Killing your family II

E

EnochGale

New member
Lie-detector tests are notoriously unreliable, so that suggestion won't make the cut.

If one could come up with a god like device to determine guilt and there were no differentials in applying punishment based on race, class, wealth or ethnicity - we might have a case for capital punishment.

But we don't.
 
Forgot to add, we also accept that the motive is revenge. No data for deterrence over the long run.

I still say that financial reasons that started this thread are trivial when deciding to take a human life.

I was in the doctor's office the other day and read a story in some mag (Time or People) about a woman who swore up and down she was raped by a man - through 2 trials. Finally, since DNA was kept - he was freed.

The possibility of such errors makes me
err on the side of not executing folk and
not really being impressed by some of the argument here. Being in prision for life without chance of parole is bad enough that the risk of killing an innocent makes me not
favor the death penalty.

Also, Battler - what are you talking about with all those ****? You've been watching too many prision movies :) Watch some Elvis goes to Hawaii on AMC :)
 
Enter the anti-gun arguement:

"If it could save the life of just one child, isn't confiscating firearms worth it?"

------------------
God, Guns and Guts made this country a great country!
 
We go back the my original question that I asked in the previous trend: if human life means so little to them that they would take another, why should they be entitled to their own?

I submit to you that our society was a whole lot less violent when the death penality was more freely administered. Fourty years ago if there was a robbery and the victims coorperated, nobody got hurt. Just look at what is posted here on TFL in the last month alone and I'll wager that you'll find close to half a dozen examples (or more) of violent crimes where there was no reason to kill the victim(s).

Criminals, robbers, rapists, etc., will not reespect my life, your life and the life of your family unless they know that their own life can be lost as punishment for their actions.

If you think that the financial aspect of keeping somebody in jail for the rest of their life is trivial, then I submit to you that before we spend all of that money on someone who has broken our laws and committed actions which society frown on, that we first compensate the victims.

In the real life example that I mentions in the previous trend which happened in New Jersey several years ago, the husband not only lost his wife but their children lost a loving & caring mother. The woman worked part-time while the children were in school. That family now lost that source of income. In order to continue to make ends meey, the father would have to get a second job but because his wife is no longer around, he has to be both father & mother to the children which means he can't even work the same amount of hours at his regular job.

Their lives have been forever changed and not for the better because someone did not see the value in a human life. This story is repeated countless times all over this country. No assistance is ever offered to the victims and their families. Instead, we spend money on the individual who is responsible for all of this grief.

I see something seriously wrong with this picture. FUD
fudflag.gif


[This message has been edited by FUD (edited August 11, 2000).]
 
KaMaKaZe brings up a good point. No human system of justice will ever be perfect but we do the best we can. Have we ever executed the wrong person? I'm sure that we have. But would you rather lose the life of one innocent person or save the lives of ten innocent vistims because the criminal has a higher respect for human life since he fears losing his own as punishment? 'Nuff said.
 
AS FUD stated I'd rather spend the 20K/year by giving it to the victims of the murderers rather then feeding, clothing and taking care of some dirt bag with no respect for the lives of decent human beings. Respect is a two way street, If you show me none, dont expect me to show you any in return. I however dont think that executions need to be taken lightly. We need to make sure that the person we are executing is the right person. This is why I dont favor eliminating the appeals process, just speeding it up a bit. My opinion with reagrds to deterrance is that the death penalty does not deterr crime cause it aint used well. It is a tool that is misused. What it does do 100% of the time is insure that the dirt bag will never repeat his actions again. I guess in essence it does deterr the individual in question from ever comitting a horrible act upon another human again.
 
Nice speech but there is no evidence for deterrence effects for capital punishment over the long run. None. People have looked at this in the USA for years. Go to a library and look it up.

As far as protecting the innocent. Yes - that is what America is about - we protect the innocent. Our system of justice is based on the principle of beyond a reasonable doubt.

Life without chance of parole does that.
Since you cannot support the deterrent argument - you don't have a good argument at all.

Also, some states do have assistance programs for victims. Lobby for it if you don't have it.

You make statements without a basis in fact.

I also find your opinion of the financial issue to be morally reprehensible.

The money is not that much in our society. You already should know now that death penalty cases cost more than life without parole.

Given the possibility of innocents being executed and the injustices in the criminal justice system - to kill to save FUD a couple of bucks on his taxes just sucks from any perspective you can look at.
 
You want to know what "sucks"? A innocent life being taken away and the person responsible for this act having all of his needs met at society's expense -- a society whose rules he has no regard for.

With regard to the deterrent argument having not merit. Look up the stats for the percentage of murders following a robbery or rape and compare those numbers to those of 40 years ago when the death penality was more freely given out.

I did an extension research project on this very topic back in 1986. I compared murders assosciated with another crime (rape, robbery, etc.) for 1962 & 1984. The difference was "statistically significant". Don't take my word for it. Do the research yourself and then come back here and explain to me why there is so much more killing now follwoing other crimes.

Could it be that if caught and convicted, there was a very good chance that they would lose their own life as punishment? If you don't think that is the answer, then explain away the differences. I'm waiting.
 
I have to agree with what someone posted in the earlier thread. I'm all for exile to a remote island. The only problem is that there are no places to send the convicts to fend for themselves. The only place that I can think of is Antarctica. We should give the convicts a tent, lighter, canteen, snow boots, jacket, knife, etc. and let them figure out the rest.

I have to agree with FUD. Although I'm not for the death penalty, I know I won't be shedding any tears for the executed. I definitely believe that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime. Death is the number two event that people fear the most in their lives (amazingly, number one being public speaking). Countries that implement harsh punishments have much lower crime rates.

[This message has been edited by Incursion (edited August 11, 2000).]
 
EnochGale, try putting yourself in the shoes of the victim. Let's say that you are that father in NJ who lost his wife and the mother of his two small children. The two of you working together were barely able to make ends meet. Now you've lost her salary and you, yourself, can not really take on another job because now even more of your time is needed to be both a father and a mother to your children.

At the same time, society is going to spend $23000+ a year to financially support the person responsible for taking your wife's life, the life of your children's mother and putting you & your family into serious financial problems knowing full well that the quality of life which you will now be able to offer your children will be significantly reduced. How would you feel? Answer me that question and we'll go from there.

[This message has been edited by FUD (edited August 11, 2000).]
 
"Better to let a thousand guilty men go free than to execute one innocent man." author?

I just flat out do NOT like the idea of the goverment killing its citizens/subjects. There is something inherently wrong with this (think about it). With my luck I'll be the "one in a thousand" innocent man who you good people fry. And I don't like the thought of you wrongly killing me so that you sleep better at night and maybe save a couple of bucks in the process. Too bad!

------------------
Just one of the Good Guys
 
Good Guy, would you rather be brutally murdered by someone who has no respect for human life even after you cooperate and beg him to spare your life but if there was a fear that he would lose his own life as punishment, would then consider sparing your life? Statistically speaking, your chances of being the murder victim following another crime are greater than to be wrongfully executed for a crime that you did not commit.
 
Got to go with FUD on this 110%

Personally, the "If just one innocent person is killed...." just doesn't wash.
How many innocent lives are we willing to sacrifice every year just so we can have cheap (relatively) transportation? I think protecting society from these monsters is a tad more important than cheap transportation.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by EnochGale:
Nice speech but there is no evidence for deterrence effects for capital punishment over the long run. None. People have looked at this in the USA for years. Go to a library and look it up.

As far as protecting the innocent. Yes - that is what America is about - we protect the innocent. Our system of justice is based on the principle of beyond a reasonable doubt.

Life without chance of parole does that.
Since you cannot support the deterrent argument - you don't have a good argument at all.

Also, some states do have assistance programs for victims. Lobby for it if you don't have it.

You make statements without a basis in fact.

I also find your opinion of the financial issue to be morally reprehensible.

The money is not that much in our society. You already should know now that death penalty cases cost more than life without parole.

Given the possibility of innocents being executed and the injustices in the criminal justice system - to kill to save FUD a couple of bucks on his taxes just sucks from any perspective you can look at.[/quote]

You say that there is "no evidence" for the detterant effects of capital punishment. I say that you are missing the biggest and most obvious point. If a violent offender is executed for his crimes, I guarantee you that he will never commit another.

The town that I live in was the site of the 3rd worst family mass murder in the history of the US. This man killed his whole family and several of his co-workers,some of which were my friends.
It took about 2 years to execute him by lethal injection...and that was only because he chose not to appeal his sentance. Some of the survivors were quite releived when this man was executed. This case recieved a lot of publicity, in fact a book has been written about it. You may reconize the name:R.Gene Simmons. Up until that point in my life I was neither for nor against the death penalty. I can assure you , through personal contact with the deaceased and the survivors and knowing the feelings of their familys, it forever changed my opinion of the death penalty.

For one thing, the man will never again kill. Another factor of the death penalty that is NEVER stated by the anti's is the mental effect that it has on the survivors, some of which literally could not sleep while the perpetrator was alive. When executed, it provided a sense of closure, a sense of justice. Why is it that almost noone talks about the effects of the death penalty on the surviving victims of a very violent assault ?
Simmons was a very troubled individual. You say that it is better to live the rest of your life in jail. He said that he had no desire to live the rest of his life in "torment"(his words).
It seems that the people that are really involved with the death penalty from PERSONAL experience have much different opinions than the do-gooders that have only read about it and chose to quote the opinions of others.

Now please explain to me why I should pay taxes to feed and house a murderer that has no desire to live, for the rest of his life.

Explain to me how the average cost( 35-40,000 a year)over the life time of a felon for say 25 years is more cost efficient than a 3000 burial fee.Even with exorbiant lawyer fees , the math is not there.

You make statements with out a basis in fact.
I speak from experience. Trust me on this, upon visiting the scene of the crime shortly after the fact, mercy was not in our hearts.
Only justice was. And if justice means eliminating a murderer from society through the death penalty, my ONLY regret is that lawyers get rich from it.
 
The death penalty is about what is DESERVED.


The guilty deserves to pay for his crime
The Friends and Family deserve closure
The dead deserve justice.
 
Lonestar has it partially right; it's not about deterrence, but about making the punishment fit the crime. But the fact is, there are some criminals who are too dangerous to be allowed to live. And don't give me some BS aobut "life without parole." There is no such thing. Bleeding heart morons (such as those who would abolish the death penalty or the 2nd A to "save one life") fail to recognize that as long as politicians can curry votes by changing the law, they will. Life without parole can become time served with the stroke of a pen. Or, judges could find it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Remember when the death penalty was abolished? People who had been sentenced to die ended up walking the streets and killing more innocent citizens.

One final thought. Death penalty opponents seem content with putting people in prison for years on end, on the off chance that the person is innocent and might be freed someday. But, prisoners sentenced to prison rather than death have far more limited appeal rights and opportunities. These people (including the innocent ones) will then spend a good portion of their life being systematically brutalized on a daily basis for years on end, with every right, privilege and dignity stripped from them. "Hmm, you might be guilty so we're going to prefer you being raped rather than put in a private cell and given a better chance to prove your innocence."




[This message has been edited by buzz_knox (edited August 11, 2000).]
 
It's absolutely nuts that we spend $30,000 a year on convicts. I'm sorry, but when I've read the Constitution, I've never seen convicts being guaranteed air conditioning, cable TV, conjugal visits, etc. It seems that there's a basic standard for humane confinement recognized worldwide in the Geneva Convention. If barracks style housing in the middle of nowhere is good enough for regular POW's, it's more than good enough for rapists, murderers, child molesters, and other violent lowlife scum.

Maybe we can "farm out" prison lifers to other countries? It wouldn't surprise me if Turkey would house them for under $10 a day. Russia's (supposedly) empty gulags would probably do it for even less.
 
I don't think this suggestion has been brought up:

How about instead of our taxes paying the bill of "lifers", how about the family of the convicted murderer foot the bill.

Can't pay up? Well then here is the bill for the bullets, rope, drug overdose, or electricity.

Might straighten out a few families.

------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
www.cphv.com
 
Two points:

1. As stated earlier, the death penalty is 100% effective in preventing a repeat criminal act by the killer in question.

2. It's easier for the anti-capital punishment crowd to sleep at night because the state isn't killing people. But, the simple fact of the matter is that lifer's in prison still commit murders, rapes, drug deals, etc. The public may be safe at night with the killer behind bars, but what about the prison guard or other prisoner who is killed by the "lifer" in jail? Where's the justice for his family? When there's no death penalty, what more can you do to the mass murderer who kills in prison? Isolation? Prisoners have killed guards in isolation. Just something to think about. Just because the problem is no longer yours doesn't mean someone won't have to deal with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top