Abolishing the death penalty

[ivan]

dude, cory maye sounds like he pissed all 3 of the furies off!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

the state's rule is simple - you shall not kill - The Man Alone has the Monopoly on Death -

 

Yet, most people have no problem with abortion or Death with Dignity, cases where death is determined by the individual. Of course, these deaths are not in the context of crime and punishment but there are the somewhat common elements of innocence and expediency.

exactly - death is not necessarily bad

 

to wit - death of this thread - that would be nice

[kevbone]

my main problem w/ the death penalty is the expense -

 

I disagree. The main problem with the death penalty is that we kill.

[kevbone]

the real world is bloody and ugly -

 

The real world is what we make of it.

[ivan]

the state's rule is simple - you shall not kill - The Man Alone has the Monopoly on Death -

 

Yet, most people have no problem with abortion or Death with Dignity, cases where death is determined by the individual. Of course, these deaths are not in the context of crime and punishment but there are the somewhat common elements of innocence and expediency.

exactly - death is not necessarily bad

 

to wit - death of this thread - that would be nice

not being willing to discuss the concept is more scary than the concept itself

[ivan]

the real world is bloody and ugly -

 

The real world is what we make of it.

were you under the impression that We were making something decent of it?

[ivan]

my main problem w/ the death penalty is the expense -

 

I disagree. The main problem with the death penalty is that we kill.

if you are a pacifist in all regards i can accept this statement - but surely you can concede there are some instances in which the state must kill?

 

and yes, i did call you shirley

[kevbone]

the real world is bloody and ugly -

 

The real world is what we make of it.

were you under the impression that We were making something decent of it?

 

some of us are.

[ivan]

 

The real world is what we make of it.

were you under the impression that We were making something decent of it?

 

some of us are.

keep at it then - you are but a drop in the ocean though

[tvashtarkatena]

We all probably know rape victims. I do as well. Rape is horrifically common. So, what's the suggestion? In the example given the criminal justice system failed. In the examples I know of, there were never even any arrests made.

 

What is the point of the post? Rape is bad? Gee...OK. Death penalty for rape? Some rapists get light sentences or get away with it so there should be no rehabilitation in the criminal justice system...which would lead to what? less rape?

 

I doubt that very much.

 

I find myself wondering exactly what relevance such obviously emotional ploys have to any real discussion about whether or not this state should have a policy of execution.

[ivan]

We all probably know rape victims. I do as well. Rape is horrifically common. So, what's the suggestion? In the example given the criminal justice system failed. In the examples I know of, there were never even any arrests made.

 

What is the point of the post? Rape is bad? Gee...OK. Death penalty for rape? Some rapists get light sentences or get away with it so there should be no rehabilitation in the criminal justice system...which would lead to what? less rape?

 

I doubt that very much.

 

I find myself wondering exactly what relevance such obviously emotional ploys have to any real discussion about whether or not this state should have a policy of execution.

to be certain, bug did not say he supported execution of sex criminals, just that he thought it sensible to Own Guns to Defend His Own

 

i reckon i'm mostly more of a danger to everyone, especially meself to own one

[tvashtarkatena]

 

 

WTF kills most domestic violence victims, a huge percentage of the murder rate we are, after all, partly talking about here? Yeah, that would be the gun Dickbo bought to 'protect the family' with.

 

GREAT FUCKIN IDEA.

[selkirk]

Allowing the families of victims to determine punishment would certainly have to be done within legal limits of what the law provides in capital cases. But even so, I wonder if this kind of provision wouldn't result in even greater pressure on prosecutors to win a conviction, and to further facilitate the same kind of miscarriage of "justice" against innocent suspects that we're having such problems with already. I've seen a number of documentaries on this issue, and it is absolutely astounding how implacable, callous and hardened prosecutors, judges,detectives and police can be in resisting even the most obvious and blatant evidence that they made a mistake and condemned an innocent person to death.

 

I think there's far too much possibility for collusion and distortion or omission of evidence, bribery, etc., in the case of people who've lost a family member and are all too anxious to see someone punished for the crime, and all too vulnerable to the pressure of prosecutors who are also anxious to put forward a no-tolerance,action-oriented, tough-on-crime front to satisfy what are so often media- and local, politically, racist, or culturally driven clamoring for vengeance and blood. I'm all for victims' rights, but it just seems to me that giving a family a direct say in this whole procedure just does nothing but to amp up the frenzy even more, with what can be completely tragic, unjust results.

 

In any system which is going to maintain the option of capital punishment, it's really mandatory to have irrefutable evidence through DNA, video, etc. as Bug noted above. If the punishment is going to be irrevocable, then the burden of proof, to be fair, should be irrevocable on the state. "Innocent until proven guilty", beyond a shadow of a doubt, and not the other way around, must be the standard if the ordinary person is to have any chance at all, and if a so-called free and open society is to remain.

 

Having said that, I have to admit that I'm in firm opposition to the death penalty. Killing the perpetrator of a blood crime is just perpetuating the cycle of violence, and it has been shown conclusively in a multitude of long term studies to have little to no effect as a deterrent. It further inculcates and sanctions violence as a viable principle in society while doing nothing to prevent it. And there are many cases of murder or manslaughter where an otherwise perfectly normal, decent, useful human being lost control and committed the crime in a fit of passion. Where one human life has already been"wasted", to destroy yet another only compounds the tragedy and suffering on all sides.

 

The Buddhists say that we should never give up on anyone or anything, that to do so is to lose precious opportunity for growth,learning, forgiveness and healing on all sides. One teacher used to tell his students to "try very hard to get through life without killing anyone, and that includes doing it legally as well," as in the case of service in the military, police, or capital punishment.(He recognized that there are cases in which you may have no other choice--everyone has the right to self defense of home and family).

 

And it's not just the Buddhists; it's worth noting that Christianity is based on the New Testament, where it says, "Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father is merciful. Judge not, that ye be not judged, and (lots of us forget this part) "condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned". This is also the part where it goes on to talk about not trying to get the mote out of your brother's eye until you have pulled the beam out of your own eye. And even in the Old Testament, it says "'Vengeance is mine', saith the Lord".

 

While incarceration is unarguably expensive, the death penalty, death row, and the endless cycle of appeals that results, is many times costlier, both in terms of dollars and in the emotional and psychological turmoil and limbo inflicted on the families of both sides. Only the lawyers truly benefit. Everyone else, ALL the rest of us, pay and pay. Someone who is incarcerated for life can still be of some use to society, can still make use of whatever skills they may have as a way of repaying their debt to society and to the victim's family, while being forced to live with and confront their own misdeeds and suffering continually, every day.

 

For those criminally insane who may be utterly umcomprehending of the enormity of their crime, those completely lacking in any conscience or the ablity to feel any degree of remorse, or so seriously disturbed as to remain constantly unpredictable and dangerous, then the only option is life without parole. In most other "civilized" countries, even these are treated with compassion and humanity, not demonization and blind fear.

 

I also feel that life without parole should be exercised more than it is, especially in the case of career criminals who've committed capital crimes. On the more conservative side, there are far too many cases of murderers who are paroled after 15 or 20 years or more, who kill again once they're outside, like the man who killed the 4 policemen in Tacoma. We need to find more dependable ways of evaluating such people and seeing to it that they're not set free to go down the same road again.

 

After the Tacoma shooting, and the revelation that the shooter's own family was helping him elude capture, I heard comments that the whole family deserved the death penalty for what happened, and "good riddance to the whole lot of 'em", etc. But in reading about the family background, and the shooter's upbringing, it became clear that the family was very sick and dysfunctional, going a long time back, and that what the shooter and his family needed most was treatment, not death. Even with treatment, it's clear now that he never should have been released in the first place. But putting him to death would have done nothing to help his family get better, or those of the first person he originally went to prison for killing.

 

I think the Truth Commissions of South Africa and Rwanda, in the aftermath of the apartheid and tribal atrocities, are worthy of serious consideration as an alternative to the death penalty, at least as a part of the legal system. Their prime emphasis and operation is organized around confession, understanding and "real" forgiveness. Of course they have a much different and very complicated situation from ours. And I'm in no way advocating that they replace or substitute for legal punishment and incarceration, but at least act as a supplement, an adjunct, to how we deal with capital crime.

 

Bishop Desmond Tutu, who has served as a primary motivator and facilitator of these commissions, said a very profound thing when asked what was meant by "real" forgiveness. He said that it means not just saying "I forgive you", but also "to drop and forgo any vengeance, any further claim against, or right of reprisal, in any form, against those who have wronged you, once and for all, and to never take it up again."

 

And Bishop Tutu said that, as hard as it is to do this, that so far, it has proven to be the most effective way that the victims, as well as the assailants, have been able to really heal and move on. Because the desire for vengeance, the carrying and nurturing of anger and hatred for those who harmed you, and what they did, has been shown beyond all doubt to be far more harmful and corrosive to those carrying the hate, than it is to those who are hated. It's really the first time in the history of the world, so far as we know, that anything like this has been tried, and it seems to be working.

 

As I say, they have a different situation than we do. On a purely practical level, neither of these two countries has the resources, the prison capacity, or the size of legal system necessary to prosecute and imprison the huge numbers of perpetrators, or even to identify and apprehend them all, for any length of time. And because of this, to simply be able pick up and carry on with ordinary daily life, in a reasonable amount of time, the Truth Commissions were what they came up with. It was the only way that made any sense for hundreds of villages and towns where people are living a few blocks or a few doors from someone who killed their relatives or raped, assaulted, or maimed them with machetes, without the whole situation descending into uncontrolled violence and rampaging madness all over again.

 

We may find such a method utterly ridiculous and ludicrous; but with the largest prison population per capita, and the largest number of prisoners on death row, of any developed, civilized country in the world, we may not be all that far from a time when real forgiveness may become a very necessary element in the reform and healing of a very sick and violent society. The simple fact is that you will never be able to execute and imprison your way out of the problems that are causing these things to happen over and over again. The solutions may not be all that clear, but it is all too abundantly clear that more killing is most definitely NOT the answer.

 

what he said!

From a practical standpoint it doesn't make sense. Let's spend more time, effort, an money to kill someone then to let them stay in prison? I would tend to view life in prison in many ways as a better punishment. It offers the opportunity for self redemption if they choose to take it, and if they don't then they can rot in situ.

 

From an ethical standpoint, taking a life is taking a life, whether it was directed by the state or not. War, and conflict is a different basket, but the death penalty is in cold blood. It's a tragedy, and a waste.

 

From a prevention standpoint, I think it's been pretty clearly determined that the death penalty is not a deterrant. The people who commit these crimes don't have the forethought to think through the consequences of their actions, or are so arrogant to believe that the rest of us are stupid and they would never be caught.

[selkirk]

is the world really a lesser place now that ted bundy is gone?

 

My parents where in Florida (i was just a baby) when Ted Bundy was executed. Prior to that my father had been a passive supporter of the death penalty. After watching the fervor and the blood lust that Bundy's execution drew from the people he changed his mind.

 

The world may not be a lesser place (and even this could be argued), but there are people who are now lesser for applauding at has death.

[Choada_Boy]

Yes. We should instead give Ted Bundy, Gary Ridgeway, Dennis Rader, John Wayne Gacey, Henry Lee Lucas, and that scumbag that ate all the gay guys, a BUNCH of hugs and kisses! That would make things better, and no one would have to get fried in the chair.

[prole]

Yes. We should instead give Ted Bundy, Gary Ridgeway, Dennis Rader, John Wayne Gacey, Henry Lee Lucas, and that scumbag that ate all the gay guys, a BUNCH of hugs and kisses! That would make things better, and no one would have to get fried in the chair.

 

You forgot the most important part of a scenario like this: holding hands and singing Kumbayah.

Edited January 10, 2010 by prole

[tvashtarkatena]

Wuhll...if that scumbag ate all the guy gays, how do you explain Elton John?

[prole]

Shit, I don't even know half of those dudes. Any of them ever bomb an Afghan wedding? You can get your stats up quick over there.

[tvashtarkatena]

I dated a chick in college who was fascinated by all that little-boys -in-the-freezer shit. She knew about em all. Kind of akin to Billcoe and his exploded face photo collection. There's a turn-on there somewhere. Personally, that crap does nothing for me. I consider it brain pollution.

 

What I find more interesting is the apparently widespread emotional need to have killed someone who's so obviously off their rocker. Do psychos awaken that little bit of psycho in some of us 'regular' folk? Kind of like tuning a guitar with another guitar. If your strings are wound tight enough...

Edited January 11, 2010 by tvashtarkatena

[prole]

I think it's safe to say that most people who are for the death penalty don't have a child on death row.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I consider it brain pollution.

 

 

 

That would be the only area in which you are truly an expert.

[prole]

She knew about em all. Kind of akin to Billcoe and his exploded face photo collection. There's a turn-on there somewhere.

 

You mean like FW and Kojak's gristly death camp collections?

[StevenSeagal]

She knew about em all. Kind of akin to Billcoe and his exploded face photo collection. There's a turn-on there somewhere.

 

You mean like FW and Kojak's gristly death camp collections?

 

Or Raindawg's collection of Nazi, Pee Wee Herman, and Richard Simmons photos.

[tvashtarkatena]

Or, if you really want grotesque, Pamela.

[tvashtarkatena]

Yeah, the whole human misery photo thing. I find them disturbing, and couldn't imagine what motivates people to go the extra distance to actually post them. I mean, isn't searching for and downloading them quite enough, already? "OH, just making a point, myan." Yeah, right, ya sick fuck. They're like the psycho kids we all knew in school who'd pull the wings off flies, then turn on you when you called em on it. I'd hate to browse their Flickr accounts. No FKin thanks, Mr. Bundy.

Edited January 11, 2010 by tvashtarkatena