When I was much younger and a lot smaller I lived in a muslim nation that favored capital punishment. It was a festive and gala event always held in public. Contrary to popular thought, the intended did not kneel down or bend over but stood erect while the sowrdsman came from behind lopping off his head. The audience, there was always an audience, would place bets on how man steps the intended took after the sword severed his head. What a hoot! We americans just try this, it really gets the community reved up and into a buying mood.
dyslexia wrote:When I was much younger and a lot smaller I lived in a muslim nation that favored capital punishment. It was a festive and gala event always held in public. Contrary to popular thought, the intended did not kneel down or bend over but stood erect while the sowrdsman came from behind lopping off his head. The audience, there was always an audience, would place bets on how man steps the intended took after the sword severed his head. What a hoot! We americans just try this, it really gets the community reved up and into a buying mood.
I can see a whole new reality television series!
And maybe a few bets on which way the head will fall, will it roll...will vultures swoop down and carry it away...
Vegas odds makers will eat this up!
The government should not have the right to kill it's prisoners. Violent offenders should be locked up. Murderers should be locked up for life. If there is evidence that capital punishment works as a deterrent, someone please direct me to it. Based on what I've learned, CP is nothing more than revenge killing.
CrazyDiamond wrote:goodfielder wrote:CD - in that case, would you object to being the innocent person who is about to be executed?
No, of course not.
But if a jury haas proved them guilty, they are guilty unless there is some proof that they aren't, in which case it should be brought forward immediatly. Now, how to prevent an innocent person from being sentenced is another problem that I certainly don't know how to solve...
Unfortunately the criminal justice system is built on probability CD. When a jury hears the evidence before them they can only think "well this person is probably guilty", they can never say "we are absolutely sure this person is guilty" - because the jury wasn't there to see the crime. Bit scary really. That's why the law has so many "technicalities" in it, it's highly bound with procedural limitations and requirements in the hope that if they're followed all will be well and if they're breached then the outcome will be a finding of "not guilty."
And the system does make mistakes - innocent people are found guilty. Now whether it's by malice or by accident doesn't really matter if you spend years in gaol as an innocent person or if you are executed as an innocent person. Those years are never replaced and of course right now we can't bring people back from the dead. But at least we can let the innocent person out of gaol and compensate them.
Although you are right, I think there is a very, very small number of innocents on death row. We would be making it easier for real killers to get out earlier and kill again.
But then again, if we tried to stop the guilty ones from getting out it would make it harder for the innocent people prove their innocence and subsequently they would be executed for a crime they didn't do.
It's an unsolvable problem.
If there is reason to believe that a violent offender is likely to remain violent if released, then don't. Keep the prisoner separate from the public. If he is convicted of murder, then unless his innocence is proven, keep him in for the rest of his natural life. If the problem is the release of violent offenders due to prison overcrowding, then we should address that problem directly, and not try to compensate by killing people.
Ok now here I go.
Prisons, at one time, were for rehibiltation. That was the calling card of the Pa prison system. It has been found that it is ineffective. 80% of all released convicts end up back in jail.
Having a person who commits a violent act murder to prison for the rest of his/her life is a little bizare to me. It costs $50,000+ a year to keep this person locked up AND they have better medical than most Americans. They don't even have a deductable or co-pay.
Juries only evaluate the evidence that is presented to them. It is up to the lawyers to make sure the evidence is enough for the jury to find the guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt."
I feel that violent muders should be executed the same way they killed their victims.
As far as the Crips member in jail-oh well dude. He made choices to be a gang member and to kill.
needless to say, I am not a bleedinn heart. We all get to make choices. Do notice that I am talking about violent killers. I am not talking about executing someone who accidently kills. Ie, car crash etc.
Momma-angel, I do remember that episode of In the Heat of the Night. Always thought that was a good show.
I also liked the line from the movie Silverado- "after a fair trial were going to give you a first class hangin."
Quote:It costs $50,000+ a year to keep this person locked up AND they have better medical than most Americans. They don't even have a deductable or co-pay.
The debate is whether the government should have the right to kill its prisoners, not how much money you think a person's life is worth.
Quote:Juries only evaluate the evidence that is presented to them. It is up to the lawyers to make sure the evidence is enough for the jury to find the guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt."
Yet people are still convicted to die for crimes they did not commit.
It should not be the government's role to see that someone's blood lust is satisfied. I understand very well the desire for revenge, but it's a personal matter. If you want it, then take it for yourself.
Statistics are so much fun, aren't they? I remember reading somewhere or other that it costs more to execute a convicted murderer than it would cost to keep him alive and in prison for the rest of his/her days. Why? Because of the US appeals process. By the time all appeals are exhausted, the state has spent millions of dollars on hearing the appeals. Judges, prosecutors, all their staffs are all working overtime for big bucks. Just put the miscreant in a cell, and you're cutting costs. Is this true? I don't know. As I said, you can prove anything you want with properly juggled statistics.
Why are so many concerned with dollar amounts? Are we so materialistic that we list that first among our priorities, even when considering whether or not someone should be killed?
Oh, no, I think they should be put to death. I'll even ante up the dollar for the bullet.
ralpheb wrote:Oh, no, I think they should be put to death. I'll even ante up the dollar for the bullet.
For revenge? An eye for an eye? It's not for any of us to decide their punishment. We don't know them so we can't judge them. We can only make the determination that they pose a threat to others. That gives us the right to separate them from others. It doesn't give us the right to do to them what we've convicted them of doing.
why not? They no longer serve any purpose to society. They gave up that right when they violently took a person's life. Revenge does not play any part in it for me. If it was revenge? I wouldn't be as nice.
ralpheb...So is it your position that the government should kill everyone that serves no purpose in society? Where are you coming from?
No I'm just talking about violent killers. That's the only thing this thread is about. Please read and follow all of my comments. I keep everything on target and make no leaps.
echi wrote:Why are so many concerned with dollar amounts? Are we so materialistic that we list that first among our priorities, even when considering whether or not someone should be killed?
Maybe they're thinking of the families all across the US living in poverty and hunger who could use the money a little more than someone who's sitting in prison.
echi wrote:If there is reason to believe that a violent offender is likely to remain violent if released, then don't. Keep the prisoner separate from the public. If he is convicted of murder, then unless his innocence is proven, keep him in for the rest of his natural life. If the problem is the release of violent offenders due to prison overcrowding, then we should address that problem directly, and not try to compensate by killing people.
You have no way whatsoever of determining whether someone is just being non-violent for a short period of time, to get out, or if they really have changed they're ways. And, like I said, that's where the problem arises.
Reformation and suicide have been correctly addressed by fishin', but please allow me a few words.
The state has a well recognized legitimate monopoly on violence whether used to enforce civil order, defend the state, or to punish wrong doers. The state is using the latter two reasons in the case of capital punishment.
Some feel that killing is always wrong but many change their minds when the taking of life hits close to home. Many would then say this is mere vengeance but the prospect of vengeance serves as deterrence. But then deterrence is a valid use of judicial decisions along with punishment. Deterrence serves the state in its role of defense and protection of its citizens. Therefore capital punishment has validity when used to fulfill the state's first responsibility--protection of its citizens
Recently we have seen a young man, in Indonesia I believe, accused, convicted, and slated for execution for the transportation of heroin. Sound too harsh? Well maybe, but what if the heroin, for what ever reason, killed those that used it or even was, in a larger context, destroying the society itself by way of its epidemic use?
Perhaps a better question would assume that capital punishment has its place in society while asking in what specific cases it would be justly applied. The state's decision to end a life should be made with some retribution but its major source should stem from justice with an eye on deterrence that ultimately fulfills the state's first responsibility to protect all its citizens. Obviously this must be, and in the U.S. is, done on a case by case basis.
Lastly, many wring their hands and agonize over the innocent/guilty issue, you know-- is the condemned really guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? The reasoning to end all executions on this basis can easily, and often does, result in an analysis to paralysis situation that emotionally ties us in knots, and rightly so. The answer is simple: make sure the defendant is guilty. Sometimes this is easy, oft times it is not. It is here discretion should rule, so, should we let the jury decide the defendant's fate or an experienced jurist?
JM
CrazyDiamond wrote:echi wrote:If there is reason to believe that a violent offender is likely to remain violent if released, then don't. Keep the prisoner separate from the public. If he is convicted of murder, then unless his innocence is proven, keep him in for the rest of his natural life. If the problem is the release of violent offenders due to prison overcrowding, then we should address that problem directly, and not try to compensate by killing people.
You have no way whatsoever of determining whether someone is just being non-violent for a short period of time, to get out, or if they really have changed they're ways. And, like I said, that's where the problem arises.
Are you suggesting that all violent offenders be executed in order to deal with the problem of prison overcrowding?
