The prisons are full

Remove all ads!

Sorry -- IMHO the criminal's family is on their own -- any suffering they have is as a direct result of the criminal's actions and they deserve no resources from society at large. What I'm saying is that to show respect to the victim's family -- to let them know that their loved one was valued by the society -- the criminal must be killed. As for the people who cry big crocodile tears over the killer himself, I'll reiterate -- they are placing their sympathy with the wrong person.

Note that I'm talking about the really, truly horrendous cases -- the ones that the killer is proud of, the ones he boasts about, the ones for which VIDEO TAPED EVIDENCE is clear, the ones wherein there is no one at all denying that the bastard did it, merely bleedinghearts who don't give a **** about the victim and instead try to save the person who took everything away from that victim. Nothing those killers could EVER do can make up for their crime, so their existence should be forfeit.

 

To verge slightly further off topic, what's the difference between one child, whose father was killed by another person illegally, and another child, whose father was killed by order of the state, legally? Neither have done anything wrong, yet both have lost a parent.

I know it happened a fair while ago now, but going back to the shootings at the Amish school in October '06. Their response was something we should all be looking towards - one of forgiveness, not hate (that sounds horribly corney now that I write it down).

Okay, this example is an extreme case, and I would hardly expect anyone to live up to their brilliant example - anger is a perfectly natural emotion - espcially if you don't believe that the shooter will be judged in an after life. However, it is an example of human "goodness" (as much as I hate using the word) that we should all be hoping to achieve. Even if you can't forgive the killer, you should at least be able to understand that the killer is a human, who most likely has loved one back home who do not wish to see him dead, any more than the victims family wished their loved one dead.

But hey, if no one will miss them, just deport them to Australia. Simple solution, and all gain from it.

[Edit]Basing my argument complete on morals... It's scary. And who said we needed religion to teach us morals?

 

Forgiveness does not mean letting the offender off the hook. They must still repent, they must still answer to the law, they must still pay the price, legally and spiritually for their crimes. Then and only then can they have any hope of being spared from Hell.

Forgiveness is also not leaving yourself vulnerable to repeated victimization by the offender. I can forgive him, but I should not lower my guard to enable him to transgress again.

Foirgiveness can take time. First we have to grieve the loss of our loved one, and get over the shock of the crime, then we need to regain our perspective before we can seek to forgive. For some, this can take years. In the case of a capital crime, I wouldn't think it fair to delay an execution or lock them in a cage forever waiting on me to forgive them.

Further, the condemned (Again, assume truly guilty of the crime) cannot outrun their guilt. While they are in prison, they must confront their guilt. Locking them in a cage for the rest of their life then becomes cruel and unusual punishment compared to execution.

The child of the murdered lost a parent through the uncaring, callous actions of another. The Child of the executed lost a parent as a consequence of the parent's uncaring, callous actions. That is the difference. You do what you can to help both, but don't use the child as a reason to spare a murderer...

 

Why? It is as good a reason as any - heck, probably the best reason there can be. It might not be reason enough to spare them, but that's another story. Unless they somehow prompted the crime, they are about as innocent as the victim's family. Otherwise we're going into "guilt by association" territory, and that is a principle I do not want to see in any "justice" system.

 

You jump all over me for pointing out that we've had one exoneration for every eight executions since 1976 (which is absolutely correct) and then you post this? Your extrapolation ignores the fact that not everyone placed on death row was put there in 1977 (your calculation should leave off anyone convicted after, say, 1990) It also ignores the fact that many of the 17 death row inmates who died of natural causes had actually had their death sentences thrown out by the supreme court due to errors in the trial, weak evidence, etc. In other words, they weren't even on death row when they died. Here is a list of everyone put on the Illinois death row since 1976, the year they were convicted, and what happened with their case.

If, by nearly average, you mean that Texas is usually around .5 murders per hundred thousand higher than the national average, then sure.

The site from which information comes is irrelevant, as long as the information is true. If my argument is wrong, weak, or deceptive, then attack the argument. While accusing someone of "bias" or unspecified over-simplifications* is convenient, it's really just a cheap trick to avoid actually addressing someone's arguments head on. Now, if you want to argue that anti-death penalty sites tend only to make arguments and point out facts that are beneficial to their case while avoiding arguments and facts that could damage it, you'd have a good point.

This just simply isn't true. On its face, it would seem that the death penalty would deter more crime than life in prison. A simpler interpretation plays towards the death penalty since the idea that the death penalty doesn't actually deter more crime than life imprisonment is counter-intuitive. A counter-intuitive argument is inherently more complex than an intuitive one.

T2, if you exonerate someone, you don't try them again. Those 2 cases were not exonerations.

* Obviously being specific about what was over-simplified, how, and why is perfectly acceptable (and appreciated), but I shouldn't have to point out the obvious irony of making a sweeping, general accusation of over-simplification.

 

Any suffering that the perpetrator's family sufferes is unfortunate, but it is the fault and responsibility of the perpetrator, NOT the society, which is well within its rights to protect itself and exact justice for the victims. By following the logic to the extreme, . . . well, let's use the Bernardo case that angers me so much.

Paul Bernardo raped and killed at least 3 girls. He taped himself doing it. He was arrested and convicted of this crime. Now Paul, like most of us, has a mother. If she goes and cries to the government that punishing her son, by extension, punishes her and so she is being punished though she is innocent and we have a "guilt by association" kind of situation . . . Come on, get real. That's ridiculous even writing it. Bernardo must be punished. The pain his mother feels is HIS bloody fault, and it has nothing at all to do with the State punishing his mother with guilt by association. We'd never punish anyone in any form if we walked down that road, and in a society like that the strong would continually victimize the weak. No one wants that kind of society -- at least I hope they don't.

 

Could they lock his mother up in the same prison so they could be together in the yard?

Yes, this counts as a joke

 

That's supposed to be a joke, I think. I don't think she should, in and of herself be punished, or that is should be assumed that she had a hand in her son's deviance. Anyone on this board with children knows full well that some of the stunts the kids pull have no relation to what we taught them. It's too easy and unfair as hell to blame parents for the actions of their kids. But that's neither here nor there -- the kid must pay for his crimes regardless of the hardship it places on the parents.

 

Agreed completely, Montresor. Her feelings should not override justice.

You guys want to know something funny? As we speak, my wife's son stands convicted of a serious offense and is awaiting trial for another, somewhat less serious offense. He was 14 or so when the first offense occurred and is 18 now -- the second offense happened only a few months ago. We are still awaiting the sentence for the first offense. I am seeing firsthand the effects of a criminal's crime on his family. It rips my wife up, let me tell you. I'm left trying to be supportive while at the same time my own personal beliefs want the guy to suffer.

She never modelled any of the behaviours he has displayed, and I can tell you flat out she never did them in secret and therefore inadvertently moved the kid in that direction. She has 2 other kids who are normal. I stick to trying to base my comments to her on facts while not being too much of an a*****e. I say things like "On a first offense for a youth they rarely give jail time, sweetie" (leaving out what she already knows "I think they should send him to jail.") and "the jails are so full right now the system is looking for any reason possible to avoid sending people to prison" while not adding my opinion of that mindset. She says things like "I'd like to kill him! I want to shake him until his teeth rattle" followed by "I really don't want him to go to jail. What'll he learn in prison?" A mother is supposed to say that, of course, but she is a decent woman who is also deeply concerned with the welfare of the victims. I want to yell at the kid and tell him "I don't really give two ***** about you you little dirtbag, but look at the pain and suffering YOU are causing your mother!" Both she and I know that the fault for this suffering lies with the boy, not with the system which is merely trying to punish a sicko.

The money we were going to use to go on a holiday this summer is going to her trip to where he is so she can give him moral support. I don't think I need to say too much about what I think of that, but I don't give her a hard time about it -- she needs love and support from the old LKD, not more stress.

 

Agreed. But...

Same applies here. Feelings of revenge should not override justice. Justice should be there to serve the society. In what way does society gain from a death of another human being instead of just locking that person up?

 

Society gains by knowing that there is justice, that the powers that be are not tolerant of the continuing existence of a person who will flagrantly disregard the the rights of the other people therein. To keep a murderer alive is tantamount to saying that their lives are worth more than the life of their victims. Additionally, if the process is fair and the accused has had a chance to pur forth any mitigating circumstances, then (Rags is gonna blow a gasket here) the society does not have to pay for the care and feeding of the prisoner. Now I know Rags and others say this shows a lack of respect for human life, but I assert that it simply shows a lack of respect for the KILLER'S life, and I don't have any respect for that sort of person. At all. None. I do, however, have respect for the lives of the millions of people on the planet who do not commit such heinous crimes. I want them protected. The only surefire way to do that is to eliminate the truly guilty.

Note that I'm not saying there shouldn't be any raising of questions about the guilt of an individual. But when there is not a shadow of a doubt as to guilt, society is best protected and comforted by the knowledge that the guilty party can never again commit a similar crime, and that the society is willing to state flat out that their lives are not worth more than their victims.

 

Well, from a societal viewpoint what matters most is that the crime is not repeated. The rest are, if you consider it from the perspective of society as a whole, minor details. Of course, today's society is fairly individualistic so these minor details (anything from why he did it to was he actually guilty) often matter, but that's another story.

At times I get the idea that some of us here divide society neatly into normal people and criminals, I can't help but wonder just how big is the difference. I've heard anecdotes about people who, while otherwise decent citizens, killed another when they flipped out or without intending to (heck, I've known one, and I thought him a rather average human being). Well, they were convicted and imprisoned - but, you know, I don't think some of them were all that different from you or me. Can anyone really say that no matter what, they would never flip out enough that they do something sadistic enough to warrant capital punishment where it's practiced? I don't think I can.

 

Incorrect. If the state had the power to restore the victim to life, but chose not to because it would have a negative effect on the criminal, then it would be saying that one life is worth more than the other. The choice not to kill the criminal has absolutely no relationship with the value of the victims life. It is merely saying that there is a value in human life, no matter who the human is.

I'm going to go and draw another example from a religous branch, here. The Pope's speech on capital punishment in the mid-90's.

"It is clear that, for these purposes to be achieved, the nature and extent of the punishment must be carefully evaluated and decided upon, and ought not go to the extreme of executing the offender except in cases of absolute necessity: in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today however, as a result of steady improvements in the organization of the penal system, such cases are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

I know I feel perfectly safe that if a criminal is locked away in a prison they are no longer going to be a threat to me. Maybe if you do not, one needs to look at the security arrangements of the prisons as opposed to just chopping heads off.

This goes back to my question, from my previous post.

Consider these two statements:

(1) Society gains by knowing that there is justice, that the powers that be are not tolerant of the continuing existence of a person who will flagrantly disregard the the rights of the other people therein.

(2) Society gains by knowing that there is justice, that the powers that be are not tolerant of the continuing freedom of a person who will flagrantly disregard the the rights of the other people therein.

Now, what is the advantages of the former over the latter? You haven't answered how it benefits society. Or in other words, to restate my original question, in what way does society gain from a death of another human being instead of just locking that person up?

 

Again, Is it easier to deal with a dead father or one that's going to be locked in a cage like an animal for the next 25 years to life? Just kill the killer and be done with it and let the child get on with his life rather than having to see daddy locked in a prison...

Would that also account for the higher rate for capital punishment?

It surprises me that it does not deter murder too. It doesn't change my mind. Deterent or not, it still is more humane than locking someone in a cage for decades.

Why can't people accept that?

I know there's people that want a crack at him, but I'll settle for leaving him in a cage because it would be illegal for me to break his neck.

Wrong. Justice is making sure someone pays a socially determined price for their crimes. It is there to make sure a fair price is paid. Death is a fair price for a murderer. Locking them in a cage for decades is unnecessarily dehumanizing and torturous.

Rotku: Incarceration if fine for offences up to accidental killing of a person, but for premeditated murder or killing in the process of committing another crime (perhaps repeated accidental killing, like a drunk driver who kills someone, serves his time in jail, then gets drunk and kills someone again), death is an appropriate sentence.

 

Okay. Why? What's the advantages there?

And with regards to your first paragraph (sentence?), I know I would personally prefer to see my dad locked away in a cell than dead, and I imagine that he would feel the same.

It's curious that you consider imprisonment unhumane while say killing is humane. If you take a look at leading human rights organisations and international human rights treaties, they tend to say the opposite. The UN General Assembly passed a resolution in December last year, calling for a moratorium on capital punishment (A/RES/62/149); the 13th provision of the European Convention on Human Rights completely provents capital punishment; the second protocol of the American Convention on Human Rights also outright bans the use of capital punishment; as does the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to name but a few. And finally, taking a quick look at a map of the world, you will see most developed nations also seem to have adopted this view about capital punishment (I'll give you a hint here - look for the red coloured states - the rest don't use death penalty). I would be impressed if you could find one major international body or state which seeks to ban the use of prisons.

Just having dug up a bit more info, the only countries that have used the death penalty this century are:

• Africa:
  • Burundi (genocides, assassinations, need I say more?)
  • Chad (on going civil war, "poor" human rights as described by US State department)
  • Democratic Republic of the Congo (long history of civil wars (including during this century), poor human rights as by the UN HRC)
  • Egypt (far from the most democratic country around - just look at their free press)
  • Ethiopia (heh, no comment)
  • Guinea (evil dictator status)
  • Libya (evil dictator status)
  • Nigeria ("poor" human rights as described by US State department)
  • Somalia (yes... another no comment)
  • Sudan (heard of Darfur)
  • Uganda (evil dictator status)
  • Zimbabwe (evil dictator status)
• Africa (off to bed, so can't finish the human rights comments)
  • Afghanistan
  • Bahrain
  • Bangladesh
  • China
  • Taiwan
  • India
  • Indonesia
  • Iran
  • Iraq
  • Japan
  • Jordan
  • Kazakhstan
  • North Korea
  • Kuwait
  • Lebanon
  • Malaysia
  • Oman
  • Pakistan
  • Palestinian Authority
  • Qatar
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Singapore
  • Syria
  • Tajikistan
  • Thailand
  • United Arab Emirates
  • Uzbekistan
  • Vietnam
  • Yemen
• Europe
  • Belarus
• North America and Caribbean
  • Cuba
  • Jamaica
  • Turks and Caicos Islands
  • United States
• Oceania
  • None
• South America
  • None

Not exactly the most shinning examples of human rights and democracy, are they?

 

You take someone out of their home, away from their family and lock him in a cage, like an animal rather than a human. Why not just end his life--unless you feel that would be too good for the murderer.

When done right, capital punishment is quick and it's over quickly.

Now that I think about it, why do I want to let these scumbags off that easily. Maybe they are animals, and should be treated as such. Just try to find the cheapest way to feed them, and make them WORK for any luxuries. If prison is supposed to be unpleasant, why are there so many prisoners? Obviously imprisonment doesn't deter anything either...

 

Riiiight, do you actually believe that? Because the best reason, as far as I know, is that most criminals don't expect to get in prison in the first place. Just because Russian jails (heck, ours too, from what I've heard) tend to be worse than US ones doesn't mean they (and we) have less crime.

I mean, unless you're talking about some punks who want to prove how tough they are or some homeless bums who don't have any better place to spend the night, few people would actually look forward to being jailed.