rbw1966 Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 You are WAY more likely to put to death if you kill a white woman regardless of your race. You WAY less likely to be put to death if you kill a black man. Especially funny in light of the fact that Winter is a minority. Weak and lame fairweather. Subconscious racism expressed in your syntax, Winter? Quote
fenderfour Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 I think you guys are right. We never should have electrocuted Albert Fish, a man who kept a 4 year old boy for 5 days, beating him to "tenderize the meat" before he killed and ate him. We never should have put Henry Lee Lucas to death for killing at least 20 people even though he admitted to killing Hundreds. Richard Ramirez, the Night Stalker should probably have been let out on parole for good behavior. Even more recently, we have the beltway snipers who were just misunderstood as they killed innocent people just going about their lives. Read about them here Every now and then an innocent man slips through the system, but I think that is becoming less of an occurrance these days. As for preferring death to incarceration - that's a noble statement, but self-preservation is a powerful thing. Winter's statistics - I have heard the same thing elsewhere. Quote
badvoodoo Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 With the death penalty: Someone dies after 20-30 years. Without the death penalty: They die anyway 30-60 years later. Quote
cj001f Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 I think you guys are right. We never should have electrocuted Albert Fish, a man who kept a 4 year old boy for 5 days, beating him to "tenderize the meat" before he killed and ate him. We never should have put Henry Lee Lucas to death for killing at least 20 people even though he admitted to killing Hundreds. Richard Ramirez, the Night Stalker should probably have been let out on parole for good behavior. Even more recently, we have the beltway snipers who were just misunderstood as they killed innocent people just going about their lives. I miss what we gained by executing a bunch of sick, twisted psychopaths. Quote
fenderfour Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 Nothing gained, just things disposed of. Most of these people are very smart, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten away with so much. They probably wouldn't have too much trouble convincing the system that they are "reformed" or "cured" when in fact, they aren't. Did you ever see the interviews with Ted Bundy? He didn't seem like a killer to me. Quote
cj001f Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 Most of these people are very smart, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten away with so much. They probably wouldn't have too much trouble convincing the system that they are "reformed" or "cured" when in fact, they aren't. Criminals that get caught are for the most part dumb. That's why they get caught. How exactly is someone sentanced to life w/o parole going to get out? Quote
arlen Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 Both cases were decided in court, by juries.. and a judge who passed sentence. Both have been appealed ad nauseam. What you or I think is not really important, but the fact that a vocal left-wing minority has been allowed to pre-empt justice is. Both are still in jail, serving their their sentences. Is being vocal how a minority has prempted justice? In that case, here's another important fact: STFU ASSCRACK Quote
Winter Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 If we simply accept that our criminal justice system condemns innocent men to death, then we're no better than those that we punish. Quote
fenderfour Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 Most of these people are very smart, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten away with so much. They probably wouldn't have too much trouble convincing the system that they are "reformed" or "cured" when in fact, they aren't. Criminals that get caught are for the most part dumb. That's why they get caught. How exactly is someone sentanced to life w/o parole going to get out? Umm... ok. Quote
Ireneo_Funes Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 The death penalty's barbaric, whether or not innocent people are being executed. The fact that innocent people have been executed just highlights the barbarity. And no, I'm not saying we should go easy on murderers. But the death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent and it's morally indefensible...just like torture. Quote
Jim Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 Both cases were decided in court, by juries.. and a judge who passed sentence. Both have been appealed ad nauseam. What you or I think is not really important, but the fact that a vocal left-wing minority has been allowed to pre-empt justice is. Jamal's case I'm not impressed with, seems like he's guilty to me. But an eloquent guilty guy. Pielter's case is quite a bit more shakey. For starters pick up a copy of "In the Spirit of Crazy Horse" by Peter Matthisian. He was sued by the Govenor of ND and by the Attorney General of the state for libel for pulblication of the book - they lost. There was quite a bit of fishy business being conducted on the Ogola Souix Reservation by the FBI and the State back then. Peilter may be guilty of some criminal activity, but from what I've read the state's murder case was lame. And you have to look a the judge's actions in that case. They previously lost the cases of the two other defendants and so had to rachet things up for the Peilter case. Do a bit of research on this one, and please, not the internet. Quote
fenderfour Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 The death penalty's barbaric, whether or not innocent people are being executed. The fact that innocent people have been executed just highlights the barbarity. And no, I'm not saying we should go easy on murderers. But the death penalty doesn't work as a deterrent and it's morally indefensible...just like torture. FYI - your morals aren't my morals. Quote
cj001f Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 FYI - your morals aren't my morals. Explaing again how life w/o parole (the standard alternative to the death penalty) will allow criminals on the street? Quote
fenderfour Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 Jail overcrowding BEsides that, if these people are indeed sick, wouldn't they be sent to mental hospitals? Quote
Off_White Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 What I don't understand is how so many Moral-Majority right-wingers are anti-abortion but pro-death penalty. NOHHH shit.... one of the biggest hypocracies of modern times. Yeah, how can anyone be AGAINST offing an innocent fetus and FOR frying someone who rapes and murders a 12-year old? Incredible! Definitely "one of the biggest hypocracies of modern times." Now, I'm not a believer, much less a theologian, but I would think that old testament bit about "Thou Shalt Not Kill" would seem pretty clear. Did I miss the part where it said "unless they deserve it" or "unless your secular ruler tells you to" or "unless they aren't in your clan" or any of the other loopholes people imagine they get to use? I think it pretty much means that any Christian (Jews too, right? Doesn't the old testament apply to them as well?) who supports the death penalty is an out and out hypocrite who for damn sure can't criticize anyone else about moral relativism. Quote
fenderfour Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 What I don't understand is how so many Moral-Majority right-wingers are anti-abortion but pro-death penalty. NOHHH shit.... one of the biggest hypocracies of modern times. Yeah, how can anyone be AGAINST offing an innocent fetus and FOR frying someone who rapes and murders a 12-year old? Incredible! Definitely "one of the biggest hypocracies of modern times." Now, I'm not a believer, much less a theologian, but I would think that old testament bit about "Thou Shalt Not Kill" would seem pretty clear. Did I miss the part where it said "unless they deserve it" or "unless your secular ruler tells you to" or "unless they aren't in your clan" or any of the other loopholes people imagine they get to use? I think it pretty much means that any Christian (Jews too, right? Doesn't the old testament apply to them as well?) who supports the death penalty is an out and out hypocrite who for damn sure can't criticize anyone else about moral relativism. I'm no believer either, but I always thought that studying religion was damn interesting. So here's what I know: The Old Testament very clearly required capital punishment for crimes like adultery. Remember how Mary was almost killed for getting pregnant? We can go further back and look at Genesis 9:6: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." Hipocrisy? A quick search yielded the following biblical crimes punishable by death: Following a different religion strangers entering the temple black magic talking with spirits adultery incest prostitution in the temple bestiality fornication having sex with mom & daughter being a priest's daughter and a prostitute you could even be killed fo rdoing work on Saturday. You had a funny post with an interesting thought, but you didn't do a whole lot of research. Quote
Gordonb Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 bestiality? Well that would wipe out most of this board. BTW what ever happened to Trask? Quote
cj001f Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 Jail overcrowding BEsides that, if these people are indeed sick, wouldn't they be sent to mental hospitals? Huh? Jail Overcrowding lets other criminals out, usually non-violent offenders. As it's cheaper to give someone life than to execute we could use the money to buy more jails/prisons. Quote
Gordonb Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 I would be for the death penalty if it could be done switfly and accuratly. The reality is everyone gets an appeal by default. With a little fight they can delay for many years. Then 10 to 15 years later they get another moment in the spotlight when they are executed. Their crimes are often rehashed and, to some, glamorized. In the current situation I think the best course of action is to lock them up and let the public and press forget about them. No more hogging the spotlight many years after the crime. It is also cheaper. Quote
fenderfour Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 The idea, with an ideal justice system, is that for a truly heinous crime, the culprit should be punished in the most severe manner available. To me, being put to death would be quite a punishment. So, you could argue that for certain crimes, the perpetrator should be put to death. Then cj001f said: A life of captivity would be infinitely worse to me than death. WTF do you care anyways? Quote
murraysovereign Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 A quick search yielded the following biblical crimes punishable by death: Following a different religion strangers entering the temple black magic talking with spirits adultery incest prostitution in the temple bestiality fornication having sex with mom & daughter being a priest's daughter and a prostitute you could even be killed fo rdoing work on Saturday. I took a religious studies course many years ago from a somewhat radical catholic priest - he'd basically been "muzzled" by the Archdioscese to keep him out of the pulpit, because they didn't like having him ask uncomfortable questions - and he pointed out that no-where in the Bible is abortion equated with murder (as the Pro-Life crowd would have you believe). The closest he found to abortion even being mentioned in the Bible was in the Old Testament, in which the prescribed punishments for various crimes were spelled out. Causing injury to a pregnant woman that resulted in her losing her unborn child was punishable by a fine, payable to her husband. Murder is punishable by death. So while causing a woman to lose her child is deemed to be a crime, it's not seen to be "murder." And since the fine is specifically payable to her husband, presumably if she's pregnant out of wedlock there is no fine payable. So it could be argued that the crime is not deemed to be committed against the fetus at all, or even against the woman, but rather against the husband. Any theologians on the board who can shed light on this? It's long ago now, and my memory has been known to play tricks, but this whole discussion is still pretty clear in my mind so I think I've got the basic elements right. Quote
fenderfour Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 Beyond all the rest of this BS - what happened to Justice? That's not justice like the UN does justice, appointing the world's despotic governments to the Human Rights committee. It's Justice with a capital "J". That's John Wayne Justice, That's Winston Churchill Justice. The kind that stopped the Nazis from killing the Jews. Has Justice truly been served if the man who raped an killed your child gets to live his life out in the relative comfort of jail, with guaratneed room and board, healthcare, education... Quote
sicprobo Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 "The death penalty makes killers of us all" "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind" Quote
Gary_Yngve Posted June 24, 2004 Posted June 24, 2004 Beyond all the rest of this BS - what happened to Justice? That's not justice like the UN does justice, appointing the world's despotic governments to the Human Rights committee. It's Justice with a capital "J". That's John Wayne Justice, That's Winston Churchill Justice. The kind that stopped the Nazis from killing the Jews. Has Justice truly been served if the man who raped an killed your child gets to live his life out in the relative comfort of jail, with guaratneed room and board, healthcare, education... If I had it my way, all Americans would have guaranteed healthcare and education. But I do think it's silly for folks in jails to get free HBO (is that true, or just an urban legend?) I think it would be cool for prisons to have some sort of work program to help people return to society and to help subsidize the expenses of the prisons. But there's a fine line between a work program and the gulag. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.