The show scared straight did wonders back in the 70s and 80s to lower teen crime. If you have never heard of it or seen it, it was about putting kids into prisons for a day to see what it was like. (until those who thought it was cruel to do this to children got the show canned.) Even some schools had a scared straight program where they took seniors to the local prison. I believe public executions would do the same to those who commit terrible crimes. If they knew they could/would be killed as an out come it would lower crime. Putting them in a prison with 3 meals a day and cable TV sure isnt detering anyone.
If violent crimes and prison populations were not on the steady incline, I would tend to agree with you. But since we are becoming a more violent society with the turn toward a more softer (in terms of punishment) society, it isnt working.
1.) Scared straight is a lot different from public executions. Public executions are vile, and potentially scarring. The point of Scared Straight was to make sure the kid would always think back to those hours of terror, and not want to experience it again. Public executions just make people care less about death.
2.) Executions are by no means a method by which you lower crime rates. It's all about the environment. Siphon money from wealthy neighborhoods (who likely send their children to private schools), and give it to the poor neighborhoods. Clean up the streets- and not in a crimebusters sort of way. Ever hear of the Broken Window theory? It states, roughly that a broken window leads to some graffiti, which leads to some petty crimes, which lead to more and more serious crimes. It may not be flawless, but New York City has applied systems based on the theory in the last few years. The result? One of the lowest crime rates among the 50 largest cities in the U.S.
Really though, the Death Penalty is not justice. Ever read "The Innocent Man," by John Grisham? Nonfiction about some fairly common "Texas Justice." How about the West Memphis Three? With a 10 year limit, we'd have the "West Memphis Two and a Cadaver." There's a lot of hypocrisy involved in that as well. The Death Penalty is primarily supported by far right, Christian voters. Who are opposed to Stem Cell research, as it's "Playing God," and opposed to Abortion, as we "Don't have the right to choose who lives and who dies."
Tl;Dr: The death sentence is a breeding ground for injustice. We have a system built around the principle that it is better to let 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 guilty men go free, provided that you don't lock up a single innocent man.
It also doesn't help that if you are against the death penalty, you aren't even chosen for a case in which the death penalty is on the table. Juries are stacked in favor of the death penalty.
It also doesn't help that if you are against the death penalty, you aren't even chosen for a case in which the death penalty is on the table. Juries are stacked in favor of the death penalty.
Wow. I didn't know that, that is really, really ****ed up. That is just another example of how our "justice" system is totally broken.
In any other business (and the prison system is a business) 90% is a dam good percentage to shoot for.
And you're ok with that?! Any time you make it profitable for one man to lock up another you are guaranteed to have corruption and innocent people being put in cages. Some things should never be for profit and the prison system, along with health care, are at the top of that list.
If violent crimes and prison populations were not on the steady incline, I would tend to agree with you. But since we are becoming a more violent society with the turn toward a more softer (in terms of punishment) society, it isnt working.
Prison populations are indeed on the rise but over 80% of the inmates are there for non violent drug offenses. This is directly related to prison systems being for profit, as long as there is money to be made by locking people up for harmless things, said harmless things will continue to remain illegal. All this does is hold humanity back as a whole and keeps us from growing and reaching our true potential. I really don't think we are getting more violent like you say.
Guys, I'm like 95% certain bocephus is trolling here.
He isn't. Read his posts in other threads, he has some pretty whacked out ideas about the world. bocephus I really truly don't mean any offense when I say this but from where I'm sitting you sound like a total nut job. But hey, I'm sure I sound like a bleeding heart ***** to you so...what can ya do? To each their own I guess.
Sorry to burst your bubble, I am 0% trolling. I believe in the death penalty. I believe killing 1 innocent while killing 99 guilty is an incredibly good percentage. I would not feel bad at all killing that 1 person as long as we got the other 99.
Sorry, but I'm totally against state-sponsored execution of innocents. Even if capital punishment was cheap and fast, I would want a 100%-sure guarantee that only truly evil people were being sent to their deaths. To claim that the system is "worth it" after sentencing an innocent person to die, as Rick Perry did ("I'd rather kill X innocents than let Y criminals go free" or some bull****), is callous at best.
As it stands, life-without-parole seems a perfectly decent choice, especially with prison security these days. How many high-security or max-security breakouts have happened... in the last decade?
1.) Scared straight is a lot different from public executions. Public executions are vile, and potentially scarring. The point of Scared Straight was to make sure the kid would always think back to those hours of terror, and not want to experience it again. Public executions just make people care less about death.
Along these lines, I hear that public humiliation is actually reallyeffective in lowering rates of petty crimes. I mean, supplementing community service with a few hours of wearing a sign that says "I STOLE MONEY FROM A 7/11" or whatever? Pretty sure they'd think twice before stealing again. And the local-news stations would love it.
It also doesn't help that if you are against the death penalty, you aren't even chosen for a case in which the death penalty is on the table. Juries are stacked in favor of the death penalty.
That's certainly... interesting. o_O
Here's a video about this issue in California. It's fantastically expensive to execute criminals... and yet California's schools are way underfunded... uh, priorities?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Look, I am not a whack job. I just dont believe on institutionalizing a person. When I am talking about the death penalty, I am talking about the worst of the worst, murders, rapists, and child molesters/pedophiles. Those 3 groups care less about lives and people in general then anyone feels I do. Why should we, the law abiding people, pay to keep these unfixable people, alive and in a cage? I dont think we should. Also, taking someone who commited a non-violent crime and locking them up for 15,20,30 years is ridiculous. There is not one non-violent crime that deserves us to institutionalize them.
People are saying they think I am a whack job because of my views, I think your views about toturing people and keeping them as lab rats in a cage for years is much more inhumane then killing them out right. Not to mention in our system now, we cage them, study them, poke and prode them....to let them out? Yeah, and when they start all over again even more pissed off we look like idiots.
Bottom line our prison system does little to fix the criminal element. Its just there to make the 'bleeding-hearts' feel better about themselves. Its a failing system that needs to be over hauled and rethought.
I got extremely lucky. I got smart and got out before I got caught.
Yes, but my point was that you didn't kill anyone, not that you didn't get wrongfully accused.
The fact of the matter is that your position is so wrong that I can grant every last bit of it and still find issue. For the sake of argument, I will grant you that the only people who get wrongfully accused are people who hang out with the wrong crowds. I will grant you that this therefore means that the wrongfully accused are not innocent people and were doing nefarious things.
If I grant you all of that, that still doesn't change the fact that those nefarious things were not murder. I don't care if a person was dealing drugs and robbing banks, they still didn't commit murder and convicting them for that is still wrong. All crimes are not equal.
Yes, the jury that exists and has authority only because the state gave thumbs up to it. The jury that is utterly powerless without a state to enforce its judgement. The jury acting as an agent of the state, empowered by the state. That jury.
Actually the reason for the jury is so that the there is a non-bias point of view examining the evidence at hand.
so that the person is tried by the members of society vs the state being in charge of it since the state could be biased.
hence why the unreasonable doubt clause exists. which is a very very high standard.
It's actually possible to fake DNA evidence, sadly enough.
DNA evidence is unique you would have to do some extreme measure to actually fake DNA evidence.
sure you could plant it but even that gets tricky and can lead to inconsistancies.
not saying it isn't possible just very very difficult to do.
As it stands, life-without-parole seems a perfectly decent choice, especially with prison security these days. How many high-security or max-security breakouts have happened... in the last decade?
so society should have to continue to pay for the crimes of this person? that doesn't make much sense really.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
so society should have to continue to pay for the crimes of this person? that doesn't make much sense really.
Considering the appeals process takes almost thirty years to be exhausted in certain cases, that's still about 40k/yearly plus court costs to deal with all those appeals. Earlier someone stated that it costs more to execute someone than keep them in jail. If that's true just to execute someone, I severely question execution as a cost saving mechanism.
I feel that the main issues concerning law enforcement are zero tolerance and three strikes laws. Typically if you study the history of jails there's swings between reform and incarceration. I feel we've swung far too the incarceration level, and need to move more towards economic policies and social programs that actually get people off the streets and into jobs and starting businesses.
Ironically, many drug lords are quite educated and savvy at business and are probably some of the best capitalists out there. If those people can be stopped from going that route and starting or going into actual business with good community support to "do good" they can probably stay off the streets. Now there's always going to be "that guy" that doesn't do that, and that's what jail is for. But I severely question if having society change it's attitude against criminals that have paid their debt to society and allow them to move on to real jobs from jail rather than going from a minimum wage job as a fry cook. Granted this depends on what they actually did, we don't need pedophiles being preschool teachers.
Equally, the US has this myth about "hard work" making someone a better person, it's actually in part hard work among a lot of other things and seeing rewards for that hard work that make people sane in an insane world. To continue paying your debt to society long after you are in jail is something that we in this society need to really question hard, especially when it comes to jobs in the blighted areas of the country. These issues are often generational, perpetual, and reinforced by the government in specific ways.
If we can get Johnny McCrackfiend to become the next mall cop *** security firm owner, then we can take the resources that were used up for Johnny McCrackfiend and instead turn it towards Sharla Bloodyhands and even use Johnny McCrackfiend's tax dollars to deal with Sharla Bloodyhands.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
What boggles my mind is most of the people that get so excited about the death penalty are self professed "hardcore Christians". If you believe in God, then won't a person be judged by God when they die whether it's at 30 years old or 80? Why is it so important to dole out the death penalty? To distract from the other much bigger issues, the death penalty only affects hundreds, maybe a few thousand people nationwide, whereas the economy, education, healthcare affects hundreds of millions in the USA. The DP supporters are not aware it costs more to execute someone than incarcerate them for life. they are not aware that African Americans are disproportionately the recipient of the death penalty. If we studied these criminals brains instead of executing them maybe we could discover what makes somebody want to kill.
****ING SPAM. Don't click on A2Id's link. Somebody delete it. Hate these ****ing spambots.
Hey guys, I think I just figured out one more group of people that I actually would recommend the death penalty for: spammers.
But seriously, I think I'm against the death penalty as implemented.
How about corporal punishment? Or other eye for eye type stuff? Is it worse than the death penalty? Or not as bad? Or the same? Saying it's "cruel and unusual" & therefore "just as bad" is just a categorical cop out. Is it worse or better or equal?
I dont deny this. If you would have read my post right before this one I think you would have seen where I stand. Call it wrong all you want, its only wrong to you and those who feel like you. I know many, many people who feel the same as me. Another huge problem in this country, we have gotten to the point we are so far divided on so many subjects its hard to find a compromise. But thats is for another thread.
Considering the appeals process takes almost thirty years to be exhausted in certain cases, that's still about 40k/yearly plus court costs to deal with all those appeals. Earlier someone stated that it costs more to execute someone than keep them in jail. If that's true just to execute someone, I severely question execution as a cost saving mechanism.
Thats why I say we need to limit appeals. There is no reason it should take 30 years to prove if you are innocent or not. The time line really needs to be looked at and refined.
I feel that the main issues concerning law enforcement are zero tolerance and three strikes laws. Typically if you study the history of jails there's swings between reform and incarceration. I feel we've swung far too the incarceration level,
Not sure if you meant we give criminals too many chances or not enough. I believe we give bad people too many chances to prove they are not just plain evil. Evil can not be cured no more then you can take the rotten out of an apple. Why keep trying? I dont think there has ever been a time in America where reform works for violent criminals. I may be wrong but all the numbers I have seen shows violent criminals go right back to the violence when released from prison.
Evil can not be cured no more then you can take the rotten out of an apple. Why keep trying?
I think this is the point where any reasonable man should stop discussing with you in order to convince you that you're plain wrong and start stating that this opinion is one of yours and yours alone and does not go undisputed.
Reason: Readers must not get the impression that the opinion of the one that writes the most is the right one. Still, one can not discuss with you because:
You are unwilling to review your opinion from an objective point of view, take no notice of links and continuativ information given to you and display your lack of knowledge and sheer nescience of any relevant information. Your inability to follow logical explanations and arguements as well as argumentations in a respectful and civilized manner only adds to this.
As soon as we take emotions into the discussion about death penalty, this very discussion becomes a farce. And if you - in addition - neglect the fact that man punishes not only because of the punishment given to the criminal and satisfaction of the common people, but to give the subject a thought-provoking impulse to reflect about his deeds and redeem himself, you reject the justice system as a whole as this is seen integral part of the trinity why we punish people who do not act within the borders of our self-imposed values.
I think this is the point where any reasonable man should stop discussing with you in order to convince you that you're plain wrong and start stating that this opinion is one of yours and yours alone and does not go undisputed.
Reason: Readers must not get the impression that the opinion of the one that writes the most is the right one. Still, one can not discuss with you because:
You are unwilling to review your opinion from an objective point of view, take no notice of links and continuativ information given to you and display your lack of knowledge and sheer nescience of any relevant information. Your inability to follow logical explanations and arguements as well as argumentations in a respectful and civilized manner only adds to this.
As soon as we take emotions into the discussion about death penalty, this very discussion becomes a farce. And if you - in addition - neglect the fact that man punishes not only because of the punishment given to the criminal and satisfaction of the common people, but to give the subject a thought-provoking impulse to reflect about his deeds and redeem himself, you reject the justice system as a whole as this is seen integral part of the trinity why we punish people who do not act within the borders of our self-imposed values.
So you are saying you CAN change someone nature? I am saying you can not and you find that enough to not talk about the situation. Ok, if thats what you want to do.
I challenge you to point to 1 murderer, rapist, or child molester that has been found guilty in the court of law by his or her peers, served their time, and been reintroduced into society with no problems and they are never heard from again in the past say, 2 decades.
Murderers? I'm sure there's plenty since murder can happen for extreme situational and circumstance reasons sometimes. A lot of felony crimes can be driven by passion or by desperation or with drug addiction contributing. Certainly many DUI homicides are repeat offenders but many are not.
Forcible rape (as opposed to romeo-juliet statutory, etc. that really should have a different label from forcible rape, which is an entiry different crime) and child molesters? Probably their nature is ****ed up beyond normalization. Those are crimes of monsters in my opinion. That would be my guess, but i've no data.
I dont deny this. If you would have read my post right before this one I think you would have seen where I stand.
You indicated that the loss was not as great because the wrongfully accused were still guilty of something. True, you didn't claim that they were as guilty as the murderer, but you seemed the think punishing them as if they were was not a problem since they were guilty of something else.
I'm just wondering why bocephus hasn't expressed his support for random organ harvesting at hospitals yet. After all, he supports the death of innocents for the greater good.
So you are saying you CAN change someone nature? I am saying you can not and you find that enough to not talk about the situation. Ok, if thats what you want to do.
I challenge you to point to 1 murderer, rapist, or child molester that has been found guilty in the court of law by his or her peers, served their time, and been reintroduced into society with no problems and they are never heard from again in the past say, 2 decades.
Whenever someone uses facts and actual events to refute you, you then take the "but that's the exception!" stance. If I show you someone convicted of murder who was reformed, you'll admit you are categorically wrong?
Because conservative bias is a far, far worse thing. Liberal bias doesn't, statistically speaking, make people stupid. Conservative bias (or at least Fox's version of it) does.
This is basically the arguement that got me to change my viewpoints on the death penalty. I couldn't mesh a belief that people could trust God to change their lives without believing that people could trust God to change thier lives.
I have a problem labeling people as irredeemable. To me supporting the death penalty in this way was hypocracy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
Whenever someone uses facts and actual events to refute you, you then take the "but that's the exception!" stance. If I show you someone convicted of murder who was reformed, you'll admit you are categorically wrong?
You throw out a train of thought because of 1 exception you can find. I say the train of thought is good because you can only find 1 exception. I still say it took wayyyy too long to figure out that guy was innocent if he realy was.
I'm just wondering why bocephus hasn't expressed his support for random organ harvesting at hospitals yet. After all, he supports the death of innocents for the greater good.
Different subject, different thread. If you want to talk about it start a thread.
You indicated that the loss was not as great because the wrongfully accused were still guilty of something. True, you didn't claim that they were as guilty as the murderer, but you seemed the think punishing them as if they were was not a problem since they were guilty of something else.
So what you are saying is, the cops are called, CSI does their job, DNA is tested, cross matched, and people are rounded up. One guy who was certainly involved with the incedent is wrongly fingered for the major crime, but he shouldnt be punished in any way? Sound thinking! Its amazing we have people in prisons with that type thinking. Not to mention the rest dont want to punish the ones who DID do the crime becasue maybe, sometime in the next 60 years, new evidence will pop up and show those people really shouldnt have been in jail for 60 years.
Agian, why have prisons at all? Everyone makes mistakes...
I have a problem labeling people as irredeemable.
My progression has been the opposite of yours. When I was younger I believed people could change and fought against the death penalty with all my heart. The older I have become the more I realize people just dont change. They can play the game to get in position to do bad things, but the temptation is too great for evil people. Hell most do bad things while IN prison. There really is nothing you can do except put them to death to protect everyone else.
The best argument I can think of for the death penalty is if its only used for people that already have have a sentence of life with no parole for crimes committed in prison.
Look, I am not a whack job. I just dont believe on institutionalizing a person. When I am talking about the death penalty, I am talking about the worst of the worst, murders, rapists, and child molesters/pedophiles. Those 3 groups care less about lives and people in general then anyone feels I do. Why should we, the law abiding people, pay to keep these unfixable people, alive and in a cage?
Well, it happens anyway: it's called death row. Your point about nonviolent crimes is well taken though, and I agree.
Not to mention in our system now, we cage them, study them, poke and prode them....to let them out? Yeah, and when they start all over again even more pissed off we look like idiots.
Um... torture is wrong and shouldn't happen anyway. Also I highly doubt that even the sickest serial killer would be that "pissed off" if he gets released at, say, 90 years of age. If at all. Pretty sure life-without-parole is still a good measure since it's cheaper than death.
Bottom line our prison system does little to fix the criminal element. Its just there to make the 'bleeding-hearts' feel better about themselves. Its a failing system that needs to be over hauled and rethought.
I'll agree, except that I'd say that a lot of convictions aren't there for bleeding-hearts, but for social conservatives (i.e. the War on Drugs).
Not sure if you meant we give criminals too many chances or not enough. I believe we give bad people too many chances to prove they are not just plain evil. Evil can not be cured no more then you can take the rotten out of an apple. Why keep trying? I dont think there has ever been a time in America where reform works for violent criminals. I may be wrong but all the numbers I have seen shows violent criminals go right back to the violence when released from prison.
I think it's possible to change some people with the proper measures. If you can't change them, they're insane.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Actually, it's not very hard to duplicate DNA evidence (far harder to synthesize it...) according to the researchers who proved it:
not saying that it couldn't be done, but it would require specialised lab equipment and everything else. just way to much work for very little pay off. not to mention that it should bring up inconsistancies.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around. Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
When I was younger I believed people could change and fought against the death penalty with all my heart. The older I have become the more I realize people just dont change.
Do you even realize what you just did there? In one breath you told us that you changed as you got older and in the next you tell us that people are incapable of changing. So which is it?
I personally know people are capable of changing, even violent people. Young men are very hotheaded and full of testosterone, they are the ones that tend to be violent and it is possible to out grow that type of behavior. Just think of high school and college kids that like to drink and get in fights on the weekends. Generally by the time they get to the mid to late 20's they are done fighting. Now I'm not saying we should let a murderer out of jail because they grew up and repented while in jail, but to say that people are incapable of change is ludicrous. Alcoholics and drug addicts do it all the time, they clean up, get sober and never touch a substance again.
****ING SPAM. Don't click on A2Id's link. Somebody delete it. Hate these ****ing spambots.
Hey guys, I think I just figured out one more group of people that I actually would recommend the death penalty for: spammers.
But seriously, I think I'm against the death penalty as implemented.
How about corporal punishment? Or other eye for eye type stuff? Is it worse than the death penalty? Or not as bad? Or the same? Saying it's "cruel and unusual" & therefore "just as bad" is just a categorical cop out. Is it worse or better or equal?
I consider Corporal Punishment "Not as bad" as the death penalty, as there's still a chance to rescind, and hopefully undo the damage for grievances. Once you kill an innocent man though?
Quote from czarneptuna »
Snip. For God's sake, don't quote it.
****ing spambots are getting better. Now they're raiding debate!
Do you even realize what you just did there? In one breath you told us that you changed as you got older and in the next you tell us that people are incapable of changing. So which is it?
I personally know people are capable of changing, even violent people. Young men are very hotheaded and full of testosterone, they are the ones that tend to be violent and it is possible to out grow that type of behavior. Just think of high school and college kids that like to drink and get in fights on the weekends. Generally by the time they get to the mid to late 20's they are done fighting. Now I'm not saying we should let a murderer out of jail because they grew up and repented while in jail, but to say that people are incapable of change is ludicrous. Alcoholics and drug addicts do it all the time, they clean up, get sober and never touch a substance again.
Changing in thought and changing in action are 2 different things. I know people dont change. They may put on a smiling face and conform in the light of day, but in private they didnt change and are still evil deviant people. Violent people are always violent. A rapist will always have the urge to rape, a killer will always have the urge to kill and child molesters should just be taken out back and shot when found out about.
The thing about drug addicts and alcoholics, they will and always are drug addicts and alcoholics, just because they dont do drugs or drink doesnt change what they are.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1.) Scared straight is a lot different from public executions. Public executions are vile, and potentially scarring. The point of Scared Straight was to make sure the kid would always think back to those hours of terror, and not want to experience it again. Public executions just make people care less about death.
2.) Executions are by no means a method by which you lower crime rates. It's all about the environment. Siphon money from wealthy neighborhoods (who likely send their children to private schools), and give it to the poor neighborhoods. Clean up the streets- and not in a crimebusters sort of way. Ever hear of the Broken Window theory? It states, roughly that a broken window leads to some graffiti, which leads to some petty crimes, which lead to more and more serious crimes. It may not be flawless, but New York City has applied systems based on the theory in the last few years. The result? One of the lowest crime rates among the 50 largest cities in the U.S.
Really though, the Death Penalty is not justice. Ever read "The Innocent Man," by John Grisham? Nonfiction about some fairly common "Texas Justice." How about the West Memphis Three? With a 10 year limit, we'd have the "West Memphis Two and a Cadaver." There's a lot of hypocrisy involved in that as well. The Death Penalty is primarily supported by far right, Christian voters. Who are opposed to Stem Cell research, as it's "Playing God," and opposed to Abortion, as we "Don't have the right to choose who lives and who dies."
Tl;Dr: The death sentence is a breeding ground for injustice. We have a system built around the principle that it is better to let 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 guilty men go free, provided that you don't lock up a single innocent man.
Join the Poetry Running Contest!
Wow. I didn't know that, that is really, really ****ed up. That is just another example of how our "justice" system is totally broken.
And you're ok with that?! Any time you make it profitable for one man to lock up another you are guaranteed to have corruption and innocent people being put in cages. Some things should never be for profit and the prison system, along with health care, are at the top of that list.
Prison populations are indeed on the rise but over 80% of the inmates are there for non violent drug offenses. This is directly related to prison systems being for profit, as long as there is money to be made by locking people up for harmless things, said harmless things will continue to remain illegal. All this does is hold humanity back as a whole and keeps us from growing and reaching our true potential. I really don't think we are getting more violent like you say.
He isn't. Read his posts in other threads, he has some pretty whacked out ideas about the world. bocephus I really truly don't mean any offense when I say this but from where I'm sitting you sound like a total nut job. But hey, I'm sure I sound like a bleeding heart ***** to you so...what can ya do? To each their own I guess.
Anyway, I'm all done here, have fun all!
It's actually possible to fake DNA evidence, sadly enough.
Sorry, but I'm totally against state-sponsored execution of innocents. Even if capital punishment was cheap and fast, I would want a 100%-sure guarantee that only truly evil people were being sent to their deaths. To claim that the system is "worth it" after sentencing an innocent person to die, as Rick Perry did ("I'd rather kill X innocents than let Y criminals go free" or some bull****), is callous at best.
As it stands, life-without-parole seems a perfectly decent choice, especially with prison security these days. How many high-security or max-security breakouts have happened... in the last decade?
Along these lines, I hear that public humiliation is actually really effective in lowering rates of petty crimes. I mean, supplementing community service with a few hours of wearing a sign that says "I STOLE MONEY FROM A 7/11" or whatever? Pretty sure they'd think twice before stealing again. And the local-news stations would love it.
That's certainly... interesting. o_O
Here's a video about this issue in California. It's fantastically expensive to execute criminals... and yet California's schools are way underfunded... uh, priorities?
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
People are saying they think I am a whack job because of my views, I think your views about toturing people and keeping them as lab rats in a cage for years is much more inhumane then killing them out right. Not to mention in our system now, we cage them, study them, poke and prode them....to let them out? Yeah, and when they start all over again even more pissed off we look like idiots.
Bottom line our prison system does little to fix the criminal element. Its just there to make the 'bleeding-hearts' feel better about themselves. Its a failing system that needs to be over hauled and rethought.
The fact of the matter is that your position is so wrong that I can grant every last bit of it and still find issue. For the sake of argument, I will grant you that the only people who get wrongfully accused are people who hang out with the wrong crowds. I will grant you that this therefore means that the wrongfully accused are not innocent people and were doing nefarious things.
If I grant you all of that, that still doesn't change the fact that those nefarious things were not murder. I don't care if a person was dealing drugs and robbing banks, they still didn't commit murder and convicting them for that is still wrong. All crimes are not equal.
Actually the reason for the jury is so that the there is a non-bias point of view examining the evidence at hand.
so that the person is tried by the members of society vs the state being in charge of it since the state could be biased.
hence why the unreasonable doubt clause exists. which is a very very high standard.
DNA evidence is unique you would have to do some extreme measure to actually fake DNA evidence.
sure you could plant it but even that gets tricky and can lead to inconsistancies.
not saying it isn't possible just very very difficult to do.
so society should have to continue to pay for the crimes of this person? that doesn't make much sense really.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Considering the appeals process takes almost thirty years to be exhausted in certain cases, that's still about 40k/yearly plus court costs to deal with all those appeals. Earlier someone stated that it costs more to execute someone than keep them in jail. If that's true just to execute someone, I severely question execution as a cost saving mechanism.
I feel that the main issues concerning law enforcement are zero tolerance and three strikes laws. Typically if you study the history of jails there's swings between reform and incarceration. I feel we've swung far too the incarceration level, and need to move more towards economic policies and social programs that actually get people off the streets and into jobs and starting businesses.
Ironically, many drug lords are quite educated and savvy at business and are probably some of the best capitalists out there. If those people can be stopped from going that route and starting or going into actual business with good community support to "do good" they can probably stay off the streets. Now there's always going to be "that guy" that doesn't do that, and that's what jail is for. But I severely question if having society change it's attitude against criminals that have paid their debt to society and allow them to move on to real jobs from jail rather than going from a minimum wage job as a fry cook. Granted this depends on what they actually did, we don't need pedophiles being preschool teachers.
Equally, the US has this myth about "hard work" making someone a better person, it's actually in part hard work among a lot of other things and seeing rewards for that hard work that make people sane in an insane world. To continue paying your debt to society long after you are in jail is something that we in this society need to really question hard, especially when it comes to jobs in the blighted areas of the country. These issues are often generational, perpetual, and reinforced by the government in specific ways.
If we can get Johnny McCrackfiend to become the next mall cop *** security firm owner, then we can take the resources that were used up for Johnny McCrackfiend and instead turn it towards Sharla Bloodyhands and even use Johnny McCrackfiend's tax dollars to deal with Sharla Bloodyhands.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Slobad AKA Old Uncle Slobodan
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=7801329#post7801329
Hey guys, I think I just figured out one more group of people that I actually would recommend the death penalty for: spammers.
But seriously, I think I'm against the death penalty as implemented.
How about corporal punishment? Or other eye for eye type stuff? Is it worse than the death penalty? Or not as bad? Or the same? Saying it's "cruel and unusual" & therefore "just as bad" is just a categorical cop out. Is it worse or better or equal?
I dont deny this. If you would have read my post right before this one I think you would have seen where I stand. Call it wrong all you want, its only wrong to you and those who feel like you. I know many, many people who feel the same as me. Another huge problem in this country, we have gotten to the point we are so far divided on so many subjects its hard to find a compromise. But thats is for another thread.
Thats why I say we need to limit appeals. There is no reason it should take 30 years to prove if you are innocent or not. The time line really needs to be looked at and refined.
Not sure if you meant we give criminals too many chances or not enough. I believe we give bad people too many chances to prove they are not just plain evil. Evil can not be cured no more then you can take the rotten out of an apple. Why keep trying? I dont think there has ever been a time in America where reform works for violent criminals. I may be wrong but all the numbers I have seen shows violent criminals go right back to the violence when released from prison.
I think this is the point where any reasonable man should stop discussing with you in order to convince you that you're plain wrong and start stating that this opinion is one of yours and yours alone and does not go undisputed.
Reason: Readers must not get the impression that the opinion of the one that writes the most is the right one. Still, one can not discuss with you because:
You are unwilling to review your opinion from an objective point of view, take no notice of links and continuativ information given to you and display your lack of knowledge and sheer nescience of any relevant information. Your inability to follow logical explanations and arguements as well as argumentations in a respectful and civilized manner only adds to this.
As soon as we take emotions into the discussion about death penalty, this very discussion becomes a farce. And if you - in addition - neglect the fact that man punishes not only because of the punishment given to the criminal and satisfaction of the common people, but to give the subject a thought-provoking impulse to reflect about his deeds and redeem himself, you reject the justice system as a whole as this is seen integral part of the trinity why we punish people who do not act within the borders of our self-imposed values.
So you are saying you CAN change someone nature? I am saying you can not and you find that enough to not talk about the situation. Ok, if thats what you want to do.
I challenge you to point to 1 murderer, rapist, or child molester that has been found guilty in the court of law by his or her peers, served their time, and been reintroduced into society with no problems and they are never heard from again in the past say, 2 decades.
Forcible rape (as opposed to romeo-juliet statutory, etc. that really should have a different label from forcible rape, which is an entiry different crime) and child molesters? Probably their nature is ****ed up beyond normalization. Those are crimes of monsters in my opinion. That would be my guess, but i've no data.
Whenever someone uses facts and actual events to refute you, you then take the "but that's the exception!" stance. If I show you someone convicted of murder who was reformed, you'll admit you are categorically wrong?
I have a problem labeling people as irredeemable. To me supporting the death penalty in this way was hypocracy.
You throw out a train of thought because of 1 exception you can find. I say the train of thought is good because you can only find 1 exception. I still say it took wayyyy too long to figure out that guy was innocent if he realy was.
Different subject, different thread. If you want to talk about it start a thread.
So what you are saying is, the cops are called, CSI does their job, DNA is tested, cross matched, and people are rounded up. One guy who was certainly involved with the incedent is wrongly fingered for the major crime, but he shouldnt be punished in any way? Sound thinking! Its amazing we have people in prisons with that type thinking. Not to mention the rest dont want to punish the ones who DID do the crime becasue maybe, sometime in the next 60 years, new evidence will pop up and show those people really shouldnt have been in jail for 60 years.
Agian, why have prisons at all? Everyone makes mistakes...
My progression has been the opposite of yours. When I was younger I believed people could change and fought against the death penalty with all my heart. The older I have become the more I realize people just dont change. They can play the game to get in position to do bad things, but the temptation is too great for evil people. Hell most do bad things while IN prison. There really is nothing you can do except put them to death to protect everyone else.
Well, it happens anyway: it's called death row. Your point about nonviolent crimes is well taken though, and I agree.
Um... torture is wrong and shouldn't happen anyway. Also I highly doubt that even the sickest serial killer would be that "pissed off" if he gets released at, say, 90 years of age. If at all. Pretty sure life-without-parole is still a good measure since it's cheaper than death.
I'll agree, except that I'd say that a lot of convictions aren't there for bleeding-hearts, but for social conservatives (i.e. the War on Drugs).
Actually, it's not very hard to duplicate DNA evidence (far harder to synthesize it...) according to the researchers who proved it: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html
I think it's possible to change some people with the proper measures. If you can't change them, they're insane.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
not saying that it couldn't be done, but it would require specialised lab equipment and everything else. just way to much work for very little pay off. not to mention that it should bring up inconsistancies.
Thanks to Epic Graphics the best around.
Thanks to Nex3 for the avatar visit ye old sig and avatar forum
Do you even realize what you just did there? In one breath you told us that you changed as you got older and in the next you tell us that people are incapable of changing. So which is it?
I personally know people are capable of changing, even violent people. Young men are very hotheaded and full of testosterone, they are the ones that tend to be violent and it is possible to out grow that type of behavior. Just think of high school and college kids that like to drink and get in fights on the weekends. Generally by the time they get to the mid to late 20's they are done fighting. Now I'm not saying we should let a murderer out of jail because they grew up and repented while in jail, but to say that people are incapable of change is ludicrous. Alcoholics and drug addicts do it all the time, they clean up, get sober and never touch a substance again.
I consider Corporal Punishment "Not as bad" as the death penalty, as there's still a chance to rescind, and hopefully undo the damage for grievances. Once you kill an innocent man though?
****ing spambots are getting better. Now they're raiding debate!
Join the Poetry Running Contest!
Changing in thought and changing in action are 2 different things. I know people dont change. They may put on a smiling face and conform in the light of day, but in private they didnt change and are still evil deviant people. Violent people are always violent. A rapist will always have the urge to rape, a killer will always have the urge to kill and child molesters should just be taken out back and shot when found out about.
The thing about drug addicts and alcoholics, they will and always are drug addicts and alcoholics, just because they dont do drugs or drink doesnt change what they are.