Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Dowding on October 04, 2000, 06:54:00 PM
-
It seems Mark Chapman won't get his freedom after his imprisonment for killing Lennon. And rightly so IMO; he wouldn't last five minutes if he was released.
Do you guys reckon he is a reformed man and should be released, perhaps with government protection?
-
Being the compassionate liberal soul that I am, I still feel the same way I did the day he shot Lennon.
I'm very willing to forgive him...right after we hang him.
I'm also willing to forget him as soon as we bury him.
He lost his turn. Why is he still on the merry-go-round of life?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Keep him locked up.
Otherwise other idiots might be tempted to kill someone to get their 15 minutes of fame.
Release him. Don't give him any government protection. Watch him die after a fanatic Lennon fans uses his head as a baseball bat.
He brought it onto himself. Ain't got no sympathy for murderers.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://voices.vossnet.co.uk/t/toles/9jg54.gif)
-
StSanta
We finally almost agree on something. My thought is to have Yoko visit him with a Colt 45 and put one btwn the his ears. Save us all alot of tax money which could be better spend say on our inner city schools. Make it a pay per view event to recover some of the cost of keeping him in prison to date. I'd pay $50 to see that.
Eagler
-
An eye for an eye and everyone's blind. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
But I do believe that if you kill someone, you should have life in prison. Keep him in there for the rest of his life.
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Being the compassionate liberal soul that I am, I still feel the same way I did the day he shot Lennon.
I'm very willing to forgive him...right after we hang him.
I'm also willing to forget him as soon as we bury him.
He lost his turn. Why is he still on the merry-go-round of life?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I noticed you used the "we" several times. Would you personally hang this individual?
-
I'm with Toad on this one.
------------------
lynx
13 Sqn RAF
-
Igloo
The problem with keeping a killer alive for life is WHY??? No mistake here, he did it. Why should he get three square meals a day, live in air conditioning and have cable tv not to mention the access to lawyers to tie up our judicial system even more? I think if we enforced the penalties of the crimes more quickly and thoroughly, there would be less crime. There isn't a large enough deterrent these days. Most of the scum in prison have it better than they do when they are out on the street. Not to mention the poor and less fortunate, struggling families who have to do with much less. I heard on the news a couple of days ago where prisoners somewhere in the US were squeakin about having to eat the same G.I. rations the military serves our soldiers. What a load of sh#T. Some lawyer (tax paid) wasting everyone's time and money on such an issue. That's one thing the middle east has correct, you steal- you lose ur hand, most other things- they just cut off your head. Very low crime in these countries as the punishment more than fits the crime. Go figure. Bring back the chain gangs, clean our highways .. put these useless examples of humanity to work.
** Pictures Steve McQueen in Cool Hand Luke ... "I'm shakin it boss, I'm shakin it" ... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) **
Eagler
-
Part them out.
Lots of good folks need parts.
You kill someone in the first degree you automatically go into the body pool.
-
Chapman was covicted of 2nd degree murder wasn't he?
-
Let's go back in time, a few moments before Lennon's murder, Lennon realizes something is wrong with the guy coming up to him. He is afraid, he pulls his .45 and shoots the guy dead.
In dowding's world, we would have Lennon in jail for murder and no parol, or maybe as others said in the "body pool".
You see much like Tony Martin, Lennon had no way of knowing the man's intentions, we know from hindsight what his intentions were. So if Lennon had feared for his life those last moments (did he?), and had shot, you guys would have said "hey, he was just going to take some of your money or property, you are a murderer! Go to jail!" We would not have known the man's true intentions since Lennon protected his own life and stopped the incident.
So I say had Lennon been carrying a gun he would be alive today with people wondering why he isn't in prison.
Wrench
-
Dowding
Splitting hairs now??? Murder is murder. You a lawyer? Liberal? Liberal lawyer ? .. the worst. Look at OJ. The scum now has a house in FL.
No organ donation, grind em up and use them as fertilizer. Same thing they should do to a rapist or pedophile’s sexual parts. Stronger pentalities = less crime. Crime has drop considerably since the 10, 20 life sentencing went into effect in FL under Jeb Bush admin. The world has turned soft... time for a change in priorities. People need to take responsibily for their actions. Play you gotta pay... it's called Karma.
Eagler
-
Statistically, convicted murderers get paroled at their first parole hearing less than 10% of the time in the U.S.
It seems to me that the parole board made the right call in this case. I particularly don't like how he blames it on his father (take responsibility for your own actions Mr. Chapman) and how he said that Mr. Lennon would want him to be free (Mr. Lennon took 10 years to forgive Mr.McCartney. How long do you think it would take for him to forgive the guy who killed him?).
The parole board also noted, "During your parole hearing, this panel noted your continued interest in maintaining your notoriety."
It sure sounds like he needs to saty put for a while longer.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Originally posted by Wrench:
We would not have known the man's true intentions since Lennon protected his own life and stopped the incident.
So I say had Lennon been carrying a gun he would be alive today with people wondering why he isn't in prison.
Wrench
Firstly, the first paragraph doesn't make any sense. When Chapman's body was searched they would have found the gun - surely that demostrates his true intentions, and Lennon could have argued convincingly on that point.
Secondly, the difference between Lennon and Martin (a very strange sentence to write), is that Martin shot an unarmed person. That is key, and the law sees that as unnecessary force.
And another thing, Lennon had something against guns I think you'll find - I doubt he would have kept one in his house. Listen to his music - he makes this very clear.
Eagler - I wasn't trying to make a point - I just don't know the difference between 1st and 2nd degree. Our legal system doesn't use those terms.
-
The death penalty is cowardly and does absolutly no good.
I agree, prison life is too easy, so that justifys killing someone?
Change the prison life. Take away the TV. Take away any luxuries and make it a hard life in prison. But don't kill them.
There is a lot of scum in prison, no doubt. But the death penalty is a primative, cowardly way of dealing with things. Does it cost you some money to keep this man in prison? Yes. Should you whine about it? Unless youw ould rather him on the streets, no.
If the only reason you want this man put to death is because his presence in the system takes some money away from you, then that is one sad fact. You should be happy be paying taxes that keeps the man off the street.
Murder does not justify murder.
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
>Firstly, the first paragraph doesn't make any sense. When Chapman's body was searched they would have found the gun - surely that demostrates his true intentions, and Lennon could have argued convincingly on that point.
What doesn't make any sense is that paragraph! My point was that Lennon could not know what the man's intentions were! Nor should he be required to know! All that should be neccesary is the "fear for your life". If he feared for his life in those last moments, regardless of whether he saw a gun, he should have been justified in shooting. The same goes for Tony Martin! How many 16 year old burglars on a man's property does it take to put a lone man in fear of his life? By what you say, if the boy had a gun on his person, Tony Martin would have been justified. But the fact that he was faced with multiple burglars (or even 1 damn it), didnt justify fear for his own life? Last I knew crimminals didn't want to get caught, so they tend to eliminate witnesses.
Wrench
-
Originally posted by Igloo:
The death penalty is cowardly and does absolutly no good.
I agree, prison life is too easy, so that justifys killing someone?
Awhile back some nut case, can't remember his name, raped then hacked off the arms of a twelve (12) year old girl and left her for dead. The girl lived, he went to jail. After so long in jail he was paroled. After several communities chased him out, he ended up in west central fl, his home town. Guess what happened next? He killed the next woman he lured into his house. If he'd been executed (attempted murder is murder that just didn't go through for what ever reason)or keep in prison, the 2nd attack would never of happened. This seems to be the norm not the exception. The criminal gets out and repeats his crime. The death penalty is harsh but needed as a deterrent. What about torture to the point they wish they were dead? If the death penalty was a given, quickly carried out without recourse, the criminal would think twice b4 he committed his crime as he'd KNOW he was going to die. Thus we'd have less reasons to have to implement the punishment. Don't you think?
Or we can drop them all on an island, every week they vote one of there own off the island, but they have to swim off the island which is surrounded by hungry 16 ft great whites. Televised of course. The networks could get millions of $$'s for commercials which would go to the victims family.
Should have been a television producer (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Calling NBC with idea now..............
-
Originally posted by Wrench:
Last I knew crimminals didn't want to get caught, so they tend to eliminate witnesses.
Most burglars would not kill the occupants of a house just to eliminate witnesses - the crime would eventually be detected. Killing someone and not leaving any traces that might identify you is very, very difficult. Why run the risk of being caught and facing a much heavier sentence?
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
Most burglars would not kill the occupants of a house just to eliminate witnesses - the crime would eventually be detected. Killing someone and not leaving any traces that might identify you is very, very difficult. Why run the risk of being caught and facing a much heavier sentence?
Dunno, maybe cause they are stupid to start with or whacked out on crack....(oh, the liberal answer "they had a bad childhood")Why would you rob someone in the 1st place if you are all there???
Doesn't matter, if I had a gun (I don't) and I found someone in my house in the middle of the night, I don't think I'd inquire to find out if he was there to just rob me or if he was going to harm my family, before I blew his head off. If you break into a home, store, bank, I think you are accepting the risk you may get shot. And if you get shot you may die. As for me, I'd knock a homerun with me baseball bat using his face as the softball then I'd ask his intentions (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) If I didn't have children, I'd own a gun. Don't think our Daisy BB gun counts.
-
The law is set-up to punish people who harm the people they are robbing, especially if they kill them. Excluding druggies, I'd say most of the scum who burgle people will try to avoid hurting someone knowing they will be heavily punished for it. Also attacking someone in your house is viewed differently, depending on how you go about it.
BTW 'Bad childhoods' can be the reason why criminals develop - to say all criminals are just born evil (which is what you must think if you believe their childhood has no bearing on their outlook on life) is utterly simplistic bollocks. Although this in no way justifies or excuses their actions.
-
Igloo, with all due respect, the death penalty as practised in the USA is an institutional sanction. I don't believe that you can characterise an institutional procedure as "cowardly". Why would it be cowardly?
The individual who raped and hacked the arm off that brave little girl in Eigler's example could probably be safely labled a coward, don't you think? Doing that to a helpless little girl?
If that little girl's father happened upon this monster in the act of ravaging his daughter, and that little girl's father pulled out a gun and killed him, I don't think you would question that father's right to protect his daughter.
Of course, in the USA, if that same father happened upon the crime scene after the crime was committed, and the monster who did it was just passively waiting to be arrested by the police, it would be considered Murder if that father killed him at that point.
In the states that have the death penalty, the government can, after an exhausting trial of the facts, and almost endless due process, exact the ultimate price from a criminal like the one in the above example.
That isn't cowardice, it's JUSTICE. It is against the law for the father to do it, but out of respect for human life, those states that have the death penalty are given the power, by the people, to do what should be done. There are crimes that certainly deserve the death penalty, and I glad that my state has it.
.02
Gunthr
[This message has been edited by Gunthr (edited 10-05-2000).]
-
I belive him and those like him should be deleted. If someone kills a celebrity for no better reason than to grab a little notoriety. They should be erased. All record of there haveing existed should be deleted or burned. Birth certificate, school records, service record, All of it. Just as if they never were. Most particularly, there should be very heavy penalties for any media that use,s his/her name, or photo.
-
Originally posted by blur:
I noticed you used the "we" several times. Would you personally hang this individual?
Once society convicted him, approved the sentence, let him have a reasonable appeal perios and set the date....
With a song in my heart, a smile on my face and "see you in H#ll, Bastige!" on my lips!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by Karnak:
Statistically, convicted murderers get paroled at their first parole hearing less than 10% of the time in the U.S.-Karnak
Statistically, executed convicted murderers have a recidivism rate of absolutely 0%. They NEVER commit another crime, unlike some paroled offenders.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by Igloo:
The death penalty is cowardly and does absolutly no good.
Try to think of it as one Society's version of the "UN Security Council Resolution" that authorizes the use of deadly force against a nation that violates world standards of behavior.
On a much smaller scale, of course. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
BTW, it DOES do "good". It ABSOLUTELY guarantees a 0% recidivism rate for the individual involved. A completely successful program!
NONE ever commit another crime, not even knifing their "wife" in prison.
I'd say that's pretty good.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
But of course, Toad, your legal system is like none in the world. It unerringly convicts the guilty, and 'miscarriage of justice' is a term unknown to the American people.
So you're right - only good comes out of killing people. They have to be guilty - they wouldn't be on Death Row otherwise? Right?
-
Ooh, responded to sarcasm with sarcasm.
This one is good.
<wears his Dowding colours, gets a beer, sits down to watch the game>
KILL THAT BASTIGE!
PENALTY! DAMMIT, the referee is BLIND!
Sorry Toad, not a fan of a perfect penalty in an imperfect system. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://voices.vossnet.co.uk/t/toles/9jg54.gif)
-
Toad,
Keep in mind that if somebody is eligible for the death penalty, they will never be eligible for parole (at least here in wacky, liberal California (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)).
The options, if the individule is eligible for the death penalty, are Death or Life without the possibility of Parole.
Thats it. No parole.
Because the prosecuters in New York accepted Mr. Chapman's plee bargain, he was never eligible for the death penalty and the state did not have to pay for a criminal trial.
BTW, my statistic that you quoted was meant to be simply informative, not an attempt to argue pro or con to the death penalty. I was merely pointing out that Mr. Chapman being denied parole was quite standard for the US.
I personally don't have a problem with the death penalty, I have a problem with the "fair" trials that we have.
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Helping to further steer this thread off topic, I have serious problems with the way that capital punishment is handled in the United States. I consider myself a revisionist rather than an abolishonist.
It is a fact that if you cannot afford adequate legal representation, or if you are not white, then you are much more likely to receive the death penalty if murder charges are brought against you. See the links below for factual support of this.
Many people currently on death row were convicted without the benefit of DNA testing. In the past 10 years, 70 people have been exonerated by DNA evidence for crimes they were convicted and serving time for (8 were on death row). At the very least, I think the states should pay for DNA testing in all cases where people are awaiting the death penalty, and in all future cases where capital punishment is sought. I don't think it should be the burden of the defendant to pay for such tests, as those of low economic status can't.
Gordo
Some interesting links:
www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/index.html (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/index.html)
www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/09/12/federal.deathpenalty/ (http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/09/12/federal.deathpenalty/)
www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/07/10/lawyers.death.reut/ (http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/07/10/lawyers.death.reut/)
www.deathpenalty.f2s.com/index2s.html (http://www.deathpenalty.f2s.com/index2s.html)
justice.policy.net/jpreport/section2.html (http://justice.policy.net/jpreport/section2.html)
[This message has been edited by Lance (edited 10-06-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Lance (edited 10-06-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Lance (edited 10-06-2000).]
-
Nope, not a perfect system.
Still there are a plentiful number caught "red handed" so to speak, where there is absolutely no doubt of guilt.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzt!
Of course, Dowding, these little Lambs deserve far more consideration than the irretrievably worthless little unborn humans.
Right?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Respect for life? Where DOES that start????
-
Depends on whether you think half a dozen cells is a human being, doesn't it?
No matter how many are caught red-handed, you can't escape the fact that there will be mistakes made and innocent people will be killed because of those mistakes.
Also, we are not barbarians - a civilised society such as the US should be able to avoid the death penalty.
I'd be the first to congratualte you if having the death penalty had eradicated murder from your society. But the truth is you have one of highest murder rates in the civilised world; capital punishment is no deterrent, especially since, if you can afford it, you can get an expensive lawyer to argue your way out of a conviction even if you were caught red-handed. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 10-06-2000).]
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
Depends on whether you think half a dozen cells is a human being, doesn't it?
So, Dowding, where will YOU draw the line? 1000 cells? 3 Months? 4 Months? When do YOU say "No, it's too late. No more "abortion", at this point it would be MURDER?"
Declare, Dowding....and then tell me how you KNOW for SURE.
Also, we are not barbarians - a civilised society such as the US should be able to avoid the death penalty.
In the eyes of some (like bleeding heart liberals (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) ) it may seem barbaric. I accept that view and have no problem with others holding it.
In the eyes of still OTHERS (like me! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) ) the death penalty is simply Society's way ensuring a guaranteed 0% recidivism rate.
I don't care if it deters anyone else at all...that's totally non-germane...because I KNOW it PERMANENTLY DETERS the cruel, inhumane bastiges that, for example, would cut the arms off a little girl, rape her and pour drain cleaner in her mouth.
Bleeding heart liberals sometimes let guys like this slip through to kill again. (And he DID.) Sorry, that's unacceptable to me. Society has a responsibility to its law-abiding citizens BEFORE its law-breaking citizens.
But the truth is you have one of highest murder rates in the civilised world; capital punishment is no deterrent, especially since, if you can afford it, you can get an expensive lawyer to argue your way out of a conviction even if you were caught red-handed. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I'm not arguing the murder rate. I'll say this though...I think it IS so high because of pudding-headed ideas like putting the blame on inanimate objects instead of the persons responsible.
Deterrence? Show me any study that proves registration, purchasing restrictions, training, permit requirements, etc. alone have EVER, anywhere in the US, resulted in a lower crime rate. There are none.
In fact, quite the opposite is true. It's easy to show that the cities in the US that have the most restrictive firearms rules have the highest crime rates as well. DC and NYC are two prime examples. Despite passing law after law after law, their violent crime rates have followed the national trends. Therefore, their laws have had no "special" effect.
...and why is this? Pretty simple if you think about it. Who will comply with all the new restrictions? ONLY the law-abiding element of society, the ONE element that IS NOT driving up your violent crime rate.
Who WILL NOT comply with all the new restrictions. Take a wild-A** guess. Yep. The criminal element will ignore the laws...ONCE AGAIN. Who causes the violent crime?...time for another wild guess?
Also, there is now absolutely indisputable proof that holding the CRIMINALS responsible DOES immediately lower the violent crime rate.
The Project Exile stats I quoted above are simple fact, attested by both the local and Federal government. Project Ceasefire is working as well
A 60% drop in violent crime rates in ONE YEAR in Richmond, the Project Exile program area. 60%!
Show me a registration, licensing, training or purchasing restriction that is anywhere near that effective.
You can't, because there aren't any.
Furthermore, Project Exile type operations DO NOT infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens, the true natural concern of any society.
Hold the criminals accountable and not the law abiding citizens. What a concept! It's just too deep to understand, isn't it?
What part of that philosophy do you have a problem with Dowding?
Lastly, Captial Punishment and Deterrence.
You seem to think that Captial Punishment HAS to deter someone other than the deceased criminal to achive some sort of validity?
Do you agree that it permanently deters the executed criminal?
Good. Because THAT is all I am seeking. That one guilty guy gets PERMANENTLY deterred. That is the ONLY requirement I place on it.
If it fails to deter SOME OTHER criminal, that is NOT a consideration. If some other GUY violently dispatches an innocent victim....then Society will individually, permanently "deter" him in his own time. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
You are the one setting lofty goals of deterrence for Capital Punishment.
I merely require that it guarantee 0% recidivism from the individual concerned.
It undeniably does that.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Ok Toad, here goes (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
So, Dowding, where will YOU draw the line? 1000 cells? 3 Months? 4 Months? When do YOU say "No, it's too late. No more "abortion", at this point it would be MURDER?"
When someone either has personhood or is sufficiently developed. A fetus with no CNS can hardly be called a human - or can be called as much a human as a caterpillar can be called a butterfly. Failure to recognise that there are stages in human development would give you an F in biology.
Then there is the legal bit - we aren't granted personhood til we're born. So, we cannot be murdered until after we're born. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
Declare, Dowding....and then tell me how you KNOW for SURE.
I'll talk to my sis and get you some references to some med style books about human development. It all becomes a bit more fuzzy once the CNS has been developed, but before that, it's not that fuzzy.
In the eyes of some (like bleeding heart liberals ) it may seem barbaric. I accept that view and have no problem with others holding it.
Let's cut off the hands of thieves as well. Hard to steal when ya ain't got no hands. Barbaric to some, standard to others. Why aren't we doing this?
In the eyes of still OTHERS (like me! ) the death penalty is simply Society's way ensuring a guaranteed 0% recidivism rate.
And of course it is the perfect punishment brought into place by an imperfect system.
I don't care if it deters anyone else at all...that's totally non-germane...because I KNOW it PERMANENTLY DETERS the cruel, inhumane bastiges that, for example, would cut the arms off a little girl, rape her and pour drain cleaner in her mouth.
No, it doesn't deter him. Or rather, it didn't deter him.
It might stop him from doing it again, but that is not relevant to deterrence. I.e big barriers might stop me from breaking into a caste, but it might not deter me from trying.
Bleeding heart liberals sometimes let guys like this slip through to kill again. (And he DID.) Sorry, that's unacceptable to me. Society has a responsibility to its law-abiding citizens BEFORE its law-breaking citizens.
Agreed. Lock him up for good. If a scoiety lets people like these out, somewhere, the judicial system has failed.
I won't even begin to discuss the pitiful ridiculous penalties we have here. Good thing we can lock up people in mental hospitals indefinitely.
I'm not arguing the murder rate. I'll say this though...I think it IS so high because of pudding-headed ideas like putting the blame on inanimate objects instead of the persons responsible.
You are saying that if the anti gunners shut their mouths, the murder rate would go down?
I somehow doubt it, since most murders are murders outta passion (be it good or evil passion).
Deterrence? Show me any study that proves registration, purchasing restrictions, training, permit requirements, etc. alone have EVER, anywhere in the US, resulted in a lower crime rate. There are none.
Red herring. We're discussing the death penalty, not gun control (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
<snip>
Also, there is now absolutely indisputable proof that holding the CRIMINALS responsible DOES immediately lower the violent crime rate.
Agreed. What is being discussed is the method of holding them responsible.
<snip>
Hold the criminals accountable and not the law abiding citizens. What a concept! It's just too deep to understand, isn't it?
Hell, even the yanks can figure that one out. Opportunist pigdogs.
What part of that philosophy do you have a problem with Dowding?
Thhin he has an issue not with this, but on HOW we do it.
You seem to think that Captial Punishment HAS to deter someone other than the deceased criminal to achive some sort of validity?
I sure don't. That would be a spinoff effect, desireable but not necessary.
Do you agree that it permanently deters the executed criminal?
No. It stops him. Does it deter another human from murdering? Stats suggest it ain't that effective. But, this is as tangent and not really relevant.
Good. Because THAT is all I am seeking. That one guilty guy gets PERMANENTLY deterred. That is the ONLY requirement I place on it.
I'd say "stopped" rather than deterred (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
If it fails to deter SOME OTHER criminal, that is NOT a consideration. If some other GUY violently dispatches an innocent victim....then Society will individually, permanently "deter" him in his own time.
Agreed.
<snip>
I merely require that it guarantee 0% recidivism from the individual concerned.
And, coincidentally, there is only one way of getting an absolute thing like that - by putting a person to death. I.e creating your premise in such a way that it supports the conclusion. Circular argument (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
Maximum security prisons are pretty damned hard to escape from. Maybe not in the US, I dunno.
It undeniably does that.
Aye. If the wrong person is executed, it udeniably makes it impossible to in any way compensate the innocent law abiding good hearted god fearing citizen, though.
That could be YOU Toad <scary voice, emotional argument> (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
I should add that I am not categorically against the death penalty. It just seems to me that neither the Danish or the American judicial system is good enough to apply it in the way it currently is applied in the US. Your mileage may vary.
------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://www.angelfire.com/nt/regoch/sig.gif)
[This message has been edited by StSanta (edited 10-07-2000).]
-
If someone commits murder, keep them in prison for the duration of their life. Simple as that. Sure, it costs the tax payers money, but I would happily pay taxes if it meant keeping dangerous people off the streets.
------------------
Squadron Leader, Igloo.
C/O RCAF 411 Squadron - County of York (http://www.trueorigins.net/411rcaf)
"Problems cannot be solved with the same awareness that created them" - Albert Einstein[/i]
-
Santa,
Flying off to see my son play college FOOTBALL (the oblong ball (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) ) so I'm not going to reply in detail...at this time. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
But...
Originally posted by StSanta:
When someone either has personhood or is sufficiently developed
You and I both know that, at least in the US, with the Court approval (and government support) of 3rd term abortions this line has in all probability been crossed. This at a MINIMUM.
Let's cut off the hands of thieves as well. Hard to steal when ya ain't got no hands. Barbaric to some, standard to others. Why aren't we doing this?
Because the victims of theft CAN be compensated for their loss and also because that loss isn't irreplaceable in most cases. Simply put, because theft is not a crime of the same magnitude as murder.
And of course it is the perfect punishment brought into place by an imperfect system.
Are you really going to say that there are NO cases in which there is absolutely no doubt as to who did it? There are, and you know it.
No, it doesn't deter him. Or rather, it didn't deter him.
The emphasis on the word "deter" is for all those "bleeding heart liberals" (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) and is used in a somewhat "toungue in cheek" manner. I believe you are familiar with that? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Agreed. Lock him up for good. If a scoiety lets people like these out, somewhere, the judicial system has failed.
And the poor bastige he kills AFTER the judicial system fails? What of him?
No. If you have the proof, recycle him. Maybe the Buddists are right and you are just giving him a chance to learn in another life. Expedited recall and recalibration. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
You are saying that if the anti gunners shut their mouths, the murder rate would go down?
Not at all. I'm saying that NOTHING is going to change until you face the fact that PEOPLE, not inanimate objects, make the decision to harm other people.
The anti's just can't accept that.
Once you DO accept that, you can move on to the causes. Poverty, education, opportunity all figure into crime. Want to end crime? You have to address abject poverty. A man WILL steal to feed his family.
However, if we're just going to waste time and huge amounts of money on blaming rocks, golf clubs, guns, cars, hockey sticks, etc... Nothing will EVER change. The problem starts with the individual.
"Red herring. We're discussing the death penalty, not gun control (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)."
Pickled herring. These threads are all interconnected and the same people post. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Hold the criminals accountable and not the law abiding citizens. What a concept! It's just too deep to understand, isn't it?
Hell, even the yanks can figure that one out. Opportunist pigdogs.
Well, most Yanks on THIS board anyway. However, some of the Brits and canadians here seem to be confused by it. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
I merely require that it guarantee 0% recidivism from the individual concerned.
And, coincidentally, there is only one way of getting an absolute thing like that - by putting a person to death. I.e creating your premise in such a way that it supports the conclusion. Circular argument (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif).
No, not even arguing. Just stating _my_ personal requirements in judging the need for/success of the Death Penalty. That is simply that it prevents the convicted criminal from EVER being a threat to ANYONE in society again with 100% certainty. I don't need it to do anything more than that. If it can accomplish that, it's valid and acceptable to me.
OTOH, no type of incarceration can GUARANTEE that.
Aye. If the wrong person is executed...
Whenever someone is murdered, is a victim of violent crime, the wrong person is dead, IMHO. It is also impossible to compensate the victim or the victim's relatives.
In those cases where there is indisputable proof (DNA being a particularly good example), I have no problem with the Death Penalty.
That could be YOU Toad <scary voice, emotional argument> (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
The chances of that are so infinitessimally small that I've never lost even one wink of sleep over it Santa. Responsibility. Accountability. My life, professionally and privately, is based on those two terms.
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-07-2000).]
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 10-07-2000).]
-
I agree with virtually everything Santa posted.
BTW - Eagler, I just read that RU846 topic and I resent the comment "I believe you Europes can stay outa this thread as you've been flushing babies for a decade now." If you can't take people putting forward an argument that opposes yours, what are you doing here? And besides, how long as abortion been legal in the States?
RU846 is called the 'morning after pill' over here I think (might be wrong). This is prescribed, as the name suggests, usually the day after sex which did not go according to (the family) plan. It is NOT given in all cases as a 'DIY murder pill', since it is entirely possible that a viable egg is not present or has not been fertilised in that time. If a fertilised egg is present, then I agree that abortion occurs, however, but at such an early stage that I have no problem with it. If you want to read my thoughts on abortion and when it should be carried out, they are given in brief below. But you probably won't Eagler, since I am a 'Europe' [sic], despite the fact we have late-term abortion, the morning after pill and I've had experience of the latter.
So, Dowding, where will YOU draw the line? 1000 cells? 3 Months? 4 Months?
First of all, you simplify the whole development of a human being, as if each part is developed at the same rate, at the same time. It's not as simple as that; you know its not simple uniform cell division. Here's my take on it:
In this country abortion is offered as late as 20 weeks (I think). I'm ambivalent with this and feel uncomfortable with it. However, the distribution of abortions over time is not uniform - very few are carried out at this late stage, with most being in the 4-6 week stage.
At four weeks the embryo (which was disc shaped) starts to take on some of the features of a foetus. At this point there is no CNS, but there are buds for the limbs and a bulge where the heart is (which is the first organ to be developed). I have no qualms with abortion at this stage.
As time goes on however, and the CNS starts to develop along with the other vital organs, I have to say I agree less with abortion. The end of the foetal stage (8 weeks), would be the limit on abortion if I had the power to change legislation.
Capital Punishment:
Toad, the fact that a perpetrator has been killed for a crime as heinous as the one you describe, will not make the family feel their loss any less. Surely the key is to deter people from committing the crime in the first place, and prevent the anguish of the family/victim?
Hold the criminals accountable and not the law abiding citizens. What a concept! It's just too deep to understand, isn't it?
What part of that philosophy do you have a problem with Dowding?
Santa is right - I have no problem with it. I have a problem with how they are made to be accountable. Bang them up for life, I have no problem with that.
Do you agree that it permanently deters the executed criminal?
Good. Because THAT is all I am seeking.
So you'd be happy with murder and mayhem, as long as the criminals were killed as a punishment? How does that improve society, except increasing the income of the undertaker? Making society safe (within a free state), is what any judicial system should strive to, IMO.
Surely, there is a deterrence aspect to the law that should not be overlooked?
Like Santa points out, if you want to have zero recidivism, why don't we cut the hands off of thieves, castrate rapists, take the tongue of people who perpetuate racist propaganda, take the eyes of voyeurs, take the limbs of speeding motorists... where do YOU draw the line.
I'm not arguing the murder rate. I'll say this though...I think it IS so high because of pudding-headed ideas like putting the blame on inanimate objects instead of the persons responsible.
What are you saying here, Toad? That murder is so prevalent in your society BECAUSE of the anti-gun lobby? I'd like to see you justify that that.
One of the reasons I'm so against capital punishment is the release of people like the 'Birmingham 6' and the 'Guilford 4', who were found to be innocent of crimes they would have been hung for if the 'old' laws were still in force. I'm sure there are others, as there are in the States. Capital punishment cannot have 100% accuracy in any of our legal systems, simply because of the fallibility of us humans. There are no absolutes in this world - I thought that's why some people believe in God...
-
Funny thing:
It's illegal for an ordinary person to take anothers money and do with it as he sees fit, even if he has the best of intentions. This is perfectly OK for governments, though, they can even use force.
It's illegal for your average bloke to kill someone, yet in some countries there's no problem with the government killing someone.
Wierd, innit?
------------------
Rickenbacker (Ricken)
-ISAF-
the Independent Swedish Air Force
-
Yah, and what's even WEIRDER is some folks think the government needs MORE power over everyday affairs.
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Person caught "redhanded"... (like 20 cops outside a MacDonalds watching a looney shoot people)
Person should be put to death.
There is NO question the person did it.
hehehe... a quote:
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one."
Spock
(It may come from a movie but it is true)
On a side note:
In regards to punishment being a deterent.
Just ask if any U.S. kid would like to go spray paint cars in Singapore....
-
Just saw the final debate...
Seems Big Al is in FAVOR of the death penalty.
....Gawd...now me and AL agree on something!
It truly is the End of Days!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Yep, And he's also against gun control LOL. Talk about talkin outa both sides of your mouth. This guy will say anything to get elected..
I thought he came off way too strong, exceeding his time limit on every answer, rude,arrogant, a know it all. Looked like he had too much coffee or something. Just want I want, an aggressive ahole for pres (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Eagler
Originally posted by Toad:
Just saw the final debate...
Seems Big Al is in FAVOR of the death penalty.
....Gawd...now me and AL agree on something!
It truly is the End of Days!
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)