End Capital Punishment: A Government Has No Right to Execute Citizens

[timejim]

And we call ourselves "civilized". I say get rid of all of them. A Government has no business executing its' Citizens, for any reason.

 

[Sonty]

Originally posted by timejim
And we call ourselves "civilized". I say get rid of all of them. A Government has no business executing its' Citizens, for any reason.

It's good for the morale. It helps everybody sleep better at night, wake up in the morning, go to church and believe they are almost without sin. It also helps keeping the ants in line. Oh, and you believe them when they say they're civilized? Should I remind you the first thing I learned about physics? That nothing gets lost, nothing is gained, everything just changes shape? The primal human just put up a mask and started manifesting his instincts in different ways.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by timejim
A Government has no business executing its' Citizens, for any reason.

I agree. In high school and college I debated the pro death penalty position several times by choice. I have changed my mind. I now have too little confidence in the justice system to support such drastic measures, and I now find the moral and ethical objections unavoidable as well. The DNA studies that show a significant false conviction rate has cinched my position. This archaic practice must end.

 

[wasteofo2]

Ivan, what about cases like that of the green river killer in which the person admitted to raping and killing something like 46 women and it is obvious that it isn't a false confession due to the murderer giving accurate accounts of events and not fabricating anything?

If you can prove beyond a doubt someone is guilty of a crime like raping and killing dozens of women, do you think that execution is still wrong? What about people like osama bin laden or others who head terrorist organizations or people like former nazi officers? Would you rather the American taxpayers help keep Osama bin laden alive than give him a shot? Would you have kept Hitler in some sort of maximum-security jail if he hadn't killed himself? I don't have the figures with me at the present, but it costs quite a bit to keep a prisoner alive each year, what's the point of not killing murdurers and terrorists when keeping them alive will cost a lot of money, which could be used to do a lot of good around the world? Imagine all the little starving African kids which could be fed with the thousands of dollars it costs per year to keep one psycho killer alive.

Timejim, want to back up your thoughts with reason? Who are you to dictate what a government should and shouldn’t do?

 

[Sonty]

All the people you mentioned are still useful. Even the most terible killer. Why kill them when you can painfully torture them? They would make a better example. You could make the "normal" murderers do some hard useless job like carrying a stone up and down some stairs. Death doesn't scare some people anymore. Work scares everybody.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by wasteofo2
Ivan, what about cases like that of the green river killer in which the person admitted to raping and killing something like 46 women and it is obvious that it isn't a false confession due to the murderer giving accurate accounts of events and not fabricating anything?

If you can prove beyond a doubt someone is guilty of a crime like raping and killing dozens of women, do you think that execution is still wrong? What about people like osama bin laden or others who head terrorist organizations or people like former nazi officers? Would you rather the American taxpayers help keep Osama bin laden alive than give him a shot? Would you have kept Hitler in some sort of maximum-security jail if he hadn't killed himself? I don't have the figures with me at the present, but it costs quite a bit to keep a prisoner alive each year, what's the point of not killing murdurers and terrorists when keeping them alive will cost a lot of money, which could be used to do a lot of good around the world? Imagine all the little starving African kids which could be fed with the thousands of dollars it costs per year to keep one psycho killer alive.

On one level it really doesn't matter how certain we may be of guilt. I have a real problem with giving any machine like the justice system that kind of power. There can always be corruption, bias, political agendas, falsification of documents, falsification of evidence and so on. There can always be an element of doubt. Note that to kill someone, we need not be certain of guilt, just certain beyond reasonable doubt.

What exactly is reasonable? This statement alone shows this to be a subjective evaluation and not one to which I would trust my life. This is one thought that also affected my position: If I were unjustly accused of murder, what system do I want in place. In all cases, I cannot imagine trusting a bunch of strangers with my life; especially when faced with a slick prosecuting attorney. Remember, your head could be another notch in the belt of an attorney who seeks political office.

Also, did you know that Clinton added something like thirty more reasons for which the government can execute a person? Is that scary or what? This had to do with computer sabotage and such - crimes of high treason - but still... nearly thirty?

Finally, it is now argued that due to the costs for the typical appeals made before the state can execute a person, it is cheaper to keep them in jail for life. This would seem to be true according to the discussions I have heard from various news sources over the years. I am sure some con death penalty group can provide the facts to back this up.

 

[wasteofo2]

Ok, but what about people like Saddam, Bin Laden, Officials in tyrannical governments etc.?

And what if there was footage of someone going into a store and killing everyone with 2 machine guns, the police immediately caught him as he was leaving the store and he kills 3 police officers with the same guns before he's aprehended, what about then?

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Note that to kill someone, we need not be certain of guilt, just certain beyond reasonable doubt.

What's wrong with proof beyond a resonable doubt? Are you implying that they should disprove unreasonable doubts as well before they execute someone? It's certainly possible that aliens took over someone's mind and forced them to perpetrate a crime, but rather unreasonable to consider in a court of law, wheras falsification of documents, political agendas etc. are perfectly reasonable.

I'd imagine clinton added more reasons for which someone could be executed for due to the new ways in which people can commit crimes and cause others harm with technology.

 

[wasteofo2]

Originally posted by Sonty
All the people you mentioned are still useful. Even the most terible killer. Why kill them when you can painfully torture them? They would make a better example. You could make the "normal" murderers do some hard useless job like carrying a stone up and down some stairs. Death doesn't scare some people anymore. Work scares everybody.

Eh, I was simply arguing death vs. imprisonment. Forced manual labor was kind of abolished a while ago in the USA and I don't think anyone who thinks killing people with a shot is uncivilized would be happy with those same people doing hard labor for no pay for their whole lives.

I do support goolags for prisoners though, if we had prisoners work as slaves we could boost the economy mucho.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by wasteofo2
Ok, but what about people like Saddam, Bin Laden, Officials in tyrannical governments etc.?

A martyr is more dangerous than a crippled leader. You can only kill a martyr once. His influence can live forever.

And what if there was footage of someone going into a store and killing everyone with 2 machine guns, the police immediately caught him as he was leaving the store and he kills 3 police officers with the same guns before he's aprehended, what about then?

Well, if someone I loved was killed in that store, then obviously I might be filled with hatred and want "an eye for an eye", but looking at this objectively, what do we gain by killing anyone?

How do we elevate ourselves as a people by killing? How does this improve society? If the threat to society is effectively removed by a life sentence, then the death sentence becomes an act of vengence. Since there can never be absolute certainty of guilt, how many false convictions should we accept in order to satisfy this need? We cannot assume a perfect system since this will likely never happen. We must accept that some innocent people will die by false convictions. So you tell me, how many innocent lives may we sacrifice? How about if you or a loved one was the sacrificial lamb for our bloodlust? How would you feel about the death penalty then?

What's wrong with proof beyond a resonable doubt? Are you implying that they should disprove unreasonable doubts as well before they execute someone? It's certainly possible that aliens took over someone's mind and forced them to perpetrate a crime, but rather unreasonable to consider in a court of law, wheras falsification of documents, political agendas etc. are perfectly reasonable.

1). What exactly is reasonable doubt?
2). How do you ensure that each juror or judge agrees with your interpretation?
3). What if I don't agree with your interpretation; and Russ doesn’t agree with mine?
4). How do we ensure that each juror and judge is objective and honest?
5). Why do you call for aliens when one dirty cop will do?

I'd imagine clinton added more reasons for which someone could be executed for due to the new ways in which people can commit crimes and cause others harm with technology.

This is what I said. This is just too much power for any machine to have over real people. Again, one act of corruption could end an innocent person’s life. The older I get, the more I realize how foolish it is to give the government or any agency any more power than it absolutely must have to in order operate effectively. We are taught about grand notions like “Social Contracts”, and "God and country", and other broad spectrum and ill defined notions like "National Security", and surely these all have their place, but these words can ring hollow as well. Princes and despots all use the same language.

 

[Sonty]

Originally posted by wasteofo2
Eh, I was simply arguing death vs. imprisonment. Forced manual labor was kind of abolished a while ago in the USA and I don't think anyone who thinks killing people with a shot is uncivilized would be happy with those same people doing hard labor for no pay for their whole lives.

I'm just thinking not to recognize their quality of being human. Let the RSPCA handle them.
And who said anything about not being paid? They are being kept alive. Isn't that enough? If they want out we can introduce a posibility for suicide.
The main thing is that you cannot reason with an animal and man is an animal. If education and conscience don't step into control the disaster you only have an animal which must be treated as an animal.

 

[member 5645]

Why is it that the government doesn't have the right to kill it's citizens, but it has the right to imprison them (remove their freedoms)?


I support the penalty, but the prospect of making such people slave laborers is quite appealing to me as an alternative

Rapists, murderers, child molesters...hrrmmmm, all that free labor! Works for me! :D (no pun intended ;) )

 

[member 5645]

Other states are trying to abolish the death penalty. In Texas, we're adding a nexpress lane

Forensic evidence and 3 eye witnesses means you will be dead within 6 months of judgement, thus cutting down on the cost of housing people for 18+ years and appeals.

 

[Silverious]

Well, if someone I loved was killed in that store, then obviously I might be filled with hatred and want "an eye for an eye", but looking at this objectively, what do we gain by killing anyone?

The survival of our own ideals. And of course, in the scenario you created, the removal of a menace of society.

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by timejim
And we call ourselves "civilized". I say get rid of all of them. A Government has no business executing its' Citizens, for any reason.

Luckily I live in a nation which does not do any such things.

I agree, a state should never have the authority to execute its citizens.

However, I think that in the case of crimes which either end life (murder, negligent homicide, et cetera) or permanently reduce quality of life (rape, mutilation, et cetera), the victim or relatives of the victim should be given the opportunity for revenge. Ie. the law should permit them to take some form of revenge (injure, kill, whatever) if they wish. Allow individual citizens the choice to become killers if they wish. But never let the state have the authority to execute citizens.

As for me, no, I would not ever want to murder a bound, unarmed human. That would make me a coward. But other people might choose to do it.

 

[Adam]

An important matter to consider. Regardless of the authority or ethics you think you have, or you think your state has, none of it changes the fact that if you kill the prisoner, or support his execution, then you are a killer, or at least condone killing.

Is it worth being a killer? Do you want to be one? What does life mean to you?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by Adam
An important matter to consider. Regardless of the authority or ethics you think you have, or you think your state has, none of it changes the fact that if you kill the prisoner, or support his execution, then you are a killer, or at least condone killing.

Is it worth being a killer? Do you want to be one? What does life mean to you?

Right on!

 

[member 5645]

I repeat...

Originally posted by phatmonky

Why is it that the government doesn't have the right to kill it's citizens, but it has the right to imprison them (remove their freedoms)?

 

[Vosh]

Why do we have Electric Chairs, Gas Chamber, Lethal Injection, Hanging, Firing Squads?



Because it's a sadistic thrill inflicting torture and death on other organisms, animals, people, whatever. The fact that someone committed horrific acts is just a convenient excuse for ppl. who aren't out of control sociopaths to satisfy the deep down curiosity of what it's like to do something like that to someone. Even I'm aware of this in myself, but I have enough consciousness and logic to know better.

I remember when I first saw the WTC buildings on tv the morning of 9-11 thinking of calling the President (yes, *this* president) and asking, "where do I stand"; but in the next few time frames I started looking around and noticing how my fellow persons were reacting. They weren't angry because it happaned. They were angry because it happened to *them*. My sympathy turned to fog and evaporated away.

 

[timejim]

Originally posted by wasteofo2
Ivan, what about cases like that of the green river killer in which the person admitted to raping and killing something like 46 women and it is obvious that it isn't a false confession due to the murderer giving accurate accounts of events and not fabricating anything?

If you can prove beyond a doubt someone is guilty of a crime like raping and killing dozens of women, do you think that execution is still wrong? What about people like osama bin laden or others who head terrorist organizations or people like former nazi officers? Would you rather the American taxpayers help keep Osama bin laden alive than give him a shot? Would you have kept Hitler in some sort of maximum-security jail if he hadn't killed himself? I don't have the figures with me at the present, but it costs quite a bit to keep a prisoner alive each year, what's the point of not killing murdurers and terrorists when keeping them alive will cost a lot of money, which could be used to do a lot of good around the world? Imagine all the little starving African kids which could be fed with the thousands of dollars it costs per year to keep one psycho killer alive.

Timejim, want to back up your thoughts with reason? Who are you to dictate what a government should and shouldn’t do?

Don't have to because "reason" is an opinion "one" develops within their own mind to justify their belief. You cannot justfy reason. Here is some food for thought: I have a good understanding for what I say as I was "Police Officer" at a Texas municipality for 3 years. I graduated Valedictorian of the Police Academy. I finally realized the "reason" Police officers are recruited at a young "adult" age. It is very, very easy to "brainwash" a young mind to the "Systems" way of thinking more than it would be, say, a 50 year old. They taught us at the Academy that EVERY traffic stop must be handled as though the individual you are stopping had "just killed their whole family and is escaping". Therefore, your actions at the traffic stop should be to act accordingly. Seen any replays of "COPS" lately on TV? Notice how OFTEN the police have their GUNS directed at someones HEAD? Scary.

 

[Vosh]

Originally posted by wasteofo2
Ivan, what about cases like that of the green river killer in which the person admitted to raping and killing something like 46 women and it is obvious that it isn't a false confession due to the murderer giving accurate accounts of events and not fabricating anything?

If you can prove beyond a doubt someone is guilty of a crime like raping and killing dozens of women, do you think that execution is still wrong? What about people like osama bin laden or others who head terrorist organizations or people like former nazi officers? Would you rather the American taxpayers help keep Osama bin laden alive than give him a shot? Would you have kept Hitler in some sort of maximum-security jail if he hadn't killed himself? I don't have the figures with me at the present, but it costs quite a bit to keep a prisoner alive each year, what's the point of not killing murdurers and terrorists when keeping them alive will cost a lot of money, which could be used to do a lot of good around the world? Imagine all the little starving African kids which could be fed with the thousands of dollars it costs per year to keep one psycho killer alive.

Timejim, want to back up your thoughts with reason? Who are you to dictate what a government should and shouldn’t do?

I'm an American and so I am the government!

I would deal with a tragedy like that happening in my life with perspective and eventual healing if I lived in a society that was committed to doing the right thing, that was trully just -- that is, a society that didn't ignore children who torture and kill animals until they grow up and do it to a human being; a society that kept violent ppl. in a cage away from the rest of us instead of letting them out after "punishing" them for some period of time; a society that didn't glorify violence at every turn.

Here's why folks today have a problem with the idea of keeping only violent ppl. in jail and really keeping them their. A lot of folks like to think it's pretty cool to "punch out" or other wise do something violent to someone who says something that hurts their wittle feewings so they pull up short of supporting the idea of making room in prisons for all violent ppl. and leaving them their. Ppl. are self serving like this. Consider that the prison guard unions will do whatever it takes to thwart a law that will lessen crime and free up prison space because that would mean a need for fewer prison guards.

And ppl. wonder why aliens don't make contact.

 

[Vosh]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Other states are trying to abolish the death penalty. In Texas, we're adding a nexpress lane

Forensic evidence and 3 eye witnesses means you will be dead within 6 months of judgement, thus cutting down on the cost of housing people for 18+ years and appeals.

If one day you're lucky enough to have the power to jail or otherwise eliminate political prisoners, dissidents etc. then naturally it makes sense to get started today on a system that gets them out of the way quickly!

At least, that is what these ppl. are fantasizing about down in the bubbling smelly pit of their unconscious mind.

 

[Thallium]

Originally posted by Adam
Is it worth being a killer? Do you want to be one? What does life mean to you?

You really want an answer? If I had to kill to save someone I loved early so that he should not be killed, I would do it. I would not want to be a killer. Wanting is different from having to be one. Life means too much and I would avoid killing anyone if I saw a chance.

 

[wasteofo2]

Lots of people against me, I'm not going to be able to reply to you all, I'll reply to Ivan and then some general things.

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
A martyr is more dangerous than a crippled leader. You can only kill a martyr once. His influence can live forever.

A leader in prison can be an inspiration, just as a martyt can. Nelson Mandella spent something like 20 years imprisoned, black people in south africa didn't suddenly stop wanting equality, and after he got out he became president.

Simmilarly, if we had imprisoned hitler for life it's very likely that nazis would start hating america along with everyone else they already hated and done things in honor of their captured leader, perhaps even try to break him free.

Though I see your point that if we humiliate the leader, like capturing him in the situation we did Saddam Huessein and then having that video of him being examined copmlacently that it might hurt the morale of their followers, but then again it could encite them and they could write it off as propaganda ment to degrade their leader.

I know that if I were part of some sort of hypothetical revolutionary group and my leader was imprisoned and humiliated I'd be enraged and what vengence for my leader. Imagine that you're fighting in the american revolution and Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams and Ben Franklin were all taken prisoner by the british and publically humiliated, would your desire for american independence suddenly fade away or would that just make you despise the british even more?

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking

Well, if someone I loved was killed in that store, then obviously I might be filled with hatred and want "an eye for an eye", but looking at this objectively, what do we gain by killing anyone?

How do we elevate ourselves as a people by killing? How does this improve society? If the threat to society is effectively removed by a life sentence, then the death sentence becomes an act of vengence. Since there can never be absolute certainty of guilt, how many false convictions should we accept in order to satisfy this need? We cannot assume a perfect system since this will likely never happen. We must accept that some innocent people will die by false convictions. So you tell me, how many innocent lives may we sacrifice? How about if you or a loved one was the sacrificial lamb for our bloodlust? How would you feel about the death penalty then?

It's not what we gain so much, as what we don't loose. I really have doubts that all the things that are required to keep someone alive for several decades is less expensive than whatever it costs the state to hold trials. Depending on your religion/ethical beliefs, killing a wicked man might bring you satisfaction/honor. Of course the system isn't perfect, but I'm only hypothetically defending the death penalty in a case where it's certain someone is guilty.

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking

1). What exactly is reasonable doubt?
2). How do you ensure that each juror or judge agrees with your interpretation?
3). What if I don't agree with your interpretation; and Russ doesn’t agree with mine?
4). How do we ensure that each juror and judge is objective and honest?
5). Why do you call for aliens when one dirty cop will do?

Of course peoples ideas of what is a resonable doubt will differ, and the system isn't perfect, but being guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is the criteria which must be presented for anyone to be convicted of any crime at all. People can be just as crooked and dishonest on a trial and convict a man of murder and sentence him to life in jail. What you seem to have is a lack of trust in the american executive and legislative branches of government as a whole. By your logic no one should ever be convicted of any crime because there is always some doubt which someone will consider reasonable in the case. If you abolish the death penalty people won't suddenly become honest and all knowing and only imprison people who are totally guilty. Innocent people will still be sentenced to life in jail.

Plus, we live in a democratic republic. Officials are voted upon to decide things like what is a reasonable doubt, if you're unhappy with what is the consideration of reasonable, try to change it.

And I think a dirty cop is a perfectly reasonable doubt in someone's conviction.

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking

This is what I said. This is just too much power for any machine to have over real people. Again, one act of corruption could end an innocent person’s life. The older I get, the more I realize how foolish it is to give the government or any agency any more power than it absolutely must have to in order operate effectively. We are taught about grand notions like “Social Contracts”, and "God and country", and other broad spectrum and ill defined notions like "National Security", and surely these all have their place, but these words can ring hollow as well. Princes and despots all use the same language.

Are you saying we shouldn't make new laws for punishment of crimes as new ways of commiting crimes appear? Without the death penalty one act of corruption could send an innocent man to jail until he dies, is sentencing someone to life without liberty any better than death?


Timejim: In response to your comment about reason being personal, read my response to ivan highlighted in red. And by saying that reason is a personal thing and that you can't justify it, you're negating any claim you make, since, by your own logic, it is a totally personal stance and totally unjustifiable. Personally, I doubt that you were a police officer.

In general response:

I have no moral problems with killing a killer, especially not one who will spend his whole life doing nothing productive in jail that I will have to help pay for with my taxes. I also have no qualms about killing an unarmed man who's done things I would have killed him for while he was commiting them in the past. Maybe some of you would rather fight to the death with someone who raped and killed your mom, I'd be fine restraining him and giving him a shot. Now if prisoners were forced into labor, I'd like to keep as many alive as possible, but that's not the case largely.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Adam
An important matter to consider. Regardless of the authority or ethics you think you have, or you think your state has, none of it changes the fact that if you kill the prisoner, or support his execution, then you are a killer, or at least condone killing.

Is it worth being a killer? Do you want to be one? What does life mean to you?

I condone justified killings,and yes it is worth it being a killer.
Do I want to be one? By you, I am one.





So, why did the USA get rid of hard labor? Cruel and unusual? Seems everyone on both sides supports convicts doing free labor for the rest of us who choose to play by the rules.




No one has yet answered my question BTW.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Adam
An important matter to consider. Regardless of the authority or ethics you think you have, or you think your state has, none of it changes the fact that if you kill the prisoner, or support his execution, then you are a killer, or at least condone killing.

Is it worth being a killer? Do you want to be one? What does life mean to you?

Dunno about you, but when I signed up for the military, the requirement to be a killer was something I was aware of. I did however room with a guy who quit after 2 weeks because he had never considered the possibility. Boggles my mind.

So yes, in the confines of my job in the military, I could have been a killer and I certainly did condone killing. Worth being a killer? Essential. Did I want to be one? No - but I'd do it if necessary. Life is not something to be taken lightly - its the most fundamental right. But it can be taken.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Dunno about you, but when I signed up for the military, the requirement to be a killer was something I was aware of. I did however room with a guy who quit after 2 weeks because he had never considered the possibility. Boggles my mind.

So yes, in the confines of my job in the military, I could have been a killer and I certainly did condone killing. Worth being a killer? Essential. Did I want to be one? No - but I'd do it if necessary. Life is not something to be taken lightly - its the most fundamental right. But it can be taken.

I will respond to the other posts more later but I wanted to comment on your statement. First, I agree with your basic position. I never did go the military route but I came within a day of doing so [a friend came over and talked me out of it the night before signing]. I completely accepted that killing goes with military service. At the same time, I have known quite a few people who served in Vietnam. A lot of them went over feeling like you and I but they returned with a completely different opinion. It seems that a little killing goes a long way...like the gift that just keeps giving. It seems that killing at a distance is not so bad; you know what just happened, but it’s not like looking your victim in the eyes as you pull the trigger. This is the luxury of "the death penalty": It allows for killing at a distance. First and foremost, I think anyone who supports the death penalty should be willing to pull the switch them self. I you could do this then at least your position is consistent.

Now, killing as in a war is ideally done only for reasons of survival. It is supposed to be the last option. We can't jail our enemy like we can a convict. We can't eliminate the threat to society for a matter of $60,000 a year [or whatever the latest cost per inmate is these days]. We make war and kill because there are no other options as required to preserve and protect the constitution - The United States and our way of life.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I think anyone who supports the death penalty should be willing to pull the switch them self. I you could do this then at least your position is consistent.

I've always wondered - where do they get the guys for the firing squad, and how can I sign up?

 

[Adam]

When I joined the military, the thought of killing and such really wasn't that important to me. I was far more interested in the traveling and other things. Eventually I realized what it was all about. Note I am no longer in the military.

The reason a state should not have the right to execute its citizens is that it gives the state an easy and permanent way to settle disputes with the citizens. In other words: 'Live by my rules or I use the ultimate force to end the discussion".

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Adam
When I joined the military, the thought of killing and such really wasn't that important to me. I was far more interested in the traveling and other things. Eventually I realized what it was all about. Note I am no longer in the military.

The reason a state should not have the right to execute its citizens is that it gives the state an easy and permanent way to settle disputes with the citizens. In other words: 'Live by my rules or I use the ultimate force to end the discussion".

Why is death the ultimate force?
Why do you view death as a more heinous punishment than removal of your freedoms?

Why will no one answer this?

 

[wasteofo2]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Why is death the ultimate force?
Why do you view death as a more heinous punishment than removal of your freedoms?

Why will no one answer this?

In my current mental state, If I was guilty of a crime which could either get me a life sentnce or death, I would think that I'd prefer the life sentence. I enjoy living too much I guess.

Also, if I knew I was innocent of the crime there's always the chance that I'll be freed eventually.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by wasteofo2
In my current mental state, If I was guilty of a crime which could either get me a life sentnce or death, I would think that I'd prefer the life sentence. I enjoy living too much I guess.

Also, if I knew I was innocent of the crime there's always the chance that I'll be freed eventually.

As a criminal you think like this... You also think you will be freed eventually (but most death penalty opponents use life in prison without parole as an alternative).

I personally would rather be dead than be born in a country where I do not have personal rights. Whatever happened to the crowd who believed the same?


Life without parole, or death? I'd take death.


Edit - thanks for answering my questions - one more thing, Are you against the death penalty? If so, why? I am trying to find out why people feel the government shouldn't be able to take life, but should be able to take freedom and rights.

 

[wasteofo2]

Originally posted by phatmonky
As a criminal you think like this... You also think you will be freed eventually (but most death penalty opponents use life in prison without parole as an alternative).

I personally would rather be dead than be born in a country where I do not have personal rights. Whatever happened to the crowd who believed the same?

I was saying in my current mental state, being someone who hasn't commited a crime worthy of death or life imprisonment. That was meant to show that I am a certain way now, and if I were to change so much that I would do something worthy of death/life in jail, my mental state would probabally change very much, and I don't know what I would prefer at that point.

You're born with rights, as well as responsibilities in america. You keep your rights if you follow the law, if you break the law and are convicted by due process of law, your rights can be taken form you, as the constitution prescribes.

Originally posted by phatmonky

Life without parole, or death? I'd take death.


Edit - thanks for answering my questions - one more thing, Are you against the death penalty? If so, why? I am trying to find out why people feel the government shouldn't be able to take life, but should be able to take freedom and rights.

If you read my other posts, I've been the only one defending the death penalty as opposed to life inprisonment in much length. However if prisoners were used for labor I'd be against the death penalty just to have more workers. Except of course, for psychotic violent people who might throw people into the machinery in the factories or something.

 

[wasteofo2]

Originally posted by Adam

The reason a state should not have the right to execute its citizens is that it gives the state an easy and permanent way to settle disputes with the citizens. In other words: 'Live by my rules or I use the ultimate force to end the discussion".

Yes, and the state having easy and permanent ways to do things is a horrible thing. We must fight for the state to only have difficult and temporary solutions for problems, otherwise the state might actually enforce its laws upon its citizens... It's not like the citizens voted on the laws, or voted for the people who voted on the laws or anything.

 

[Thallium]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Why is death the ultimate force?
Why do you view death as a more heinous punishment than removal of your freedoms?

Why will no one answer this?

I will answer one. Everybody seems to ignore my messages so you are not alone phatmonky. The first one:

Death is the ultimate force, the ultimate punishment(if you prefer to call it a punishment), because it leaves the involved who have survived safety and the ability to reuptake their lvies from when the victim was killed. It leaves society safer as well. Though this can be discussed. If the offender is kept imprisoned for the rest of his life without ANY - ANY - chance of escape, then that is something else. Or otherwise, the decision to execute the offender is plainly revenge. And revenge is not always the solution(..??)...

The second: Deprivation of one's freedom is the worst punishment. That is the torment the offender is capable to feel over a long period. Death is just a second and then there is no more.

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Other states are trying to abolish the death penalty. In Texas, we're adding a nexpress lane

Forensic evidence and 3 eye witnesses means you will be dead within 6 months of judgement, thus cutting down on the cost of housing people for 18+ years and appeals.

Or one eyewitness, with a stranger-on-stranger ID, at night, from 20 feet away, for one second, whose description does not match the defendant, with no useful corroborating evidence will get you executed after a few years.

Njorl

 

[member 5645]

Thanks to those who have answered, but I'd still like to know...


WHY is it that the state should have the right to remove freedoms, but not life?
This has been said in this thread, and I don't follow the logic that you should have this sort of removal,but not death...unless you don't believe that removal of freedom and rights is worse than death(then we simply disagree on values).

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Njorl
Or one eyewitness, with a stranger-on-stranger ID, at night, from 20 feet away, for one second, whose description does not match the defendant, with no useful corroborating evidence will get you executed after a few years.

Njorl

sarcasm and no facts will get you everywhere.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Thanks to those who have answered, but I'd still like to know...


WHY is it that the state should have the right to remove freedoms, but not life?
This has been said in this thread, and I don't follow the logic that you should have this sort of removal,but not death...unless you don't believe that removal of freedom and rights is worse than death(then we simply disagree on values).

In the U.S. system of law, ideally we seek a balance between personal liberties and a safe society. Ideally we use the minimum amount of force, and yield the minimum of power to agencies assigned to protect the welfare of the population. Personally, I would love to live in an ideal society free of laws, but this ideal does not exist. A lack of law or agencies to enforce that law results in domination by violence if not civil war. It is not possible to live "free" without the protections and therefore the constraints imposed by civil law.

At the same time, I feel that we have yielded far too many rights. For starters, it is not necessary to kill a convict in order to protect the innocent. For this and many other reasons I think the death penalty must go.

I have asked how many innocent people may be put to death each year in order to support a flawed justice system. I am still looking for the acceptable head count. This is probably a quantifiable percentage. This will determine how many deaths in total are acceptable each year.

 

[member 5645]

Who would support hard labor for convicts, rather than just jail time or death?? Make them do work for the rest of us.

Is this a system that both sides agree on? and if so, why did we move away from this system?

 

[wasteofo2]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Who would support hard labor for convicts, rather than just jail time or death?? Make them do work for the rest of us.

Is this a system that both sides agree on? and if so, why did we move away from this system?

I guess the conditions prisoners used to work in were equivalent or worse than those black slaves worked in, and people wanted to end that. I'm not looking for slave style labour really, only swear-shop style.

It's really wierd, I've asked extreme republicans, democrats, cynical independants along with communists and they've all agreed that prisoners should be forced to do labor. Can't see why GWB doesn't institute that.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
At the same time, I have known quite a few people who served in Vietnam. A lot of them went over feeling like you and I but they returned with a completely different opinion. It seems that a little killing goes a long way...like the gift that just keeps giving. It seems that killing at a distance is not so bad; you know what just happened, but it’s not like looking your victim in the eyes as you pull the trigger. This is the luxury of "the death penalty": It allows for killing at a distance. First and foremost, I think anyone who supports the death penalty should be willing to pull the switch them self. I you could do this then at least your position is consistent.

I understand completely and I don't mean to sound like Rambo or anything - having never been in a situation where I needed to pull a trigger or (throw a switch for that matter), I can't say that I'd have the cajones to do it. One of the goals of training is to make you not think about it, but training can never fully prepare you for combat. But anyway, that is what the job requires.

I'm of the "put up or shut up" school of thought, so I have to be willing to pull the trigger or throw the switch - and I am. Indeed, one of the reason I joined the military is I consider it a duty. But I won't say I actually could go through with it should the time come. I just don't know.

When I joined the military, the thought of killing and such really wasn't that important to me. I was far more interested in the traveling and other things. Eventually I realized what it was all about. Note I am no longer in the military.

Thats apparently not a unique situation, Adam, but that just makes it more mindboggling to me.

WHY is it that the state should have the right to remove freedoms, but not life?

Your wording makes that a little tough to answer, phat: I think the state DOES have the right to take your right to life - or rather, if you commit a crime where you take away another's right to life, you forfeit yours.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by russ_watters
. Your wording makes that a little tough to answer, phat: I think the state DOES have the right to take your right to life - or rather, if you commit a crime where you take away another's right to life, you forfeit yours.

My wording is only as odd as the statement it is in response to :)
The entire first page is full of people who say "A government has no business executing it's citizens".
I just can't fathom that, if this is the reasoning behind being against the death penalty, such people support jail time at all then.
The only explanation is that they value life more than freedom and personal rights [?]

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by phatmonky
sarcasm and no facts will get you everywhere.

Are you familiar with the case of Gary Lee Graham?

Six eyewitnesses of the shooting say he was not the killer.

The only witness to see the killer up close, in good light and for a prolonged period of time claims he was definitely not the killer.

Four people gave alibi evidence that he was elsewhere.

One eyewitness, who had the worst view of the shooting, testified at trial that he did it. She saw him for 2-3 seconds at most, from 30-40 feet in the dark. Her identification was also tainted by the procedure used by the police.

Even if untainted, stranger on stranger identification under those conditions is inaccurate over 2/3's of the time.

That was the entirety of the "proof " against him.

There was no physical evidence linking him to the crime.

His court appointed lawyer assumed he was guilty and mounted no defense, and has stated so.

His appeal on merits was denied because all of the exculpatory evidence not presented at trial was known, but not presented.

His appeal on the basis of his attorney's incompetence was rejected because his attorney was not incompetent in general, he just didn't do his job in this one case.

That's Texas justice. That's why there should be no death penalty.

He is dead now.

Njorl

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
I have asked how many innocent people may be put to death each year in order to support a flawed justice system. I am still looking for the acceptable head count. This is probably a quantifiable percentage. This will determine how many deaths in total are acceptable each year.

This will be hard to determine. In Virginia, the state supreme court ruled that protecting the state's reputation is grounds for destroying DNA evidence after a convict has been executed (the case of Joseph Roger O'Dell III). This is the same court that ruled that proof of innocence is not grounds for staying an execution (Roger Keith Coleman).

Njorl

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Njorl
Are you familiar with the case of Gary Lee Graham?

Six eyewitnesses of the shooting say he was not the killer.

The only witness to see the killer up close, in good light and for a prolonged period of time claims he was definitely not the killer.

Four people gave alibi evidence that he was elsewhere.

One eyewitness, who had the worst view of the shooting, testified at trial that he did it. She saw him for 2-3 seconds at most, from 30-40 feet in the dark. Her identification was also tainted by the procedure used by the police.

Even if untainted, stranger on stranger identification under those conditions is inaccurate over 2/3's of the time.

That was the entirety of the "proof " against him.

There was no physical evidence linking him to the crime.

His court appointed lawyer assumed he was guilty and mounted no defense, and has stated so.

His appeal on merits was denied because all of the exculpatory evidence not presented at trial was known, but not presented.

His appeal on the basis of his attorney's incompetence was rejected because his attorney was not incompetent in general, he just didn't do his job in this one case.

That's Texas justice. That's why there should be no death penalty.

He is dead now.

Njorl

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/graham.htm

 

[Njorl]

'"I've killed six people already; if you want to be number seven, do something stupid." ~ Gary Graham '

That was from a prison snitch. He probably traded it for a carton of cigarettes.

Nothing in that site alters that he was convicted soley on the testimony of a single eyewitness under adverse circumstances. Stranger on stranger ID in ordinary crime circumstances is terribly inaccurate.

The site makes much of changing eyewitness testimony about the height of the killer. First they say he was tall and thin, then about 5'5" then 5'6" to 5'9". The site is being intentionally misleading.

Five eyewitnesses stated initially to police that the shooter was tall and thin, but shorter than the victim. They were then told that the victim was only 5'6". You can not judge absolute height from a distance, only relative height. Some said the killer must have been below 5'6" then. Later, these witnesses were told the victim was 5'9". The witnesses then alterred their description to say the killer could have been up to 5'9". This garbage was used to dismiss these witnesses as unreliable. The witnesses were consistent in saying he was shorter than the victim. It was the police and the coroner who were inconsistent.

There is no doubt Graham was a thug. He might very well have killed people. But there was no credible evidence presented at trial that he committed this crime.

Just a little thing about judging heights from a distance without reference. I am husky, with short arms and legs - built like a short person. While standing at centercourt alone on a basketball court, an assistant coach on a friends team thought I was about 5'10". This is a man who looks at people and immediately thinks height. He was off by seven and a half inches. I'm 6'5 1/2". When you look at a person without reference and guess their height, you don't look at where their head is, subconciously, you look at their build, and the length of their arms and legs compared to their torso.

Njorl

 

[Vosh]

Originally posted by phatmonky
Thanks to those who have answered, but I'd still like to know...


WHY is it that the state should have the right to remove freedoms, but not life?
This has been said in this thread, and I don't follow the logic that you should have this sort of removal,but not death...unless you don't believe that removal of freedom and rights is worse than death(then we simply disagree on values).

Yes we do. Your values dictate that it is okay to just terminate someone to remove them from society because being kept in a cage is a kind of death anyway. My values dictate that it is only ok to terminate someone in self defense and that keeping someone in a cage in a civilized state means they aren't treated with cruel and unusual punishment (and someday this will happen) and that there is hope of rescuing those who are actually innocent etc. etc. etc.

I think my values are more conducive to civilization. It helps if you don't just parrot a reactionary talk show host or pastor. Actually think about it objectively, honestly, outside of labels like consoivative or libruhl.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Njorl
'"I've killed six people already; if you want to be number seven, do something stupid." ~ Gary Graham '

That was from a prison snitch. He probably traded it for a carton of cigarettes.

Nothing in that site alters that he was convicted soley on the testimony of a single eyewitness under adverse circumstances. Stranger on stranger ID in ordinary crime circumstances is terribly inaccurate.

The site makes much of changing eyewitness testimony about the height of the killer. First they say he was tall and thin, then about 5'5" then 5'6" to 5'9". The site is being intentionally misleading.

Five eyewitnesses stated initially to police that the shooter was tall and thin, but shorter than the victim. They were then told that the victim was only 5'6". You can not judge absolute height from a distance, only relative height. Some said the killer must have been below 5'6" then. Later, these witnesses were told the victim was 5'9". The witnesses then alterred their description to say the killer could have been up to 5'9". This garbage was used to dismiss these witnesses as unreliable. The witnesses were consistent in saying he was shorter than the victim. It was the police and the coroner who were inconsistent.

There is no doubt Graham was a thug. He might very well have killed people. But there was no credible evidence presented at trial that he committed this crime.

Just a little thing about judging heights from a distance without reference. I am husky, with short arms and legs - built like a short person. While standing at centercourt alone on a basketball court, an assistant coach on a friends team thought I was about 5'10". This is a man who looks at people and immediately thinks height. He was off by seven and a half inches. I'm 6'5 1/2". When you look at a person without reference and guess their height, you don't look at where their head is, subconciously, you look at their build, and the length of their arms and legs compared to their torso.

Njorl

Wasn't trying to change your mind - Just show you that there are two sides to every story :)
BTW- your stat about 4 alibi's? only 2 were put in court, and both deemed unreliable. :)

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Vosh
Yes we do. Your values dictate that it is okay to just terminate someone to remove them from society because being kept in a cage is a kind of death anyway. My values dictate that it is only ok to terminate someone in self defense and that keeping someone in a cage in a civilized state means they aren't treated with cruel and unusual punishment (and someday this will happen) and that there is hope of rescuing those who are actually innocent etc. etc. etc.

I think my values are more conducive to civilization. It helps if you don't just parrot a reactionary talk show host or pastor. Actually think about it objectively, honestly, outside of labels like consoivative or libruhl.

That's fine, I simply was looking for that as an answer.


just parrot a reactionary talk show host? give me a ****ing break. I was asking a legit question, and I was going to thank you for answering, but apparently that's not needed.

So my question now is, do you feel the same way about your rights, as you do a prisoners- simply, would you rather be dead, or live in a place where you have no rights? I'd personally prefer death.

 

[Vosh]

Originally posted by phatmonky
That's fine, I simply was looking for that as an answer.


just parrot a reactionary talk show host? give me a ****ing break. I was asking a legit question, and I was going to thank you for answering, but apparently that's not needed.

So my question now is, do you feel the same way about your rights, as you do a prisoners- simply, would you rather be dead, or live in a place where you have no rights? I'd personally prefer death.

Ppl. who take things personally and cry hot tears over it and feel the need to hit back like a baby have not reached adulthood yet. There should be a separate forum (planet) for you folks. Call me when you're grown up.