|
Post by The Lazy One on Mar 7, 2009 13:30:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ausador on Mar 7, 2009 15:48:04 GMT -5
Well I laughed when the A.P. story came out because I had just been argueing with my dad about this exact subject. It taking 10-12 years of appeals and 12 million or more to get someone strapped down on the gurney makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Besides the 118 people who have been exonerated of their crimes since the death penalty was re-enacted who would have been executed.
The death penalty is nothing but revenge killing, we want to be able to say "We fried that evil bastard". The person did some evil and possibly vile things to people so now we want to kill them as a deterrent and punishment. The only problem is as the Innocence Project has proven over and over again we often have convicted the wrong man. Also even if we do have the right man what is served by killing him, to make us feel better, to be able to gloat at his death?
Can you gloat over a mans death when he is put to sleep quietly via I.V. tube? Sure maybe when we hung them or shot them or fried them you could feel that perhaps he had suffered as his victims had if your sick enough to think that way. But now?...painlessly going to sleep the same way a Vet puts down a dog or cat?...what possible satisfaction can those sick fucks get out of that?
The death penalty makes no sense, probably why pretty much every other civilized country in the world has abandoned it, but of course as usual the U.S. has to act the retarded step-child and lag behind others progress. Sigh...I really worry about our country ever growing up...
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Mar 7, 2009 16:05:17 GMT -5
The death penalty is nothing but revenge killing, we want to be able to say "We fried that evil bastard". The person did some evil and possibly vile things to people so now we want to kill them as a deterrent and punishment. I wonder, though, how much better life imprisonment is. What's the recidivism on people who are put away on such terms but receive parole? I have no idea. I do think that the death penalty is something that must be used with extreme caution (it has sharp edges, you know), but it's the incautious use of it I find barbaric, not the act itself.
|
|
|
Post by Sandafluffoid on Mar 7, 2009 16:19:32 GMT -5
Its just dehumanization, reducing criminals from people to acts. It is so much easier to murder a rapist than it is to murder a 30 year old man who has affected the lives of thousands of people in so many ways, with a lifetime of emotions and memories.
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Mar 7, 2009 17:05:39 GMT -5
The death penalty is nothing but revenge killing, we want to be able to say "We fried that evil bastard". The person did some evil and possibly vile things to people so now we want to kill them as a deterrent and punishment. I wonder, though, how much better life imprisonment is. What's the recidivism on people who are put away on such terms but receive parole? I have no idea. I do think that the death penalty is something that must be used with extreme caution (it has sharp edges, you know), but it's the incautious use of it I find barbaric, not the act itself. In terms of whether it's better, I think the sticking point I have dovetails with the whole "incautious use" point you're making. See, even as cautious as you can get, there will be mistakes. When you sentence someone to death, any mistake made is kind of permanent. With life, you can't give them back the lost years, but at least it's easier to free someone then resurrect them.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 7, 2009 17:41:18 GMT -5
The death penalty is nothing but revenge killing, we want to be able to say "We fried that evil bastard". The person did some evil and possibly vile things to people so now we want to kill them as a deterrent and punishment. I wonder, though, how much better life imprisonment is. What's the recidivism on people who are put away on such terms but receive parole? I have no idea. I do think that the death penalty is something that must be used with extreme caution (it has sharp edges, you know), but it's the incautious use of it I find barbaric, not the act itself. Doesn't matter the recidivism rate; it just takes one or two sensational stories and the meat wagon starts to roll again. Here in Texas, we had a bastard named Kenneth Allen McDuff. McDuff got his start in 1966 when he cowed a buddy into helping him kill two men (who they stuffed in the trunk of McDuff's car). They then proceeded to sexually assault a woman, which included both rape and sodomy via a broken broom handle; she too was later killed. McDuff was charged with murder and was slated to be executed, but in 1972 the Supreme Court declared the death penalty to be un-Constitutional as written in most state laws; all states had to remove the death penalty until it could be more clearly codified and restricted to crimes the court felt were truly deserving of it. As a result, McDuff was instead given life; bear in mind that Texas does not have life without parole. During the 1980s, a surge in criminal activity meant that the prisons simply couldn't keep up; cells were being filled faster than new ones could be built. The parole boards found themselves under pressure to let people go, and so McDuff ended up on the list. McDuff slipped back into society, and within a year began to violate and murder several more women before finally being caught thanks to a tip. However, the death penalty had been reinstated between his release and his first murder and so he wound up on death row - this time, for good. Not only did McDuff force an overhaul of both the prison system and the parole system in Texas, he also frightened an entire generation into wanting to see convicted murderers die.
|
|
|
Post by Sandafluffoid on Mar 7, 2009 17:47:59 GMT -5
As a result, McDuff was instead given life; bear in mind that Texas does not have life without parole. During the 1980s, a surge in criminal activity meant that the prisons simply couldn't keep up; cells were being filled faster than new ones could be built. The parole boards found themselves under pressure to let people go, and so McDuff ended up on the list. What kind of bloody idiot thought that would be a good idea? Was he seriously the least dangerous criminal coming up for parole?
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Mar 7, 2009 17:48:37 GMT -5
I wonder, though, how much better life imprisonment is. What's the recidivism on people who are put away on such terms but receive parole? I have no idea. I do think that the death penalty is something that must be used with extreme caution (it has sharp edges, you know), but it's the incautious use of it I find barbaric, not the act itself. In terms of whether it's better, I think the sticking point I have dovetails with the whole "incautious use" point you're making. See, even as cautious as you can get, there will be mistakes. When you sentence someone to death, any mistake made is kind of permanent. With life, you can't give them back the lost years, but at least it's easier to free someone then resurrect them. Yes, and I can respect that position. From the position of least evil, I think the death penalty cannot be used. There are enough cases where someone sat in prison for twenty years before evidence came forward that cleared them, or similar cases where people on death row won an acquittal on appeal, to make me very wary about it. Certainly it should not be an assembly line like Texas makes it. But I don't think it should simply be immediately ruled out because people are squeamish about it. It might be worthwhile to establish a federal non-partisan oversight committee for all death penalty cases if such an organ doesn't already exist. It's not perfect, but nothing is. Not only did McDuff force an overhaul of both the prison system and the parole system in Texas, he also frightened an entire generation into wanting to see convicted murderers die. That's interesting. That actually explains a few things about Texas.
|
|
|
Post by ausador on Mar 7, 2009 17:50:29 GMT -5
Sky that is all fine and good...I can recount stories from Florida to match that one. The question still stands and it is one you rather carefully did not answer, is the death penalty correct or is it simply revenge?
Texas may not have life without parole but I have seen people sentenced to hundreds of years which means that they will never be eligible for a parole hearing within their lifetime. If the judge so chooses he can keep a person behind bars for the entire rest of his life.
One story means absolutely nothing in this argument...how about saying how you feel instead?
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 7, 2009 17:51:28 GMT -5
As a result, McDuff was instead given life; bear in mind that Texas does not have life without parole. During the 1980s, a surge in criminal activity meant that the prisons simply couldn't keep up; cells were being filled faster than new ones could be built. The parole boards found themselves under pressure to let people go, and so McDuff ended up on the list. What kind of bloody idiot thought that would be a good idea? Was he seriously the least dangerous criminal coming up for parole? His minimum stint in prison was up. His cell could be used for someone else. That was, as near as I can figure, the entire thought process.
|
|
|
Post by Sandafluffoid on Mar 7, 2009 17:54:15 GMT -5
In terms of whether it's better, I think the sticking point I have dovetails with the whole "incautious use" point you're making. See, even as cautious as you can get, there will be mistakes. When you sentence someone to death, any mistake made is kind of permanent. With life, you can't give them back the lost years, but at least it's easier to free someone then resurrect them. Yes, and I can respect that position. From the position of least evil, I think the death penalty cannot be used. There are enough cases where someone sat in prison for twenty years before evidence came forward that cleared them, or similar cases where people on death row won an acquittal on appeal, to make me very wary about it. Certainly it should not be an assembly line like Texas makes it. But I don't think it should simply be immediately ruled out because people are squeamish about it. It might be worthwhile to establish a federal non-partisan oversight committee for all death penalty cases if such an organ doesn't already exist. It's not perfect, but nothing is. It's not people being squeamish, its bloody institutionalised murder. Even if someone has been in jail for 20 years before they're acquitted, at least you can compensate them, at least they can go back to their families. With execution all you've done is murdered an innocent person, and the best you can give is a sheepish apology to their family.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 7, 2009 17:57:48 GMT -5
One story means absolutely nothing in this argument...how about saying how you feel instead? There are indeed people, like McDuff, who simply forfeit their right to live; the actions they've done are so heinous that even a remote chance of their getting back out into the general populace is unacceptable. In cases like this, it's the life of a single person versus the lives of the innocent populace.
|
|
|
Post by Sandafluffoid on Mar 7, 2009 18:00:17 GMT -5
One story means absolutely nothing in this argument...how about saying how you feel instead? There are indeed people, like McDuff, who simply forfeit their right to live; the actions they've done are so heinous that even a remote chance of their getting back out into the general populace is unacceptable. In cases like this, it's the life of a single person versus the lives of the innocent populace. Ok Sky, I'm gettign a vaguely pro-death penalty vibe from this, but jsut to see if you can: Do you support the death penalty for serial killers? Yes/No
|
|
|
Post by Angel Kaida on Mar 7, 2009 18:02:10 GMT -5
There are indeed people, like McDuff, who simply forfeit their right to live; the actions they've done are so heinous that even a remote chance of their getting back out into the general populace is unacceptable. In cases like this, it's the life of a single person versus the lives of the innocent populace. Ok Sky, I'm gettign a vaguely pro-death penalty vibe from this, but jsut to see if you can: Do you support the death penalty for serial killers? Yes/No As a yes/no question, that's completely unreasonable.
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Mar 7, 2009 18:03:15 GMT -5
There are indeed people, like McDuff, who simply forfeit their right to live; the actions they've done are so heinous that even a remote chance of their getting back out into the general populace is unacceptable. In cases like this, it's the life of a single person versus the lives of the innocent populace. Ok Sky, I'm gettign a vaguely pro-death penalty vibe from this, but jsut to see if you can: Do you support the death penalty for serial killers? Yes/No That was a "yes."
|
|