Death Penalty Opponents, This Is Who You Champion

old europe wrote:

goodfielder wrote:
I agree. But the definition can be revised.

True. But probably not for 'particularly evil murder'.

There is a report in England that calls for the grading of murder as in the US - first degree, second degree etc. No big shift to go to qualitative descriptors.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

old europe wrote:
You definitely don't want "particularly evil murderer[s]" to escape, but as far as I know the US has quite a number of maximum security prisons, and, as far as I know, nobody has ever escaped.

There was at least one escape from Alcatraz. There's no such thing as a prison more secure than Alcatraz was.

By definition there's no completely secure prison, even Alcatraz.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Ah, but, Setanta: that's exactly my point. You wouldn't release him, would you? Like in "never, ever".

No, that's not your point at all. Review my remark about the state putting down mad dogs.

Quote:

Don't know how long ago 'about a generation' would be, but don't you guys nowadays have lots of those nifty maximum security prisons all over the country?

A generation ago can reasonably be assumed to mean 20 to 25 years. Inasmuch as i didn't have an exact date to offer, i offered a benchmark--nothing difficult there. I don't know whether or not you're being snide with your remark about "nifty maximum security prisons"--and don't really care. American jails and prisons are overcrowded scandalously (as i imagine the case could be made for most nations in the world). Building new ones is very problematic, because of the "not in my backyard syndrome" among private property owners. And, of course they are expensive to build and maintain. Do you seriously think that anyone's prisons anywhere provide magnetic resonance imaging facilities, radiation therapy facilities, full-scale neurosurgery facilities? If you alleged to me that such is the case in Europe, i'd laugh you out of my mind, and forget about you. In every state, the state departments of corrections (for whatever title that particular state may use) are obliged to apply to outside facilities to make up for services it would be prohibitively expensive for them to maintain.

And, for that matter, people managed to escape from Alcatraz, and they still escape from Marion and Brushy Mountain, the federal maximum security prisons in use today.

Hence my similie of convicted murders and mad dogs.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

There was at least one escape from Alcatraz.

I know. They never showed up, though. Probably died in the ice cold water of the Bay. That's why Alcatraz was built there. Nevertheless, was closed afterwards.

gungasnake wrote:

There's no such thing as a prison more secure than Alcatraz was.

I doubt that. That was decades ago. I think the modern prisons are definitely more secure than Alcatraz.

0 Replies

Prisons used to be places where people where held until they received their sentence. Then they became places where people were held as part of their sentence.

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

Prisons used to be places where people where held until they received their sentence. Then they became places where people were held as part of their sentence.

So.... how do you call them? Jails?

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

goodfielder wrote:
Prisons used to be places where people where held until they received their sentence. Then they became places where people were held as part of their sentence.

So.... how do you call them? Jails?

Well I don't call them "jails". Here we call them "gaols" a word derived from the old French. The ultimate punishment used to be exile, as in external exile , out you go chum, die of thirst in the desert. That was fine for nomadic people. But it doesn't work when you have settlements. So prisons were invented. But they were just for holding. The punishment was torture and death or torture by itself. When torturing until death was prohibited they were just places to hold people until they were put to death. Then the idea of redemption (based on Christian ideas of true repentance and salvation) found favour. Christian ideas of repentance, redemption and salvation were eventually translated into secular policies such as rehabilitation.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

old europe wrote:
Ah, but, Setanta: that's exactly my point. You wouldn't release him, would you? Like in "never, ever".

No, that's not your point at all. Review my remark about the state putting down mad dogs.

Quote:
Don't know how long ago 'about a generation' would be, but don't you guys nowadays have lots of those nifty maximum security prisons all over the country?

A generation ago can reasonably be assumed to mean 20 to 25 years. Inasmuch as i didn't have an exact date to offer, i offered a benchmark--nothing difficult there. I don't know whether or not you're being snide with your remark about "nifty maximum security prisons"--and don't really care. American jails and prisons are overcrowded scandalously (as i imagine the case could be made for most nations in the world). Building new ones is very problematic, because of the "not in my backyard syndrome" among private property owners. And, of course they are expensive to build and maintain. Do you seriously think that anyone's prisons anywhere provide magnetic resonance imaging facilities, radiation therapy facilities, full-scale neurosurgery facilities? If you alleged to me that such is the case in Europe, i'd laugh you out of my mind, and forget about you. In every state, the state departments of corrections (for whatever title that particular state may use) are obliged to apply to outside facilities to make up for services it would be prohibitively expensive for them to maintain.

And, for that matter, people managed to escape from Alcatraz, and they still escape from Marion and Brushy Mountain, the federal maximum security prisons in use today.

Hence my similie of convicted murders and mad dogs.

Not being snide. Setanta, I know that prisons are overcrowded. I have seen overcrowded prisons in some places. El Salvador, Nicaragua, Ecuador. That was scandalous. I know US prisons are overcrowded (the whole drug policy discussion started that way, a couple of pages back). I still have to wonder:

Is the justification for capital punishment that prisons are overcrowded?

Is the justification for capital punishment that the state is not able to lock up murderers in a way that they'll never, ever again walk under the blue sky?

Can't be. Shouldn't be. And I know that the situation is a somehow better in Europe (well, depends on your definition of Europe... let's say "Old Europe"), just because the the numbers of people in prison aren't that ridiculously high. I'm not sure whether or not this is a good thing. But we have to face the fact that the numbers in the US, more than 2 millions, are the highest in the world.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

yeah really War ON Terrorism comes to mind pretty much immediately. I'm assuming the current War on Liberals wil have the same effect.

the way the word liberal gets used, wouldn't it be more accurate if the spinmeisters stirring all of this crap up simply called it "the war on the 48% of americans that didn't vote for bush and the extra few million who now regret doing so" ? Laughing

0 Replies

goodfielder wrote:

gungasnake wrote:
old europe wrote:
You definitely don't want "particularly evil murderer[s]" to escape, but as far as I know the US has quite a number of maximum security prisons, and, as far as I know, nobody has ever escaped.

There was at least one escape from Alcatraz. There's no such thing as a prison more secure than Alcatraz was.

By definition there's no completely secure prison, even Alcatraz.

If humans built the prison,then humans CAN and WILL escape from it.
There is no such thing as an "escape proof" prison.
There never has been and there never will be.

0 Replies

So your justification for capital punishment is that a convicted murderer could escape from prison?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

goodfielder wrote:
gungasnake wrote:
old europe wrote:
You definitely don't want "particularly evil murderer[s]" to escape, but as far as I know the US has quite a number of maximum security prisons, and, as far as I know, nobody has ever escaped.

There was at least one escape from Alcatraz. There's no such thing as a prison more secure than Alcatraz was.

By definition there's no completely secure prison, even Alcatraz.

If humans built the prison,then humans CAN and WILL escape from it.
There is no such thing as an "escape proof" prison.
There never has been and there never will be.

If humans perform the trial, then innocent men CAN and WILL be executed....

C'mon. Absolutes go on both sides of the argument, here.

0 Replies

Yes it's all about risk management and it depends on whether or not the death penalty is in place in a state.

In states with the death penalty it's politically more attractive to use it than grant clemency. Let's say Governor Smith of Nostate, USA refuses to hear an appeal for clemency from a person convicted for murder and that person is put to death. Governor Smith of Nostate, USA could be out of office or in some other office years later then it's shown that the person executed was innocent. Just a sort of "oops, that was a bit of bad luck, but I'm President now so it doesn't matter and since I can only serve another term I really don't give a flying whatsit". If no-one brings up their innocence then the name of the person fades into history and becomes a non-issue.

But if Governor Smith grants the appeal and the alleged murderer is imprisoned and then escapes and kills someone else - whoa big political problems for that Governor if he or she is still in that office. Public outrage, calls for the recall of the Governor etc etc. The path to the White House immediately blocked.

In a state where there is no death penalty the Governor can't be touched because well life imprisonment is mandatory so no risk.

So, where it's in place it will be used to avoid political problems,

Yes I am cynical and I for one don't blame me.

0 Replies

even though i favor the death penalty for the couple of crimes i mentioned before, i don't think that politics should ever be a consideration in any of the proceedings. i know that it happens, but i don't like it.

0 Replies

DrewDad,
You said..."C'mon. Absolutes go on both sides of the argument, here."

I am in favor of the death penalty.I wish its use was expanded to include more crimes.I also wish that people sentenced to death werent kept alive for 20 years after they get sentenced.

But,I was answering the point about people escaping from prisons,nothing more.

0 Replies

Old Europe, it is disingenuous of you to attempt to color my objections to capital punishment as a reaction to overcrowding in prisons, and the ability of inmates to escape. I've only brought those things up because of your ill-considered remark about "nifty high security prisons." I have already pointed out that in cases in which the convict can be considered to have been proven guilty beyond doubt, execution is the equivalent of putting down a mad dog. I would consider it grossly hypocritical to advance the argument that society should "morally" rise above taking the convicted killer's life, while ignoring that the same society will send heavily armed police to attempt to intercept such an individual, and accept that the individual may be shot down by those police in the process; and further hypocricy to ignore the military aspects of society, in which societies consider it a justifiable commonplace to heavily arm their citizens for the purpose of killing those who threaten said society. Sauce for the goose makes sauce for the gander--if societies are justified in killing while making defensive warfare, they are justified in executing convicts in self-defense.

0 Replies

Can't say I object much to what you say there, Set.

I gotta say too that "they might escape" is a straw man argument. Of course escape always is a possibility, but it is an exceedin'ly rare occurrence. I very much would like to see a sentence of "Life in Prison" mean precisely, and, in the absence of subsequent clearly exculpatory evidence, without exception, that one spend the rest of one's natural life sequestered from society, its benefits, comforts, fellowship, and entertainments.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

DrewDad,
You said..."C'mon. Absolutes go on both sides of the argument, here."

I am in favor of the death penalty.I wish its use was expanded to include more crimes.I also wish that people sentenced to death werent kept alive for 20 years after they get sentenced.

But,I was answering the point about people escaping from prisons,nothing more.

Yes, I understand your position on the matter.

However, I was pointing out that both sides of the argument have potential drawbacks.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Old Europe, it is disingenuous of you to attempt to color my objections to capital punishment as a reaction to overcrowding in prisons, and the ability of inmates to escape. I've only brought those things up because of your ill-considered remark about "nifty high security prisons." I have already pointed out that in cases in which the convict can be considered to have been proven guilty beyond doubt, execution is the equivalent of putting down a mad dog. I would consider it grossly hypocritical to advance the argument that society should "morally" rise above taking the convicted killer's life, while ignoring that the same society will send heavily armed police to attempt to intercept such an individual, and accept that the individual may be shot down by those police in the process; and further hypocricy to ignore the military aspects of society, in which societies consider it a justifiable commonplace to heavily arm their citizens for the purpose of killing those who threaten said society. Sauce for the goose makes sauce for the gander--if societies are justified in killing while making defensive warfare, they are justified in executing convicts in self-defense.

Setanta, as far as I know the US is the only country with so many 'supermax' prisons. Most countries around the world don't even have those 'supermax's. Hence my remark.

And I disagree with your "execution is the equivalent of putting down a mad dog".

I don't think that arguing against capital punishment is hypocritical because trying to catch a criminal you would risk his life. You want to catch a criminal to prevent further crimes. Well, catch him, and lock him up. Task accomplished.

I think you can't compare national self-defense and personal self-defense... but I would say that 'heavily arming' your citizens by means of creating an army is about as accepted as 'heavily arming' your citizens by creating a police force. What would be the main task of those bodies, though? 'Executing' the enemy? I don't think so.

So, Setanta: How would executing a prisoner be 'self-defense of society'?

0 Replies

"Supermax?" Are you making this up as you go along? I've never in my life heard of a "supermax" prison--and your contention that "the US is the only country with so many 'supermax' prisons" reeks of someone's sensationalist televison or pulp journal story. I still haven't the least notion of how you consider such ridiculous contentions to be relevant to this discussion.

It has already become apparent to me that you do not accept the "mad dog" analogy--you needn't change its species and indulge in beating a dead horse.

The basis for contending that societies ought not to execute convicted killers is that society must rise to a "higher moral" level than said convicted killer--at any event, i was responding to such a contention with my remarks, when you decided that you would engage me in disputatious conversation. And yet societies routinely arm police and citizens for the purpose of killing others. Therefore, i consider the argument to be one steeped in hypocricy. Inasmuch as convicts can kill one another, and such a convicted killer could murder while incarcerated, could escape to commit murder (see the passage i described in which one such prisoner murdered two nurses), or could, in the passage of time, be released from a life sentence, to murder again--the execution could be considered self-defense. However, i did not refer to arming police forces or arming citizens to demonstrate that capital punishment is the equivalent of self-defense; i used it to demonstrate hypocricy.

0 Replies

Death Penalty Opponents, This Is Who You Champion

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know