The least cruel method of execution?

In addition to deterrence and retribution the death penalty can also be a preventive measure; those we put to death can never harm another person again. (This is to me the primary purpose of the death penalty, and is why I favor life without parole in its place. Both achieve the same end, while the latter allows us to be more humane than those whom we would remove forever from our midst.)

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

In addition to deterrence and retribution the death penalty can also be a preventive measure; those we put to death can never harm another person again. (This is to me the primary purpose of the death penalty, and is why I favor life without parole in its place. Both achieve the same end, while the latter allows us to be more humane than those whom we would remove forever from our midst.)

Do using your logic, why not just eliminate those with the "tendency" toward criminality? You know, blacks, hispanics, poor people, sick people...? Rolling Eyes

Then only the "good" people would remain. You know, wealthy republicans! Twisted Evil

0 Replies

He wasn't advocating the death penalty, and he was talking about convicted criminals anyway so that's about as ridiculously off topic as it gets.

There's a reason people use terms like "PC" to deride concern aboutr racism. It's because foolsihly people give them fodder by playing the race card in completely unrelated situations.

Joe,

I'll get back to you this afternoon or thereabouts.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

He wasn't advocating the death penalty, and he was talking about convicted criminals anyway...

Yes, my point is that at some point society decides that certain individuals have behaved in such a way as to warrant complete and permanent removal from society so as to safeguard society from those individuals.

My opinion is that once we decide that, what we do with the individual in question says nothing about that person and everything about us as a society; hence my position against the death penalty.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

In addition to deterrence and retribution the death penalty can also be a preventive measure; those we put to death can never harm another person again. (This is to me the primary purpose of the death penalty, and is why I favor life without parole in its place. Both achieve the same end, while the latter allows us to be more humane than those whom we would remove forever from our midst.)

Only if one is willing to consider prison guards and prisoners in general to be non-persons.

Otherwise, life in prison without the chance of parole does not achieve the end of preventing the person from ever harming another person.

If a murderer is assured that no further punishment can accrue once he/she has been given a sentence of life in prison -- there are almost no constraints on his/her murdering again. In fact, for those who murder for pleasure, it might actually be an inducement.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Scrat wrote:
In addition to deterrence and retribution the death penalty can also be a preventive measure; those we put to death can never harm another person again. (This is to me the primary purpose of the death penalty, and is why I favor life without parole in its place. Both achieve the same end, while the latter allows us to be more humane than those whom we would remove forever from our midst.)

Only if one is willing to consider prison guards and prisoners in general to be non-persons.

Otherwise, life in prison without the chance of parole does not achieve the end of preventing the person from ever harming another person.

If a murderer is assured that no further punishment can accrue once he/she has been given a sentence of life in prison -- there are almost no constraints on his/her murdering again. In fact, for those who murder for pleasure, it might actually be an inducement.

Point taken, but let's assume that we are diligent in assuring that these persons are warehoused in some manner that makes it very unlikely that they could harm one of their keepers (or even one another). If we make that simple assumption, my argument really looks like a good one, yes? :wink:

0 Replies

yes

0 Replies

i've never heard of someone on death row killing a prison guard. that is no arguement for the death penalty. the ONLY legitament arguement that i've heard is that the only just punishment for a murderer is state-sponsored murder.

i don't believe capital punishment is a right of the state. in my book, it is a cruel and unusual punishment. life is the most fundamental human right. the one thing that no man or institution has the authority to decide when to end. if we cede our most basic human right to the state, what more do we have to offer? they've taken everything. the patriot act is almost trivial in comparision.

0 Replies

ye110man wrote:

i've never heard of someone on death row killing a prison guard. that is no arguement for the death penalty. the ONLY legitament arguement that i've heard is that the only just punishment for a murderer is state-sponsored murder.

i don't believe capital punishment is a right of the state. in my book, it is a cruel and unusual punishment. life is the most fundamental human right. the one thing that no man or institution has the authority to decide when to end. if we cede our most basic human right to the state, what more do we have to offer? they've taken everything. the patriot act is almost trivial in comparision.

The problem with the whole "cruel and unusual" thing is that it is purely subjective. Some people think life in prison would be far worse than a quick, painless death. In the end, the standard for what is "cruel and unusual" is what our society considers "cruel and unusual". There is no litmus test we can perform to say that it is a fact that X is cruel but Y is not. We can only go by what our culture believes, and most people don't think the death penalty is "cruel and unusual", they think it is just and appropriate for the worst crimes.

I think a cruel punishment would be one that was intended to cause the person to suffer. Clearly we are trying to implement the death penalty in such a way that the victim does not suffer. That means it isn't cruel, in my book. As to "unusual", well, you can hardly call a punishment "unusual" when it's been implemented throughout our history. It's actually pretty "usual". So, I think the "cruel and unusual" argument has no legs.

No, at the end of the day I think that whether we choose to execute criminals or choose not to do so is purely a function of whether we believe the state has a right to extract retribution for crimes committed. I look at the way our system was set up to work, and I believe the intent was to remove the element of retribution. So, I think the death penalty doesn't fit our system.

But what the f#$% do I know? :wink:

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Point taken, but let's assume that we are diligent in assuring that these persons are warehoused in some manner that makes it very unlikely that they could harm one of their keepers (or even one another). If we make that simple assumption, my argument really looks like a good one, yes? :wink:

Your argument is a good one, Scrat -- and frankly, one I have used myself on a couple of occasions. It happens this issue is one of those debate controversies that has pulled me in opposite directions from time to time -- and I've argued both sides.

In fact, my post talking about the movie "Escape from New York" probably was precipitated by my feelings in that direction. "Being diligent in assuring that these persons are warehoused in some manner that makes it very unlikely..." is not the easiest of goals -- and perhaps the "Fortress New York" scenario is what is needed.

But back to reality: I guess they could be kept locked up like people now awaiting execution on various Death Rows -- supervised "freedom" one hour per week. But once again, I personally consider that kind of confinement to be more inhumane than just acknowledging that the individual cannot be trusted in society -- and executing him.

Like I said, though, I run hot and cold on the issue -- and I'm considering everything everyone is saying.

We'll see where it goes.

More than likely, it will take movement on the part of conservatives and Republicans to change things. They seem to be the primary advocates for the Death Penalty.

Could happen.

Bill Clinton seems to have taught politicians that commandeering an opponents issues can be a "good thing." The Republicans have done it on Medicare/drug subsidies -- and who knows. Maybe they will do it on the Death Penalty issue also.

We'll see.

0 Replies

Scrat

Quote:

Moot - Do they have the death penalty in your state?

Yes they do. But to my knowledge they haven't used it, at least since I have lived here.

California acquired the death penalty shortly after the Manson murders because people here were so appalled and outraged at the atrocities these monsters did that nothing short of death seemed appropriate. But the death penalty bill was passed after the fact and so Manson and his gang will have the luxury of living in prison till they die.

I could be wrong but I think California may have more prisons than any other state. We have a 'three strikes and you're out' law. The prisons are filling up and they're building more. I think the 3 strikes law has worked in that 2 strikers have left the state, so if they got caught again they wouldn't spend life in prison. Some deterent. It just caused California criminals to go to other states less stringent. I think Nevadas crime rate went up as a result.

0 Replies

From:NCADP

Quote:

Guilty Until Proven Innocent "Perhaps the bleakest fact of all is that the death penalty is imposed not only in a freakish and discriminatory manner, but also in some cases upon defendants who are actually innocent."
- Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan Jr. 1994

Innocent people are on death row and have been executed

* More than 110 people have been exonerated from death row since 1972, including 22 from the state of Florida alone. (Death Penalty Information Center)
* The system of capital punishment is flawed at both the state and federal level. On the federal level, 3.5% of persons whom the Attorney General has attempted to execute have been innocent. In one example of state-level problems, Illinois (prior to Governor Ryan's blanket commutation) had an error rate of at least 4.5%. (American Civil Liberties Union)
* A study identified 23 instances in the last century in which a person with an extraordinarily strong case of innocence had been executed by the government. (H. Bedeau & M. Radelet, "Miscarriages of Justice in Potentially Capital Cases" Stanford Law Review, 1987)

Recent cases of possible mistaken execution

* Virginia executed Joseph O'Dell on July 23, 1997 despite the existence of DNA evidence that could have proved O'Dell's innocence. The courts refused to consider this new evidence because Virginia law says that any evidence found after 21 days is inadmissible in proving the innocence of a convicted person.
* Texas executed Jesse Jacobs on January 4, 1995 despite the prosecution's admission that arguments they made at Jacobs' trial were false. Jacobs was convicted after the state introduced evidence that he, rather than his co-defendant, pulled the trigger on the day of the murder. At the subsequent trial of the co-defendant, the state reversed its story and said it was the co-defendant, not Jacobs, who pulled the trigger. The prosecution vouched for the credibility of Jacobs' testimony that he did not commit the shooting and did not even know that his co-defendant had a gun. Jacobs' co-defendant was also convicted, though he was not sentenced to death.
* Texasexecuted Robert Nelson Drew on August 2, 1994 after refusing to give him a new hearing after another man signed an affidavit in which he confessed to the murder, thereby exonerating Drew.
* Texasexecuted Leonel Herrera in 1993 despite compelling evidence of his innocence. A former Texas judge submitted an affidavit stating that another man had confessed to the crime for which Herrera was facing execution. Numerous other pieces of new evidence also threw doubt on his conviction. According to the Supreme Court, however, that proof was not sufficient to stop his execution because of the late stage of his appeal.
* Virginiaexecuted Roger Keith Coleman in 1992. Coleman's appellate attorneys misread the statute governing the time frame for submitting an appeal and filed their brief one day too late. The Virginia state courts held that the one-day-late filing was the equivalent of no filing at all and refused to review his issues. The federal courts subsequently held that Coleman could not raise a federal claim because he had waived his state review. Finally, the Supreme Court determined that Coleman could not complain that it was his attorneys who erred because he was not entitled to an attorney in the first place. No court ever fully reviewed the evidence of his innocence prior to his execution.

0 Replies

Moot wrote:

Scrat

Quote:
Moot - Do they have the death penalty in your state?

Yes they do. But to my knowledge they haven't used it, at least since I have lived here.

California acquired the death penalty shortly after the Manson murders because people here were so appalled and outraged at the atrocities these monsters did that nothing short of death seemed appropriate. But the death penalty bill was passed after the fact and so Manson and his gang will have the luxury of living in prison till they die.

I could be wrong but I think California may have more prisons than any other state. We have a 'three strikes and you're out' law. The prisons are filling up and they're building more. I think the 3 strikes law has worked in that 2 strikers have left the state, so if they got caught again they wouldn't spend life in prison. Some deterent. It just caused California criminals to go to other states less stringent. I think Nevadas crime rate went up as a result.

I don't care for 3-strikes laws, as they strip a judge of his or her discretionary powers in these 3rd strike cases.

0 Replies

Emphasis added below to highlight the relevant points of contention.

joefromchicago wrote:

We obviously do not share the same social circles.

2079 miles tend to do that. It's not an uncommon position and regardless of my social circle there are plenty of people who do not consider the death penalty to be the ultimate penalty. I disagree with them, frankly if they were given the choice with under the shadow of direct application I suspect that they would change their minds.

But this is a tangent, and as it's immaterial to my position I will not push this unless you compel me to do so.

Quote:

If their convictions preclude cruel and painful executions but endorse capital punishment, they are inconsistent.

You are free to think so but they are simply not mutually exclusive positions. The inconsistency does not exist as long as both the mitigating criteria and the stated goals are part of their greater societal goals.

To again give an example, someone who has the stated goal of denuclearization might not support the use of nuclear weapons to bring about this goal. This is because the goal of the eradication of nukes is mitigated and limited by other criteria. One such criteria could easily be that the person does not wish the use of nuclear weapons.

Likewise if someone supports the death penalty to deter the most barbaric acts they do not exhibit an inconsistency by not wishing the execution to be barbaric as it is an inherent part of their position to wish to avoid barbarism.

This is analogous in that in both cases there are mitigating criteria, the perceived uniqueness of capital punishment does nothing to address the reasons for the exclusion of mitigating criteria.

Quote:

You are wise not to push the point, Craven, as it is indefensible.

Try to support your assertion and we shall see. ;-)

It's irrelevant to my position but I have no problem exploring this. Others have already noted other purposes capital punishment can be argued to serve.

Quote:

In short, I have never said, or assumed, that deterrence is the only goal of capital punishment.

You are absolutely correct and I was wrong to say that you had ONE stated goal, it's so blatant an error as to bring into question my ability to count to two.

The point (if rephrased to exclude the falsehood) still stands, you give no justification for the isolation of those goals and the disregard for the many available mitigating criteria.

I will, because of this correction restate my arguments without the fallacious claim that you had advocated a singular criteria. A more accurate characterization is that you isolated the goals and excluded mitigating criteria without justification. Isolation of one goal or two, from the mitigating criteria makes little difference to my position as my argument is against the exclusion of the mitigating criteria and not the number of goals or criteria being discussed.

The stated reason you gave for rejection of the analogies is that capital punishment is unique. What you do not even attempt to substantiate is why you disallow mitigating goals to be included. Its perceived uniqueness to you does nothing to justify the exclusion of mitigating criteria from the ratiocination of those who support the death penalty.

My analogies challenged your simplification. They challenged the absurd isolation of a isolated goals when no justification of said isolation was given.

Simply put, the uniqueness of capital punishment does nothing to preclude the existence of moderating criteria. You have completely failed to address this preferring instead to simply call the analogies straw men and avoid the questions about your exclusion of mitigating criteria to the two goals you nearly exclusively focus on.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
For example, if one supports the death penalty as a deterrent but also supports the laws forbidding cruel and unusual punishment their goal is not to simply make the capital punishment the greatest deterrent possible. It is to make it a deterrent that fits within their other goals.

Then their goals are inconsistent. As I said before, they want semi-deterrent deterrence and semi-retributive retribution.

They simply want limits and not freakish extremities like you favor for them. This is not inconsistent, as their goals can include a mitigating criteria without inconsistency. Their goals can be retribution and deterrence within certain boundaries. Their goal may well have as an inherent component the avoidance of the barbarism you propose for them. As long as this is included in their goals there is no inconsistency as the mitigating criteria is inherent to their position.

Similarly, a parent who wishes to use corporal punishment as a deterrent and retribution does not need to use brutal corporal punishment (which would be, as you word it, a "semi-deterrent" and "semi-retribution"), they can have mitigating criteria that together with their goals of retribution and deterrence preclude brutality in the implementation of the means they choose.

This is not inconsistent unless you isolate the mitigating criteria, which you do with no justification. Unless they state that they want unmitigated deterrence and unmitigated retribution the mitigation of these goals is not inconsistent with their goals, their goals can include mitigating criteria.

Quote:

Their conflicting criteria can lead them to hypocrisy even if we do not concede that capital punishment, in itself, is barbaric.

Thank you for concession on this point as I consider it the safest refuge you have. Because if you argue that capital punishment is already barbaric including in their criteria the goal of avoiding barbarism would already demonstrate an inconsistency.

Using that argument would be compelling to any individual who (as I do) agrees that capital punishment is barbaric and would leverage the distaste for the form of punishment for your position. I am very much pleased that you do not wish to include this point of contention in support for other contended points.

Quote:

You do not give the proponents of capital punishment their due. They are the ones who argue that execution is a deterrent, they are the ones who think that the specter of death is enough to deter criminals. Yet they are the ones who, in the end, want the executions to be as "humane" as possible. Surely, though, if death deters, painful, cruel death deters more (especially if, as you have suggested, there are even worse punishments than death).

They can simply be satisfied with the specter of death, and not find it necessary for the death to be barbaric. Some wish humane executions in order for capital punishment to be more palatable to society arguing that if it isn't it will be rejected and they will be denied even the specter of death.

Quote:

Then their goals are inconsistent.

Their goals are only inconsistent if isolated and mitigating criteria excluded. And in this case it is only so if you first assume that they want no limits to the deterrence and retribution. Their goal may well be a method of deterrence and retribution with limits. And if so they demonstrate no inconsistency.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
And it only makes sense if said barbarism is not a crime.

No. Because cruel and painful executions are currently outlawed, those who should (if they were true to their convictions) want such executions ought to try their best to repeal that prohibition. As I have said before, the fact that cruel and unusual punishments are outlawed under the Eighth Amendment is sufficient reason for proponents of capital punishment to advocate the repeal of that amendment.

There is no reason to assume that their convictions do not include the prohibition of barbarism. You are again excluding this from their ratiocination without justifying your taking of this liberty.

Quote:

I agree. Retribution is the other goal. But I'll be generous, Craven: since you've hinted at "other" goals served by capital punishment, without ever spelling them out, I'll let you get by with naming three.

Trying to limit the motivations and criteria of others is a poor way to go about attacking their reasoning. It's like giving them a handicap and calling them handicapped.

But three's enough to illustrate the point. The third goal is to balance their first two goals with their mitigating criteria.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Because the barbarism you advocate for them is itself a crime and this would contradict the goal of deterring crime.

It would not be a crime if the laws were rewritten. This is an inconsequential objection.

It's not inconsequential, they might wish to continue to consider it criminal because of other considerations that you are excluding without justification.

Quote:

If a person is driven to a prudential dilemma, in part, because he holds inconsistent positions, it does not make him any less inconsistent.

They are only inconsistent if isolated. Their more inclusive and superior goals mitigate them and do not make them inconsistent, merely mitigated.

Quote:

If death penalty proponents want capital punishment to be both deterrent and retributive, but they are under prudential constraints to favor a type of capital punishment that fulfills neither goal in a satisfactory manner, then the prudential consideration does not mitigate the inherent inconsistency of the position -- indeed, it merely highlights it.

You err in asserting that it's not satisfactory, you can only argue that it's not satisfactory if you also stipulate what satisfies them. You are stipulating far too much for them, starting with their goals, the exclusion of mitigating criteria and now what satisfies them based upon the exclusion of all other mitigating criteria.

They are perfectly capable of being satisfied with the situation and its mitigating concerns if they favor the mitigation.

Quote:

To give an example: suppose a president favors fiscal restraint and budget surpluses, but, because of political considerations, is constrained to favor policies that lead to fiscal irresponsibility and massive budget deficits. We are, I think, entitled to say that such a president is inconsistent -- indeed, that such a president is a hypocrite -- even though his choices are driven by prudential considerations.

Earlier you claimed that capital punishment was unique and that this made it dis-analogous with multiple analogies simply on the basis of this perceived uniqueness. Have you reversed this position?

Quote:

So there is no logical inconsistency in saying that people who favor a position, but who are constrained by prudential considerations to adopt a policy contrary to that position, are inconsistent, especially when they claim that the original position is consistent with the contrary policy. Your charge that I erred by committing a logical inconsistency, therefore, must fail.

Incorrect Joe, their more inclusive goal can be to work with the limitations and mitigating criteria that they face, and if this goal is given precedence over other goals that you isolate they do not exhibit the hypocrisy you allege.

Quote:

But, as I mentioned before, I'm a fair guy, Craven: I'll give you one more chance to show that my argument is logically flawed. After that, though, I'm afraid I can do no more to assist in your education. You'll have to hit the books on your own.

I too am fair. I will give you all the chances you need to support your isolation of mitigating criteria from two goals and your deliberate exclusion of any other possible goals that influence their position.

0 Replies

Quote:

I don't care for 3-strikes laws, as they strip a judge of his or her discretionary powers in these 3rd strike cases.

It sure does do that. I don't care for it either.

Nor do I care for the idea of incarcerating a third of our society. Why are we the only country in the world who has this many people in prison? I don't believe building more prisons is going to solve societies ills. When people have jobs, crime goes down.

0 Replies

I have an idea which will eliminate all the ills of the world.

Let's have world suicide day.

The day before that we will kill all the children, elderly, chronically retarded, anyone incapable of the act of suicide.

the next day we'll off ourselves.

Since we're on the way out anyway, we can have one big party beforehand and do whatever the hell thing it is we've always wanted to do in our heart of hearts without guilt or holding back because......well...... :wink:

0 Replies

Hmmm - I know it is a deviation from a thread about execution - but I am nonetheless stunned by what seems to be a casual assumption that the penalty ought to be a choice between execution and prison for life.

This must be purely based on revenge, no?

I do not know as much about murderers in the USA, where murder is far more common than it is here, but I do know that here, in Australia, most murderers are out in about 10 - 12 years (I might be somewhat out of date here) - it used to be closer to 8.

Why?

Well, at least here, the "ordinary" murderer is the least likely to re-offend of criminals. Clearly, professional gang-land killers, or serial or "lust" killers are different - the average fella who kills once - without a violent history - is likely to be more like you and me than the average crim.

Women who kill are - at least here - most likely to do so after years of violence - and a number of attempts to escape said violence - not infrequently when they find the fella has abused the kids. Not all - some of them are terrifying - and I wouldna wanna meet them in a dark alley - but the majority - so far.

Or, they (male and female) are nuts. And, proving insanity is way harder here than in the USA.

(Mind you, more women are getting more violent - as are the men - I could comment at great length on that, but it is prolly irrelevant.)

So - if they are at little risk of re-offending - what do we do? (And it generally ain't that hard to tell the ones who are - PROVING it is harder...)

Prison isn't generally gonna make someone better. Very much the opposite.

Deterrence? Hmmmmmmm - my reading suggests that, with such crimes, it MAY deter if apprehension is almost certain almost all the time. Hmmmmmm...

So - revenge. Fabulous. Is no consideration to be given to the crim? Just how good a basis is revenge for sentencing? As PART of the process, fine. As all of it? Crap.

How many of you talking so easily of execution or life without parole know anything about the people who commit these crimes? About what execution or life in prison entails? Really? Some of you are statistically likely to do so - most, I suspect, are not.

I am no bleeding heart - well, I am - but it bleeds for both sides, actually.

I have known personally six people who have been murdered.

3 were clients. Killed by violent partners who had pursued and threatened them for years - who had made numerous threats to kill them. Two were killed in front of their children (and in front of a lot of other people with kids) - one was murdered WITH her children. I, in my darker moments, wanted to perform post-natal abortion upon the killers - before they did it - because it was clear they were gonna.

Know what? I understand what the guys did - and I understand the guys - because they were basically pathetic wounded babies, whose bottle had been taken away, and who could not (or believed they could not - which is sort of the point) survive without it. So, they had a huge pathetic baby's rage - with a baby's inhibitions - ie none. Why? Well, each story is different, and each sort of the same. It would be good to hear the stories, you know - good to get to understand what the world is about. I can tell some of them, if anyone wants to hear. I don't much, though - most people do not want to hear them.

Now - they ARE dangerous - cos they would move to another bottle, and it would all begin again. For this reason they probably need to stay inside - unless they really change. Know what? The odd one does. Really. Not so many - and most try to look as if they have - but some do. Seen it happen.

Now, I do not try to deny the rage I feel - (hey - I get to work with the kids - fun, that - and go to the funerals) - but the rage is, in my view, atavistic bullshit - at least when it comes to decision making.

There is a great educational program here, where ordinary folk get pulled in, and made part of a huge jury.

They first get access to what the media is saying about the case - (usually a serious crime of a few years back) - bear in mind, most cases here ar enot fought out in the media - and reporting is VERY restrained compared with the USA. The defence says virtually nothing.

The "jury" votes on a penalty - generally VERY harsh.

Then, they hear the prosecution case - vote again - less harsh sentence.

Then they hear the defence - plus get an education about the principles of sentencing.

MUCH less harsh sentences. To know all.......? Well, no - nor should it be that way - but..........

Anyway - I am intruding on a thread which has become - as far as I have read - a logic duel - but I thought I would introduce a little local flora and fauna.

I have a lot more to say, if people are interested..... but I need to go to bed now...it is way late. And I have only just begun to discuss murderers....I have known a lot of them.

0 Replies

buns I have an idea...why don't we pick an entire continent and just drop the criminals off there to fend for themselves?.....oh wait...already did that....look what happened....... :wink: Laughing

0 Replies

dlowan, in the US life usually means 25 years to life. and depending on the circumstances it can be much less (i don't know about elsewhere but we divide murder into degrees in the US). it also depends on the state. texas executes criminals like KFC roasts chickens. despite the fact that NYC has the most murders of any city in the US, new york has yet to execute anyone since the death penalty was reenacted in 1995.

it was clearly established as a deterent. murdering a police officer or murdering while commiting another felony (ie. buglary) is considered 1st degree murder and carries the heaviest sentence.

i doubt that's it is an effective deterent though. the problem with shorter sentences is a problem of the prison system. many criminals become more hardened in jail. they come out worse than before. also, you're unlikely to find a decent job with murder on your criminal record. so they turn back to a life of crime. the system discourages rehabilitation.

0 Replies

Happy Thanksgiving everyone.

0 Replies

The least cruel method of execution?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know