Pullin' The Plug

[blur]

"The U.S. Supreme Court voted 7-2 Wednesday
morning to allow the execution of Roberson. The justices also voted 6-3 to deny Cruz's request for a reprieve and to deny a separate appeal."
     -CNN

Since we've been on the topic of citizens' rights recently. I was wondering if anyone finds the above statement disturbing. Should we as citizens give the government the power of life or death over us?

[funked]

Of course not.

[Yeager]

Since we've been on the topic of citizens' rights recently. I was wondering if anyone finds the above statement disturbing. Should we as citizens give the government the power of life or death over us?
====
"We the People"

Think real hard about this one.............

Yeager

[StSanta]

Hm, at the risk of sounding like a beelding heart pinko, I must say that I find the death penalty a cruel and obsolete way of punishment. But some will argue that it's the only way of securing that say a mass muderer does not kill again.

The death penalty in this sense is the perfect...what's the word, not punishment, because you ain't feeling nothing when you're dead....the perfect solution? And as such, it requires a perfect judicial system. And I do not believe such a one exists anywhere in the world; different religions believe that ultimately, there is one.

So if this is taken into account, we really cannot allow ourselves the risk of killing an innocent.

I believe the dictionary defines murder as "unlawful killing". In the case of the execution of an innocent, it falls in my book into that category. So what should we do? Execute the jury, for convicting the man/woman? Nah, that has to do with guilt, not punishment. Execute the judge for sentecing the person to death? Nah, his duty is do administer punishment according to the law *on people found guilty by the jury*, as I understand it.

So also here there's a little flaw  .

Another question is resocialization vs punishment - and here a cynic would say - what serves society best? In some cases the former, in others the latter. Some people (and some democrats will probably not agree) *cannot* be resocialized - they are too far out. My father works as a shrink, and that's his professional opinion. He's explained the reasoning behind it and (maybe because my lack of knowledge in the area) I've found it to be rather compelling.

So, in these cases, we're left with two further options; punishment, an eye for an eye in a certain sense, or removal from society so as to present no further threat. The death penalty, to me, is not really more than a very short term punishment. Lots of fear in a very short time, but then that's that. Incarceration with guys like Bubba who have sayings like "tight butts drive me nutts" would be more severe; here, the criminal (or innocent) would have the time to get punished, and would know about it..

But I am a firm believer in the principle that a society should not stoop to the lowest common denominator of human behaviour. Punishment is, in a way, an emotional reaction. Mr Spock would settle for having the problem solved. Unfortunately, for these hard cases, the ony way to have the problem solved is by removing them from society, either by putting them to death, or by putting them in jail. I vote for the latter.

Now, some penalties in the US I find a bit extreme. Like when a man is sentenced to 245 years in prison. Why stop there - it's the rest of the individual's natural life, so why not just say so. Or raise it to 245 million year, for good measure.

On the other hand, I find the punishments in this country far too weak. A gang of refugees had a gang rape on a young 15 year old Danish woman, and the hardest punishment was I believe three years in jail. Aggravated assault, well, out in a few. Murder, see ya in 8 to 12.

But side issues  .

------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime

[Toad]

Man, another can of worms.

This is another problem that goes deep into the fabric of the society we have allowed ourselves to become.

In this country, guys who kite a check are in the same cell as a guy who killed somebody in an argument over an ounce of weed. It's probably even odds on who will get out first, too.    

One thing you can say is that the death penalty cuts recidivism to zero. They never commit another crime. OTOH, you can also say that if Society makes a mistake <which is certainly possible> you can never, ever correct it.

Clearly, we need to review what we are attempting to do with the present criminal justice system. Capital punishment may <and IMHO, does> have its place. (There are captial crimes in which the defendant is clearly guilty. For example, suppose Hinckley had succeeded in killing Reagan, <hold the witty commentary a second     >. The Secret Service had him caught with the smoking gun in hand. There would be NO DOUBT. Here I have no problem with Capital Punishment.)

Mainly, we MUST begin to deal with the underlying problems. The English, at one time, would HANG you for stealing a loaf of bread. Bread still got stolen; a starving man has no choice.


[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 08-10-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 08-10-2000).]

[Ripsnort]

   

Originally posted by blur:

 Should we as citizens give the government the power of life or death over us?

You already do that by voting.  You give them the power of the military, in which they hold all the buttons of the nuclear arsenal, and, as in the the case of Los Alomos, the power to place those secret weapons in the hands of a country that could determine our future in short time.

If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call.


THIS POST is in memory of  10 year Cary Ann Medlin, who said:
"Jesus loves you,
Jesus loves you."
over and over to her rapist just before he murdered her.
   



[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 08-10-2000).]

[Ash]

Blur,

  First of all, I totally respect your opinion and think it is valid.
  Laws concerning the Death Penalty can be over turned by our elected officials. If the majority of a state's voters do not condone the death penalty, they have the power to vote otherwise. The U.S. Supreme Court, though not elected officials, do uphold the law of the land. Whether it is politically correct at the time or not. I do believe there are crimes that are so brutal and heinous that they should be punishable by death. My opinion.

<S>
Ash  

[Yeager]

Let me say this:

There are human beings who need to be killed.

Not locked up, not reformed, simply put down.

Everything after that gets kind of messy.

Yeager

[blur]

</H  

Originally posted by Yeager:

<snip>
"We the People"

Think real hard about this one.............
Yeager

Actually I think it's becoming more like "We the Corporation" but okay, let me rephrase, should "We the People" have the power of life and death over its citizens?

To me murder is a basic violation of life itself, which goes beyond any of man's petty laws, and to murder the murderer is to commit two crimes.

A government that institutes capital punishment is only sending the message that life is cheap.

[Cabby]

Quote:

"A government that institutes capital punishment is only sending the message that life is cheap."

Well, the executed murderer's life sure is cheap.  

Listen.  The Government of the United States is the People.  "Corporations" are people too.  If the People lose control of their destiny, it's because they don't exercise their Right To Vote.  It's each US citizen's responsibility to vote.  No excuse.

The Government, acting on the People's wish, can execute murderers.  The US Courts have numerous checks-and-balances and appeals designed to keep innocent people from being put to death.  I would be willing to bet that the ratio of innocent victims  murdered by worthless human garbage to the number of  executions of innocent convicts would run in the tens-of-thousands to one.

I reserve the right to kill any person who threatens my life, my wife's life, my children's life, and my neighbor's life.  I also reserve the right to kill any invader that would attempt to destroy my Country and my Freedom as part of a military action.  I call it "Real-Time Capital Punishment".

Anyone who would not defend their own , their family's, or their  Nation's life/lives is a worthless coward/and or a weakling not worthy to be called a Man.

It's "Thou Shalt Not Murder" not "Thou Shalt Not Kill".  Killing is real, it will always be a part of life.  Deal with it.

Cabby

Marion Carl.  WWII Marine Fighter Ace and decent, law-abiding citizen.  Murdered in his home  by a piece of human excrement that still lives today.  Why??

[StSanta]

Gotta agree with blur here.

There have been, and will be, cases where a man or woman has been proven not guilty after having been executed. This risk, combined with blur's comments about man's petty laws, alone are enough for me not to want to have the death penalty when there are alternative options.

As far as I can tell, a lot of people are still being murdered in the US; many more than here. The deterrant effect of death penalty is questionable to me, especially as criminals comitting crimes that can result in death penalty overall do not think long term.

A side effect; I murder a man. Having done this, I know that when I am caught, I shall be put to death. This gives me an incentive to do whatever I have to do to stay alive. Furthermore, since I am already practically dead if caught, some more crimes sure cannot hurt me. So, at least in some cases, it has the opposite effect.

It's not really much of a punishment. You die. Big deal; you were going to anyhow. With the exception of the electric chair, it will even be without any considerable pain. And you get to know the time and method.

Now, incarceration for life. Eeek. To me, it sounds worse. I am not sure I would be able to cope with it without suffering a nervous breakdown; personally, I need a lot of "alone" time, where I am alone and can do whatever I wish at whatever point in time.

If "removal from society" is the goal, there are two options; death and incarceration. The former is very definite and cannot be undone. The latter has a very small chance of the inmate escaping, and can be reversed.

While I prefer the latter, there are still worrysome issues; what if an inmate escapes, and kills again?

The solution is to make the chances of this as small as possible by investing the necessary amount of money. Still not fool proof, but it is my belief the chances can be reduced below the chances of an innocent man being executed.

And, I must say, I feel that the electric chair is a horrible way of executing people. Cooking their blood with high voltage? Eek.



------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime

[Fariz]

Hi all,

You were one of the last countries in the world which abandoned slavary. I hope you would not stay in the history as the last country which banned executions. Country which position itself in the current world as the "keeper of democrasy and humanity" should be a bit more mature in such vitualy important issues.

All the above is IMO.

Fariz

[Cabby]

Quote:

"You were one of the last countries in the world which abandoned slavary."

I assume you are referring to the USA.  If you are, you are full of Bulls***.  Slavery still exists in the world today.  The USA has made more people FREE in more PLACES than any other country that has ever existed.  Dunno where you live, but it's more than likely you would be somebody's slave right now if it weren't for the USA.  Hundreds of thousands of Americans died ending Slavery in our own country, not to mention the hundreds of thousands who died(and the trillions of $ spent) ending/preventing Slavery the world over.  Comments like yours are enough to make US Isolationism sound sensible.

Quote:

" The deterrant effect of death penalty is questionable to me..."

It deters the hell outta the criminal who gets executed.  He never commits another crime.  Ever.

Cabby

[RAM]

Only a little comment here...

there is a Spanish guy that just avoided being executed in Florida State AFTER his father expended all his money and pertenences paying lawyers to demonstrate that his son was innocent of a double murder in 1995. The trial was a joke, most proofs were porked and/or contaminated...you get the idea.

Had this father not be able to pay lawyers to save his son's lifes he would be going to death for a crime he never commited.

There is a re-trial on this subject pending. In the meantime the guy (dont remember his name) has been translated to Tampa Bay prison and will surely be awarded conditional freedom next week or so.

Now think about a family ruined because US "great" laws. I hope that when the retrial goes ahead and the guy wins his freedom (he will), he starts a demans with the US Florida State ,and he bleeds some millions dollars from US government. Money that all the people who supports death penalty is paying as tax payers...but people who doesnt support it,is too paying for it.


Death penalty belongs to other era. You can send the worse scum in this world to a mining factory to do the worse work for the rest of his sorry life, but you CANT kill him.

Not to mention the cases like the one I just described. People innocent killed after joke trials, never given a true chance to demonstrate they are innocent.

The father of this guy had to pay more than 100 million pesetas (some 800.000$) to the lawyers only to Demonstrate that the trial was a Joke. The guy has lived for 4 years with a death sentence pending over his neck, when he had done nothing.

If this father wouldnt be able to afford it (of course there was money given by people on an open account on a bank here in spain so some of the money is given by people) then his son would be dying in 6 months.

I hate death penalty for many reason but this is one of the better examples of why.


[This message has been edited by RAM (edited 08-10-2000).]

[StSanta]

 

It deters the hell outta the criminal who gets executed. He never commits another crime. Ever.

Hm, I see your point, but this is a strawman.

Detterance, according to an online dictionary I use, is:

deter
v 1: try to prevent; show opposition to: "We should discourage this practice among our youth" [syn: discourage]

I.e something done to prevent a murder.

Did it prevent the murderer in the first place?

------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
"If you died a stones throw from your wingie; you did no wrong". - Hangtime