Mark Chapman - forgive and forget?

[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.

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

[Eagler]

 

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  
Calling NBC with idea now..............

[Dowding]

 

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?

[Eagler]

 

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   If I didn't have children, I'd own a gun. Don't think our Daisy BB gun counts.  

[Dowding]

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.

[Gunthr]

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).]

[easymo]

 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.

[Toad]

 

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!

 

[Toad]

 

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.

 

[Toad]

 

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.  

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.

 

[Dowding]

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?

[StSanta]

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.  

------------------
StSanta
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"

[Karnak]

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  ).

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

[Lance]

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
www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/09/12/federal.deathpenalty/
www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/07/10/lawyers.death.reut/
www.deathpenalty.f2s.com/index2s.html
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).]

[Toad]

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?

 

Respect for life? Where DOES that start????