Yes, the banning of the juvenile death penalty was...
...a simply BRILLIANT move! :rar:
First, there's the kid who raped and beat a woman and then tied her up and threw her off a bridge....told his friend that he wanted to know what it felt like to kill someone, and that he knew he'd get away with it because he was a juvenile, then this....teenagers are more violent, more homicidal, these days...how many other teenagers are going to do things like this because they know they'll only be sentenced to juvenile life, then have their records wiped? It's bad enough that we let adults get away with it, but now we're giving them an even earlier head start to perfect their asocial behavior...No one is EVER responsible for their actions anymore... if they can't blame it on the parents, they blame it on the maturity of the brain. If they can't blame it on the brain, they blame it on peer pressure. And on, and on, and on.
And it's not like he might be innocent...he ADMITTED it.
:rar: :mad2: :mad:
Sidhe
'Miracle' rescue of girl, 8, from landfill
Teenager is charged with attempted murder, sexual batteryThe Associated Press
Updated: 2:11 p.m. ET May 23, 2005LAKE WORTH, Fla. - An 8-year-old girl who was raped and buried alive told a friend she remembered her attacker towering over her before she passed out, then awoke seven hours later beneath a pile of rocks and concrete blocks when she heard the voices of rescuers.
The girl, who had been staying overnight at her godmother’s house, was reported missing early Sunday. She was hospitalized in good condition Monday and a teenage boy who also had been staying at the home was arrested. Authorities said he confessed.
“She said the last thing she remembers is that he looked over her with these big eyes and then she said she went to sleep. She said she was waiting for us to find her,” said 18-year-old Danielle Holloman, a family friend who calls the girl her sister.
“She said she knew we would come get her. That’s why as soon as the police came, she wiggled her fingers,” Holloman said Monday.
The girl was found Sunday morning when police Sgt. Mike Hall climbed into a 25-foot long trash bin, opened the lid to a 30-gallon recycling container and saw part of the girl’s hand and foot peeking out from under heavy concrete slabs, said police Sgt. Dan Boland.
Hall told ABC’s “Good Morning America” he summoned a fellow officer “and he shouted out, you know, ‘her finger is moving!’ And at that point, the expression on everybody’s face just changed. I mean, it went from a hopeless scene to there’s hope there now.”
Boland said there was no doubt that the girl would have been dead if Hall hadn’t found her.
“She was dehydrated and in rough shape with pieces of cement blocks on top of her and she was face down,” Boland said. “There was no way for her to get out on her own.”
'No way for her to get out'
He said rescuers feared the worst, but their mood turned jubilant when they realized she was alive.
“There’s no doubt in my mind that this child would have been dead if he didn’t find her. She was dehydrated and in rough shape with pieces of cement blocks on top of her and she was face down,” Boland said. “There was no way for her to get out on her own.”
She had been sexually assaulted, authorities said.
Her disappearance rattled a state that had been outraged over the arrests of sex offenders in the separate killings earlier this year of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford and 13-year-old Sarah Lunde.
“When a child is abducted and abandoned like this, the critical thing is time,” Police Chief William Smith said. “That we found this child alive is a miracle.”
The 8-year-old had been staying overnight at her godmother’s house. After police found her, the girl named her attacker and described him. The teenage boy she named, a friend who was staying in the home, was arrested.
Boy, 17, charged
Authorities said Milagro Cunningham, 17, confessed and was charged with attempted murder, sexual battery on a child under 12, and false imprisonment of a victim under age 13, police said. A court appearance was scheduled Monday.
The teen initially told investigators that the girl may have been abducted by five men in a station wagon, and that he tried to follow them. He changed his story during questioning, Boland said.
“He was a good person. He would clean and do chores, laugh and play jokes and stuff. We never thought he would do something like that,” Holloman said. “The only reason I can think he went crazy like this is his father died and his mother didn’t want him. Nobody wanted him.”
Holloman said the teen stayed with an aunt until she kicked him out about four months ago. He then went to live at the home of Lisa Taylor, Holloman’s mother, where the victim occasionally spent weekends while her mother worked.
Cunningham’s aunt had accused him of stealing and the teen has a relatively minor criminal record, authorities said. He was on probation for throwing a rock through a car window.
Taylor was asleep when the girl vanished from the bedroom she was sharing with Holloman’s 1-year-old son. Holloman and her sister discovered the girl was missing when they came home after a night of roller-skating, authorities said.
A half hour later, Cunningham knocked on the door and the sisters found him with his shirt torn and his clothes covered with dirt. Investigators said that’s when he started telling his story about the men in the station wagon.
Authorities said the girl was found far enough from any homes that no one would likely have heard if she had cried out. The trash bin was in a fenced-off former landfill behind a park where she often played with Holloman, Holloman’s son and other friends.
erm....has it occured to you that a: cases like this aren't exactly common. b: maybe, just maybe, it'd be more constructive to work on why kids end up like this than threatening them with death? If they're at a point where they don't care about getting juvenile life then maybe possibly that's the real problem?
Long ago, Sidhe saturated herself with all the worst elements of society, channeling them through the media.
I bet you 95% of her posts contain some horrifying excerpt from a news article about a five year old cannibalizing his grandmother or something.
And every post, I can't help but wonder if Sidhe considers these things to be the norm, rather than the rarest of exceptions.
Do you really think this kid is going to get a slap on the wrist for this? I doubt it, juvenile or not. When I first heard this story I was just really happy that the girl SURVIVED--that's what interested me, not whether the punk that did it would get the death penalty.
I grew up in the 50s and 60s when corporal punishment was standard practise, both at home and at school. I still sometimes wish that I could get one or two of my old teachers in a back room somewhere and give them a taste of what they gave me, but I realise that this is ridiculous.
I think that the trouble is that the pendulum has swung from one extreme to the other. Now kids are given almost no discipline, and they can even "divorce" their parents (become emancipated - I think that's the term). Add to that the level of violence that kids see every day in TV shows (CSI, Law & Order etc), and what do you expect? They become insensitive to violence, they know their legal rights, and what they can expect from the court system (they see it every day on TV - it's like a manual for crime).
As Jag quite correctly points out, cases such as the one cited by Lady Sidhe are not common, but violent acts by teenagers are on the rise, nevertheless. I don't have any magic solution, but I think the answer starts at home. Even with all the "bad" kids you hear about, there still seems to be a majority out there who grow up to be at least reasonably responsible people. I don't know how you turn a bad parent into a good one.
I'm starting to sound like a Bush supporter. That's a worry. :worried:
Lady Sidhe, some
facts for you:
[list]The proportion of violent crimes committed by juveniles that victims reported to law enforcement has changed little since 1980. [/list]
[list]The number of murder offenders in each age group between 14 and 17 increased substantially and proportionately from 1984 through 1993.[/list]
[list]All of the increase in homicides by juveniles between the mid 1980's and mid 1990s was
[COLOR=Red]firearm related[/COLOR].[/list]
[list]In 1997, juvenile offenders were known to be involved in about 1,400 murders in the US. From the peak year of 1994, the number of murders known to involve juvenile offenders
dropped 39%.[/list]
[list]The rate at which juveniles comitted serious violent crimes changed little between 1973 and 1989, peaked in 1993, then declined to the lowest level since 1986.[/list]
I agree with you about responsibility. The examples you tend to quote are pretty vicious, and I wouldn't argue that IF TRUE they
deserve severe punishment no matter how traumatic their childhood.
However when designing a 'one size fits all' legal system (as I have often comdemned) one cannot take into account every possible permutation of murder or crime in general. Does the boy you mention above deserve the same as the woman who kills her cheating husband?
It's an impossible question, and one you shouldn't be attempting to answer by purveying a 'death fits all' mentality to black, white AND grey crimes.
oh wow.. I'll get back to this tomorrow... I did some stupid things growing up, but nothing like that.. and there in lies the problem of justice... there's a part of me that says kill the fucker.. then another part that says whoa! he needs help.. *sigh* here is my most unpopular idea, if IF we are going to have capital punishment.. here's the thing.. fuck the little lab in jail.. out in the damn town square, a brutal hanging! be-heading! whatever (although I don't think torture ought to be allowed) I mean, if it's meant to deter people from doing things like that.. get EXTREME!! WOOO!!!! (sorry TV got me all caught up).
ps. I'm glad she's alive...
... and hanging isn't torture????
:worried:
not if done right.. it ought to be a fairly painless death.. like i said if done right
damn it I always hit enter before I ought to. no wonder the ladies love me :) I studied torture for a while working on a D&D campaign (yeah I am that kind of loser), but I wanted to understand more of what might be behind the mentality of doing something that horrible to someone.. and also to apease my vengeful side.. and my other sides to know that 'damn! I could never do THAT to someone.. all told, hanging isn't that bad.. filling a persons belly with dry rice is horrible.. the death of a 1000 cuts... horrible.. being burned alive at the stake... horrible.. I could go on if you like. but you don't disagree on the the public display of 'justice'? I mean it is a better 'deterrent' than otherwise.. although I would like some dignity when I die.. and a cheering mob might not be so good for that.
Number of things:
wrongly accused
feed and condone public appetite for violence
go back 200 years
didn't deter then, wouldn't deter now
Before determining whether blows of justice should be dealt in public, in private or by noose or nails, one needs to examine it's purpose. So little is understood about human nature, is it really right to make a decision without knowing all the facts?
If your key point is that 'well if they knew they were going to get hanged, they wouldn't do it', you should know that the death penalty has been proven (as much as you can trust any statistics) not to act as a deterrent.
If they're gonna do it, they're gonna do it! How do you stop them doing it?
Just ditto to catwoman in that neither corporal or capital punishment is a deterant, never was never will be. End of.
The case you site is extremely rare otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it, and there will be an understandable reason for it, and obviously understanding is not the same as justification. He didn't act the way he did out of boredom or wickedness and whipping him on a regular basis would not have stopped this from happening.
Cowhead, how does anyone know what kind of death is painless...? Who was it reported back?
What a relief the victim survived.
Just ditto to catwoman in that neither corporal or capital punishment is a deterant, never was never will be.
Agreed. The only thing the death penalty does is make the victims' families and the public feel as if justice has been served. It does absolutely nothing more.
What should we do about people that cannot be rehabilitated? How do we handle the cases like those, whether minors or adults? Prisons are overflowing, as everyone knows. Do we just keep building walls and bars to keep them in so the rest of "normal society" doesn't have to think about it?
Prisons are overflowing, as everyone knows.
Let out the weed smokers, and there will be plenty of room for murderers.
Although I am glad she survived, what I really pray for her is that she gets the years of professional therapy from qualified professionals she is likely going to need after such a tragedy. I can't begin to imagine what this would do to me mentally, and I'm 29, not 8. My heart goes out to her and her mother.
Bad things happen, it's how we react that makes or breaks us.
I'll put this in bold so that everyone can see it over the noise.
Deterence is not the primary purpose of punishment!
If our concept of justice is solely limited to functional pragmatism, we've missed the point. Punishing someone for a crime they commit is not justified because of some future perceived value (deterence, getting them of the street, etc.) but because of their past act. Justice is retributive, or it is not justice. If it is pragmatic, it's simple social contract, nothing more.
-sm
I'll put this in bold so that everyone can see it over the noise.
Deterence is not the primary purpose of punishment!
If our concept of justice is solely limited to functional pragmatism, we've missed the point. Punishing someone for a crime they commit is not justified because of some future perceived value (deterence, getting them of the street, etc.) but because of their past act. Justice is retributive, or it is not justice. If it is pragmatic, it's simple social contract, nothing more.
-sm
This gets to the heart of it. The next question would be: "Do we even need justice then?" Or "Why do we need justice?"
Much as I'd rather just shoot them dead where they stand, I'm personally usually more comfortable with the rule of law.
Deterence is not the primary purpose of punishment!
This is a problem, then, because the current prison system does not reflect this. It is, at this time, both retributive and rehabilitative. Because it rides this line, it serves neither.
I'm still not certain the death penalty satisfies anything useful.
The death penalty does deter crime. Not one murderer put to death will ever kill again. That's good enough for me.
This kid admitted it. There's no wondering if we got the right guy. Research shows that sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated.
I don't see why I should pay to feed, clothe, house, give healthcare, and free lawyers for murderers, rapists, and child molesters. That money could go to law-abiding citizens who need it, rather than predators.
This little girl will have to live with the memory of what was done to her for the rest of her life. He'll get out of jail, and probably do it again. She'll never forget.
And I agree with the public execution. I think if punishment (all of it) were public, it could perhaps make people think twice. The death penalty, used as it's supposed to be, would probably go a long way to reducing crime. But we pay millions of dollars for their bullshit appeals, AND all the years they sit on death row. That's why it's so "expensive." If they admit to the crime, that should be that. All slapping them on the wrist will do (and I consider juvenile life a slap on the wrist, especially since their records are sealed and when they get out it's as if they've never committed a crime) is teach them that they can get away with it.
That's my opinion, and I know many don't agree with it. *shrug* Think what you like, I suppose....
Sidhe
I'll put this in bold so that everyone can see it over the noise.
Deterence is not the primary purpose of punishment!
If our concept of justice is solely limited to functional pragmatism, we've missed the point. Punishing someone for a crime they commit is not justified because of some future perceived value (deterence, getting them of the street, etc.) but because of their past act. Justice is retributive, or it is not justice. If it is pragmatic, it's simple social contract, nothing more.
-sm
*sigh* I think I love you.... :love: ;)
Let out the weed smokers, and there will be plenty of room for murderers.
This is the best idea I have heard all day.
The death penalty does deter crime. Not one murderer put to death will ever kill again. That's good enough for me.
That is true, but I find it to be a poor solution only because we've seen far too many innocent people put to death that were found not guilty years after their execution. A punishment that cannot be corrected and reversed in the event of a trial error, evidence error, frame-up, etc, seems highly flawed. The strong want of the public to see a criminal put to death is not good enough for me to endorse it when putting them in jail for life is just as effective in preventing someone from killing again.
Research shows that sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated.
I've heard this a lot but I've not seen any evidence to support it, yet. Source, please?
I think if punishment (all of it) were public, it could perhaps make people think twice.
Yeah, there are some other great countries out there that do this. You'll notice almost none of them are Westernized. I've heard the Saudis have had great success in crime reduction and that is it a great place to live...
But we pay millions of dollars for their bullshit appeals
Are you suggesting we don't give people this option any longer? Why? Appeals are all part of a very normal process. Again, there are many governments out there in this world that don't offer them and I'm sure you'd be very happy to live under their rule.
AND all the years they sit on death row.
AND you'll note that there are a large number of cases where those that sat on death row were found innocent of their convicted crimes before they went to the chair. Again, there is a reason people sit on death row so long and it has nothing to do with the system's want to suck your precious tax dollars and turn it into food and housing for someone convicted of a serious crime. This is the process. If you want the death penalty, you'd better get used to seeing a lot of it.
All slapping them on the wrist will do...is teach them that they can get away with it.
Agreed. Maybe its time we actually started treating people/the cause/the problem.
Research shows that sex offenders cannot be rehabilitated.
A sex offender has never, ever been rehabilitated? I don't think that's quite accurate.
I don't see why I should pay to feed, clothe, house, give healthcare, and free lawyers for murderers, rapists, and child molesters. That money could go to law-abiding citizens who need it, rather than predators..
I don't see why I should pay for George Bush's stupid war in Iraq, but I don't have much choice about it right now. That's the price you pay for living in the good ol' USA.
And I agree with the public execution. I think if punishment (all of it) were public, it could perhaps make people think twice. The death penalty, used as it's supposed to be, would probably go a long way to reducing crime. ...
Should we cut shoplifters' hands off, too?
This gets to the heart of it. The next question would be: "Do we even need justice then?" Or "Why do we need justice?"
Yes, this is the next question, and it gets significantly more difficult from this point forward. The answer to this question will rest heavily on how we understand moral value.
For the moral objectivist, the answer is fairly simple: justice is a retributive act merited by immoral acts. If I steal $20 from you, retributive justice holds that three acts have happened:
(1) An act of transgression toward you, that should be repaid by me giving you back $20
(2) An act of trangression toward the social group that we belong in. By breaking the social code against stealing, I have weakened the social fabric by an indeterminate amount. This is a harder retribution to fix, but our current legal code recognizes that it exists. I think it is also a moral fact. This is why if I steal, I might have to pay back additional fines on top of repaying the money.
(3) An expression of internal impropriety, a breaking down of my internal moral ordering that prevents me from performing bad acts. This leads to two additional demands of justice: (a) equipping the person with the means and impetus to reorder their internal moral sense (rehabilitation). (b) if the internal impropriety is significant enough (i.e. a willingness to do violence to others) then a removal from the social arena until that moral ordering is repaired.
For people who hold to a different sort of moral scheme, Justice becomes a much harder, much less tangible concept. If you are a moral relativist, then all justice becomes social contract, and whatever demands a society places on each other becomes the basis for justice. For a utilitarian, this becomes even harder, because all moral acts are measured by their eventual consequences. For the utilitarian, imprisoning a wrongly accused person would be perfectly acceptable if the net social gain outweighed the individual losses to the innocent person.
I know we have people on this board who are social relativists and consequentialists (utlitarians), and can throw together a better representation of how those views construe the idea of justice. I'd be eager to learn ...
-sm
This kid admitted it. There's no wondering if we got the right guy.
Confession, especially by a minor under interrogation, is not a good indicator of guilt. That said, I have the impression that there is more than the confession implicating this particular kid.
The victim named him as the perpetrator, he confessed to the crime, and there's likely to be physical evidence from the sexual assault that implicates him as well. Trifecta.
A sex offender has never, ever been rehabilitated? I don't think that's quite accurate.
If you feel comfortable hiring someone on the Megan's Law database to babysit your 5 year old, you're certainly welcome to do so.
I take the position that it's not a good idea to give an arsonist any matches, though.
I don't spend a lot of time reading research. I admit it. I also think that a good percentage of published research is carefully phrased bullshit, funded by large grants. This is not to say that there isn't a lot of good psych research out there, though.
I have, however, spent a good amount of time dealing with men from a nearby program for sex offenders, and also speaking with their staff.
These are men who are supposedly rehabilitated. They have a wide range of offenses ... some against adults (you know those sexually violent predators you hear about? I know over a dozen), many more against children.
I get to inventory their property.
When I find pages ripped out of a K-Mart circular featuring boys modelling Underoos, I doubt the effectiveness of treatment, no matter how well the system thinks these guys are doing.
If you feel comfortable hiring someone on the Megan's Law database to babysit your 5 year old, you're certainly welcome to do so.
I take the position that it's not a good idea to give an arsonist any matches, though.
Would I hire a registered sex offender to babysit my kid? Nope, of course not, and that's not what I was getting at.
I don't lose any sleep worrying about sex offenders rights or lack thereof. My point was only to say that Lady Sidhe's statment wasn't accurate. True, most sex offenders probably can't be rehabilitated, but to say that is true of every single one simply isn't accurate. That's all I was gettin' at.
The victim named him as the perpetrator, he confessed to the crime, and there's likely to be physical evidence from the sexual assault that implicates him as well. Trifecta.
Yeah, I thought so, but I missed the word 'he' in
She said the last thing she remembers is that he looked over her with these big eyes and then she said she went to sleep.
As for physical evidence, the ripped and dirty clothes could probably also be analyzed to match it to the scene.
Missed you, Sidhe!
Thought you were gone for good, girl. Nice to have you back in full form!
If the death penalty were such a deterrent, then 42% of those with a high school education or less would not be cigarette addicts. It’s not the penalty that is a deterrent. Deterrence is the probability of getting caught.
Deterrence is the fear of being punished.
Without the three C's punishment doesn't work.
Certainty
Celerity
Severity
Without the three C's punishment doesn't work.
Certainty
Celerity
Severity
Okay...who stole TS's login?
glatt, thank you. SO many people wouldn't have thought of - or would have rejected - that question. It's so good to hear someone else saying something so important. :love:
Anyway, let's address the question. Do we need justice?
Scenario A
Man commits murder. Man is sentenced to death or life imprisonment. Man will never kill again.
Scenario B
Man commits murder. Man is sent to prison. Man no longer a danger to society. Man gets released. Man has the option of a) rehabilitation or b) comitting another murder. That is man's choice.
Scenario C
Man commits murder.
Scenario A appears to be the safest, most logical option, if we agree that murder is bad (I will make this assumption) and that the act of murder is likely to be repeated (I wouldn't assume that) and an indicator of an unsafe human being (ah my assumptions are coming unstuck).
Let's start again. "Murder is bad." Agreed. We can be sure of that as we can be sure of anything.
"The act of murder is likely to be repeated." The man killed someone, therefore he will kill again. I'm sorry, I can't make this leap of logic. Past should not be taken as an indicator of future on it's own merits. It can be an indicator, but one needs to analyse the present to be completely sure. (For example, when I was 16 I liked Boyz2Men. Now I don't. The fact that I once did is no indication that I do now.)
The final principle, "Murder is an indicator of an unsafe human being" is closely linked, but instead of suggesting that the man who committed the murder is likely to do it again, it insinuates that there is an underlying factor that caused the man to kill, and this underlying factor is irredeemable, and thus, logically, if murder is bad, the man is bad, and should be destroyed or removed from society.
Scenario A most effectively caters for this line of thinking.
Now, to Scenario B. The man is punished, but it's a bit of a half-ass punishment. He is sentenced to 25 years but only serves 12, costs the country a good few dollars and then returns to society. If rehabilitation has occurred (ie he will not kill again), the punishment has served its purpose. If it hasn't, that's thousands of dollars and another victim wasted. So how do you know if rehabilitation has occurred?
In the first instance, one needs to look at what the word suggests. 'Re-habilitation'. Re-habiting. The man was once 'habitable' (fully integrated into societal habits ie not killing), and broke the habit. Therefore he needs to be rehabilitated to become once more a correctly functioning member of society. This suggests that he is not inherently BAD, but he broke the rules and, more importantly, that the act of breaking a rule as a one off incident and not a mark of a habitable person - a person who's habit is murder.
The word 'murderer' also suggests that there is no such thing as a one-off killing. Once labelled a murderer, he will always be a murderer, even if he only did it once. Is it right that because I stole some make up when I was 12 I am forever labelled a thief present tense?
So, we now have two arguments. The 'that man is bad' argument, concluding in the death sentence or life imprisonment; or the 'that was a one off' perspective, concluding in rehabilitation.
Finally, Scenario C. Man commits murder. Nothing is done in the way of punishment. Questions are asked only by academia, not society. There is no cost on society in the way of dollars or emotions - including news reportage, court cases, moral debates. The person he killed is dead. He continues to function in society as he did before the murder.
I would recommend Scenario C for the one-off rule breaker. The woman who snaps and kills her violent husband. The son who kills his mother's rapist.
I would recommend Scenario B for the habitable. The serial killer. The child porn fanaticist. These are people with a passion, a compulsion, a habit. It's just the wrong habit. Redirect it to something constructive. It's not the habitual nature in itself that's at fault, but the way in which they choose to express it. Some people switch lights on and off 12 times before leaving a room. This obsessive compulsion is the same as that of a celebrity stalker, or a serial killer. They have an obsession. Treat the obsession, redirect their obsessive nature towards church or music or anything less dangerous.
Now, one might (quite understandably) agree that the compulsive nature is not evil in itself, and one could tolerate obessive compulsive behaviour in friends or hell even mildly in themselves. But then, why does HER compulsion manifest itself in harmless activities such as light flicking whereas HIS compulsion becomes something much darker: a murderous compulsion.
Do you see that this does not matter? I am going to go slightly back on myself now and say that is IS the compulsive nature that's at fault, NOT the manner in which it is lived out. The compulsive light-flicker has the same internal makings of a serial killer. They are just better integrated into societal habits: better conditioned.
If you are religious, you may believe in clear-cut good and evil. And if we agree to live in a theocracy then people who murder should be sentenced to death. Not out of spite or retribution, but to remove them from the planet. Destroy the enemy. You don't need to gloat in public, because if they are actually evil it won't have any impact anyway. If they're not evil, and they feel embarrassment at public humiliation, maybe you shouldn't have prescribed Scenario A, as this person is clearly capably of retribution because he feels embarrassed. Embarrassment is a social feeling, betraying a desire to be socially accepted which means he is habitable.
I'm tired of writing now. Hopefully someone else can pick up from here.
Thank you for a perfect example of why sometimes homicide is justifiable. :rolleyes:
I'm autistic and don't understand sarcasm. Please explain.
Okay...who stole TS's login?
:lol:
{Foghorn}It's a joke son! You're too short son! The fast ones go right over your head!{/Leghorn}
But seriously, those three things are the most important part.
1) They have to
know that they will be punished,
2) They have to
know that the punishment will be delivered quickly,
3) They have to
know that the punishment will be severe enough to make the experience one they don't want to repeat.
The rest of it is making the punishment fit the offense.
Murder is baaaaaad, mmmmkaayyy?
I agree entirely, whether perpetuated by the state or the individual.
Onyx, thanks...good to be back.
Wolf: right on! You said it much better than I could have (in re rehab of sex offenders)
SM: You said it much better than I could have...all of it. I tend to come across a little strongly to people who don't know me, or know how I debate. If I argue a point, I argue it from one side, because I've already looked at all the options and information and made my decision, and then argue from there. I sometimes---ok, I USUALLY--tend to forget to explain how I got to where I am...it's forgetting those little details that just smacks me in the back of the head. I looked at things from a utilitarian point of view for a long time, but, believe it or not, I've become more moderate since college.
Justice, to me, does not have to be exclusive of revenge. It is justice that one who takes the life of another, in cold blood, should pay life for life. The murdered person will never get a second chance. Why should the person who took that life, destroying the lives of not only the individual, but their family and friends as well, get one?
And if prisons were self-sufficient, I probably wouldn't have such a problem with it. But I resent having to pay to take care of people who would kill me with indifference if it suited their purpose...or who would rape and kill my daughter because they get off on little kids.
Some people just need to be recycled, you know?
....soylent green is peeeeeeeeeople......(sorry, couldn't resist)
Sidhe
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Mahatma Gandhi
I understand the philosophy of it, LS, but do you really feel comfortable with our govt/legal system making the choice as to whether a person's life should be taken? What about folks who were innocent, or acted in self defense? That isn't probably considered "cold blooded" to you, but why should we leave that decision in the hands of an already misguided, if not incompetant group of people? Who is fit to make that judgement? You? Me? The victims of a crime? An educated removed individual sitting behind a wooden podium? A group of conditioned people sitting in wooden benches having had all kinds of spin flung at them by lawyers looking to win a case? I don't feel comfortable giving anyone that kind of power.
Sure, there are a lot of sick people out there, looking to hurt you or your family. And if one of them does, how does revenge on that person really fix the problem? It just gets rid of the person who did it, but it doesn't rid you of the experience. It will happen with other sick people and their innocent victims. So are we just going to shoot everyone who gets acused of a crime worthy of it? And which crimes *are* worthy of killing someone?
I understand the act of settling on a point and then arguing from it without explaining. It can get tiring repeating your 'workings' and you can forget them somtimes ('I know this is my point of view I just can't remember why').
Your point about justice - one life for another - is valid. But what you must realise is that not all crimes are the same. Not every murder is a cold-blooded killing with no regard for their actions, no conscience and no sense. What would you do if you were alone with a guy who had locked you in a room, spent 3 days torturing you, raping you, shitting on you, and you saw a knife and your opportunity. Would you kill him and get the fuck out of there? Or would you, calmly and rationally, think 'oh I couldn't possibly do that, killing is wrong, and therefore every killing is wrong, so I can't kill him. I wouldn't want to risk the death sentence.'
Come on Lady S, I can get over your dogmaticism if you have a point, but please recognise crime is not black and white (nor is it predominantly black if that's your next joke) and sometimes there is margin for error.
If you recognise there is variation in crime you cannot wax lyrical about standardised punishment or justice.
I really really don't want to resurrect the relativism thing, but how can anyone get anything done if they spend their entire lives wringing their hands and saying "what do we dooooooo?!?! There's no black and white! We can't decide!" The world keeps spinning while we flail around in a perfectly grey puddle of indecision and angst. The kid will die of natural causes before anyone can agree on whether he needs rehabilitation more than the world needs to be rid of him.
Happy Monkey has it right. Let out the weed growers and there will be plenty of room to keep the murderers while we decide what to do with them. But please, someone decide SOMETHING. While the life of a murderer might have equal intrinsic value to the life of anyone else, it does NOT have the same value as the scores of potential victims he will create if he's not kept out of society forever.
Agh. Please read my post, someone. What makes you think he'll do it again? There have only ever been a handful of serial killers (not counting presidents and prime ministers). Stop. Basing. Arguments. On. The. Doings. Of. An. Extreme. Minority.
: pulling hair out :
yes, let's not project the actions of one child rapist on the scores of decent, hardworking child rapists who might not re-offend. How narrow of me.
Keep in mind that pedophiles typically will have molested 10 kids before they get caught, and that many victims do not come forward, for lots of reasons.
And not every woman who is raped comes forward, for many reasons.
**A victimization survey conducted by the Ministry of the Solicitor General of Canada and Statistics Canada discovered that only 38% of females who had experienced a sexual assault during 1981 reported their victimizations to police. The survey estimated that 15,100 women above the age of sixteen (or about 6 women per 1000 in the population under study) experienced some form of sexual assault during a one year period in the seven Canadian cities that were surveyed.
For you stat/research-wanters, here's some stuff I found:
**To examine differences in recidivism rates across sex offender type, we separated the offenders into three groups: incest offenders, pedophiles and rapists (see Table 2). This revealed that among newly released sex offenders, rapists had the highest rates of general, violent and sexual recidivism relative to any other group. In contrast, incest offenders demonstrated the lowest rates of general, violent and sexual recidivism relative to pedophiles or rapists, regardless of whether they belonged to the caseload or newly released samples. It is notable that the pedophile group on caseload had the highest rate of sexual recidivism relative to incest offenders or rapists. One exception to this trend involves homosexual pedophiles. These offenders are considerably more likely to reoffend than are heterosexual pedophiles.
**
http://www.johnhoward.ab.ca/docs/sxoffend/page1.htm
Studies of Sex Offenders of all types, and recidivism rates
**Is chemical castration an acceptable punishment for male sex offenders?
Resources used to support "yes"
Sex offenders, such as rapists, pedophiles, and exhibitionists, are among the highest reoccurring offense populations in the United States probation system. These offenders commit crimes that put fear into the general public and pose a threat to people that live in their neighborhoods. These offenders should be punished and not let off or forgiven of their crime(s) just because they have gone through a treatment program, most or which cannot show a significant success rate.
Chemical castration is an ideal punishment for sex offenders. When Depo-Provera is administerd, recidivism rates fall to 5%. Their sexual fantasies are lessened as a result of the reduction of testosterone levels. Although men administered this drug are capable of having sexual intercourse, many people argue that chemical castration is cruel and unusual punishment. This argument is countered by the fact that sex offenders are required to get injections only once a month. What is "cruel and unusual" is allowing sex offenders to attack innocent women and children. This effective therapy will protect future victims. It is an "offender friendly" way of reducing sexual violence. [LaLaunie Hayes.]
(I have no problem with chemical castration, if it works. But if it doesn't work and s/he reoffends, THEN can we kill them?)
**Researchers admit that existing studies provide only limited estimates of the number of reoffences committed by sex offenders. Most recidivism studies report on reconvictions that take place within a two to three year period following convictions for sex offences. However studies that have tracked sex offenders over extended follow-up periods have found higher recidivism rates. Another problem with recidivism rates is that figures based on reconvictions only provide information on offenders who have been officially detected.
**
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pblct/forum/e01/e011i_e.shtml
Research on Sex Offenders
**Reoffense rates tend to increase over the years and, around the ten year mark, reoffense rates among treated offenders is nearly the same as among untreated offenders.
So, let's say, just for shits and giggles, that a sex offender, of whatever type, gets out of jail...he hasn't seen a woman/man/child for however long he's been in. Now, considering that straight men who get out of jail probably head for the nearest piece they can find, what makes you think that this guy won't?
So we let this guy out, and say, "Oh...he's been in treatment. He's safe." And he goes out and the first thing he does is get him some from somebody who doesn't want to give it. What do you say THEN?? "OOpsie...we fucked up. Sorry about that, miss. Sorry this guy raped you and your little girl, then beat you both and threw you in a dumpster and left you for dead. Our mistake. You know how it goes."??
ONE victim that could have been saved is worth it. Letting him out and giving him the benefit of the doubt may sound nice, but it doesn't mean jack to the next person he harms. It all comes down to choice. He chooses to engage in his behavior. I think we should choose to punish his ass as severely as possible. This isn't breaking a window or boosting a car. Sex crimes are the ultimate INVASION. Victims never really feel safe again. How does someone pay for THAT??
And before someone slams me about the "choice" issue, check this out:
I read in this in Time magazine a few years ago, and this stuck with me because I admired what this man did...The story was about this priest who was caught messing with kids. This man was so remorseful that he voluntarily gave up his collar and went to live in the friggin' MOUNTAINS. He lives in a cabin in the mountains, and he only comes down once a month to get supplies and to give talks to other priests. He refuses to be around children at ALL.
Now THAT'S remorse. THAT'S rehabilitation. That's choosing NOT to engage in, or even put oneself into a situation to engage in the behavior.
That's what crime comes down to. It's not your mommy's fault, it's not your daddy's fault, and it's not society's fault. It's YOUR fault. Choice.
Sidhe
Agh. Please read my post, someone. What makes you think he'll do it again? There have only ever been a handful of serial killers (not counting presidents and prime ministers). Stop. Basing. Arguments. On. The. Doings. Of. An. Extreme. Minority.
: pulling hair out :
http://www.victimsofviolence.on.ca/research395.html
"Only about 1% of the population are serial killers. Yet the number of identified serial killers has risen dramatically in the last 20 years or so. Whether this is an increase in the actual number of offenders or whether it is due to better police work is unknown. Whatever the reason, the serial homicide rate has risen tenfold.
The FBI estimates that there are currently 500 serial killers at large. Other estimates are much lower, around 35 - 100 serial killers currently committing crimes. In 1983, they estimated that 5000 Americans, or 15 people a day were killed by strangers. Every year, between 3500 - 5000 people in America are the victims of serial killers. In the past 20 years, 160 serial killers have been identified or captured, and 120 of them were in the United States. "
http://www.sociology.org/content/vol003.002/hinch.html
"It has been estimated that between 10 and 500 serial killers are active at any time in the United States (Egger 1990a; Kiger 1990; O'Reilly- Fleming 1996). In Canada, estimates range from 5 to 30 (Ratner 1996). The variation in these estimates can be attributed to a variety of problems with data sources: arbitrary definitions; small samples; samples biased toward only known/apprehended serial killers; and samples relying upon secondary sources such as biographies or newspapers. These alternative data sources have been used primarily because official data are not reliable.
For example, the FBI collects data from law enforcement agencies across the United States and publishes it in the Uniform Crime Reports(UCR). The Supplemental Homicide Report(SHR), part of the UCR, provides additional information about victims, offenders and circumstances. The intention is to reflect all criminal offenses that come to the attention of the police.
The data, however, are incomplete and unreliable. First, because reporting is voluntary, the information is incomplete (Kiger 1990; Williams and Flewelling 1987). Second, there may be organizational pressures within particular police jurisdictions not to alarm the public about the possible existence of a serial killer in that area. This may prevent reporting and/or effect homicide classification procedures (Kiger 1990; Williams and Flewelling 1987). Third, homicide data records only those crimes known to the police. Missing persons and undiscovered bodies are excluded."
Hm. Only a handful. I'd hate to see what you consider a significant number. :worried:
Sidhe
So we let this guy out, and say, "Oh...he's been in treatment. He's safe." And he goes out and the first thing he does is get him some from somebody who doesn't want to give it. What do you say THEN?? "OOpsie...we fucked up. Sorry about that, miss.
Unfortunately that is exactly how a decent society must work. The alternative is something akin to totalitarianism and Gulags. We have two choices. We try to do the best we can - or we take the Rush Limbaugh "they are evil so cut off their penises" attitude. The Rush Limbaugh solution was also called Stalinism.
You have no right to expect extreme protection. You only have the right to expect protection as best available - and still protect others rights. A percentage of all murders who get out will murder again. That is expected and cannot be avoided. So therefore we should fry all murders. I appreciate your fear. But life is about risk. Deal with the logic. Your fears are not relevant.
We do the best we can to minimize your risks. But that does not justify the frying of all murders, pedophiles or rapists. And yet with all the emotion in your post, that is exactly what you advocate. It is what happens when fear replaces logic.
If the death penalty were such a deterrent, then 42% of those with a high school education or less would not be cigarette addicts. It’s not the penalty that is a deterrent. Deterrence is the probability of getting caught.
Again, where does severity of the punishment stop crime? There is no more severe penalty than death. And still 42% of the least educated people take up cigarettes. Why? There is no more severe punishment. Still, they do so only because they don't expect to get caught. They don't expect to die. They assume emotionally rather than logically. Emotionally as in many of the above reasons to justify the death penalty.
Like it or not, the nuclear option on criminals only makes things worse - ie Stalinism. Ultimate punishment solves nothing. Deterrence is found in the probability of getting caught. If he murders again, why? Because he does not expect to get caught. 20 years or capital punishment means nothing. He does not expect to get caught.
As well proven in NYC, people who get away with petty theft and traffic violations only learn with each more severe crime that crime does pay. How did NYC reduce murders? They enforced the little crimes such as pick pocketing and those 'squeegee men'. And how did NYC do this? Every two weeks, precinct commanders were subject to review - and possible loss of command. Why? Deterrence is in getting caught doing the little crimes. All without using the ultimate punishment.
Using an emotional response to crime does zero to eliminate crime. The solution is only in logical actions. Logical actions are not perfect. And frying all murders only because some might murder again is nonsense - the classic emotional response.
It looks to me as if some more people have fallen victim to availability error and are freaking out over the endless national news stories about kidnappings, murders, etc. I'd really hate for the news to actually report the real number of children kidnapped and people murdered everyday. The short-sighted decisions made then might be disasterous.
Calm down, people. Sheesh.
Killing them fixes everything!
Unfortunately that is exactly how a decent society must work. The alternative is something akin to totalitarianism and Gulags. We have two choices. We try to do the best we can - or we take the Rush Limbaugh "they are evil so cut off their penises" attitude. The Rush Limbaugh solution was also called Stalinism.
You have no right to expect extreme protection. You only have the right to expect protection as best available - and still protect others rights. A percentage of all murders who get out will murder again. That is expected and cannot be avoided. So therefore we should fry all murders. I appreciate your fear. But life is about risk. Deal with the logic. Your fears are not relevant.
We do the best we can to minimize your risks. But that does not justify the frying of all murders, pedophiles or rapists. And yet with all the emotion in your post, that is exactly what you advocate. It is what happens when fear replaces logic.
You want to see emotion? Try explaining this position to the mother of a baby whose body has been found buried in the woods with her skirt hiked up around her little neck. "Ma'am, I feel your pain, but we mustn't be too
extreme. Take a deep breath and think about how badly we would all feel if we were to wantonly PUNISH this man without regard for gentlemanly codes of conduct."
Gulags my ass. When you stop being angry about this kind of shit,
that's when you are ripe for takeover by a dictator. He knows you won't do anything to stop him.
One other point.. "A certain percentage of murderers who get out will murder again."
Actually, that
is the point, isn't it? :rar:
So.....extreme emotional responses and over the top revenge are the correct answer?
'gentlemanly codes of conduct' as you so tritely put it are what separates us from savages.
depends on one's definitions of "extreme", "over the top", and "savage".
Someone who does something like that to a child should be subject to extreme justice, over-the-top measures to ensure he doesn't do it again, and savage consequences for repeat performances, yes. Gentlemanly codes of conduct work among gentlemen, but when the savages come to our place, they should be dealt with in kind.
I suppose it's best I don't hold public office, because I'm tired of the predators being handled with kid gloves and the prey lying out in the street forgotten. While we bicker over access to law books and cable TV for these bastards, the little kids are still DEAD.
On the one hand, on an intellectual and moral level, I believe the death penalty is wrong.
On the other hand, a sniper in my town a couple years ago victimized me and my family for a month or two. We stayed inside for a couple of months for fear of being shot. We were the lucky ones. They caught the sniper. Malvo, the asshole. You've probably heard of him. He's a kid. He's most likely insane. He's going to be put to death. I don't care.
On an intellectual level, I think he shouldn't be put to death, because it's not consistent with my beliefs. But in my gut, I don't care that he's going to die. I'm not looking forward to his death. I'd be equally happy if he spent the rest of his life in a maximum security mental facility or prison.
If I were called to be on a jury in his case, I would admit my bias and remove myself from the jury.
Similarly, I believe emotions have no place in an argument about whether the State should kill its citizens. That's a lynch mob mentality. We are better than that.
You want to see emotion? Try explaining this position to the mother of a baby whose body has been found buried in the woods with her skirt hiked up around her little neck. "Ma'am, I feel your pain, but we mustn't be too extreme. Take a deep breath and think about how badly we would all feel if we were to wantonly PUNISH this man without regard for gentlemanly codes of conduct."
That's why the family of the victim isn't involved in sentencing.
your semantics say it all really. What's 'extreme justice' ? Sounds like a polite way of saying cruel, sadastic revenge that sounds more palateable to me. Which makes you no better.
Unfortunately that is exactly how a decent society must work. The alternative is something akin to totalitarianism and Gulags. We have two choices. We try to do the best we can - or we take the Rush Limbaugh "they are evil so cut off their penises" attitude. The Rush Limbaugh solution was also called Stalinism.
Why only two? Who made that decision, you? I see at least one more and maybe there's more between the extremes you have decided are at issue.
You have no right to expect extreme protection. You only have the right to expect protection as best available - and still protect others rights. A percentage of all murders who get out will murder again. That is expected and cannot be avoided. So therefore we should fry all murders. I appreciate your fear. But life is about risk. Deal with the logic. Your fears are not relevant.
Oh stop it for God's sake. Of course her fears are relevant, everyones fears are relevant, that's why we have cops and jails. Nothing, repeat nothing, has a larger impact on quality of life than being able to allay those fears.
We do the best we can to minimize your risks. But that does not justify the frying of all murders, pedophiles or rapists. And yet with all the emotion in your post, that is exactly what you advocate. It is what happens when fear replaces logic.
And when logic replaces your assumtions, there are more solutions than the ones you've outlined. Your not going to win this one by creating an emotionally charged atmosphere of you're with me or your a rabid murderer. Not this time bro, any fool can see their are more than two options to this one. :p
*shrugs* I should have known better than attempt to engage in proper debate with you sidhe, we have "discussed" the death penalty before, and you didn't listen
then either.
I like the Cellar because while many of us disagree, there is almost always an openness and honesty in discussion. With you, that doesn't exist. You come across as narrow minded, vicious, bitter and pretty fucked up.
If I'm wrong, don't respond with flames, show me it's not true.
I understand the philosophy of it, LS, but do you really feel comfortable with our govt/legal system making the choice as to whether a person's life should be taken? What about folks who were innocent, or acted in self defense? That isn't probably considered "cold blooded" to you, but why should we leave that decision in the hands of an already misguided, if not incompetant group of people? Who is fit to make that judgement? You? Me? The victims of a crime? An educated removed individual sitting behind a wooden podium? A group of conditioned people sitting in wooden benches having had all kinds of spin flung at them by lawyers looking to win a case? I don't feel comfortable giving anyone that kind of power.
Sure, there are a lot of sick people out there, looking to hurt you or your family. And if one of them does, how does revenge on that person really fix the problem? It just gets rid of the person who did it, but it doesn't rid you of the experience. It will happen with other sick people and their innocent victims. So are we just going to shoot everyone who gets acused of a crime worthy of it? And which crimes *are* worthy of killing someone?
Our system isn't perfect. I'm not saying it is. However, what would you have us do? Who would you have making the decisions? Nobody? Someone has to have the power to enforce our laws, or there will be anarchy. Judges know the law, and 97% of the time the rulings they make are in favor of the defendant. The courts are so paranoid about getting their decisions reversed that they make every effort to make sure that the defendant gets as fair a trial as possible. Then there's DNA. I think that DNA evidence should be mandatory in rape and murder evidence. Not if the defendant can afford it. It should be MANDATORY. Then we don't have to worry about DNA exculpating somone after they've spent ten years in prison for something they didn't do. And if they admit it--sorry. If you're stupid enough to admit to something you didn't do, maybe Mother Nature's trying to tell you something.
And if we get rid of those sick people, then they won't have the opportunity to hurt anyone ELSE.
As I've said many times, it's not like we keep the death penalty a secret. Unless you've been living under a rock your entire life, you KNOW that certain crimes warrant the ultimate penalty. Therefore, should you choose to commit that crime, society may choose to hand down that penalty. I'm not MAKING someone commit a crime just so I can kill them.
I'm not cold-hearted. I just think that society deserves more consideration and protection than the predator. You don't baby a rabid dog, you destroy it so that it won't harm anyone.
Sidhe
Judges know the law, and 97% of the time the rulings they make are in favor of the defendant.
Can you back this up? Does this mean that all rulings in favor of the defendant are inaccurate?
And if they admit it--sorry. If you're stupid enough to admit to something you didn't do, maybe Mother Nature's trying to tell you something.
Wow. That's one of the most ignorant things I've seen written on the cellar... Especially in the context of a thread about the juvenile death penalty.
If you're stupid enough to admit to something you didn't do, maybe Mother Nature's trying to tell you something.
I find this very interesting that, of all things, you're mentioning this regarding juvenille cases. You are obviously not at all aware of the countless cases, the majority of them serious, in which a
minor has admitted to crimes they did not commit when under pressure during an police interview.
"He sounded so sure of himself that I started to doubt my son," Rick Sr. said. "I started to wonder if Ricky really had done this awful thing. I couldn't understand why Danny would say he'd done it if he hadn't."
Mother Nature, indeed.
Why are you certain of the death penalty and yet so blind to the process, the flaws of the process, and the reasons why the process is in place? This world is not so black and white.
Your point about justice - one life for another - is valid. But what you must realise is that not all crimes are the same. Not every murder is a cold-blooded killing with no regard for their actions, no conscience and no sense. What would you do if you were alone with a guy who had locked you in a room, spent 3 days torturing you, raping you, shitting on you, and you saw a knife and your opportunity. Would you kill him and get the fuck out of there? Or would you, calmly and rationally, think 'oh I couldn't possibly do that, killing is wrong, and therefore every killing is wrong, so I can't kill him. I wouldn't want to risk the death sentence.'
Come on Lady S, I can get over your dogmaticism if you have a point, but please recognise crime is not black and white (nor is it predominantly black if that's your next joke) and sometimes there is margin for error.
If you recognise there is variation in crime you cannot wax lyrical about standardised punishment or justice.
I DO realize that all crimes are not the same. I don't consider killing in self-defense or the defense of another to be cold-blooded murder. We have the right and the duty to protect ourselves against an unprovoked attack. That's not what I'm talking about at all.
I'm talking about serial murderers, spree killers, mass murderers, child killers, child rapists....people who are in and out of jail for the same thing over and over and over and who present an ongoing threat to society.
I know that crime is not black and white, but neither is it ALWAYS gray. If you have a guy who has a lengthy history of child molestation, then he should never, EVER be released. Obviously he cannot be rehabilitated, and the next time he may decide that it would be better to kill the victim so he wouldn't get caught. What then? Or a rapist who's in and out of jail on rape charges may decide the same thing. Kill the victim, and they can't tell on you.
I'm all in favor of mandatory DNA testing. I feel bad for the people who've spent years in jail only to be proven innocent on DNA. That's why I think it should be mandatory for all capital cases. Any kind of testing that may prove a defendant in a capital case innocent should be used, even if the court must pay for it. I also think that the jury should be able to hear ALL of the evidence, including past history of the defendent, so that they can determine propensity. The jury too often only hears certain parts of evidence, so they don't have all the information that they need to make a fair decision.
Many times, I've read where jury members find out that a defendant that they let off, or gave a light sentence to, actually had a history of the offense for which he was being tried. They were not allowed by the court to know about the defendant's history, and say that if they had known, they would have made a different decision.
If a woman kills her rapist, good for her...she saved the state some money. Give her a medal for helping to protect society and send her on her way. Too many times, the victim is put on trial and dragged through the mud by a lawyer who doesn't care about anything except winning cases. Where's the morality there? Just because OJ had the best lawyers and a biased jury doesn't mean he's NOT guilty. Just because Robert Blake was found not guilty doesn't mean he didn't do it. They may never do it again. But they did it once, and that was enough to destroy two families. What about them?
Our justice system is biased in favor of the accused. The courts lean over backwards to ensure that the accused gets as fair a trial as possible so that a higher court won't reverse their decision.
For instance, if a juvenile has a history of assault, as soon as he becomes an adult, his record is sealed. Therefore, if he assaults again, or rapes, or kills, the prosecutor cannot give the jury all of the information that they need to make a fair decision. He can't say, "Look at this...he has a history of this kind of behavior. This shows propensity." How is THAT fair? The jury lets the guy off with a light sentence, IF they find him guilty, because they think it's his first offense, when actually it's not.
And rape or murder? A defense lawyer can drag the victim through the mud, (this happens a lot in murder cases, and the victim is not there to defend themselves) but a prosecutor cannot do the same with regards to the accused's history. How is THAT fair?
No, I know that crime isn't black and white. But when it comes to admissions, DNA evidence, eyewitness or earwitness evidence (which I give only half-consideration to, knowing the questionable reliabiltiy of it), video or tape recordings, or other things that point to the individual's guilt, I think that they should be punished, whether you want to call it societal retribution or justice--I consider them the same thing--according to the severity of their crime.
Vandalism? Get a fine, maybe spend a night in jail if it was extremely destructive. Rape? Put you in a cell with Bubba who hasn't seen a woman in thirty years, and let you see how you like it. Child molestation? Put you in a cage and never let you out. Rot in there for all I care. Child abuse? Fix you like an animal so that you can't create more little ready-made victims. Put you on a list so that you can never adopt or babysit or teach or have any access to kids. Murder? A life for a life.
I think that's fair.
Sidhe
I have to admit I'm on LS's "side" here. Speaking as a family member of a murder victim, I say fry the bastards. Speaking as a victim of rape and child molestation, I say, fry the bastards.
Emotional? Of course. Logical? Yes. If we kill proven offenders, they will not repeat their crimes. That is as logical as it gets, people.
And those of you who are pro-choice and Anti-Death Penalty, I call hypocrite.
your semantics say it all really. What's 'extreme justice' ? Sounds like a polite way of saying cruel, sadastic revenge that sounds more palateable to me. Which makes you no better.
I can tell you what justice
isn't: creating a system by which the predator of children is suddenly elevated to an untouchable status, where committing the most atrocious act possible on the most innocent of victims is a ticket to free health care, free boarding, internet access and a voluminous law library (and public servants) at your disposal. What a coup, to have a significant segment of the population believe that what you've done isn't
evil (since there's no such thing), and to suddenly have the might of the ACLU at your back, daring "the man" to look at you crossways.
Cruel, sadistic revenge? Not at all. An end at the hands of a firing squad is multiple powers of magnitude MORE humane than what he did, and if he deserves any "respect," it's a quick end to his miserable poisonous existence, and not a whit more. That you, jaguar, would align yourself on the side of such monsters just so you can fly the philosophical banner of "fairness" is disgusting. I'm sure you're giddy with joy that the kid who was released from prison yesterday can once again live a normal life. Well, normal but for the fact that he seems to have a propensity for beating little girls into bloody rags by picking them up by the legs and dashing them against brick walls. But hey, a little couch time and he'll be right as rain.
If one of these people visited your home, you might feel differently. I shudder to think that you might not. After all, you can accuse people like me of cruelty and utterly turn your back on the victims of the world's most vile crimes. I'm sure Dahmer would've appreciated your support.
Thank you for your most rational and eloquent post to date. I mean that.
I really do understand your point. If you don't want the electric chair - don't murder! It's quite simple.
I think your style of writing sometimes comes across as bloodthirsty, and can suggest an appetite for brutal punishment and humiliation. If that is true (which I really hope it's not) this is the same intrinsic quality that leads a murderer to murder. An anger against something, a burning desire to hurt someone. Ok your reason is justified: they hurt someone else. But their anger is just as real to them.
In your last paragraph, I'm with you until the murder bit. I agree that IF reparation is to be conducted it should be on a like-for-like basis. I have the same 'show them how it feels' urge. But swiftly after that urge comes a rationalisation and humanity that would prevent me from condoning MORE pain and torture, no matter the crime of the perpetrator.
I think, on a wider scale, it is circular and self-perpetuating. I think harm to one person causes harm to the whole world. Punishing the harm-causer with more harm will only increase the net-negative.
He can't say, "Look at this...he has a history of this kind of behavior. This shows propensity." How is THAT fair?
Funny, you answered yourself right here:
Many times, I've read where jury members find out that a defendant that they let off, or gave a light sentence to, actually had a history of the offense for which he was being tried. They were not allowed by the court to know about the defendant's history, and say that if they had known, they would have made a different decision.
History means nothing when you are on trial for a crime because you are being tried based on evidence, not your previous actions. Previous actions bias juries to the point of finding the innocent guilty. That is why the judge takes the defendant's history into account during the sentencing portion of the trial, not during the actual trial, itself.
But when it comes to admissions, DNA evidence, eyewitness or earwitness evidence (which I give only half-consideration to, knowing the questionable reliabiltiy of it), video or tape recordings, or other things that point to the individual's guilt
You're insisting this evidence is always rock-solid. It is not, even admission of guilt as I noted above.
You left out that prevents recidivism.
jesus fuck you got quite a beating with the stupid stick didn't you. I wasn't aware of a system that 'elevates predators of children to untouchable status', I was aware that many didn't live though their prison terms or if they did, were regularly victims of all sorts of crimes while inside and were often murdered or beaten after release.
The only thing I align myself with is due process and the criminal justice system over emotional lynch mobs and arbitary murder. When you start punishing people for crimes they haven't committed on the basis they may you start down a very slippery slope indeed. The same applies to punishing people outside the criminal justice system. But don't let that get in the way of ranting about the extreme cases.
So let me get this right. A 5 year old gets raped and murdered, her dismembered body gets found in a rubbish bag in a local park. Someone comes forward claiming they saw you in the area the night before. The media goes wild, someone else backs the claim up (silhouette looked about the same and hey, we all want to help find the evil kiddie fiddler right?), you say you were just walking your dog? Yea right, kiddie fiddler. Free legal aid? You're kidding, you're a vile evil scummy kiddiefiddler now and everyone knows it, into the cell for you and don't expect regular feeding while you're in there either. You're convicted, on the evidence of witnesses and under intense media pressure, Appeal? You've got to be kidding, you're gonna die next week, kiddie fiddler, get in the cell. Your arm got broken by a couple of cops on the way in? Tough luck, you fucking disgusting kiddie fiddler. It's what you deserve.
Is that how it should work? We have due process for a reason. It's a system built on centuries of development to create a process where justice, not revenge can be served in an environment that attempts to be as fair as possible.
If it happened to you, you might feel differently. I don't turn my back on the victims, i simply see the value of due process.
You love your emotive language, no wonder, without it your argument looks pretty fucking weak without it, the same emotive bullshit used to push any kind of irrational legislation, whether it be making sure that kids aren't runied for life by seeing tits on late night TV or taken away women's choice over their own bodies. Pretty fucking black and white for raped little girls, not so if the wrong guy gets accused.
Onxycougar - Lets keep on topic shall we, abortion is a whole other issue.
I have not a violent bone in my body. I've never thrown the first punch, I've turned the other cheek more times than I care to count, and I haven't shot at anyone since 1989. If a bug is in the house, I'm more likely to catch it and release it outside than to stomp on it.
You can rob me, you can beat me up, you can set my car on fire, and I'll call 911 and let the flawed system run its course. But mess with my family or with kids in general and you opt out of the human race as far as I'm concerned. If anyone attempted rape or murder of my nephews, niece, parents or siblings, a prison term for me is a foregone conclusion, because the sonofabitch will not see another sunrise. I know that's wrong from the standpoint of my faith, and I know it's a foreign concept to many people who have never lived in an environment where the police were no more than 5 minutes away at any time.
But no, nobody could make me "mad" enough to do violence against them for anything other than self-defense. With the above caveat.
jaguar, welcome to my ignore list, you pompous fucking limey twit.
Lady Sidhe's threads are always so good at helping Cellarites find common ground.
Ack! Sorry, MrNoodle -- I must have caught you just before you deleted. I removed my post with your quote.
(and sorry I didn't catch it earlier. eep.)
no worries. this topic gets my boxers in a wad more than any other, and it's not always easy to self-edit the anger before I hit "post". Anyway, my ignore list only has one other spot, and I'm saving it for someone who is determined to attack me personally with every post. you don't fit that category.
I guess a few things come to mind as I read through this convoluted thread:
I am taking a risk at saying that most of the people in this world who commit crimes like peds and murders and torture don't have the same concept of human life that the majority of people do...meaning that they might not have the same level of respect. So, if these people don't respect others lives, why should they respect their own and be deterred from committing a crime for which the punishment would be death? I just cannot believe that the death penalty would deter most criminals from making choices to commit crimes, de facto. Personally, if I knew that eating spaghetti was a crime punishable by death and I HAD to eat spaghetti....because I just had to...I would sooner suffer death than the squalor that is a life in prison. But, then I am not crazy enough to kill and rape people. I don't think the issue here is really "should there be a death penalty". I think it is more of an issue of "what will stop crime more quickly and easily". To think this is possible with the flawed but better-than-anarchy system is like believing the tooth fairy will deliver you a winning lottery ticket.
The argument about the families' wishes for revenge as a response to anti-death penalty arguments is clearly an emotional diversion. However painful, horrible and gutwrenching the crime and the sufferings of the families of victims, as a system, we can't rely on those emotions to determine the outcome of another's life. The facts are really what matter, and if the facts simply don't prove (beyond the shadow of a doubt) what some people believe, that just is not good enough. That is why we have appeals, and due process, etc. If we didn't, anyone could get arrested for anything they "may" have possibly done and forget the idea of being proven...the emotions of the victim would be enough to convince a judge that "this person needs to be put to death". If that were enough, the emotions of the judge, the lawyer, the innocent bystander, the anybody-who-gets-a-newspaper would have precedence over the facts and that is where our entire system goes from flawed to completely arbitrary. We may as well get out our pitchforks and nooses, at that point. At least we *have* a system, flawed or not.
Who are we to determine who dies? Who is anyone? Nobody has that "right". That is why it is unlawful to kill a person...because nobody nobody nobody has the right to take a life of another person. Even our judicial system (which is made up of people, also). If we are going to make a law for the civilization, it should be applicable to all. No killing for us, no killing for the government. (don't get me started on the war)
Self defense is a different notion. It isn't killing, it is protecting. When a situation warrants self defense, no it is not always necessary to kill a person to stop them from doing something, but if killing them is the ONLY way to stop a man from raping or killing you or someone else, then that shouldn't even be debated. But the *facts* should be able to prove that the person was defending themselves, and not guilty of just plain killing.
you're right Glatt - LS's threads do tend to spiral into big EffU fests.
MrNoodle, don't ignore Jag - he may be a limey/eurotrash/aussie twit who is worthy of a thousand lashes from a bicycle chain :mg: , but he does a very good job at making some of us look at issues from a different perspective, when he doesn't spiral into vehement condescension (like many of us do from time to time). that doesn't mean he will ever change your mind on anything, but multiple perspective discussion is why we are in the cellar, right? i had someone on my ignore list for awhile, but i decided that even if that person is always wrong, i was doing myself a disservice by discarding ever point they attempted to make.
Kitsune - do you really believe that the "justice system" is about Justice, or more an exercise in legal maneuvering over a thinly veiled agenda? i tend to believe the second is true for the most part - on both sides of the legal/political spectrum. i believe justice was removed as the central focus many years ago.
it *is* so much easier than having a point isn't it sweetie. No loss from my perspective. Pity I'm not british or the racist slur might've been the only logical thing he'd have said.
Kitsune - do you really believe that the "justice system" is about Justice, or more an exercise in legal maneuvering over a thinly veiled agenda? i tend to believe the second is true for the most part - on both sides of the legal/political spectrum. i believe justice was removed as the central focus many years ago.
This is an interesting question and what I see in the legal system is probably why I've been arguing the points I have. My view a lot of cases, I notice that a lot of the sentances tend to not attempt to repair what has been done, but rather just throw someone in jail. I understand that is what civil trials are for and maybe because they don't make the news as often, I tend to see the jail time be the only correction made for the criminal's actions. While it attempts to "teach a lesson", act as a deterrent to others, and remove the criminal from society, I notice that the victims are left to piece their lives back together on their own. When my car was broken into, I was surprised to find that I was given two options that would decide what happened to the stereo thief: he could either go to jail and have a criminal record or could do community service work for 18 months and repay me for the money I had to pay to the insurance company.
The answer, to me, was obvious: why let someone rot in jail when they could be both contributing back to the society they once damaged and help me recover the costs they caused me to incur? This is why the death penalty, and a lot of the justice system, never made much sense. Why not keep the criminal around and force them not only to be out society but to also put effort and work back into the system they once worked to destroy?
Justice, to me, is about attempting to put things back the way they were. I know this isn't the real definition of it, but as a victim it is the way I'd most like to see it. Of course, with a murder there is nothing that can be done to restore life, but putting another person to death doesn't do anything in a positive direction, either.
who is worthy of a thousand lashes from a bicycle chain
phew, love you too.
do you really believe that the "justice system" is about Justice, or more an exercise in legal maneuvering over a thinly veiled agenda? i tend to believe the second is true for the most part - on both sides of the legal/political spectrum. i believe justice was removed as the central focus many years ago.
Got a better idea? Our democratic system is fairly shite too while you're at it.
The reason jaguar is on my ignore list is because I only have so many cheeks to turn. I have studiously avoided responding in kind to his posts (with a couple of failures), and tried to make it about ideas and not about personal dislike. Over the course of several months, I have come to realize that he is incapable of giving me the same courtesy, so I choose not to read his posts. No particular ill-will, he's just making it unenjoyable for me to participate -- I believe deliberately so.
There are any number of people who say the same things jaguar does, and disagree with me just as vehemently, without trying to incite me. Those people's ideas, I'm interested in.
(these are the times when being Christian is very limiting insofar as letting off steam. I used to could make your ears bleed. sigh.)
I feel the need to interject. It's not that I have much personal against him, it's just that I find myself violently opposed to practically everything he posts, from xenophobic rubbish about Muslims to logically flawed attacks on Sartre. Nothing personal, just deep disagreement. I also find the hypocrisy of a self-confessed Christian who seems to think quite so many people need to be killed or deserve to be killed annoying. If you want to play pious at least be consistent.
well, to be fair Jag, there was a biblical instruction to leave "no stone standing upon another". so the bible is definitely a bit more flexible as to the rules of war and punishment than we are. ;)
and Jag, just to clarify - i wouldn't REALLY condone whipping you with a bicycle chain. unless, it was cleaned and sanitized first. i wouldn't want you to get an infection. sort of like before someone gets the needle, they swab the flesh around the penetration point first... no nasty infections in OUR morgue, thank you very much.
Kits - i don't view the intent of the Justice system as being simply about returning the victim to their previous condition.
the criminal has stepped out of bounds and harmed, not just the victim, but society as a whole. if the crime is severe enough then life in prison, or death are perfectly acceptable to me. i don't feel the justice system is about retribution, but rather punishment. big difference.
i wouldn't REALLY condone whipping you with a bicycle chain. unless, it was cleaned and sanitized first. i wouldn't want you to get an infection. sort of like before someone gets the needle, they swab the flesh around the penetration point first... no nasty infections in OUR morgue, thank you very much.
my mind is at ease, grease is a bitch to get out of flash wounds.
i don't feel the justice system is about retribution, but rather punishment. big difference.
I thought it was about justice?
who's Justice? mine? you don't agree with mine. yours? i don't agree with your definition either. therein lies the problem. we, as a culture, cannot agree upon the definition, let alone the vehicle for justice.
i personally believe that once properly convicted (with room for appropriate appeal) the individual has given up many of their rights. i don't have a problem with the death penalty when carried out in measured, consistant manner. my goal isn't to teach that person a lesson, it is to remove them from society. why lock them up forever? if the crime was heinous enough to justify removing them from society permanently, why keep them alive? to teach them a lesson so they won't repeat their crimes in another life? i believe locking someone in a cell, a new criminal-only society to contend with, with no hope for eventual release is more cruel and unusual than death. if such a policy deters someone from committing a crime, so be it - but that isn't the intention. you broke the rules, you were found guilty of doing so, you pay the price, you are no longer a burden upon society in any way.
also, important to note - i don't believe sitting on death row for years should be an option. run through the appeal system which should be streamlined and when you are done, you are either acquitted, or taken in to have your arm swabbed.
we, as a culture, cannot agree upon the definition, let alone the vehicle for justice.
But we have, that's why we have the penalty system we do inside the criminal justice system we do, no?
I think the thing with the death penalty timelag is that old chesnut I was attempting to bring up with noodle is what if the courts were wrong. Sure, you might've still lost 20 years of your life but you're still alive and haven't been castrated with a hot iron or whatever noodle thinks is appropriate. I don't think prison works either way but at least there is hope if you're wrongly convicted.
Teenager Freed in Killing Faces Robbery Charge
MIAMI, May 24 - Lionel Tate, the teenager sentenced to life in prison when he was 12 but freed when his conviction was overturned, was arrested Monday and accused of robbing a pizza deliveryman at gunpoint, the police said. It was his second arrest since his release in January 2004.
The police charged Mr. Tate with armed robbery after the deliveryman told them he had taken four pizzas to an apartment in Pembroke Pines and saw Mr. Tate hiding with a handgun behind the open door. The deliveryman, Walter Gallardo, said he dropped the pizza boxes and fled, only to be chased by Mr. Tate.
A 12-year-old boy who lives in the apartment told the authorities that he had let Mr. Tate, who was living nearby, use his phone to order the pizzas. Mr. Gallardo returned to the apartment complex with sheriff's deputies and identified Mr. Tate, who was among a group of people eating the abandoned pizzas, as his assailant.
"It's pretty airtight," said Elizabeth Calzadilla-Fiallo, a spokeswoman for the Broward County Sheriff's Office.
But James Lewis, a lawyer for Mr. Tate, who turned 18 in January, said the police charged him only because he was an easy target.
"He tells me that he absolutely robbed nobody, that he had no gun, that he had no altercation," Mr. Lewis said. "The cops came after it was all over and saw him with all the other fellows eating the pizza, and they assumed he was the guy."
Mr. Tate was convicted in 2001 of stomping and slamming Tiffany Eunick, 6, to death while she visited his home in 1999. He is believed to be the youngest American to receive a life sentence. His case became an international rallying point against treating juvenile offenders as harshly as adults.
Mr. Tate had served almost three years in prison when a state appeals court panel reversed his conviction on grounds that his mental competency should have been evaluated before his trial. He was released in January 2004, with the condition that he remain under house arrest for a year and on probation for 10 more.
In September, Mr. Tate was charged with violating house arrest after the authorities said they had found him outside late at night carrying a knife. But a Broward County Circuit Court judge decided against returning him to prison, instead adding five years to his probation.
Mr. Tate also faces a charge of armed burglary with a battery because the 12-year-old witness said Mr. Tate left the apartment after ordering the pizzas, then forced his way back in. He is being held without bail and is to be arraigned Wednesday. Mr. Lewis said his client realized the seriousness of the charges.
"If he had any involvement in this whatsoever, we all know what's going to happen," Mr. Lewis said. "Nobody is under any impression that the system will give him a second chance."
The system already gave him a second chance. Doesn't look like it did much good, did it? Armed robbery...just a trigger-pull away from murder. It means he would've been willing to kill the guy. So much for rehab.
Look, it seems that none of us really agree with each other. There are the pro-DP and con-DP folks. The pros generally seem to agree that something has to be done to protect society, and if a crime is so heinous that it warrants the ultimate penalty, then so be it. The cons generally seem to believe that all life is sacred and/or no one, even the state, has the right to put a person to death, no matter what the crime. Correct me if I'm wrong on this (I know y'all will), but that seems to be the basic premise of each side.
Ultimately, I believe that society must be protected. If it takes the death penalty to keep one person from killing however many others, then I'm all for the death penalty.
I'd be all for life imprisonment if 1.) it really meant LIFE imprisonment, and 2.) prisons were self-sufficient, without the amenities that law-abiding citizens don't even have (like cable, gyms, etc.). Let them grow their own food. Let them make their own clothes (we'll even give them the machines- they can plant cotton, then turn it into material, just like they did back in the day, only we'll give them the machines to do it with). Let 'em have tents and electrified fences. Their own little prison community. For LIFE. That would be fine by me--we could do away with the death penalty. Let them do each other if they choose.
But dammit, society should come first.
Sidhe
You want to see emotion? Try explaining this position to the mother of a baby whose body has been found buried in the woods with her skirt hiked up around her little neck. "Ma'am, I feel your pain, but we mustn't be too extreme. Take a deep breath and think about how badly we would all feel if we were to wantonly PUNISH this man without regard for gentlemanly codes of conduct."
Gulags my ass. When you stop being angry about this kind of shit, that's when you are ripe for takeover by a dictator. He knows you won't do anything to stop him.
One other point.. "A certain percentage of murderers who get out will murder again."
Actually, that is the point, isn't it? :rar:
Thanks, Mr.Noodle...I feel the same way. We SHOULD be emotional over this kind of thing. When we stop being "emotional," we stop caring--at least until it happens to
us. THEN we want "justice."
Catwoman: You're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change yours. I'm merely putting my opinion out here because I feel strongly about it. Welcome to Free America. If you don't like it, don't argue with it. I know how you feel, and you know how I feel. You're getting all flaky because I won't come around to your point of view. Not going to happen. I hold my beliefs as strongly as you hold yours, for reasons that, to me, are probably as strong as your reasons are to you. What makes you more right?
You are intent upon casting me as a "black or white" extremist, and that isn't the case, as you'd see if you'd read my earlier post. I'm not out there saying, "Screw the trial! Hang the bastard!" I'm merely saying that if the bastard is guilty,
then hang him. Or let him come live with you. Either way suits me just fine.
Sidhe
It means he would've been willing to kill the guy.
I'm not going to get into the rest but when I was making dinner earlier I was one stabbing motion away from murder as well.
MrNoodle-->"depends on one's definitions of "extreme", "over the top", and "savage".
Someone who does something like that to a child should be subject to extreme justice, over-the-top measures to ensure he doesn't do it again, and savage consequences for repeat performances, yes. Gentlemanly codes of conduct work among gentlemen, but when the savages come to our place, they should be dealt with in kind.
I suppose it's best I don't hold public office, because I'm tired of the predators being handled with kid gloves and the prey lying out in the street forgotten. While we bicker over access to law books and cable TV for these bastards, the little kids are still DEAD."
Right on.:thumbsup:
xoxobruce: Once again, the voice of reason. You're pretty damned good at mediation, ya know that? :grouphug:
Sidhe
xoxobruce: Once again, the voice of reason. You're pretty damned good at mediation, ya know that?
He's been married a couple of times. Survival training.
Wow....you mean they can be trained?? ;)
I'm not going to get into the rest but when I was making dinner earlier I was one stabbing motion away from murder as well.
Well, luckily for you, killing poor defenseless critters isn't murder...and correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it counts if they're already dead... :p
Wow....you mean they can be trained?? ;)
Bruce is very, very special.
Any guy who can be trained HAS to be...and I mean that in the BEST way, Bruce! :D
If I was really trainable I'd still be married. :fuse:
I'm merely saying that if the bastard is guilty, then hang him. Or let him come live with you. Either way suits me just fine.
Brilliant. If he came to live with me, I'd handcuff him to the radiator and keep him talking until I work out what the fuck kind of mutation occurred in his neurotransmitters. Unlike you, what is most important to me is finding out the truth about life, and I ain't gonna go round destroying it until I know what I'm playing with.
Catwoman: You're not going to change my mind, and I'm not going to change yours bla bla bla don't argue bla bla bla I won't come around to your point of view. Not going to happen. I hold my beliefs as strongly as you hold yours, for reasons that, to me, are probably as strong as your reasons are to you. What makes you more right?
1. An Englishman, an Irishman and a North American are about to buy a new car. They all have to travel 10 miles to work everyday. The Englishman buys a small hatchback that does 50 miles per gallon because it is economical. The American buys a year's subway pass to help save the environment. The Irishman buys a bicycle.
2. Who is right? Is it a matter of opinion, or point of view? Does it depend 'how you look at it'?
3. No. The Irishman is right, because his is the most sensible solution. You have more freedom on a bike, it keeps you fit, helps the environment, costs less etc etc.
4. The Englishman might say 'well, in my opinion, the car will cost less in the long term than a subway pass, and I can't ride a bike, so this is the best option. But what he really means is, this is the best option
for me. Not the best option
period.
5. There is always one overriding truth in any situation.
6. Opinions may be right, they may not. I'm not saying mine IS right, just that there is a right answer.
7. I want to try and find that right answer, and know I'm probably a long way off.
8. It's a shame that no one else cares about finding it.
But I accept that your opinion is more important to you than the truth. No hard feelings.
my ignore list only has one other spot, and I'm saving it for someone who is determined to attack me personally with every post. you don't fit that category.
:worried: It's not me is it? I don't think I attack you personally... I don't mean to anyway. I actually think your posts are quite funny, unless you start talking about important stuff and then you get a bit confused. But I don't hold it against you. ;)
Ignoring people just decreases your exposure to things that push your buttons. Pushing your buttons is a good thing because it usually shows up something you need to work on. If someone says something that annoys me I immediately think 'ooh what's my problem here, why am I annoyed?' It's only for self benefit, no one elses!
And I'd just like to ditto everything jag said.
Can you back this up? Does this mean that all rulings in favor of the defendant are inaccurate?
No, I'm not saying that all rulings in favor of the defendant are inaccurate. I'm saying that the defendant is rightly given all opportunity to be seen in a positive light (ie, you can't tell the jury that he's been convicted of assault in the past to prove that he's guilty of assault now--that can only be used in the penalty phase).
And as my mother was a legal secretary, and I grew up around lawyers and judges, I can say that most of the judges I knew had been lawyers before they became judges. Therefore, I'm presuming that they know the law and how it is applied.
But where did the 97% figure come from? Is that published somewhere?
Would it matter if it was?
The 97% came from my own experience... Having read every true crime book I can get my hands on, interacting with lawyers and judges and cops, working with criminals, and collecting true crime videos.
Or maybe I've just gotten only the ones that showed that, and they haven't sent me/haven't bought the ones that didn't....
Besides, even when I do give stats, it doesn't make a difference, so why bother looking them up when I can use my own experience, which I trust a hell of a lot more than some statistic I wasn't there to see made?
I can appreciate an interest in something for one's own curiosity. I just suspect that figure is wildly exaggerated, no matter how many crime books or attorneys you know. Have you actually sat down and figured that statistic up, or did you just "feel" like it would be 97% based only on what you read and know? I just find it to be highly presumptuous to spout off a seemingly hard statistic and use it as a basis (among other biased anticdotes) for your argument.
So which is it? Can you cite your reference for that 97% figure or are you really just "guessing"? If you can site it, I might be able to salvage some understanding for your opinion in this matter.
I can appreciate an interest in something for one's own curiosity. I just suspect that figure is wildly exaggerated, no matter how many crime books or attorneys you know. Have you actually sat down and figured that statistic up, or did you just "feel" like it would be 97% based only on what you read and know? I just find it to be highly presumptuous to spout off a seemingly hard statistic and use it as a basis (among other biased anticdotes) for your argument.
So which is it? Can you cite your reference for that 97% figure or are you really just "guessing"? If you can site it, I might be able to salvage some understanding for your opinion in this matter.
Actuallly, I think my experience counts for something. All you have to do is look at how many people who were guilty who get off on technicalities; evidence of guilt that is supressed by the court for one reason or another--like "it will inflame the jury--therefore these photos will not be allowed"...."Yes, he has a rap sheet as long as my arm for beating his wife and kids, but we're not going to allow the jury to hear that in this case of him murdering said wife and kids--it's not relevant"-- and things of that nature. If you're going to tell me that THOSE things don't happen, and that they DON'T have an effect, you're fooling yourself.
Better yet, instead of wanting statistics from me, considering that when I put stats out there, it doesn't make people look at my argument any differently anyway, why don't you come up with your own to prove to me that the courts don't accord the defendant every right, even above and beyond that of the victim?
And I don't wanna hear about race and gender. Just because someone of a particular race or gender got convicted doesn't mean they're NOT guilty. Just because you're a minority or a woman or a child does not mean that you don't deserve punishment for a crime that you DID commit, merely because a majority, a man, or an adult who committed the same crime got off. That has no relevance to your particular case. I'm sorry that a guilty person went free. Damned sorry. But that doesn't mean that we should let you go, too.
"it will inflame the jury--therefore these photos will not be allowed"
Showing graphic photos to a jury can only appeal to thier emotional side. It will anger them and make them want to find someone to blame it on, even if that person didn't commit the crime. They are more likely to convict when shown bloody photos. If the photos don't convery any information other than "a brutal murder took place," there is no need to show the jury.
The testimony of the coroner, crime scene investigator, etc. should be enough in most cases. If there is a dispute about the facts, and the photos address those facts, then sure, show the jury the photos.
Once a person has been found guilty and the penalty is being discussed, then it's appropriate to show the photos around. Let them judge the severity of the crime by looking at the scene.
I dunno...look at what happened with OJ....
The only point I am making is that your statistics can't be trusted. You just spouted them off with NO REAL BACKING. So what if you know everything about every case ever tried? We don't know that for a fact, and we can't trust you not to have a clear bias. So, you are the one who spouted off the statistic, you should be the one to have to prove it. I am not making any guess as to what percentage of cases are what. I am not interested in making judgements in that regard. But if I am to take your argument seriously, then I would like to know how you came up with the statistic, to know if you really have a leg to stand on. Since you can't seem to back it up with anything substantial, I guess I will just have to assume you are just spouting off random opinions with no basis in reality.
Of course, if you started using logic and facts to base your ramblings on, your opinions might be viewed differently by this forum, but we can't be so lucky. Those of us who get sick of listening to your circular arguments just have to ignore you, but I guess that's life.
The OJ trial is hardly typical of criminal trials in the USA.
The only point I am making is that your statistics can't be trusted. You just spouted them off with NO REAL BACKING. So what if you know everything about every case ever tried? We don't know that for a fact, and we can't trust you not to have a clear bias. So, you are the one who spouted off the statistic, you should be the one to have to prove it. I am not making any guess as to what percentage of cases are what. I am not interested in making judgements in that regard. But if I am to take your argument seriously, then I would like to know how you came up with the statistic, to know if you really have a leg to stand on. Since you can't seem to back it up with anything substantial, I guess I will just have to assume you are just spouting off random opinions with no basis in reality.
Of course, if you started using logic and facts to base your ramblings on, your opinions might be viewed differently by this forum, but we can't be so lucky. Those of us who get sick of listening to your circular arguments just have to ignore you, but I guess that's life.
I gave statistics earlier, and it didn't seem to make a difference. See the post I made with all the stats...
It's all the fault of the Pokemon stuff ... nobody really dies in battle, they just go unconscious until revived at a Pokecenter. Oh, wait, that's what my generation's parents said about Wile E. Coyote. Never mind.
We really need to get back to reading the unabridged Grimm's Fairy Tales to children.
Maybe the Brits do have something with this kitchen knife control thing ...
or maybe this is just another symptom of our ever-increasing population combined with our ever-decreasing sense of accountability.
more and more people, living closer and closer together, with a larger and larger sense of entitlement with no fear repurcussion. you've got a couple of generations of "don't let anyone tell you what to do - think for yourself"* ingrained into the kids and BLAMMO! more and stupider sh*t happens.
* this is not to suggest we should raise nonthinking subservient clones, but rather that individualism and selfcenteredness can be taken too far.
I have long espoused a theory that much like Malthus' rats there is a level of population density beyond which humans start eating each other.
i'm still pretty picky about who i eat, so we obviously haven't gotten to that density yet.
You aren't in NYC. I'm very worried about BreakingNews. So many people there like Chinese ...
from the posts i've read, he seems to like this and is doing his best to spread the wealth, so to speak.
or maybe this is just another symptom of our ever-increasing population combined with our ever-decreasing sense of accountability.
more and more people, living closer and closer together, with a larger and larger sense of entitlement with no fear repurcussion. you've got a couple of generations of "don't let anyone tell you what to do - think for yourself"* ingrained into the kids and BLAMMO! more and stupider sh*t happens.
* this is not to suggest we should raise nonthinking subservient clones, but rather that individualism and selfcenteredness can be taken too far.
I agree on this. My whole
point is accountability, more so than the death penalty itself. No one ever has to take responsibility anymore, because it's always someone or something
ele's fault that they do the things they do. As long as we keep blaming everyone and everything except the person who committed an act, then there will be the opinion that punishment does not work. How can it work when people have been brought up to believe that nothing is their fault, and hence, they don't deserve punishment?
I'm the first to swat my daughter's bottom when she does something I've told her not to do repeatedly. That's punishment. It's deserved punishment, and it's also a deterrant to her doing it again in the future. It's not my fault that she committed a forbidden act; often, she knows that she's not supposed to do it, because she'll look at me while she's doing it, with that, "hmm...are you going to stop me?" look. I don't give her a punishment that's overly severe for the act. I rarely have to do more than slap her hand or swat her bottom. She cries for a minute, but it's more for effect, and she knows then that sticking one's finger in the light socket is forbidden.
And as to Wolf's comment on the cartoons *grin*...perhaps it was said in a joking manner, but whenever someone slams today's movies as the source of violence in people, especially children, I generally make the point that the movies are more realistic in re consequences than the cartoons are. Ol' Wiley E. Coyote gets blown up, smooshed, etc., and always comes back. When the Terminator blows you away, you're gone for good. Now which one shows consequences in a more realistic way? Hm? Hm? HM?
;)
Sidhe
Punishment...deterrent...
BLAMMO....Hmmm
this is not to suggest we should raise nonthinking subservient clones, but rather that individualism and selfcenteredness can be taken too far.
Yeah, it's all about "ME". Nobody seems to care how their (or anyones) actions affect the community, the country or even the family. :(
Yes, my statement about cartoons was in jest. Sorry for lack of smiley. I was always very, very pissed off by the sanitized verions of the Looney Tunes Classics.
And on Tom and Jerry, the old black lady that runs the house has been paled down and given a scottish accent.
that's blasphemy.
And on Tom and Jerry, the old black lady that runs the house has been paled down and given a scottish accent.
that's blasphemy.
I have a couple of Tom and Jerry dvds at home where the old black lady that runs the house speaks CHINESE! In fact there are two different language tracks in chinese, including subtitles in english and mandarin.
I'm going to have to do some checking. I have volumes one and two of the new golden collections (116 episodes, not including extras) and I have to tell you they look intact. They're supposedly remastered and unedited. The extras even include the propoganda films from the war.
Now I'm going to watch every episode and compare them to the notes.
Dammit...
Yup. One of our cartoons is Porky Pig, I think, and it has him talking to Abraham Lincoln about our history. I'm pretty sure that one doesn't see the light of day anymore....
Wolf: Cool page. I haven't seen that one before. Thanks for posting it.
Sidhe
I like the one that has Porky doing the pledge without 'under god' in it.
I like the one that has Porky doing the pledge without 'under god' in it.
Yup...That's the one I meant.
Teenager Freed in Killing Faces Robbery Charge
MIAMI, May 24 - Lionel Tate, the teenager sentenced to life in prison when he was 12 but freed when his conviction was overturned, was arrested Monday and accused of robbing a pizza deliveryman at gunpoint, the police said. It was his second arrest since his release in January 2004.
...
The system already gave him a second chance. Doesn't look like it did much good, did it? Armed robbery...just a trigger-pull away from murder. It means he would've been willing to kill the guy. So much for rehab.
Or maybe not.
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) - A 13-year-old boy has recanted his statement that Lionel Tate - once the youngest American sentenced to life in prison - robbed a pizza delivery man at gunpoint, Tate's lawyer said Wednesday.
Or maybe not.
Just another step in the chain. Let's just wait a bit longer and see what else comes out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Monkey
Or maybe not.
Just another step in the chain. Let's just wait a bit longer and see what else comes out.
and that, my friends, is why we don't just kill them all and let God sort them out.
Mebbe someone leaned on the 13 year old pressuring him not to testify? The pizza guy says Tate and there's also a print on the pizza box ... were they printed up some years back at the prison?
This is why gangs use underage members for certain murders.
Welcome to the Cellar, Jordan. :)
You're right and there are to many kids trying to "earn" their way in by taking the job, knowing they will not fry.
Welcome to the Cellar, Jordan. :)
You're right and there are to many kids trying to "earn" their way in by taking the job, knowing they will not fry.
i'm not sure what the penalty is matters when it comes to murder. because people don't usually think they're going to get caught for the crime. if they thought they'd get caught, they wouldn't do the murder regardless of whether the punishments was 10 years in prison or if it was death penalty
Still, the death penalty says more than just "we will punish you for your crime" in the same way because you can get life in jail for things less than murder. The death penalty says "We have deemed your actions so abhorent that we refute your right to live". And that's why I'm glad we have it. I don't even think it's punishment, once you're dead everything kind of loses its meaning to you. I'm trying to think of what society used to punish it's worst criminals by not only killing them, but erasing them from all records as if they never existed. Basically saying "You should never have existed on this Earth, we are fixing that problem". Sends a different message, maybe it'll reach its target better.
i'm not sure what the penalty is matters when it comes to murder. because people don't usually think they're going to get caught for the crime. if they thought they'd get caught, they wouldn't do the murder regardless of whether the punishments was 10 years in prison or if it was death penalty
Quite often is does matter, juveniles are often given incarceration until they are adults then freed to start over.
Thinking they won't get caught doesn't always apply. Juveniles in service to thugs, sort of interns, know their status as a juvenile will get them a lighter sentence and win their place in the underworld. Doing a few years for the "Boss" earns his respect and gratitude.
College and career is not an option, nor even choice, for everyone.:cool:
Still, the death penalty says more than just "we will punish you for your crime" ~snip
The death penalty is saying, we don't think rehabilitation is possible, so you're gone. :greenface
*sighs*.... so easily taken in.....