe a case over in America is about that right now- a man who did some bad things, then reformed and did some amazing things - then they found out about the bad things and put him on death row. What is the POINT of that? That's not protecting society. As for your argument of preventing through death penalty as a deterrent- let me ask you this- who has more crime, UK or US? proportionally speaking, obviously. I doubt very much it is the UK, roughly equal- ok, more? no. IT IS NOT A DETERRENT. That report does not PROVE Cp works, only that for a very short amount of time people are like 'whoa! capital punishment....' but I assure you the numbers would rise straight on up again when people get used to it. It's the 'it won't happen to me' issue, and more importantly, the CAUSE of their actions which leaves no room for 'wel I want to kill this person who raped me when I was 6 (not that i'd ever admit that) but hey....there is a slight chance i get caught and sentenced to death so, ah well, I guess my reason for wanting to murder that person has magically disappeared now adn i can go on to lead a healthy happy life. yay for capital punishment!!' yes. I think not. Also, see Appendix A.

Quote

One life is equal to a million.

We have here another double standard. You mean to say, SOME lives are equal to a million. Your own life, Schmokie is probably worth a billion. Your mother's - a gazillion. Because clearly you have the right to judge how much people are worth. Oh no WAIT....

Everyone murdered on death row has someone who loves them. They are worth more than enough to keep them alive, yet according to you they are worth -1 lives, just because you deem it so.

Quote

But in the end, they still maintain control.

Go to prison and continue to claim that they 'maintain control'. The first day you would see that that is the LAST thing they have.

Quote

Killing is not wrong.

:( Yes it is. Sometimes it is unavoidable. This is NOT one of those cases.

Quote

One is a lawbreaking individual, the other is a lawmaking nation. The differece is so explicit that I dont think I can really describe it! Its just... obvious.

That's an argument nowadays is it? It's just...obvious. It's incredibly mind-blowingly obvious to me that a person is a person no matter what. Yes they are inherently DIFFERENT, that doesn't mean you can kill one of them. You know what? Men and women are INHERENTLY DIFFERENT too, but that doesn't mean you can kill men for "the good of the nation". If you have the ability to judge, where do you draw the line? I have broken the law plenty of times, perhaps I should cull myself for the good of the nation.

Quote

Would I kill Hitler or try and bring him up better? I'm tempted just to kill him. The only merit in bringing him up in a loving family is to avoid him getting to the genocide point and thus saving lives. Not for his benifit, but for the benifit of the people he killed.

Aside from the fact that actually makes no logical sense, you admit here that some people are not born innately criminal or brutal. Ergo, there MUST be a reason behind the actions.

Quote

and it costs more money to have someone in jail for their ENTIRE life than to kill em.

This is incorrect. See appendix A.

Appendix A was found as the very first on the google list having typed in 'Cost "Capital Punishment"' and I can bring you many other such reports from the rest of that list if you so desire. There is a mountain of evidence to show how wrong your comment here actually is.

SparkyCola

SparkyCola.
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#76 SparkyCola

SparkyCola
  • Islander
  • 14,904 posts

Posted 09 December 2005 - 07:06 PM

APPENDIX A

Quote

The Cost of Capital Punishment (8/14/02)
By Michael Coles, CPE Staff Economist

 
Every major cost study has shown capital punishment to be more expensive than an alternative system where life-imprisonment is the maximum sentence. To see why, note that only a small fraction of the cases that start out as capital trials actually result in a death sentence, and only about 10% of those death sentences result in an execution. The 784 inmates executed (as of June 26th, 2002) since 1976 are only a fraction of the roughly 7,000 death sentences in that time, which sprang from an even larger number of trials.
Yet, all of these cases were more expensive from the beginning, regardless of their final outcome, because they began as capital trials. Death penalty trials are more expensive than ordinary murder trials. They entail more pre-trial preparation time, more attorneys, longer jury selections, more expert witnesses, and a heightened level of due process. They are 3 to 5 times longer, and the defendant is less likely to simply plead guilty to avoid a trial if there is a chance of being executed.

Considering the small percentage of executions that result, these expenses are a burden on the justice system. Yet, doing away with them without also getting rid of capital punishment would be unwise. Since 1976, over 100 people have been released from death row based on newly discovered evidence of their innocence - almost 13% of the number executed!

According to Richard Dieter, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C., the most comprehensive cost study was published by Duke University researchers in 1993. This two-year study determined North Carolina's capital cases cost at least an extra $2.16 million per execution, compared to what taxpayers would have spent if defendants were tried without the death penalty and sentenced to life in prison. Applying those figures nationally would mean $1.69 billion were spent on the 784 executions carried out nationwide since 1976 (in 1993 dollars).

Some county governments have neared bankruptcy to fund their capital trials. In Sierra County, California, authorities had to cut police services in 1988 to pay for the cost of pursuing death penalty prosecutions. In another case of wasted money, over 500 New Jersey police officers were laid off in 1991, while the state spent $16 million on the death penalty - more than enough to hire 500 officers at a salary of $30,000 each. In Texas, prisoners were serving only one-fifth of their sentences in the early 1990s, due to prison overcrowding, while the state spent $183 million over six years on executions.

What do taxpayers get in return? The evidence is overwhelming that capital punishment is no more effective in deterring murder than is life imprisonment. The millions of dollars squandered on executing prisoners do nothing to keep our streets safe, and are an affront to every underfunded measure that can actually make a difference, such as community policing, drug rehabilitation programs, longer sentences, and after school programs. Police chiefs across the country ranked the death penalty as least effective among ways to prevent violent crime, in a 1995 national poll. As the death row population continues to increase, so does the overall cost of capital punishment.

Recent national news has been encouraging. A Federal judge in Washington, D.C. declared the federal death penalty unconstitutional in a case before him. The Supreme Court declared the execution of mentally retarded persons unconstitutional. The New York City Council voted for a moratorium on the death penalty, joining similar motions by other municipal governments. Capital punishment's fairness, accuracy, cruelty, due process, and cost have all been questioned. Let us hope the momentum will continue.

Sources:

This Econ-Atrocity relied heavily on the Death Penalty Information Center website, www.deathpenaltyinfo.org, especially the first two documents below.

Richard C. Dieter, Esq., "Millions Misspent: What Politicians Don't Say About the High Costs of the Death Penalty" (October 1992 - Revised, Fall 1994) www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/dpic.r08.html

Testimony of Richard C. Dieter, Executive Director, Death Penalty Information Center, before the Legislative Commission's Subcommittee to Study the Death Penalty and Related DNA Testing, at the Assembly and Senate of Nevada in Las Vegas, Nevada (April 18, 2002 via videoconference) www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/RDcostTestimony.html

Hugo Adam Bedeau, The Case Against the Death Penalty, pamphlet published by the ACLU Capital Punishment Project, Washington D.C., 1997. Available from ACLU.

The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty website, at www.ncadp.org

© 2002 Center for Popular Economics

Agreed whole-heartedly.

Article from:  http://www.fguide.or...etin/cappun.htm

SparkyCola
Able to entertain a thought without taking it home to meet the parents

#77 Schmokie_Dragon

Schmokie_Dragon

    Crazy Fish Lady

  • Islander
  • 1,226 posts

Posted 10 December 2005 - 11:12 AM

Take a look at these.

Chart one shows total homicides in the UK over the last 100 years or so.
These figures are taken from the police and the home office. Possibly the most reliable sources as each likes to pretend crime has GONE DOWN. So this is fairly interesting. You cant really argue that if CP was reintroduced crime would go down, but here is near-as-damn-it proof that since CP was abolished, homicide has DRAMATICALY increased.

Slightly off point, but chart two shows young males in the population vs homicides. While it does not show stats for overall pop. rise, this is nevertheless interesting.

Quote

"According to the British Medical Journal the current murder rate might not be comparable to the 1960s murder rate due to improvements in trauma care. "
Hmm, so the murder rate is going up DESPITE the fact that more people are surviving?? Even more worrying.

Quote

"higher cost of executing someone over life in prison (whilst true for America) has to do with the endless appeals and delays in carrying out death sentences that are allowed under the American legal system where the average time spent on death row is over 11 years. In Britain in the 20th century the average time in the condemned cell was less than 8 weeks and there was only one appeal."
So basicly, if you do it quicky and efficiently, it really doesnt cost too much.

Quote

Capital punishment permanently removes the worst criminals from society and should prove much cheaper and safer for the rest of us than long term or permanent incarceration. It is self evident that dead criminals can not commit any further crimes, either within prison or after escaping or being released from it.
Agree completly. Even if someone SAYS they have repented, doesnt mean they have. Its safer to remove them.

Quote

There have been 71 murders committed by people who have been released after serving "life sentences" in the period between 1965 and 1998, according to Home Office statistics. 
To think, those UK murders could have been COMPLETLY prevented. To argue against keeping these people locked up or even remove them, it to say that the offchance that someone has repented is worth more than 71 innocent lives.

Quote

Easier divorce has greatly reduced the number of domestic murders, unavailability of poisons has seen poisoning become almost extinct, whilst tight gun control had begun to reduce the number of shootings, however drug related gun crime is on the increase and there have been a spate of child murders recently. Stabbings have increased dramatically as have the kicking and beating to death of people who have done something as minor arguing with someone or jostling them in a crowd, i.e. vicious and virtually motiveless killings. As in most Western countries greatly improved medical techniques have saved many victims who would have previously died from their injuries
Question - in the case of an innocent man beaten to death by a gang beause he got in their way, does ANYTHING justify this? I dont care if every member of that gang was raped as a 12 year old, was beaten by their fathers. They all KNEW murder was unacceptable, they simply couldnt keep their fists to themselves. Interestingly, in the post war Britian, if a member of a gang killed a police officer, both them AND the gang leader hung for it. BIG incentive not to allow your gang to get too rowdy. This principle goes out of the window, suddenly we have more violent gangs. Hmmm.

Quote

America still had 5 times as many murders per head of population as did Britain in 1997, whilst Singapore had 15 times fewer murders per head of population than Britain.
So if you do it wrong, it goes wrong (sorry US) but if you do it right, it works. Doesnt that generaly apply to everything in life? If it isnt working, change it until it does. Dont just scrap the entire idea.

Quote

It is unlikely that a handful of executions a year will have any real deterrent effect particularly on the people whom society would most like to be deterred, e.g. serial killers, multiple rapists and drugs barons. Yet these particular criminals are the least likely to be executed, the serial killers will be found insane and the drug barons will use any means to avoid conviction e.g. intimidation of witnesses. So we go back to the situation where only "sane" murderers can be executed
It goes back to what I have always said, I agree with the PRINCIPLE. However, in order to get CP working effectively in this country one would have to introduce a INCREDABLY draconian system of many exacutions a year, no tolerance for ANY violent crime etc. I agree what we should never have abolished it. But to reintroduce it would launch us into very dangerous terriatory. Is it worth going through years of a veritable tyranny on the offchance that society will improve afterwards?? I am not able to answer that. All I know is that some people deserve to die for what they do.

Attached Files


Posted Image

#78 Schmokie_Dragon

Schmokie_Dragon

    Crazy Fish Lady

  • Islander
  • 1,226 posts

Posted 10 December 2005 - 01:05 PM

Quote

Aside from the fact that actually makes no logical sense, you admit here that some people are not born innately criminal or brutal. Ergo, there MUST be a reason behind the actions.

I agree that some people can be corrupted by circumstance who would otherwise not have been. But I think MANY people are wired that way. Just as some people are naturaly agressive, some are naturaly passive, some are naturaly attention seeking. Babies are not a blank slate, they already have vast amounts of persoanlity built into them. I think some people are NATURALY more inclined to kill than others. For some people there is no reason except for their own mind - they have an irrational fear, they enjoy killing, they havent been given a reason not to kill etc.

Quote

That's an argument nowadays is it? It's just...obvious. It's incredibly mind-blowingly obvious to me that a person is a person no matter what. Yes they are inherently DIFFERENT, that doesn't mean you can kill one of them. You know what? Men and women are INHERENTLY DIFFERENT too, but that doesn't mean you can kill men for "the good of the nation". If you have the ability to judge, where do you draw the line? I have broken the law plenty of times, perhaps I should cull myself for the good of the nation.

Please dont blow things out of proportion. I wasnt arguing the fact they were diffarent meant that one could kill and the other could not. I was arguing that the type of diffarence and the motivation means that they should be treated diffarently. One kills for their own selfish ends, the other kills for the good of the millions of people under its charge. Society has a responsibility to protect us. A murderer isnt protecting anyone. Quite the opposite. And I was not arguing that all people with a diffarence should die, or that all criminals should die. I was only suggesting that the worst murderers should be killed. It is a complete over reaction to suggest that I want men to die for the good of the nation. Even the most irrational person should see that. Its not a black and white world. The ability to sentance death doesnt mean you will go mad and kill everyone. Humanity has this wonderful thing called restraint.

Quote

Killing is not wrong.


Quote

Yes it is. Sometimes it is unavoidable. This is NOT one of those cases.

This is where we fundamentaly disagree. I think that some forms (most forms) of killing are wrong (murder, many wars, genocide etc).  But some are wrong but can be justified (certian wars, certain types of revenge etc) and some are not wrong (but not right...) (some wars, CP etc). But I dont not believe that the blanket verb "to kill" is wrong. It ENTIRELY depends on circumstance.  

Quote

Go to prison and continue to claim that they 'maintain control'. The first day you would see that that is the LAST thing they have.

They are perfectly in control until the time prison sends them insane. They chose to be irritating or passive. They chose to p**s the guards about or do as they are told. They chose to throw their food away or shut up and eat it. They chose to kick some other guys head in. They chose to commit suicide. If they are sentanced to death their fate is sealed. They can do NOTHING. There have been cases of people commiting suicide to avoid CP. Thus, they would rather take their own life than have some else do it for them.
  

Quote

One life is equal to a million.


Quote

We have here another double standard. You mean to say, SOME lives are equal to a million. Your own life, Schmokie is probably worth a billion. Your mother's - a gazillion. Because clearly you have the right to judge how much people are worth. Oh no WAIT....

Everyone murdered on death row has someone who loves them. They are worth more than enough to keep them alive, yet according to you they are worth -1 lives, just because you deem it so.

Yes. 1 innocent death caused by intention is the same as a million, ergo too much. I dont really count a murder dying as a *life*. They made the bed so they can bl**dy well sleep in it. And if I my mother went out and cold bloodedly murdered someone, and I KNEW she had... I would expect her to be treated EXACTLY the same as another criminal. (sorry mum  :( )

Quote

I can't even begin to imagine how easy it must be for you to say that, Elanin.

It was easy. I havent experienced a terrible life, I dont know what it is like. But it NEVER excuses murder. Ever. And if it doesnt excuse it, it doesnt matter unless diminished responsibility is proven. If someone had a awful childhood, does that mean they are any diffarent to a pretty middle class lass who "noone ever though she would do something like that"? Does that mean that one is worse than the other? No. They are both the same. Both had the choice, both did it. Both knew better.

Quote

QUOTE
An enraged father, weeping over the body of his murdered child, cannot be dealt with in the same way as a cold blooded killer. Such a man is not a presistent danger to society and is unlikely to commit another such crime.


Quote

Again this double standard. It's ok so long as it's abundantly obvious why he did it. If the reason behind it is less obvious, what the hey just murder them. What's one MORE grieving father over the loss of his troubled son?
The ultimate IRONY of course is this: if reason behind the murder does not come into it - then how does the *reason* behind CP justify it's own actions? You killed them because they were a - ah, sorry, we have no interest in the reasons behind it here, you killed someone. Hmm, right that works...oh no....wait...

It is the lesser of two evils. Both are deeply upset because of the death of their son. However, one is upset, and an innocent died and the other upset but a criminal met with justice. I feel deeply for the two fathers, but more so for the innocents father. and if I was the father of the criminal, I think it would be less sadness at the loss of the son and more deep anger at what my son had done.

The reason can sometimes justify murder if the reason caused diminished responsibility. In the case of the state, the state is not responsible for preserving the life of the criminal. The state is responsible for delivering justice and keeping its society safe. CP does that.

edited for clarity.

Edited by Schmokie_Dragon, 10 December 2005 - 01:07 PM.

Posted Image

#79 Nikcara

Nikcara

    confused little imp

  • Islander
  • 3,500 posts

Posted 10 December 2005 - 01:38 PM

For one thing, I'm not a fan of the idea that some people are just wired at birth to be criminals or violent or whatever.  If we're going to use that logic we should test for known indicators (low serotonin levels, ect) and just kill the children before they have a chance to grow up and kill someone.  I don't think anyone is arguing for that.

Now, I know that there are many neurological problems that cause a person to become violent.  Why should we put those people to death when we know that the violence was primarily caused by a medical reason?  Wouldn't it make more sense to treat the problem?  If someone has aggression due to low serotonin, why shouldn't we give them SSRIs?  Or give antieplileptic medication to people with temporal lobe siezures  (I can't find any good websites that don't require payment for info on these disorders, but if you can find the book Biological Foundations of Human Behavior by J. Wilson you can get a lot of good info on these and other disorders).

I'm also not saying that just because they are sick they shouldn't have any sort of punishment, or shouldn't be watched.  While I do believe they deserve to have their freedom taken away, I also believe that if they get released again then someone should do checkups (at least for a while) to make sure they continue their medications.

Aside from all that, I simply can't believe it is ever right to kill someone else who isn't immediatly trying to kill you.  There keeps being talk of just getting rid of people who kill others, without realizing that it puts them on the same level as those killers.
We have fourty million reasons for failure, but not a single excuse  -- Rudyard Kipling

Develop compassion for your enemies, that is genuine compassion.  Limited compassion cannot produce this altruism.  -- H. H. the Dalai Lama

#80 Schmokie_Dragon

Schmokie_Dragon

    Crazy Fish Lady

  • Islander
  • 1,226 posts

Posted 10 December 2005 - 01:43 PM

Quote

Now, I know that there are many neurological problems that cause a person to become violent. Why should we put those people to death when we know that the violence was primarily caused by a medical reason?

Violence caused by a medical reason comes under diminished responsibility.

Quote

There keeps being talk of just getting rid of people who kill others, without realizing that it puts them on the same level as those killers.

It can be argued both ways. I dont see all killing as the same. I see motivation and circumstance being a major factor. if you motivation is to save innocent lives and protect others, that is totaly diffearent to cold blooded murder. But this is a fundamental diffarence of perspective.
Posted Image



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Crime, Punishment, Death Penalty, Poll of EI'ers

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users