[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Lady Sidhe
Life in prison is never life in prison. "Life" generally means seven years, then parole.

Depends on the state or jurisdiction.

I guarantee you that an executed murderer will never kill again. 0% recidivism rate.

Guarantee that no mistakes will be made in administering the death penalty.

It would seem that a better way to judge society would be by the way it treats the victims of its criminals....

Would you say that we treat them badly, and if so, could you provide some examples/evidence?

You know what? That's not my problem. I'm poor, and I don't use that as an excuse to go out and commit crimes. And I once WAS accused of something I didn't do. I had to use a public defender. I won.

Do you think the poor deserve adequate representation at trial?

Good for you in your situation...it doesn't always work like that though.

Sure, the rich may elude punishment more, but I think that's more of an axiom that the liberals have said so many times that everyone believes it without question.

Broad generalization...back it up.

I don't want to risk becoming a victim of a crime, or someone in my family becoming a victim, because a defendant was given a slap on the wrist, got out early because of time served and good time, just because he was poor.

Are you saying that you think they let people out early or let people off light because they are poor?

I've read a shitload of true crime (it comprises most of my rather extensive personal library), and murderers tend toward recidivism. They get let out, and just go on killing.

Sad, isn't it? Too bad our society is so reactive and less proactive...maybe we wouldn't have such high recidivism rates.

Class war, my tailfeathers! It's a war between law-abiding society and criminal society. You notice how little crime they have in Saudi Arabia, don't you? That's because justice is swift and sure.

Apples and oranges: Saudi Arabia is a completely different society from the US.

I agree with that. Murderous children often become murderous adults. Sociopathy is usually in evidence by age 15, and it cannot be cured. Some sociopaths can live in society fine, but for those who can't, why should I have to worry that one may kidnap my daughter, rape her, strangle her, and throw her body in the bushes because he was let out at age 18?

So, if a sociopath cannot live in society, they should be killed, even if they've never killed? Not to mention, the brain is still developing at age 15.

The question is dangerousness. If they are a continuing danger to society, then they should be eliminated rather than warehoused. Not all mentally retarded people are like Forrest Gump. I've worked with retarded children who are cunning and sneaky, and would jump you at the drop of a hat. One of those retarded children sent a psychiatric worker to the hospital in an ambulance. Why? The PA woke her up. There are varying degrees of retardation, some so slight as to be unnoticable, but the media jumps on the word, and people see Forrest Gump.

This is essentially eugenics. Why are some of those retarded kids cunning and sneaky and unruly? Ummm, gee, could it be because their brain is fucked up?

The public is told that mentally disturbed people aren't dangerous. That was the same drivel they fed us in training for the psychiatric ward. BULLSHIT. If you've got a schizophrenic who refuses to take his meds, odds are you're going to feel the impact of his psychosis sooner or later. The fact is, some of them ARE dangerous, and if they commit a violent crime, they should pay for it. If they refuse meds, they're refusing to control the illness, and thus have a built-in excuse for any dangerous acts they commit. In the psych ward, we had several patients who refused meds. We had to watch our backs constantly if we wanted to walk off our shift under our own power.

If a person is a danger without being on meds, and those meds will not produce life-threatening side effects, then I think they should be forced to take them. Or they should be committed to an institution.

Not only is the death penalty justice, it's society's revenge. The only problem I see with the death penalty is that it isn't used swiftly enough, and it isn't sure enough.

The term "revenge", to me, hints of a lack of impartiality...it seems to be based on emotion, not logic.

When you fuck up and break the law, society deems that one should be punished (and hopefully) rehabilitated. It's not about revenge...it's more like penance.

Society must be protected from predators, or it won't survive. Warehousing them and providing them with all the amenities that many law-abiding citizens can't afford is a slap in the face.

Again, you're making a broad generalization...not all prisoners live in luxury. Most of them don't, actually.

As I see it, we rely too much on the law to protect us. We must be more proactive in stopping crime before it starts. This is easier said than done though...I think it would take a massive overhaul of society to accomplish this.

And how about in England, where those children lured the little boy out of the mall and killed him on the railroad tracks? That deserves the death penalty, as far as I'm concerned. If children that young are killing already, all they're going to learn is that they can get away with it. They lured an innocent child to his death. For the fun of it. I have no sympathy for them. They deserve to die. A life for a life. It may not bring the little boy back, but it may save someone else's life in the future. That's what's important, not the feelings of the poor killer.

Link, please?

The way I see it, people in America know the penalty for certain crimes; therefore, if you commit a crime for which the punishment is death, you're taking your chances. You KNOW what the penalty will be if you're caught, therefore, don't whine when you get it. It's not like we sprung it on you unawares. You took the chance, and you lost. Poor baby.

And do you really think the death penalty has been that strong of a deterrent?

The high cost of the death penalty isn't the execution--it's the endless appeals. If DNA testing were mandatory, I think we'd find a lot fewer innocent people convicted; but it's NOT mandatory. And I feel that a lawful execution is no more murder than lawful confiscation is stealing.

DNA testing, if relevant to the case, should be mandatory. But until that happens, a person condemned to death should have every possible legal avenue open to them. Better safe than sorry, right?