Hope none of these guys get to anyone's neighborhood here.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33340592/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

They should take away good behavior credits. Either give someone a goddamm sentence or don't

They found a loophole in the law, its not a argument for the dealth penalty.

I write a loooonnnggg essay on how the Death Penalty is wrong.

Lord-Loss wrote:They found a loophole in the law, its not a argument for the dealth penalty.

I write a loooonnnggg essay on how the Death Penalty is wrong.

It is when these people get to do the stuff that got them in the slammer all over again and mess up someone else's life.

Hmm. It seems like this would be less of a problem if 80 years meant 80 years. And not actually as little as 40.

Relapse wrote:

Lord-Loss wrote:They found a loophole in the law, its not a argument for the dealth penalty.

I write a loooonnnggg essay on how the Death Penalty is wrong.

It is when these people get to do the stuff that got them in the slammer all over again and mess up someone else's life.

Really? The problem is that we didn't kill them and not the fact that there was a loophole in the laws? That's what you are arguing?

Unbelievable.

There are many arguments both for and against the death penalties use as a deterant to criminals, however I think that we can all agree that the death penalty certainly prohibits scum like this being capable of re-offending. If it is decided that someone is too dangerous to ever be considered for release, then surely it is A, more humane to euthanise them than keep them locked up without hope of freedom and B, a lot more cost effective than having tax payers foot the costs of keeping them until they do finaly die.

Ozymandias wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Lord-Loss wrote:They found a loophole in the law, its not a argument for the dealth penalty.

I write a loooonnnggg essay on how the Death Penalty is wrong.

It is when these people get to do the stuff that got them in the slammer all over again and mess up someone else's life.

Really? The problem is that we didn't kill them and not the fact that there was a loophole in the laws? That's what you are arguing?

Unbelievable.

For killing someone you get punished by being....killed. WTF

That's essentially my problem with the death penalty.

What's the penalty for kidnapping?

squilverine wrote: A, more humane to euthanise them than keep them locked up without hope of freedom and B, a lot more cost effective than having tax payers foot the costs of keeping them until they do finaly die.

So we should kill then to save $$ ??

Orkeosaurus wrote:Hmm. It seems like this would be less of a problem if 80 years meant 80 years. And not actually as little as 40.

Agreed.

I used to be for the death sentence until I found out that it was more expensive than keeping them locked up. 80 years sounds about right. That'd make them 98+ when they get out, If they commit crimes at that age they should get a medal.

squilverine wrote:There are many arguments both for and against the death penalties use as a deterant to criminals, however I think that we can all agree that the death penalty certainly prohibits scum like this being capable of re-offending. If it is decided that someone is too dangerous to ever be considered for release, then surely it is A, more humane to euthanise them than keep them locked up without hope of freedom and B, a lot more cost effective than having tax payers foot the costs of keeping them until they do finaly die.

Exactly my point. If a person is executed, they are no longer a danger. A few years back Utah executed the last of what were called the "High Fi Killers". These guys went into a sterio shop, tortured and raped the people there and finally murdered them. Among other things they kicked a pen into a victim's ear and forced them to drink Drano.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hi-Fi_Murders

When the last one was executed years later, the usual mob of anti death peanlty people showed up with one of the crew, with a big smile, even thanking the murderers for bringing them all together. I can't help but think the self righteous smile would be off his face if they'd been released into his neighborhood.
Not one word was mentioned about the victims by the crowd in all this.
I admit this is an extreme case and I don't believe all people should be executed, especially if there is any doubt about guilt, but people like these guys with firm evidence against them should be shot like dogs. It's cheaper than keeping them around and safer than risking them escaping jail.

lol are you complaining about an 80 life sentence? Here life is 16 years and a murder usually gives like 8-12 (a guy got 4 about a year ago, but it was apealed and changed to 6)

Relapse wrote:
Exactly my point. If a person is executed, they are no longer a danger. A few years back Utah executed the last of what were called the "High Fi Killers". These guys went into a sterio shop, tortured and raped the people there and finally murdered them. Among other things they kicked a pen into a victim's ear and forced them to drink Drano.

They're no longer a threat in the event of a life, or something like 200 year, sentence either.

Relapse wrote:
Not one word was mentioned about the victims by the crowd in all this.

Why should they be mentioned? They're dead, they don't care. Talking about the victims is just a convenient cover for personal catharsis.

Relapse wrote:
I admit this is an extreme case and I don't believe all people should be executed, especially if there is any doubt about guilt, but people like these guys with firm evidence against them should be shot like dogs.

The problem is that you must draw up a regulation which defines what 'firm evidence' is, such that the regulation cannot be exploited by an overly gung-ho judicial system. Just look at the variance, even from state to state, when considering what constitutes 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Exactly my point. If a person is executed, they are no longer a danger. A few years back Utah executed the last of what were called the "High Fi Killers". These guys went into a sterio shop, tortured and raped the people there and finally murdered them. Among other things they kicked a pen into a victim's ear and forced them to drink Drano.

They're no longer a threat in the event of a life, or something like 200 year, sentence either.

They are if there's even the slightest chance they can escape.

Relapse wrote:
Not one word was mentioned about the victims by the crowd in all this.

Why should they be mentioned? They're dead, they don't care. Talking about the victims is just a convenient cover for personal catharsis.

It's just that people like these seem to always gloss over that these guys face death for a reason.

Relapse wrote:
I admit this is an extreme case and I don't believe all people should be executed, especially if there is any doubt about guilt, but people like these guys with firm evidence against them should be shot like dogs.

The problem is that you must draw up a regulation which defines what 'firm evidence' is, such that the regulation cannot be exploited by an overly gung-ho judicial system. Just look at the variance, even from state to state, when considering what constitutes 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

If someone is dead caught to rights with totaly irrefutable evidence that even someone with one eye and a spoonful of brains can use to see guilt, then I think they should be put down.

This story illustrates the dead to rights point and why these people should be shot.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33093144/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

Lord-Loss wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Lord-Loss wrote:They found a loophole in the law, its not a argument for the dealth penalty.

I write a loooonnnggg essay on how the Death Penalty is wrong.

It is when these people get to do the stuff that got them in the slammer all over again and mess up someone else's life.

Really? The problem is that we didn't kill them and not the fact that there was a loophole in the laws? That's what you are arguing?

Unbelievable.

For killing someone you get punished by being....killed. WTF

...
You don't understand the idea behind the death penalty if you think that it's "you get killed for killing someone".

The idea behind the death penalty is a very, very simple one:

You took a life. You violated one of the most widely recognized rules of societies everywhere. You didn't take a life to protect your country, your community, your home, your family, your friends or yourself.

You took that life for your own damned reasons.
And do you really think they just give the death penalty for fun? They deliberate over allowing it. It requires a VERY specific set of circumstances for it to even be on the table.

But therein lies the problem now. Punishing some two bit gangbanger who lived below the poverty line with jailtime? Hell. He ends up with a BETTER life in prison than he did outside of it. And if he flips on his gang? More perks in his new, closed life.
Frankly, this is ridiculous that it happened. I'm glad Perdue thinks so too, here's hoping she does something about it.
I had to study some of these cases not too long ago, and some of it is downright despicable.

As far as I'm aware only Tx and Florida seem to hand out executions like candy. Makes me wonder how soon until their supply of life-taking drugs runs out.

I've read somewhere it costs tax payers on average $100k a year per inmate that is held in a max-security prison. So, over a period of 80 years it will cost taxpayers $8M dollars so some douche who raped 3 little girls can have the right to live to the ripe old age of 98 (and frankly, he won't live that long anyway most likely just because of what he did).

I'm pretty sure it's a lot less than $8M to pump 2 drugs into someones body; a painkiller and then the actual euthanizer.

Yet, it would cost hardly anything to reinstate firing squads.

Friggin' international community forbidding it.

Kanluwen wrote:Yet, it would cost hardly anything to reinstate firing squads.

Friggin' international community forbidding it.

Hanging is cheapest yet. Rope is pennies a foot.

Yeah, but bullets get the job done quicker No chance of people arguing "cruel and unusual punishment"!

Gotta know how to hang and make sure the rope isn't too long. Put the knot at back of the neck all you'll do is choke them to death, put it to the side and 99% of the time the neck will snap killing the person.

If they survive then you shoot them. Saves on ammo because the same rope can be used for a long time over and over.

Or we can always start in with creativity.

I say we utilize helicopters. And dogs. Everyone loves dogs!

I say we lock them in a 8X8 shed and make them listen to boy band music for a straight 96 hours and then make them watch Brady Bunch for the rest of the week. Alternate back and forth until they die from brain hemorrhage.

I've always said we need to use some of the smaller islands to convert them into arenas for large scale deathmatches for prisoners.

And have it sold on pay per view, with the profits going to the victims of the prisoners.

Good idea. Would give me something to shoot at other than deer and drug dealers.

squilverine wrote:There are many arguments both for and against the death penalties use as a deterant to criminals, however I think that we can all agree that the death penalty certainly prohibits scum like this being capable of re-offending. If it is decided that someone is too dangerous to ever be considered for release, then surely it is A, more humane to euthanise them than keep them locked up without hope of freedom and B, a lot more cost effective than having tax payers foot the costs of keeping them until they do finaly die.

This is basically my position. On the issue of the death penalty being more costly then prison life-cycle expenses, then clearly we need to switch to a cheaper method of execution.

1. Have other inmates dig graves outside.
2. Take death penalty guy out to grave.
3. Hit him in the back/top of the head with the edge of the shovel. He should fall into one of the graves.
4. Have the inmates fill in the hole.


Should cost about $5 for the reusable shovel, and make the inmates count their blessings for only being in there for burglary.

You are confused Noble. You are backwards. We are saying keeping them locked up for 80 years is more costly than execution. None of the methods of execution costs millions of dollars. I'm guessing injection is the costliest but I'm sure even that is maybe $100k tops per inmate vs $8M over 80 years.

Fateweaver wrote:You are confused Noble. You are backwards. We are saying keeping them locked up for 80 years is more costly than execution. None of the methods of execution costs millions of dollars. I'm guessing injection is the costliest but I'm sure even that is maybe $100k tops per inmate vs $8M over 80 years.

Still, $5 vs $100,000 is an improvement regardless of the other factors. The biggest expense of death row is the lengthy approval and appeals process, which on a per-prisoner basis is FAR more expensive than "normal" life imprisonment (see below). Which says to me that we should just limit the appeals process for executions to <5 years (or something), with those cases being given highest priority so they don't have to wait in the backlogged bureaucracy for ages. This way they still have the opportunity to appeal but we retain the ability to store and eliminate them in a tax-dollar efficient manner.


The High Cost of the Death Penalty
Costs of the Death Penalty

Yeah, although I think that happens more with States that are more liberal minded. Florida and Texas hand out executions so rapidly I don't think the prisoners even have time for their 15 minute phone call.

Okay a slight exaggeration.

I also see what you say Noble. The cheapest way is to just fill a boat full, take them about 1/4mile off the coast into the ocean, cover them with fresh animal blood and parts and then toss them overboard. Butchers would give the blood up free so the only expense would be the cost of fuel to take a boat that holds about 12 people 1/4 mile out into the ocean and back.

The British Government is afraid to give us a referendum on reinstating the death-penalty, because studies show most people want it. It should be brought in for terrorist offences, in my opinion. If Taliban are spotted planting an IED, they get vaporised by a helicopter gunship. If someone tried to commit a terror attack in my country, I'd knife them myself, no sweat.

The death penalty should apply to any offence like speeding, shoplifting and swearing.. OBEY!

Actually when I was a security guard I would of happily given the death penality to the teenagers and dumbasses who shoplifted.. Doing the world a favor. Also for aggressive Drunks the law should allow me to kill you for being a fighty spanker.

Also no paper work just let me do it judge dredd style..

Fateweaver wrote:We are saying keeping them locked up for 80 years is more costly than execution.

Except you would be wrong. A death row inmate going through the process costs far more than the life sentence in the USA. It isn't the execution that is costly, it is the legal costs. Legally executing a human being is very costly.

We also don't use the death penalty because someone killed someone else. Many murderers, if not most, never get the death sentence. It is a complicated mess of both politics and the nature of the crimes beyond killing other people. The political pat of it I think plays the biggest part of the two myself.

I'm a little concerned these additional appeals not being important enough for people sentenced to life in prison to also deserve them.

It is a political thing, though.

We need to drop Death Row. It ought to be like it was in the wild west days. You were caught murdering or raping or molesting or cattle rustling you got hung. No trial, no waiting in jail for months or years.

I mean honestly, if a LI execution took 5 minutes to perform (could be longer but I'm sure not by much) they could do, let's be conservative here, 8 executions per hour. Could do 64 executions in a single day.

That would clear out DR in about a week (or less depending on the State).

Or just line up 2 dozen men in front of a ditch, put a .45 to the back of the head where the spine meets the brain stem and boom.....12 executions in less than 5 minutes. Efficient and guaranteed no survivors.

Fateweaver wrote:We need to drop Death Row. It ought to be like it was in the wild west days. You were caught murdering or raping or molesting or cattle rustling you got hung. No trial, no waiting in jail for months or years.

I mean honestly, if a LI execution took 5 minutes to perform (could be longer but I'm sure not by much) they could do, let's be conservative here, 8 executions per hour. Could do 64 executions in a single day.

That would clear out DR in about a week (or less depending on the State).

Or just line up 2 dozen men in front of a ditch, put a .45 to the back of the head where the spine meets the brain stem and boom.....12 executions in less than 5 minutes. Efficient and guaranteed no survivors.

Your a sick and twisted person...

Fateweaver wrote:We need to drop Death Row. It ought to be like it was in the wild west days. You were caught murdering or raping or molesting or cattle rustling you got hung. No trial, no waiting in jail for months or years.

Yeah, no need to find out if they are actually guilty. Become a murderer yourself to alleviate a misplaced sense of justice. It is better, after all, to feel like one is doing the right thing rather than actually having to do the right thing.

How is it sick and twisted to drop all the red tape bs and execute someone right away for a crime they did commit?

Let's forget for a second criminals that aren't caught red handed but have dna to link them. Let's focus on the ones that get caught red handed.

Not sure if you have kids or if you are a teen yourself but have a younger sister.

Can you honestly tell me with a straight face that if you walked in on some guy molesting your 9yo sister that you wouldn't want to see him executed for it (or perhaps want to do it yourself)? He was caught by you, you witnessed him doing it. So why should it take years and years for him to get executed and in the meantime getting 3 square meals a day, free room and board and cable tv until the day the courts decide his life is over?

Why not just do it the day of sentencing? It's obvious he did it so there would be no room for "it might not have been him, the evidence doesn't really point to him."

It's easy to say the death penalty is not necessary until you catch some dude getting himself off using your 9yo sis or brother or daughter/son as a sex toy. Yeesh.

Yes, I have a younger sister.

I would want that guy dead, but that would be a biased opinion.

Seriously, Fateweaver, are you a troll? It's ubelievable to me that you can't understand why execution on the day of sentencing would be horribly open to abuse.

Da Boss wrote:Seriously, Fateweaver, are you a troll? It's ubelievable to me that you can't understand why execution on the day of sentencing would be horribly open to abuse.

I dont think he is a troll, he's got some twisted opinions though.

Fine, let's give it a week.

I think the problem here lies in the fact that the ones thinking I'm evil for my thoughts on the death penalty don't want it. I'm too lazy to read back over old posts so not sure who is for and who is against but to those people who are against it, why are you against it? If you are for it then why am I so wrong in wanting quicker turnaround times for executions?

There is no reason on Earth a man sentenced to die for something he CLEARLY did has to wait on death row for months, even years at a time.

If your commanding officer sees you turn tail and run from a fight he has authority to put one in the back of your skull. Why the hell does non-military execution for certain crimes have to take so damn long?

Fateweaver wrote:How is it sick and twisted to drop all the red tape bs and execute someone right away for a crime they did commit?

Let's forget for a second criminals that aren't caught red handed but have dna to link them. Let's focus on the ones that get caught red handed.

Not sure if you have kids or if you are a teen yourself but have a younger sister.

Can you honestly tell me with a straight face that if you walked in on some guy molesting your 9yo sister that you wouldn't want to see him executed for it (or perhaps want to do it yourself)? He was caught by you, you witnessed him doing it. So why should it take years and years for him to get executed and in the meantime getting 3 square meals a day, free room and board and cable tv until the day the courts decide his life is over?

Why not just do it the day of sentencing? It's obvious he did it so there would be no room for "it might not have been him, the evidence doesn't really point to him."

It's easy to say the death penalty is not necessary until you catch some dude getting himself off using your 9yo sis or brother or daughter/son as a sex toy. Yeesh.

You know... in Texas which you seem to be so proud of, we are running into the problem now where evidence is being retested and finding out that people who were convicted weren't actually guilty due to shoddy work. There is a reason there is an appeals process, and there is a reason there are multiple appeals. And yes, it is cheaper to keep someone alive for life than to get the death penalty.

Your one witness scenario as above is also very open for abuse. We already have enough problems with people making false claims of sexual assault against people ruining their lives. Here you would theoretically have someone killed on a "he said, they said" situation? Yeah... great idea there chief.

Fateweaver wrote:If your commanding officer sees you turn tail and run from a fight he has authority to put one in the back of your skull.

Wouldnt that be wasting a 'US soldiers life' and according to you "One US soldiers life is worth 1M Iraq's lives".

Fateweaver have you ever left America, or even left your state?

Really? Apparently you don't know anything about molestation. It is obvious that if you walk in on some dude who is laying on top of your 9yo sister/daughter and is clearly raping her it is no longer a he said/she said, it's pretty goddamn obvious he isn't giving her CPR or trying to keep her warm by hugging her naked body to his own naked body.

It's also pretty obvious to any doctor when a full grown male penetrates a 9yo.

I don't live in Tx so can't say I'm proud of it but I do wish Mn was more like Tx and less of a liberal, bleeding heart State.

Again, with the evidence gathering methods we have today there is no reason someone sentenced to die TODAY should need 15 years worth of appeals. It is good they are going back and opening old cases using current tech to make sure those that are guilty are guilty but again, we need to draw the line at the obvious.

If you are clearly and without mistake caught for raping or molesting or torturing someone or murdering someone in cold blood, you should die. What is so hard about that concept to grasp?

I think nationality isn't important in this case LL.

Lord-Loss wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:If your commanding officer sees you turn tail and run from a fight he has authority to put one in the back of your skull.

Wouldnt that be wasting a 'US soldiers life' and according to you "One US soldiers life is worth 1M Iraq's lives".

Fateweaver have you ever left America, or even left your state?

I don't write the goddamn military laws so don't twist gak around on me. I'm not necessarily saying I agree, I'm just saying it is what it is.

I have left the country and state but I don't see what that has to do with my thoughts on the death penalty.

To spell it out for people not getting it. If are caught penetrating sexually or committing any other sexual act against a preteen boy/girl (molesting) or you are caught in the act of carving someone up into 20 pieces (murder in the 1st degree) or clearly penetrating a grown woman against her will (rape) you should die. It is that simple. People thinking otherwise should not be calling me a monster, they should be looking at themselves and questioning their own morals.

Egads. Execution is not without it's flaws but in the above cases to say someone should get even a single appeal just makes me question the hearts of those that are questioning me.

If it'll help strengthen your hatred toward me LL (as it's apparent you think I'm a monster) than just so you know, if I caught any man raping my gf or molesting my kids or murdering any of my family in cold blood they would not get a second chance at life. I'd call 911 and tell them to send an ambulance and then I'd tell the dispatch that I just killed a man, I'd hang up the phone and then put a bullet into the head/face of whoever was committing said crime. See, I saved the tax payers millions of dollars and opened up one more prison cell. LOL.

Gents, all the name calling and whatnot is only going to get this thread locked when there is a good potential to honestly learn different points of view.
I can see the worth in both sides of the argument, myself.
On the one hand, you don't want to be executing innocent people, but on the other hand, as in the examples I cited in my earlier psts on this thread, there was no question of guilt or the sadism involved in the crimes committed.
It is these types of cases that make me say the death peanalty should be enacted without a lengthy appeals process. Perhaps the number of appeals could be conditional to the degree of certainty the accused actually committed the crime.
For example, someone kills someone else in a fight or heat of passion such as a man walking in on his wife with someone else or other such circumstance. No death peanalty should be handed down in my opinion in these cases. In Manson style murders or in the cases I cited earlier, I'd say at the most, two appeals within a couple of months and that's all.
True, these are spur of the moment ideas without a lot of legal knowledge behind them, but to me, it's the best way to keep these kind of people from ever being a danger again.

Fateweaver wrote:

Lord-Loss wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:If your commanding officer sees you turn tail and run from a fight he has authority to put one in the back of your skull.

Wouldnt that be wasting a 'US soldiers life' and according to you "One US soldiers life is worth 1M Iraq's lives".

Fateweaver have you ever left America, or even left your state?

I don't write the goddamn military laws so don't twist gak around on me. I'm not necessarily saying I agree, I'm just saying it is what it is.

I have left the country and state but I don't see what that has to do with my thoughts on the death penalty.

To spell it out for people not getting it. If are caught penetrating sexually or committing any other sexual act against a preteen boy/girl (molesting) or you are caught in the act of carving someone up into 20 pieces (murder in the 1st degree) or clearly penetrating a grown woman against her will (rape) you should die. It is that simple. People thinking otherwise should not be calling me a monster, they should be looking at themselves and questioning their own morals.

Egads. Execution is not without it's flaws but in the above cases to say someone should get even a single appeal just makes me question the hearts of those that are questioning me.

If it'll help strengthen your hatred toward me LL (as it's apparent you think I'm a monster) than just so you know, if I caught any man raping my gf or molesting my kids or murdering any of my family in cold blood they would not get a second chance at life. I'd call 911 and tell them to send an ambulance and then I'd tell the dispatch that I just killed a man, I'd hang up the phone and then put a bullet into the head/face of whoever was committing said crime. See, I saved the tax payers millions of dollars and opened up one more prison cell. LOL.

And nicely placed yourself in it.

You are neither judge nor jury.

But it gets better. Using your system...

I don't like you. Neither do my friends, one of whom is the DA. For hypothetical purposues you are a young black male in an ethnically white area. We arrange a situation where you are alone with someone very young, who also really doesn't like you. We burst into the room and thrash you. We then call the police. We swear on a stack of bibles that that was what was happening was your attempted rape of the young girl. You are relatively poor, lower middle class I'll bet. You'll have to use an overworked underpaid public lawyer. Now in the common system you'll have the opportunity to cop a plea which the public defender will recommend (it's easier on him). The trial will occur rapidly though using your system. The DA has a tremendous need to get the conviction politically, as he's now in a high profile case (potential death penalty) and will pull out any stops to get the conviction. The public defender not so much. The odds are now firmly stacked in the favour of your death. Using your method, your legal murder has been carried out.

Maybe if your lucky you'll get public defender Joe Frank Cannon, who was/is famous for having slept through some of his trials.

or better yet as in the hypotheical case here you are black you could get James Venable, 83, a former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan who was notorious for sleeping through trials.

I wish I could remember the name of the guy but I remember a fellow being arrested with his girlfriend for something fairly awful. The case revolved around an eyewitness who saw them. They executed the guy and the chick was still in the appeals process. During all of it some information came up and when they went back and asked the eyewitness he broke down and admitted to the entire thing. To bad the guy was already dead, but at least he gets a better headstone now, miright?

It's a fact that even eyewitness testimony can be unreliable- people can be lead into contructing entirely new viewpoints/memories from certain questioning.

efarrer wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:

Lord-Loss wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:If your commanding officer sees you turn tail and run from a fight he has authority to put one in the back of your skull.

Wouldnt that be wasting a 'US soldiers life' and according to you "One US soldiers life is worth 1M Iraq's lives".

Fateweaver have you ever left America, or even left your state?

I don't write the goddamn military laws so don't twist gak around on me. I'm not necessarily saying I agree, I'm just saying it is what it is.

I have left the country and state but I don't see what that has to do with my thoughts on the death penalty.

To spell it out for people not getting it. If are caught penetrating sexually or committing any other sexual act against a preteen boy/girl (molesting) or you are caught in the act of carving someone up into 20 pieces (murder in the 1st degree) or clearly penetrating a grown woman against her will (rape) you should die. It is that simple. People thinking otherwise should not be calling me a monster, they should be looking at themselves and questioning their own morals.

Egads. Execution is not without it's flaws but in the above cases to say someone should get even a single appeal just makes me question the hearts of those that are questioning me.

If it'll help strengthen your hatred toward me LL (as it's apparent you think I'm a monster) than just so you know, if I caught any man raping my gf or molesting my kids or murdering any of my family in cold blood they would not get a second chance at life. I'd call 911 and tell them to send an ambulance and then I'd tell the dispatch that I just killed a man, I'd hang up the phone and then put a bullet into the head/face of whoever was committing said crime. See, I saved the tax payers millions of dollars and opened up one more prison cell. LOL.

And nicely placed yourself in it.

You are neither judge nor jury.

But it gets better. Using your system...

I don't like you. Neither do my friends, one of whom is the DA. For hypothetical purposues you are a young black male in an ethnically white area. We arrange a situation where you are alone with someone very young, who also really doesn't like you. We burst into the room and thrash you. We then call the police. We swear on a stack of bibles that that was what was happening was your attempted rape of the young girl. You are relatively poor, lower middle class I'll bet. You'll have to use an overworked underpaid public lawyer. Now in the common system you'll have the opportunity to cop a plea which the public defender will recommend (it's easier on him). The trial will occur rapidly though using your system. The DA has a tremendous need to get the conviction politically, as he's now in a high profile case (potential death penalty) and will pull out any stops to get the conviction. The public defender not so much. The odds are now firmly stacked in the favour of your death. Using your method, your legal murder has been carried out.

Maybe if your lucky you'll get public defender Joe Frank Cannon, who was/is famous for having slept through some of his trials.

or better yet as in the hypotheical case here you are black you could get James Venable, 83, a former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan who was notorious for sleeping through trials.

Hmm, sorry but in Mn (and other States that aren't liberal pansy States) I have the right to use deadly force in my dwelling if it means preventing a Felony. If I come home and some dude is raping my gf or molesting my daughter, guess what? I am within my rights to blow that son-of-a-bitches head off because rape and molestation are Felonies.

Now if I saw it happening in a park or parking lot than I would not be within my rights to kill the guy but I do have the right to use necessary force to stop him. Dragging him off and beating his face to a pulp would not be excessive, not to mention any jury is going to be hard pressed to put you in prison for beating the crap out of someone molesting a 9yo (or 8 or 6 or 12, insert any preteen age).

So yeah, in regards to my own home the law is on my side regarding killing someone for raping my gf or 9yo daughter or killing either of them.

Nice try though. I give you 2 thumbs up.

Now if you are going to take the law into your own hands then you shouldn't be out on the streets, mate. Granted that it's certainly understandable in these cases you've mentioned, but it is not condonable.

Let's say you don't like the guy. You invite him over for a couple of drinks, sit him down somewhere, and plug him with your shotgun. You can claim that he was attempting to rape your daughter or gf or trying to steal your crap (who wouldn't be that hard to convince to go along with your story). It's now your word against him. And he's dead. Condoning Lethal Force to the puplic in preventing crime would lead to A LOT of unattractive situations. What I'm trying to say is, we want to avoid situations like 'It's my house, my rules and I'll blow your ****ing head off you don't like it!'

On the other hand, there are crimes that are so despicable that death seems all too good for them. The Hi-Fi robbery is a good example. But these are to be resolved through the legal system. Don't take thing into your own hands, becuase then you are little better than they.

BTW, I heard that a particular country somewhere (I forget where) executes some criminals via gunshot, then charges the family for the price of the bullet. Saves on costs, eh?

Fateweaver wrote:We need to drop Death Row. It ought to be like it was in the wild west days. You were caught murdering or raping or molesting or cattle rustling you got hung. No trial, no waiting in jail for months or years.

Fateweaver wrote: put a bullet into the head/face of whoever was committing said crime.

.......So according to the system you agree with you should be dead?

Or would they make special laws for people in your situation? Oh never mind, you wouldnt get a trial anyway.

I remember in the Hi-Fi robbery, one of the things that came out was that the robbers were going to shoot someone, and in an attempt to save them, the boy told them to shoot him instead.
I watched the live interview with the last robber before his execution, and there was no remorse, just grandstanding and telling people to take time to smell the flowers.

Violence begets violence...

He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword...

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind...

youngblood wrote:They should take away good behavior credits. Either give someone a goddamm sentence or don't

Why if someone is good shouldnt thay have there sentance reduced?

garret wrote:

youngblood wrote:They should take away good behavior credits. Either give someone a goddamm sentence or don't

Why if someone is good shouldnt thay have there sentance reduced?

Because it allows Rapiest, murders and child molesters to get out of jail. There meant to be serving a life sentence and when its reduced to 40 years because of good behavior that means we have those rapiests, murders and child molesters back on the streets.

Why do people treat prisoners as less then human.
There people who made a mistake and if they made up for it they desrve freedom.

garret wrote:Why do people treat prisoners as less then human.
There people who made a mistake and if they made up for it they desrve freedom.

In a normal crime, then yes.

The criminal does there time and is out ready to live there life, hopefully never commit a crime again. But when the offender has commited such a evil crime as murder, rape etc, do they deserve to be free?

Serial killers should get life and have no chance of being let out, but maybe for murder (Depending on the situation the offender was is) they should be able to go free.

So your saying that if serial killer attones for there crimes does community service and is a good person in jail they dont deserve a second chance? everyone deserves a second chance.

garret wrote:So your saying that if serial killer attones for there crimes does community service and is a good person in jail they dont deserve a second chance? everyone deserves a second chance.

Not a serial killer, no. Nobody who kills multiple people deserves to be set free.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I heard that a particular country somewhere (I forget where) executes some criminals via gunshot, then charges the family for the price of the bullet. Saves on costs, eh?

That would be China.

garret wrote:

youngblood wrote:They should take away good behavior credits. Either give someone a goddamm sentence or don't

Why if someone is good shouldnt thay have there sentance reduced?

Because this leads to the news article that started this thread. As was pointed out by Lord-Loss, all sort of undesirables get another chance at doing the things that landed themselves in jail in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

garret wrote:So your saying that if serial killer attones for there crimes does community service and is a good person in jail they dont deserve a second chance? everyone deserves a second chance.

These people got a second chance.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33093144/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

After a quick overview, Relapse truly gets a cookie... but the road was long, and the flying monkeys did attack on many an occasion so...

Do the victims get a second chance?

And yes, Relapse brings this point up. If people with a track record can be set free into soceity, then how the hell are we supposed to feel safe? How can we be sure the won't perpetrate these acts again?

It really boils down to whether you are willing to take that chance. And whether you are willing to take that chance on someone elses behalf.

A government cannot be benevolent.

It has nothing of its own to sacrifice.

My death penalty argument is very simple.

If you hand a father a baseball bat, and tell them the guy who raped and killed his child is tied up in the next room.

What would the person do?

The jury got it right this time around.

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/breaking/news-article.aspx?storyid=146198&catid=17

That's the thing. I hear things like "we should castrate molesters so they don't do it again." I personally would rather go through life unable to get a hard-on then not be allowed to live life.

Don't castrate child molesters, kill them.

To the person who said I'd be in prison under my own law, try to reread my posts again. I said those guilty of murder in the first, rape and child molestation should be executed. Shooting some donkey-cave in defense of my child because some sick old man is using her for a sex toy is not murder in the first, it is technically, under castle law and Mn law, a lethal situation used to prevent a felony from occuring, defense of another person in this case.

Killing someone in your own home does not have to be to keep yourself from getting hurt, it also includes defending of family members or others in the house at the time.

Nice try but try again.

Fateweaver wrote:Don't castrate child molesters, kill them.

Or just don't pretend that most are open to rehabilitation under any circumstances.

In order for this kind of thought to be applied realistically, you would end up with a massive pool of blood on your hands, not the executioners. There are many types of "pervo de ultimo" situations, most of which, IMHO, simply are not deserving of such direct treatment. In laymans terms, I would rather throw them in a labyrinth (not necessarily representative of jail mind you, but the system in general) than just give them what they are asking for in the first place. Murdering pedophiles who are murderers themselves, is not so much of a decision, as it is an evolutionary step in the right direction, morals be freaking damned.

If there could be a literal maze for serious perversions, and their own terrors, I would build it myself. This in itself is a non-solution, but I do feel that at the very least, we could be addressing the real issue, rather than dance around it with some sort of pedantic form of threat making against the general public. No one but the pervert need to fear the wrath of Wrex, not but they can endure such pressures as to make it as far as I can see hell progressing. Drop the weight, let them deal with the fate.

Relapse wrote:
They are if there's even the slightest chance they can escape.

Wait, does that mean that every newborn is a threat because there is slight chance that he will become a serial killer?

You are technically correct that any being that exists is a threat, but following that train of thought renders anything else you might have to say absolutely meaningless. Should we abort all children because they may eventually kill someone? A hyperbolic statement to be sure, but you chose that path first.

dogma wrote:

Relapse wrote:
They are if there's even the slightest chance they can escape.

Wait, does that mean that every newborn is a threat because there is slight chance that he will become a serial killer?

You are technically correct that any being that exists is a threat, but following that train of thought renders anything else you might have to say absolutely meaningless. Should we abort all children because they may eventually kill someone? A hyperbolic statement to be sure, but you chose that path first.

The statement I made is my opinion which relates to people that have been undeniably proven to be sadistic killers. They are a known threat that should be dealt with in a manner where they may, without question, ever have a chance of hurting someone else.
It's definitely a tricky issue that I approach from the angle of not wanting these type of people to ever be in a position, through whatever mischance, will be a danger to my family.
If I was in the state that is releasing that load of garbage back into society, I wouldn't be sleeping peacefuly.

Ok, that clears things up. I was afraid you were charging off the deep end there.

That said, I still think you're a bit paranoid, but then I've lived in a notoriously criminal city for most of my life.

Meh, I think he's onto something here. What's the saying?

'Better safe than sorry.'

And don't forget...

'Better to err on the side of caution.'

Touchy subject but I'll have a go.
The death penalty is a nessasary evil, it wont matter what the person will do if freed or if he or she escapes, it only matters that the person has commited a crime that must never ever be repeated again, the surest way to prevent that is the death penalty.

Ask yourself if you could live with the knowlage that you sitting a jury, allowed a person to either live out his/her life in prison or that the person was able to get paroled or escape and killed again. could you live with your self?

if the answer is yes, fine. but my answer is no. i couldnt live with the knowlage that i allowed a person to go free to kill again.
Unfortunately, neither Austria or Canada has the death penalty.

Good behaviour is laughable in these cases.

Convict A, you were convicted for multiple child rapes yet in the 8 years you've so far served in a carefully monitored prison containing nothing but adult males you've never misbehaved whilst under the constant supervision of armed men and surrounded by dangerous adult males.

Good lord you must be reformed, send this man back into freedom at once back where there are children and noone is regularly monitoring you...

youngblood wrote:They should take away good behavior credits. Either give someone a goddamm sentence or don't

I assume you disagree with the idea of reform and rehabilitation of prisoners.

double post! I deserve the death penalty. I choose burning at the stake.

I think part of the problem is prison overpopulation in the US. If we didn't have so many in prison we wouldn't have to release people becuase there isn't much room, which is often a reason for early release. It can be listed as something else, but when you are the worlds number one (WOOHOO, we're #1! Suck it China!) incarcerator, space becomes an issue.


5 Myths About US The Prison Population

That's an interesting, and shocking graph. The article is also interesting, if only for the sheer amount of cognitive dissonance it caused me .

whenever talking about prisons and penalties for convicted felons, remember, that it is more important for democracy that a guilty man be found innocent or set free than an innocent man be found guilty. Currently, the US has more innocent people on death row or incarcerated than any nation on earth. and recently, in Texas, they killed an innocent man.

also, the Death Penalty is not a deterrent to crime. you can argue all you want, but the facts show that the death penalty does not deter crime. (look at crime rates of industrialized countries with and without the death penalty, or if you want, look at crime rates of states with/without the death penalty. crime is not deterred.)

There is no morally defensible argument for the death penalty when an innocent man is murdered by the state.

PS: the graph is good, i take umbrage with one point in the article where it states "Reformers shouldn't waste their breath trying to turn us into europe" and I cant help but wonder why. Western Europe has a much better system for just about everything when compared to the US. better healthcare, better safety nets, better judicial system. why shoudl the US not adopt european polices when they have been shown to work. it certainly makes more sense than our current ones.

Comparing crime rates between countries is really useless if you're doing it on a factor by factor basis. It might be the death penalty, or it might be something completely different that causes the crime rates to be different to each other.

I'd agree though that killing an innocent person is about the worst thing a state can do in the name of justice.

Da Boss wrote:Comparing crime rates between countries is really useless if you're doing it on a factor by factor basis. It might be the death penalty, or it might be something completely different that causes the crime rates to be different to each other.

true enough, but thats why i said if you desire you can look at inter state crime rates between states with/without the death penalty. no comparison will be perfect, thats just the nature of comparison, but we can see a trend that shows that the death penalty does little to deter crime while costing the government much much more than just life imprisonment. and if someone is sentenced to life and found innocent, they can be released. if someone is killed and found innocent, there's nothing we can do about it anymore.

But you can't have the time you spent in prison reversed. What time you lost is lost, and it could five years or thirty years.

At least for the death penalty there's an extremely in-depth appeals process. That's what's making it so expensive, which means that unless the additional scrutiny in the appeals process doesn't make a difference, there are less innocent people in death row than there are in prison for life.

Not exactly a comforting thought, especially when you hear people opposed to the death penalty saying that "death's too good for those kind of people; let them suffer in prison".

You can be financially compensated.

If you asked people who have been released from prison after long sentences which were overturned on appeal, etc. due to miscarriage of justice, how many of them would say, "Oh no, I would much rather have been killed years ago."

To those people opposed to the death penalty who have kids....

Could you honestly tell people that if some guy raped and murdered your child you would still be opposed to them receiving the death penalty?

Could you honestly tell people and tell your conscience that you wouldn't want to kill the bastard yourself?

It's easy to be an armchair judge and jury but I'd love to see/hear what those people opposed to the DP would do when put in the above situation.

If you'd still rather have him spend life in prison with the chance he'd get out to rape and murder someone else' child than I really question where your morals lie.

To Kilkrazy:

Yes, but you can't buy time, so while money might help to repay the victim it won't reverse anything. I'd rather live my life from here on out than become a millionaire and sixty years old on the spot.

Of course they wouldn't have rather lost all of their life than lose part of their life, but they would probably have rather had the appeal go through near the beginning more than either, wouldn't they? And I'm sure there's plenty of people who die in prison and were innocent from the start.

But you guys are all assuming that if you release the guy that he will for sure do it again.

garret wrote:But you guys are all assuming that if you release the guy that he will for sure do it again.

Can we take that chance?

Life is all about taking chances.
Beside if the our prison system actually worked as a rehibilitation we would need those long senrnces or the death penaltly.

garret wrote:Life is all about taking chances.

Not when It could mean someones life.

True but i still stand behind that if our prison system worked we would not need them.

And this is where it gets intersting. It all boils down to whether or not you can ever trust these people to fit into society again.

I must say, I was very dissapointed with your 'Life is all about taking chances' comment there, garret. You should never play dice with another persons life.

If you were to approve the release of the man who raped an 8-year-old child, thinking him rehabilitated, only to find that he did it again, how would you feel?

Better safe than sorry, I say.

garret wrote:Life is all about taking chances.
Beside if the our prison system actually worked as a rehibilitation we would need those long senrnces or the death penaltly.

Garret, just out of curiosity, how old are you and do you know anyone that's ever been raped or murdered? I ask because I know several people in both catagories and I know they'd disagree with you about the whole taking chances thing.
I was the first person one rape victim approached for help immediatly after she'd been attacked and the look on her face stays with me to this day.

I admitted i was wrong about the chances part didnt I?
and I have told this several time im 17.

@Relapse: I don't think he really meant that. Probably spoke too quickly.

@garret: You gotta work on the whole brain-mouth-finger-keyboard thing. Just think before you press submit, ok?

Emperors Faithful wrote:And this is where it gets intersting. It all boils down to whether or not you can ever trust these people to fit into society again.

I must say, I was very dissapointed with your 'Life is all about taking chances' comment there, garret. You should never play dice with another persons life.

If you were to approve the release of the man who raped an 8-year-old child, thinking him rehabilitated, only to find that he did it again, how would you feel?

Better safe than sorry, I say.

Do you advocate the death penalty for all crimes?

Lord-Loss wrote:

garret wrote:Life is all about taking chances.

Not when It could mean someones life.

No, its still true then. Proof is never absolute outside of direct observation. That's why we talk about 'beyond a reasonable doubt' instead of 'when its absolutely certain'.

Very few things in life are certain, and even fewer are also absolute.

Ozymandias wrote:The problem is that we didn't kill them

I agree!

RapidKiller wrote:

squilverine wrote: A, more humane to euthanise them than keep them locked up without hope of freedom and B, a lot more cost effective than having tax payers foot the costs of keeping them until they do finaly die.

So we should kill then to save $$ ??

No, and if you take the rest of my post into consideration you will see that is not what I was getting at. It just happens to be a more cost effective way of dealing with these types of people.

The current prison system does not work, it promotes a lifestyle of breaking the law rather than obeying it. Once someone goes to jail they are seen by society as an outcast, they find it hard to get a job or a place to live so turn to crime where no references are required. Sending people to jail for minor infringments does not help society.

Minor crimes need to be dealt with by disproportianate fines or comunity service, hitting people in the pocket realy is a good deterant, especialy if you risk getting fined £1000 or 1000 hours picking litter for pi$$ing in the street.

Parents also need to be made more responsible for their childrens actions, rather than endless counceling and behavour contracts, just slap the parents of under 14's with a £1000 fine, how many feral rat children would be roaming the streets when thier parents risk loosing the special brew fund for having them caught by the police

The type of person who comits a crime such as Rape, Terrorism, 1st degree murder, Class A drug dealers, Child molestation, torture and in extreme cases death by dangerous/drunken/drug driving are not put off by any penalty society can come up with. They are reckless and remorseless individuals. All jail does is contains them in a place full of like minded people.

squilverine wrote: and in extreme cases death by dangerous/drunken/drug driving

I assume by this you're referencing repeat offenders.

A lot of crimes could be avoided by tackling causes of crime such as bad education.

A lot of people in prison in the UK are educationally subnormal in the sense that they are illiterate.

In modern society, illiteracy excludes you from nearly any kind of job.

dogma wrote:

squilverine wrote: and in extreme cases death by dangerous/drunken/drug driving

I assume by this you're referencing repeat offenders.

It depends on each individual case. Repeat offenders absoloutely. With first time offenders a little more thought need to be applied.

There was a case in the UK where a professional footballer had been drinking most of the night, got into his car, sped up the motorway at speeds in excess of 110 MPH weaving through traffic and having several near misses, he then came off the motor way and lost control of the car at speed, knocking over and killing two small boys. He didn't even get the maximum jail sentence affordable to the crime. He will probably be a free man in 6 years. How is this an accident, whilst I have no doubt he didn't intend to kill these two kids, he both knew the risks when he got behind the wheel and had the opportunity and means not to have to do so in the first place.

You can look at it in two ways, the guy made a mistake and it was an accident or he was selfish beyond reason and killed two children.

squilverine wrote:You can look at it in two ways, the guy made a mistake and it was an accident or he was selfish beyond reason and killed two children.

Or both things might be equally true. And that whether one, both or neither statements are true, and regardless of what is or isn't done to punish the footballer, those kids will still be dead.

And so that maybe instead of spending our time arguing to and fro on how to punish people, we should spend a whole lot more time talking about how to stop things like that ever happening.

sebster wrote:

squilverine wrote:You can look at it in two ways, the guy made a mistake and it was an accident or he was selfish beyond reason and killed two children.

Or both things might be equally true. And that whether one, both or neither statements are true, and regardless of what is or isn't done to punish the footballer, those kids will still be dead.

And so that maybe instead of spending our time arguing to and fro on how to punish people, we should spend a whole lot more time talking about how to stop things like that ever happening.

I agree that prevention is always better than cure, but in the case mentioned above the criminal had every opportunity in life and circumstance to prevent this happening, that in my opinion, makes this crime so bad. It was unneccesary, wholely avoidable and inexcusable. No penalty can bring back the two innocent lives lost, but that does not mean that it should go unpunished.

You can provide people with every resource and opportunity but sometimes even the most privaledged go off the rails. Good education and a stable home life are undoubtedly key factors when it comes to the un/likelyhood of becoming a criminal and these things are promoted and encouraged in most societies, but unfortuanately no one likes to be told what to do or how they should raise their own children.

Squilverine has it right. Of course not all crimes should be punishable by death but the ones he listed should be.

Any individual that can honestly say, without regret, that a child rapist should be allowed a chance at life by not being put to death really needs to question their own goddamn morals. Raping a 30yr old woman is one thing (and still horrible), raping an 8yo girl or boy is a whole other kind of sick and wrong.

The system is flawed, innocent men/women have died that shouldn't have but that is what happens when humans are allowed to decide who lives or dies. Legal system will never be perfect as humans are not perfect.

So yeah, concerning all the degenerate types that squilverine listed: feth them and take their life away. I wish Minnesota would reenact the DP.

squilverine wrote:
You can look at it in two ways, the guy made a mistake and it was an accident or he was selfish beyond reason and killed two children.

Or he made a mistake as a result of selfishness, which doesn't seem like a reasonable cause for execution.

I mean really. You can point to someone who's never driven drunk (because drunk does not mean cannot stand), and I can point to a liar.

Fateweaver wrote:Raping a 30yr old woman is one thing (and still horrible), raping an 8yo girl or boy is a whole other kind of sick and wrong.

Why is it different? Both are victims. Both are, presumably, incapable of defending themselves. Why death for one, but not the other? Why death at all? Catharsis?

Kilkrazy wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
If you were to approve the release of the man who raped an 8-year-old child, thinking him rehabilitated, only to find that he did it again, how would you feel?

Better safe than sorry, I say.

Do you advocate the death penalty for all crimes?

lol, no that's not what I meant. I was talking about letting criminals out on proabation. If we are unsure as to whether or not it is truly safe to let this person out into society again, then it is better to err on the side of caution. Better than repentive convicted criminals remain in prison than dangerous scum being let loose to what they like again. As it is the parole system is being abused to say the least.

Fateweaver wrote:Squilverine has it right. Of course not all crimes should be punishable by death but the ones he listed should be.

Any individual that can honestly say, without regret, that a child rapist should be allowed a chance at life by not being put to death really needs to question their own goddamn morals. Raping a 30yr old woman is one thing (and still horrible), raping an 8yo girl or boy is a whole other kind of sick and wrong.

The system is flawed, innocent men/women have died that shouldn't have but that is what happens when humans are allowed to decide who lives or dies. Legal system will never be perfect as humans are not perfect.

So yeah, concerning all the degenerate types that squilverine listed: feth them and take their life away. I wish Minnesota would reenact the DP.

The big thing isn't just that we get verdicts wrong, it's that we get death penalty trials wrong more frequently. Trials are emotionally charged at the best of times, and a trial deciding if we should kill someone is as intense as it gets. It's been established and pointed out many times that the error rate is death penalty trials is very high, and that minorities and the poor suffer disproportionately in death penalty mistrials. It isn't often noted how these levels of injustice aren't anywhere near as high in cases without the death penalty.

Simply put, the death penalty brings the smell of blood and that makes us stupid and more likely to get the verdict wrong. The direct result is that we kill innocent people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

squilverine wrote:I agree that prevention is always better than cure, but in the case mentioned above the criminal had every opportunity in life and circumstance to prevent this happening, that in my opinion, makes this crime so bad. It was unneccesary, wholely avoidable and inexcusable. No penalty can bring back the two innocent lives lost, but that does not mean that it should go unpunished.

You can provide people with every resource and opportunity but sometimes even the most privaledged go off the rails. Good education and a stable home life are undoubtedly key factors when it comes to the un/likelyhood of becoming a criminal and these things are promoted and encouraged in most societies, but unfortuanately no one likes to be told what to do or how they should raise their own children.

No, the crime shouldn't go unpunished, but spending most of our time and resources focussing on punishment does nothing to stop this happening again.

And pointing out the cause of crimes isn't always an issue over poverty. In this case it'd be looking at sport and drinking culture, how manliness is often seen in terms of how much you can drink. Public debate and policy trying to break down that culture will do a lot more to stop the next fatality than any amount of tough on crime rhetoric.

And a lot of people drive drunk. They are often pulled over, then pay a fine and have their licenses taken off them for a few months. They did everything wrong that the footballer did, but you presumably only want the footballer dead. I'd rather the footballer spend his time in jail, then afterwards go from school to school, telling kids how he got drunk, drove really fast and made a mistake that'll be with him the rest of his life.

What's this about a footballer?

Anyway, you must admit sebster that there are SOME crimes where the forfeiting of that monsters life is entirely reasonable and just. There are some people who can never be released back into the world, and they will never be sorry for what they have done. Should such people be allowed to live out the rest of their lives in jail. Where escaping legally or illegally is still very much possible.

(An interesting side note, the first 'laws' as such ever made in greece was by a king, (someone or other). I think that the punishment for EVERY crime was death.)

sebster wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Squilverine has it right. Of course not all crimes should be punishable by death but the ones he listed should be.

Any individual that can honestly say, without regret, that a child rapist should be allowed a chance at life by not being put to death really needs to question their own goddamn morals. Raping a 30yr old woman is one thing (and still horrible), raping an 8yo girl or boy is a whole other kind of sick and wrong.

The system is flawed, innocent men/women have died that shouldn't have but that is what happens when humans are allowed to decide who lives or dies. Legal system will never be perfect as humans are not perfect.

So yeah, concerning all the degenerate types that squilverine listed: feth them and take their life away. I wish Minnesota would reenact the DP.

The big thing isn't just that we get verdicts wrong, it's that we get death penalty trials wrong more frequently. Trials are emotionally charged at the best of times, and a trial deciding if we should kill someone is as intense as it gets. It's been established and pointed out many times that the error rate is death penalty trials is very high, and that minorities and the poor suffer disproportionately in death penalty mistrials. It isn't often noted how these levels of injustice aren't anywhere near as high in cases without the death penalty.

Simply put, the death penalty brings the smell of blood and that makes us stupid and more likely to get the verdict wrong. The direct result is that we kill innocent people.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

squilverine wrote:I agree that prevention is always better than cure, but in the case mentioned above the criminal had every opportunity in life and circumstance to prevent this happening, that in my opinion, makes this crime so bad. It was unneccesary, wholely avoidable and inexcusable. No penalty can bring back the two innocent lives lost, but that does not mean that it should go unpunished.

You can provide people with every resource and opportunity but sometimes even the most privaledged go off the rails. Good education and a stable home life are undoubtedly key factors when it comes to the un/likelyhood of becoming a criminal and these things are promoted and encouraged in most societies, but unfortuanately no one likes to be told what to do or how they should raise their own children.

No, the crime shouldn't go unpunished, but spending most of our time and resources focussing on punishment does nothing to stop this happening again.

And pointing out the cause of crimes isn't always an issue over poverty. In this case it'd be looking at sport and drinking culture, how manliness is often seen in terms of how much you can drink. Public debate and policy trying to break down that culture will do a lot more to stop the next fatality than any amount of tough on crime rhetoric.

And a lot of people drive drunk. They are often pulled over, then pay a fine and have their licenses taken off them for a few months. They did everything wrong that the footballer did, but you presumably only want the footballer dead. I'd rather the footballer spend his time in jail, then afterwards go from school to school, telling kids how he got drunk, drove really fast and made a mistake that'll be with him the rest of his life.

Trying to find reasons to explain the footballers actions is all good and well but at some point people have to face up to what they have done and stop using upbringing/financial status/peer preasure etc as an excuse. These things should not be taken into consideration. Every person has the choice wether or not to comit crime, getting into a car when drunk is inexcusable if you do that and it leads to someones death then yes you should loose your own life as a result. There is no way anyone can think that it is ok to do this.

People who drink drive are scum, there is no excuse and if their actions lead to the loss of life then theirs should also be forfiet, those who are merely caught without causing harm to another should have their cars crushed and 3 year ban on the first offence, 3 years jail on the second, and then going up in 3 year increments per further offence.

If said footballer gets out and starts visiting schools to tell his sorry tale how many kids will think "oh god thats terrible i will never do that" and how many will think "well he seems to have got off fairly lightly so it doesn't matter that much"? Doing a few years in jail and some half hearted pep talks to school kids is not enough. People know that drink driving is abhorent they don't need some looser who has killed 2 children to tell them that so that he can feel better about his pathetic excuse of an existence


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

squilverine wrote:
You can look at it in two ways, the guy made a mistake and it was an accident or he was selfish beyond reason and killed two children.

Or he made a mistake as a result of selfishness, which doesn't seem like a reasonable cause for execution.

I mean really. You can point to someone who's never driven drunk (because drunk does not mean cannot stand), and I can point to a liar.

I have been driving for 6 years and have not and will not get behind the wheel after even one drink. I also will not drive "the morning after".

From a moral point of veiw it is wrong and puts others at a totaly unneccesary risk. From a personal point of veiw I can't afford to lose my licence because of my job, and I wouldn't want to live with myself if I hurt someone, or worse, because of my own selfish motives.

If you have driven whilst drunk then I pity you as a person, I also would ask you not to judge everyone else by your own low standards.

garret wrote:Life is all about taking chances.
Beside if the our prison system actually worked as a rehibilitation we would need those long senrnces or the death penaltly.

If you actually go to people in the field who try or tried to rehabilitate child predators, the recidivism rate is massively high. Once a child predator always a child predator.

Frazzled wrote:

garret wrote:Life is all about taking chances.
Beside if the our prison system actually worked as a rehibilitation we would need those long senrnces or the death penaltly.

If you actually go to people in the field who try or tried to rehabilitate child predators, the recidivism rate is massively high. Once a child predator always a child predator.

Thats usualy the case.

There's a difference between someone who thinks of a child sexually, but Ignores it and tries living his/her life normally and a person who acts on those thoughts.

The later is a child predator and by letting them out of jail, we're giving the chance to do it again, mess up and mentaly scar another kid.

squilverine wrote:
I have been driving for 6 years and have not and will not get behind the wheel after even one drink. I also will not drive "the morning after".

Good for you.

squilverine wrote:
From a moral point of veiw it is wrong and puts others at a totaly unneccesary risk. From a personal point of veiw I can't afford to lose my licence because of my job, and I wouldn't want to live with myself if I hurt someone, or worse, because of my own selfish motives.

If you have driven whilst drunk then I pity you as a person,

That's nice and all, but its not really sufficient grounds for execution.

squilverine wrote:
I also would ask you not to judge everyone else by your own low standards.

I wasn't really certain if you were being serious with respect to the stringency of your proposed punishment, but now I'm fairly confident you were. Suffice it to say, the death penalty would get quite the workout if what you're proposing were adopted.

I mean, moral preaching is cute and all, but its also quite useless.

garret wrote:So your saying that if serial killer attones for there crimes does community service and is a good person in jail they dont deserve a second chance? everyone deserves a second chance.

No, they don't actually.

Albatross wrote:The British Government is afraid to give us a referendum on reinstating the death-penalty, because studies show most people want it.

A. You can get studies to show pretty much anything, for every poll for or against there is another one.

B. They won't give us a referendum as that's not the way the British Constituitional set up works. We're not governed by plebiscite. Thankfully.

C. Even if they did give us a referendum on this the result wouldn't matter as to do so would involve us withdrawing majorly from various pacts and treaties we have signed in Europe. This is not as easy as you might think and would have severe affects on most aspects of British life.

dogma wrote:

squilverine wrote:
You can look at it in two ways, the guy made a mistake and it was an accident or he was selfish beyond reason and killed two children.

Or he made a mistake as a result of selfishness, which doesn't seem like a reasonable cause for execution.

I mean really. You can point to someone who's never driven drunk (because drunk does not mean cannot stand), and I can point to a liar.

Fateweaver wrote:Raping a 30yr old woman is one thing (and still horrible), raping an 8yo girl or boy is a whole other kind of sick and wrong.

Why is it different? Both are victims. Both are, presumably, incapable of defending themselves. Why death for one, but not the other? Why death at all? Catharsis?

If you rape anyone regardless of age their should be death for it. I'm not saying kill one kind of rapist and not another. I'm just saying why should child rapists for sure get a second chance.

No one has answered my question, not especially the anti-DP people. What would you want to see happen if some dude raped your wife/gf/daughter/son? Would you preach and spout your "holier-than-thou" attitude about letting the person have a second chance or would you want to see him get executed? If it's the former than I really feel sorry for you from a moral standpoint; if it's the latter than you people are a bunch of hypocrites for preaching to us in favor of it.

It's easy to preach against it until something like the above scenario happens to someone you love.

If it's the former than I really feel sorry for you from a moral standpoint

I'm sure the feeling's mutual.

What would you want to see happen if some dude raped your wife/gf/daughter/son?

The full affect of the law to come into play. IE a process that quite purposely largelye xcludes me from being involved in such circumstances.

And my Xtian friends would try and forgive them of course.

It's easy to preach against it until something like the above scenario happens to someone you love.

Indeed. It's also easy to talk a load of gak on the web too, also about things you've never experienced or have any knowledge of.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
If you were to approve the release of the man who raped an 8-year-old child, thinking him rehabilitated, only to find that he did it again, how would you feel?

Better safe than sorry, I say.

Do you advocate the death penalty for all crimes?

lol, no that's not what I meant. I was talking about letting criminals out on proabation. If we are unsure as to whether or not it is truly safe to let this person out into society again, then it is better to err on the side of caution. Better than repentive convicted criminals remain in prison than dangerous scum being let loose to what they like again. As it is the parole system is being abused to say the least.

Do you advocate Life Means Life for all crimes?

As long as the death penalty can be used against an innocent person, I oppose it. I expect to remain in opposition for it for the rest of my life (since I see no way it can ever be made fool-proof). The killing of even one innocent is a terrible tragedy, and I feel sorry for anyone who is willing to support a law that makes it possible.

As far as my reaction in the case of something being done to anyone of my family, I'm glad to know that I'm not allowed to have anything to do with it. Throw the offender in a hole, and preferably keep him there for the rest of his life. It serves as a good reminder that the rest of us aren't barbarians.

I find it really pretty silly to say that killing an innocent person is some sort of super-crime, but forcing them to die in prison is an acceptable evil.

As dogma said, you're never going to have anything completely fool-proof. The standard you're holding the death penalty to is illogical.

Fateweaver wrote:What would you want to see happen if some dude raped your wife/gf/daughter/son? Would you preach and spout your "holier-than-thou" attitude about letting the person have a second chance or would you want to see him get executed?

Its the former. I don't consider personal catharsis to be sufficient for the execution of another person.

Of course its a hard statement for those to answer who don't have such. I do and I know what my answer is.

Rape is too much of an ambiguous crime to ever recommend the death-penalty for ALL rapists. Examples? Why, certainly - If you are 18yrs and 1 day old, and you have sex with your GF who is 17yrs and 363 days old, isn't this Statutory Rape in many American states? Would you deserve the death-penalty for this? What about if you sleep with a girl you just met, and you are both very drunk? If the girl wakes up and doesn't remember consenting, she could accuse you of rape. It might sound far-fetched but there have been cases like this in the UK.

Good point there, actually.

People usually think "guy-in-ski-mask-attacks-woman-in-alley" but I think that's actually a fairly small percentage of cases.

Albatross wrote:Rape is too much of an ambiguous crime to ever recommend the death-penalty for ALL rapists. Examples? Why, certainly - If you are 18yrs and 1 day old, and you have sex with your GF who is 17yrs and 363 days old, isn't this Statutory Rape in many American states? Would you deserve the death-penalty for this? What about if you sleep with a girl you just met, and you are both very drunk? If the girl wakes up and doesn't remember consenting, she could accuse you of rape. It might sound far-fetched but there have been cases like this in the UK.

You see, in cases like that, there also wouldn't ever really BE charges unless you were stupid enough to:
A) Publish a sex tape
B) Actually rape her, in which case the statutory is added on
C) Beat her senseless, in which case if you have to worry more about assault, but if they can't peg you on that they WILL nail you with statutory.

Very few statutory rape cases like the situation you describe ever go to trial. Now, if it were a 21 year old having sex with a 15 year old or so?

You bet your ass that would go to trial, but depending on the circumstances you might get nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

And as for the second scenario, that's a he said/she said styled case. In which case, they usually get thrown out because there's not enough evidence either way.

The same could also be said of cases where rape DID actually occur.
Plus, if you kill someone they are dead - you can usually tell it's murder by the knife in the back! Rape is harder too detect - especially date-rape.


Erm... it sounds weird to know a lot about rape, huh?
I AM NOT A RAPIST!

Frazzled wrote:Of course its a hard statement for those to answer who don't have such. I do and I know what my answer is.

I don't think very many people (if any at all) on this board are completely devoid of loved ones such that they can be considered incapable of producing a cogent response.

Albatross wrote:The same could also be said of cases where rape DID actually occur.
Plus, if you kill someone they are dead - you can usually tell it's murder by the knife in the back! Rape is harder too detect - especially date-rape.


Erm... it sounds weird to know a lot about rape, huh?
I AM NOT A RAPIST!

Uh, no.

Date rape is, compared to most forms of rape, easy to detect. A lot of the date rape drugs show up in screens, from what I remember.

The issue isn't DETECTING a rape. It's getting the victims to come forward. That's why most rape cases fall through, and quite frankly, it's understandable.

Easier than a blunt-force trauma murder? Besides not all date-rapes involve GHB/Rohypnol. My point is that the issue of rape is far from straight-forward (as our discussion proves) and for that reason could never be considered for the death-penalty.
BTW, neither is murder - which is why I'm sceptical about the DP for that too. Not opposed, per se, but sceptical.

Kanluwen wrote:
Date rape is, compared to most forms of rape, easy to detect. A lot of the date rape drugs show up in screens, from what I remember.

You don't need GHB to commit date rape.

Kanluwen wrote:
The issue isn't DETECTING a rape. It's getting the victims to come forward. That's why most rape cases fall through, and quite frankly, it's understandable.

Detecting rape is still a pretty big issue though. As all the recent, high-profile cases involving rape allegations have shown.

Albatross wrote:Easier than a blunt-force trauma murder? Besides not all date-rapes involve GHB/Rohypnol. My point is that the issue of rape is far from straight-forward (as our discussion proves) and for that reason could never be considered for the death-penalty.
BTW, neither is murder - which is why I'm sceptical about the DP for that too. Not opposed, per se, but sceptical.

What the hell are you talking about in regards to "blunt-force trauma murder"?

And actually, rape is fairly straight forward. You can usually spot a victim who has actually been raped versus someone trying to play the system.
There's traumas that are associated, which while they can be faked are VERY hard to fake. Add in that if they show 'typical' trauma symptoms, it's another sign of faking it--since again, there's no real 'typical' symptoms. People will manifest the symptoms at a different rate, or sometimes flat-out skip certain symptoms.

I mean, hey, crazy ideas here. It must be some kind of newfangled psychological ploy, right?

But since we're also going to get into murder:
Again, there are signs that can be attributed towards "justifiable homicides" or an actual "murder" murder. You also have to remember that the heinousness of the crime WILL affect the way that the criminal is treated. Someone who murders a five year old in cold blood versus someone who shoots a robber, for example.

Albatross wrote:My point is that the issue of rape is far from straight-forward (as our discussion proves) and for that reason could never be considered for the death-penalty.

So now under no circumstances can the death penalty be applied to rape? A crime is generally straightforward in some instances, and not in others. I don't see why all forms of a crime would need to carry the same possible sentences.

Serial Rapists who rape little girls deserve the death penalty. We have had many of those in the US. This place breeds scum like clouds make rain.

Kanluwen wrote:
And actually, rape is fairly straight forward. You can usually spot a victim who has actually been raped versus someone trying to play the system.
There's traumas that are associated, which while they can be faked are VERY hard to fake. Add in that if they show 'typical' trauma symptoms, it's another sign of faking it--since again, there's no real 'typical' symptoms. People will manifest the symptoms at a different rate, or sometimes flat-out skip certain symptoms.

Wait, let me get this straight. Its easy to spot legitimate rape victims because there are no typical, traumatic symptoms associated with rape? Is that what you're saying? Because if that is what you're saying, then what you're saying makes no sense.

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
And actually, rape is fairly straight forward. You can usually spot a victim who has actually been raped versus someone trying to play the system.
There's traumas that are associated, which while they can be faked are VERY hard to fake. Add in that if they show 'typical' trauma symptoms, it's another sign of faking it--since again, there's no real 'typical' symptoms. People will manifest the symptoms at a different rate, or sometimes flat-out skip certain symptoms.

Wait, let me get this straight. Its easy to spot legitimate rape victims because there are no typical, traumatic symptoms associated with rape? Is that what you're saying? Because if that is what you're saying, then what you're saying makes no sense.

Then you're not trying hard enough to understand

There is a checklist of trauma symptoms that are usually associated with rapes.
You've got, under Lindermann's theories(which tend to be the ones that most people are taught to work with):
The impact stage, the recoil stage, and the reorganization stage.

However, in most cases of actual rapes, there are symptoms that will be "skipped" by victims. Some victims never, for example, go through the impact stage and just skip right to the recoil stage. But you see, herein lies one of the biggest issue with rapes:

The trauma doesn't always show up right away. In an ACTUAL rape case, it can be months or even years before the trauma becomes evident. And if the person doesn't come forward...then it usually just ends in a suicide filed under depression or mental defect.

But, to give you an idea of the victim reactions, here's the list I've been taught to deal with, counseling-wise:
Embarrassment, difficulty in describing the incident, concern about STD/pregnancy, bills for the medical exams, fear of telling family members, fear of neighbors finding out, fear of media publicity, recurring nightmares, changes in sleeping patterns, loss of appetite, the decision to prosecute, fear that they will be forced to testify about their prior sexual history, the bitterness against the offender, and a form of sexual dysfunction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also:
In most false rape allegations, the victim will seem to go through all the stages within a manner of weeks, and then go back to "normal" before the case is even filed with the courts. They also seem to be the type of victim that does nothing but seek media publicity or hint that they'll let it drop if a monetary reparation is offered.

My closest friends 9yo son was molested by a 16yo. Sure he is not my kid but he might as well be related as I'm as close to his family as a person can get without being related.

Because the kid is 16 he is in juve and registered sex offender but he is out when he is 18 free and clear. Trust me when I say had I caught him in the act (or my buddy had) he would have had about 3 new holes to breath out of in his face.

I don't have kids of my own but the kids of my best buddy might as well be my own...I'm known as "uncle" to them even though I'm nowhere close to related. This kid got off light and I wouldn't put it past him to do it again when he is out next year.

Fair or not?

Kanluwen wrote:
But, to give you an idea of the victim reactions, here's the list I've been taught to deal with, counseling-wise:
Embarrassment, difficulty in describing the incident, concern about STD/pregnancy, bills for the medical exams, fear of telling family members, fear of neighbors finding out, fear of media publicity, recurring nightmares, changes in sleeping patterns, loss of appetite, the decision to prosecute, fear that they will be forced to testify about their prior sexual history, the bitterness against the offender, and a form of sexual dysfunction.

So what you're saying is that, if someone exhibits all, or most, of these behaviors they are likely to be fabricating?

Kanluwen wrote:
Also:
In most false rape allegations, the victim will seem to go through all the stages within a manner of weeks, and then go back to "normal" before the case is even filed with the courts. They also seem to be the type of victim that does nothing but seek media publicity or hint that they'll let it drop if a monetary reparation is offered.

Are you approaching this from the standpoint of aesthetic judgment under the aegis of expertise?

I assume there is no checklist for determining whether or not a given person is falsifying the rape allegation.

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
But, to give you an idea of the victim reactions, here's the list I've been taught to deal with, counseling-wise:
Embarrassment, difficulty in describing the incident, concern about STD/pregnancy, bills for the medical exams, fear of telling family members, fear of neighbors finding out, fear of media publicity, recurring nightmares, changes in sleeping patterns, loss of appetite, the decision to prosecute, fear that they will be forced to testify about their prior sexual history, the bitterness against the offender, and a form of sexual dysfunction.

So what you're saying is that, if someone exhibits all, or most, of these behaviors they are likely to be fabricating?

...What?
Those are the forms of reactions that victims exhibit.
These are also things that most victims then tend to obsess over. NO legitimate victims, who have received aid that I have ever heard of, have ever exhibited all of these reactions. The reactions vary from person to person. These same reactions, however, are also one of the telling signs of an unreported rape, if you know to LOOK for them. The changes in sleeping patterns, loss of appetite, the sexual dysfunction all tend to be things that end up being a "giveaway" later on.

Kanluwen wrote:
Also:
In most false rape allegations, the victim will seem to go through all the stages within a manner of weeks, and then go back to "normal" before the case is even filed with the courts. They also seem to be the type of victim that does nothing but seek media publicity or hint that they'll let it drop if a monetary reparation is offered.

Are you approaching this from the standpoint of aesthetic judgment under the aegis of expertise?

I assume there is no checklist for determining whether or not a given person is falsifying the rape allegation.

Emperors Faithful wrote:What's this about a footballer?

Squilverine posted a story of a footballer who got very drunk, drove dangerously and killed two children.

Anyway, you must admit sebster that there are SOME crimes where the forfeiting of that monsters life is entirely reasonable and just.

There are some people who can never be released back into the world, and they will never be sorry for what they have done. Should such people be allowed to live out the rest of their lives in jail. Where escaping legally or illegally is still very much possible.

I think there are people who shouldn't be released into the community ever again. People who are sentenced to death are kept on death row for decades, if they're going to escape there's plenty of opportunity to do so before execution, so I don't see any real difference in the safety of the community.

The only real substantial between locking them up forever in maximum security and killing them is the catharsis of the execution, the idea that they hurt and scared us so we're going to inflict our greatest punishment on them. Funnily enough the family of the victim rarely report any satisfaction after the killing - being normal human beings they find themselves more hurt by their loss than pleasured by the killing. But the general population gets a real kick out of it, and that's a pretty scary thing. A UK politician once said his opposition to the death penalty was primarily driven by the dozen or more applications he received every week for the position of executioner.

The argument against the death penalty comes from the lure of that same catharsis. As I said above, the smell of blood makes us stupid, makes us more likely to get the verdict wrong, more likely to kill an innocent person.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

squilverine wrote:I agree that prevention is always better than cure, but in the case mentioned above the criminal had every opportunity in life and circumstance to prevent this happening, that in my opinion, makes this crime so bad. It was unneccesary, wholely avoidable and inexcusable. No penalty can bring back the two innocent lives lost, but that does not mean that it should go unpunished.

You can provide people with every resource and opportunity but sometimes even the most privaledged go off the rails. Good education and a stable home life are undoubtedly key factors when it comes to the un/likelyhood of becoming a criminal and these things are promoted and encouraged in most societies, but unfortuanately no one likes to be told what to do or how they should raise their own children.

You're not listening to me. I'm not talking about leaving a crime unpunished. And I'm not talking about giving undue weighting to any kind of "woe is me I was born in a shanty so it's not my fault I killed that kid" story.

I'm saying that instead of filling blogs, newspaper editorials and tv chat shows with debate over the death penalty, what if that had been spent trying to break down the culture of binge drinking, the culture of fast cars? Two children are dead, and at that point 90% of every that matters in that story has already happened and can't ever be undone. The punishment is a footnote, but it's that footnote we spend almost all our time debating and spending money on. Prevention receives little interest and even less funding, but isn't that what actually matters?

Or maybe the perception of immunity to the world that some sports stars are under?

It doesn't really sound like just drinking heavily and having a car that can go fast was the core of the problem.

Kanluwen wrote:
...What?
Those are the forms of reactions that victims exhibit.
These are also things that most victims then tend to obsess over. NO legitimate victims, who have received aid that I have ever heard of, have ever exhibited all of these reactions. The reactions vary from person to person. These same reactions, however, are also one of the telling signs of an unreported rape, if you know to LOOK for them. The changes in sleeping patterns, loss of appetite, the sexual dysfunction all tend to be things that end up being a "giveaway" later on.

Yeah, I got that. I'm trying to figure out what you meant when you said someone who exhibits 'typical' symptoms is likely to be a fraud.

Kanluwen wrote:
Having dealt with a friend who really was raped and then volunteering at a crisis counseling center for the past year, I'm speaking from experience. A person who is raped, with no real support system exhibits the things that you skipped from quoting(impact, recoil, and reorganization stages). However, again--those stages are at times skipped.

Yeah, I've known several rape victims over the years. Most of their issues were subtle. Not the type of thing you would notice outside of intimate association. Certainly not the type of thing you would be able to clearly prove, or disprove in the course of a court case.

The comment in regards to someone exhibiting "typical" symptoms being a fraud is a pretty simple one, I thought.

If they're showing symptoms that are always "typically" associated with rapes in made for TV movies, SVU, etc...it's a fair bet they're not an actual victim.

Like I've stated, several times:

Victims do not always exhibit all the typical traumas. Each victim is different, and quite frankly, there's a reason why most rape cases take awhile to actually go through the judicial process, along with why rape cases also have a high standard of appeals applied to them. They actually attempt to monitor the victims and keep following through on the victim's state of mind.

But does that mean that EVERY victim who exhibits all the typical traumas is a faker? No. Because hell, once again...

Each victim is different, and it's damned near impossible to start actual in-depth studies just because of the fact that most rapes go unreported or unnoticed. It's impossible to set a standardized response kit to the extent that the morons here stating that rape shouldn't be a death penalty offense want. There's a fairly accurate checklist, sure.

But until we're at a Minority Report level of criminal justice or rape victims start coming forwards right as the crime happens, there's not too much that can be done outside of relying on crisis counselors' instincts for a false rape allegation or an actual cry for help.

Kanluwen wrote:
If they're showing symptoms that are always "typically" associated with rapes in made for TV movies, SVU, etc...it's a fair bet they're not an actual victim.

That clears things up, though I don't necessarily agree.

Kanluwen wrote:
Victims do not always exhibit all the typical traumas. Each victim is different, and quite frankly, there's a reason why most rape cases take awhile to actually go through the judicial process, along with why rape cases also have a high standard of appeals applied to them. They actually attempt to monitor the victims and keep following through on the victim's state of mind.

Which implies that its actually pretty tough to sort out the fakes.

Kanluwen wrote:
But does that mean that EVERY victim who exhibits all the typical traumas is a faker? No. Because hell, once again...

Never said anything about 'every'.

It looks like we agree on this, but prefer opposing directions of reasoning.

Story of my life there Dogma

Orkeosaurus wrote:Or maybe the perception of immunity to the world that some sports stars are under?

It doesn't really sound like just drinking heavily and having a car that can go fast was the core of the problem.

Celebrity culture probably plays a part in that instance, but not every drink driving fatality involves a celebrity. I think drinking way too much and driving way too fast are bigger issues.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:
If you were to approve the release of the man who raped an 8-year-old child, thinking him rehabilitated, only to find that he did it again, how would you feel?

Better safe than sorry, I say.

Do you advocate the death penalty for all crimes?

lol, no that's not what I meant. I was talking about letting criminals out on proabation. If we are unsure as to whether or not it is truly safe to let this person out into society again, then it is better to err on the side of caution. Better than repentive convicted criminals remain in prison than dangerous scum being let loose to what they like again. As it is the parole system is being abused to say the least.

Do you advocate Life Means Life for all crimes?

I'm sorry?

Do you mean, do I believe in the sancticty of life?
Then yes. I believe that to waste the life of another human being (or destroy it) is a despicable crime to say the least. I also, however, feel that a person acting willfully and knowledgebly in commiting vile acts is forfieting thier own life. They will not or have not respected the sanctity of anothers life, and in turn the sanctity of thier should be forfiet.

That's not to say an Eye for an Eye. There are cases where someone can lose their life through pure accident on anothers behalf. I believe that for the whole 'eye for an eye' system to work then it must only be enacted if there was intent. (Though there should still be punishments for those who are negligent etc).

So you believe in 'Eye for an Eye' except where you are forced to admit to the belief.

No I believe that if you personally go and rip someones eye out, you should forfeit your own as a result. (and further measures should be taken if you show signs of repeating the offence).

I do not believe this is applicable if you trip and accidently poke someones eye out. (Though you should be liable to pay for their hospital fees etc.)

Emperors Faithful wrote:No I believe that if you personally go and rip someones eye out, you should forfeit your own as a result. (and further measures should be taken if you show signs of repeating the offence).

I do not believe this is applicable if you trip and accidently poke someones eye out. (Though you should be liable to pay for their hospital fees etc.)

That is good, but your second statement is not what "an eye for an eye" means.

I was trying to point out that 'an eye for an eye' is not always applicable, in the case of accidents. I meant to say that 'an eye for an eye' is not the be all and end all of the justice system.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I was trying to point out that 'an eye for an eye' is not always applicable, in the case of accidents.

Well, yeah, it isn't used to detail what the proper response to an accident is. It is a line of reasoning for criminal punishment, which may have some importance here, but I can't be sure.

I was trying to point out it's unfairness if applied to crimes such as mansluaghter or injuries from accidents.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I find it really pretty silly to say that killing an innocent person is some sort of super-crime, but forcing them to die in prison is an acceptable evil.

As dogma said, you're never going to have anything completely fool-proof. The standard you're holding the death penalty to is illogical.

I find it frightening how easily you would condemn an innocent man to die, just so you can also get to kill all the guilty ones. Under the system many people here are advocating, wouldn't it also be "just" and "fair" to execute the jury who convicted a man who was later found innocent? After all, there's no guaranteee they won't do it again. It's an exaggeration of course, but surely someone must pay with his life for the unjustified killing?

My entire point is that since it's not fool-proof, we shouldn't allow fools to mess with it at all. And I wouldn't call that illogical.

Emperors Faithful wrote:I was trying to point out it's unfairness if applied to crimes such as mansluaghter or injuries from accidents.

You were trying to point out that an eye for an eye has so many intrinsic failings that the principle cannot function.

sebster wrote:Celebrity culture probably plays a part in that instance, but not every drink driving fatality involves a celebrity. I think drinking way too much and driving way too fast are bigger issues.

Most drunk driving deaths aren't caused by cars going a hundred miles an hour though, either.

It's not a matter of simply drinking too much (which is fine, and legal, if unhealthy at times) or having a fast far (which can be driven legally, under some circumstances, and is not hurting anyone else when simply driving 55 on a freeway). It's a matter of having combined the two, which really should not be combined. Water and electricity aren't the problems when a person drops a hairdryer into their bathtub. It's the person having ignored their own safety (but, in this case, they've also ignored the safety of others).

glory wrote:I find it frightening how easily you would condemn an innocent man to die, just so you can also get to kill all the guilty ones. Under the system many people here are advocating, wouldn't it also be "just" and "fair" to execute the jury who convicted a man who was later found innocent? After all, there's no guarantee they won't do it again. It's an exaggeration of course, but surely someone must pay with his life for the unjustified killing?

My entire point is that since it's not fool-proof, we shouldn't allow fools to mess with it at all. And I wouldn't call that illogical.

I would. Say that 1% of the people executed by the death penalty were actually innocent. Let's also say 5% of the people who are imprisoned for life - and serve the entire sentence - were actually innocent. Let's also say the death penalty costs a fifth as much.

By your logic, the death penalty should still be abolished, simply because of the possibility of it going wrong, regardless of how slim that possibility is, or what the possibility of the alternative going wrong is. Meanwhile, no other sentence is held to this standard; I just don't understand how death is so much different. Or maybe you're trying to say something else entirely, and I'm misunderstanding you.

I don't really know where you're going with the jury thing; I suppose I could see the death penalty being applied in extreme cases (i.e. framing someone, making it first degree murder), but I don't know that there's widespread support for killing people who have killed another by accident, especially one they're not at fault in.

dogma wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:I was trying to point out it's unfairness if applied to crimes such as mansluaghter or injuries from accidents.

You were trying to point out that an eye for an eye has so many intrinsic failings that the principle cannot function.

I'm not saying that. Did you even read my post?

I'm saying that there are situations where 'an eye for an eye' is entirely applicable, and that there are also situations where it wouldn't work.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I'm saying that there are situations where 'an eye for an eye' is entirely applicable, and that there are also situations where it wouldn't work.

I read it, and didn't derive that meaning from the text. Seems like an obvious notion.

@Kanluwen

morons here stating that rape shouldn't be a death penalty offense

You sound a little hysterical here - climb down from your high-horse. My point was that rape cases are not cut-and-dried, and not as easy to detect as 'Murder by Blunt Object To The Head', for example . You've just spent a page arguing the same point in a roundabout way.

found something on thejusticecenter.org:

The United States now stands alone with countries such as Cuba, China, Egypt,
and Saudi Arabia in authorizing the death penalty for non-homicide rape.

As you can see, America is in sparkling company.... So, what you're saying is that the rest of the world is WRONG on this issue, and that you, China (which also executes tax-evaders), Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Cuba are RIGHT?


And you say I'M a moron?

Where the hell did that come from Albatross?

@wrex - It was in response to Kanluwen being, quite frankly, a bit of a rude bastard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
fixed it!

I understand the concern of executing an innocent man, but how much more common is it that a paroled murderer kills someone else after they get out?
It could be an interesting statistic to look into.

Albatross wrote:found something on thejusticecenter.org:

The United States now stands alone with countries such as Cuba, China, Egypt,
and Saudi Arabia in authorizing the death penalty for non-homicide rape.

As you can see, America is in sparkling company.... So, what you're saying is that the rest of the world is WRONG on this issue, and that you, China (which also executes tax-evaders), Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Cuba are RIGHT?

He doesn't have to, it's perfectly possible for both groups of countries (there are 16 that have it by the way, not just the 5 you mentioned) to have chosen what's best under their circumstances.

So how do you know that those countries are WRONG about their domestic policy?

Albatross wrote:@Kanluwen

morons here stating that rape shouldn't be a death penalty offense

You sound a little hysterical here - climb down from your high-horse. My point was that rape cases are not cut-and-dried, and not as easy to detect as 'Murder by Blunt Object To The Head', for example . You've just spent a page arguing the same point in a roundabout way.

found something on thejusticecenter.org:

The United States now stands alone with countries such as Cuba, China, Egypt,
and Saudi Arabia in authorizing the death penalty for non-homicide rape.

As you can see, America is in sparkling company.... So, what you're saying is that the rest of the world is WRONG on this issue, and that you, China (which also executes tax-evaders), Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Cuba are RIGHT?


And you say I'M a moron?

Okay, since you want to play it like this...

Rape IS a clear-cut case.
It's having sex with someone against their will.
Period. End of story. Is that too complicated or do you want me to draw you a picture with crayons?

Yes, there are times where rape is used as a tool by women to get back at former partners. And hey, guess what?

If found out, those women then face charges for filing false reports.

And as for your earlier statement about the statutory rape...
Guess what?
It's rarely prosecuted unless you get...what?
Oh right. A large age gap(3+ years), a victim under the age of 16, or a perpetrator over the age of 18. Also you'll get things like ohhh...slowed 15 year olds creating sex tapes, 18 year olds screwing underage minors on film, etc. In which case, hey. They're FORCED to prosecute for child pornography AND statutory rape, at the very least.

@ your point about the death penalty...

When was the last time anywhere outside of the US, China, Cuba, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia had a trial that ended with a death penalty verdict?
I'm quite serious about this. Because you never hear about protests against Britain putting down a serial rapist or Ireland having put down a murderer.

You got it wrong Kan. When a little girl is ripped open and bleeding down there and requires stitches are we still sure it's rape? Maybe it happened while she was riding a horse or playing on the trampoline. That white stuff in her pubic region? That's not sperm, it must be baby lotion.

Like Kan said, to be called a rapist would be horrible as hell but when was the last time a man got sent to prison for rape when he didn't do it. I'd say every single rape case that has been proven bs has been called out or the "victim" recanted.

Umm, the Duke lacrosse players, that girl a few weeks back who someone had taped on their iphone consenting to sex with 4 men. There are ways to verify rape, especially in the case of teens or preteens. I've heard of men falsely accused of molesting a little boy or girl but it takes a doctor 5 minutes to determine for his or herself. It'd probably even be quite obvious to anyone of us if a preteen was penetrated by a full grown male.

The Duke Lacrosse case was a friggin' joke. It only went to trial because Nifong futzed the details in an attempt to get reelected.
Thank God he's gone, and last I heard got disbarred.

I'm actually sharing your opinion. I hope you realize that.

Oh, I do. I just hate the Duke case. We had to watch it nonstop for my Criminal Law class, and write reports on what was going on the whole time.

I hate anything I have to do reports on (well except 40k but started after HS so never had a chance really).

A bit of info on repeat offenders.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A bit of info on repeat offenders.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism

I guess the thing to do now is find out how many people were convicted of murder, apply that 1.2% talked of and compare it the the number of people theoretically mistakenly executed and see which number is greater.

Seems a good a reason as any to execute child rapists.

Kanluwen wrote:
Rape IS a clear-cut case.
It's having sex with someone against their will.
Period. End of story. Is that too complicated or do you want me to draw you a picture with crayons?

OK, maybe we didn't agree. What is will?





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:
Like Kan said, to be called a rapist would be horrible as hell but when was the last time a man got sent to prison for rape when he didn't do it. I'd say every single rape case that has been proven bs has been called out or the "victim" recanted.

Yes, which further explains why the death penalty should not be applied in the case of rape.

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Rape IS a clear-cut case.
It's having sex with someone against their will.
Period. End of story. Is that too complicated or do you want me to draw you a picture with crayons?

OK, maybe we didn't agree. What is will?

Is there another definition I'm missing of rape?


It's the act of forcing oneself, sexually, onto an unaccepting partner.

Kanluwen wrote:
Is there another definition I'm missing of rape?


It's the act of forcing oneself, sexually, onto an unaccepting partner.

Well, duh. What is acceptance, and how do we prove it?

More importantly, what is the result of willful action? Is a drunk man under the auspice of his will?

Are we going to get into this argument again?

If a person was drugged, forcibly intoxicated, intimidated with threats of violence against themselves or loved ones--

Any acceptance is null and void, and should be considered coerced.

dogma wrote:Is a drunk man under the auspice of his will?

Oh you!

Kanluwen wrote:Are we going to get into this argument again?

If a person was drugged, forcibly intoxicated, intimidated with threats of violence against themselves or loved ones--

Any acceptance is null and void, and should be considered coerced.

Why? If I say "You should have a drink." to a girl, am I coercing her?

Orkeosaurus wrote:Most drunk driving deaths aren't caused by cars going a hundred miles an hour though, either.

It's not a matter of simply drinking too much (which is fine, and legal, if unhealthy at times) or having a fast far (which can be driven legally, under some circumstances, and is not hurting anyone else when simply driving 55 on a freeway). It's a matter of having combined the two, which really should not be combined. Water and electricity aren't the problems when a person drops a hairdryer into their bathtub. It's the person having ignored their own safety (but, in this case, they've also ignored the safety of others).

I think we're getting away from the point here. What I'm saying is that what really matters is that people were killed in a drunk driving incident. Our priority should be on stopping such incidents in the future, and the extremity of the punishment has little to no effect on that. What will stop future deaths is changing the drinking culture and changing the revhead culture.

Kanluwen wrote:Okay, since you want to play it like this...

Rape IS a clear-cut case.
It's having sex with someone against their will.
Period. End of story. Is that too complicated or do you want me to draw you a picture with crayons?

I'm not sure how experienced you are, but I can tell you that there is a common dynamic where the man will try and talk the girl into having sex. Exactly where persuasion stops and intimidation begins is a very vague, subjective line, especially when one or both parties have been drinking. And that these cases make up the overwhelming majority of rapes.

As long as you keep pretending rape consists entirely of men in dark alleys with balaclavas and paedophilia you can keep pretending all rape is cut and dry. But in the real world its a very difficult, very subjective issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:Are we going to get into this argument again?

If a person was drugged, forcibly intoxicated, intimidated with threats of violence against themselves or loved ones--

Any acceptance is null and void, and should be considered coerced.

If one or both parties being drunk means any consent ... then just about 80% of sex is rape, with both parties raping each other.


There's also the issue that requiring express consent simply isn't practical. "Excuse me, do I have consent to place my hand on your inner thigh?" "Excuse me, do I have consent to place my hand under your shirt?"

sebster wrote:I think we're getting away from the point here. What I'm saying is that what really matters is that people were killed in a drunk driving incident. Our priority should be on stopping such incidents in the future, and the extremity of the punishment has little to no effect on that. What will stop future deaths is changing the drinking culture and changing the revhead culture.

I think leveling more severe punishments for basic drunk driving could help to reduce accidents; especially for multiple offenses.

I agree that making the punishments very severe once something actually happens isn't going to be as helpful, though. The drivers usually aren't expecting to hit someone; they think they're exceptional, etc. So, in that regard, I don't think executing the footballer would really be a good idea.

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Okay, since you want to play it like this...

Rape IS a clear-cut case.
It's having sex with someone against their will.
Period. End of story. Is that too complicated or do you want me to draw you a picture with crayons?

I'm not sure how experienced you are, but I can tell you that there is a common dynamic where the man will try and talk the girl into having sex. Exactly where persuasion stops and intimidation begins is a very vague, subjective line, especially when one or both parties have been drinking. And that these cases make up the overwhelming majority of rapes.

As long as you keep pretending rape consists entirely of men in dark alleys with balaclavas and paedophilia you can keep pretending all rape is cut and dry. But in the real world its a very difficult, very subjective issue.

Except most of the cases where one party is drinking and makes a mistake, then cries rape afterwards--do you know what happens?
Amazingly enough:
It gets THROWN OUT. Because it becomes a he said/she said case. Unless there is evidence from other parties involved--there isn't much that they can do in these sorts of cases. Once again--because it's a he said/she said. Amazingly enough, courts are also starting to toss this down to civil suits in these kinds of cases because they happen so frequently because of dumbasses not realizing "maybe it's NOT such a great idea to sleep with this liquored up bimbo".

But hey. What do I know. I make a point to avoid situations where I might end up bringing home a bar skank who's been known to cry rape.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:Are we going to get into this argument again?

If a person was drugged, forcibly intoxicated, intimidated with threats of violence against themselves or loved ones--

Any acceptance is null and void, and should be considered coerced.

If one or both parties being drunk means any consent ... then just about 80% of sex is rape, with both parties raping each other.


There's also the issue that requiring express consent simply isn't practical. "Excuse me, do I have consent to place my hand on your inner thigh?" "Excuse me, do I have consent to place my hand under your shirt?"

Protip:
If you're not in a stable relationship and relying on someone to get drunk to get laid...

You will be accused of "rape" more than once. It's a common thing when a girl wakes up with a regrettable choice in partner.

So probably not a good idea for people to be killed via rape accusations.

If they're unfounded rape accusations?

Yeah, probably not a good idea.

But hey, crazy fact.

Most rapists don't just rape once.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

sebster wrote:I think we're getting away from the point here. What I'm saying is that what really matters is that people were killed in a drunk driving incident. Our priority should be on stopping such incidents in the future, and the extremity of the punishment has little to no effect on that. What will stop future deaths is changing the drinking culture and changing the revhead culture.

I think leveling more severe punishments for basic drunk driving could help to reduce accidents; especially for multiple offenses.

I agree that making the punishments very severe once something actually happens isn't going to be as helpful, though. The drivers usually aren't expecting to hit someone; they think they're exceptional, etc. So, in that regard, I don't think executing the footballer would really be a good idea.

Yeah, fair point on increased penalties for straight up drunk driving. I think we’re basically in agreement.

Kanluwen wrote:Except most of the cases where one party is drinking and makes a mistake, then cries rape afterwards--do you know what happens?
Amazingly enough:
It gets THROWN OUT. Because it becomes a he said/she said case. Unless there is evidence from other parties involved--there isn't much that they can do in these sorts of cases. Once again--because it's a he said/she said. Amazingly enough, courts are also starting to toss this down to civil suits in these kinds of cases because they happen so frequently because of dumbasses not realizing "maybe it's NOT such a great idea to sleep with this liquored up bimbo".

But hey. What do I know. I make a point to avoid situations where I might end up bringing home a bar skank who's been known to cry rape.

I was almost agreeing with until that last part, but then you had to go and imply that its about skanks crying rape. Never at all possible that a girl could actually be date raped.

Protip:
If you're not in a stable relationship and relying on someone to get drunk to get laid...

The hell? When you go out for dinner and a show, have a few in a bar afterwards then take a taxi home… you’re both drunk and you’re likely to end up having some fun. You’re not relying alcohol, but it’s a basic reality that you’re more likely to get some action when you’ve both been drinking.

Kanluwen wrote:If they're unfounded rape accusations?

Yeah, probably not a good idea.

But hey, crazy fact.

Most rapists don't just rape once.

Ok? Are we defending rape=dead, or am I mistaken?

*turns on flamethrower*

Well I suppose if the death penalty was good enough for Jesus of Nazareth it is good enough for or criminals.

*runs away*

Orkeosaurus wrote:By your logic, the death penalty should still be abolished, simply because of the possibility of it going wrong, regardless of how slim that possibility is, or what the possibility of the alternative going wrong is. Meanwhile, no other sentence is held to this standard; I just don't understand how death is so much different. Or maybe you're trying to say something else entirely, and I'm misunderstanding you.

I think this is where our thought processes diverge. I think that killing someone is quite different from throwing them into jail for the rest of their lives. I just don't get this willingness to systematically murder innocents.
This feels like arguing whether the sky is blue or not.

Orkeosaurus wrote:I don't really know where you're going with the jury thing; I suppose I could see the death penalty being applied in extreme cases (i.e. framing someone, making it first degree murder), but I don't know that there's widespread support for killing people who have killed another by accident, especially one they're not at fault in.

As for the jury thing, I did mention it was an exaggeration. But even so, a system that first murders someone innocent and then turns around and says that it's not to blame, is not a good system. Again, I'm at loss as to how to argue this with someone who just seems to have a significantly different view of something of what I've always considered to be obvious. We may just have to agree to disagree on this.

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Except most of the cases where one party is drinking and makes a mistake, then cries rape afterwards--do you know what happens?
Amazingly enough:
It gets THROWN OUT. Because it becomes a he said/she said case. Unless there is evidence from other parties involved--there isn't much that they can do in these sorts of cases. Once again--because it's a he said/she said. Amazingly enough, courts are also starting to toss this down to civil suits in these kinds of cases because they happen so frequently because of dumbasses not realizing "maybe it's NOT such a great idea to sleep with this liquored up bimbo".

But hey. What do I know. I make a point to avoid situations where I might end up bringing home a bar skank who's been known to cry rape.

I was almost agreeing with until that last part, but then you had to go and imply that its about skanks crying rape. Never at all possible that a girl could actually be date raped.

You have to be mentally defective or something.
The MOST COMMON false rape allegations are--skanks crying rape. Gee. Whodathunkit. It's a popular blackmail tactic, it's a popular civil suit tactic, and it's becoming far too common in this day and age because of the fact it's too easy to play it up for all it's worth in the court of public opinion and get a big media frenzy going around a case. Duke Lacrosse=best example of that tactic.

Date rape is, again, something that can be investigated and found to be either unfounded accusations/trying to cover up sexual relations or an actual claim.

sebster wrote:

Protip:
If you're not in a stable relationship and relying on someone to get drunk to get laid...

The hell? When you go out for dinner and a show, have a few in a bar afterwards then take a taxi home… you’re both drunk and you’re likely to end up having some fun. You’re not relying alcohol, but it’s a basic reality that you’re more likely to get some action when you’ve both been drinking.

Then keep it in your damned pants, moron. It's not hard to ensure that you don't do something stupid while under the influence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:If they're unfounded rape accusations?

Yeah, probably not a good idea.

But hey, crazy fact.

Most rapists don't just rape once.

Ok? Are we defending rape=dead, or am I mistaken?

Be more specific. Are you asking if I'm saying that rape should be a death penalty offense?

In which case, yes it should. However, I see no issue with having a timeframe between the sentencing and the actual execution in rape cases. Like you and I discussed earlier here--it takes time to catch a false victim in their line of BS or to confirm it.

The serial rapist angle also allows for cases to be added on or removed with follow-up investigations.

Ahh, the death penalty. this conversation is a classic.

Here's what the death penalty isn't"

An effective deterrent. It has some deterrence value, but if it was a crazy liberal social program, it'd be castigated as ineffective.

Cheap or economical. Given the realities of US criminal procedure (which cant' change absent amending the constitution and/or shifting fundamentally our idea of justice) it's cheaper to keep them in prison than to execute, or at least comparable.

Necessary for the protection of the body politic. Life in prison w/o possiblity of parole eliminates the threat.

Fairly or evenly applied. Look at the stats of whose executed, and more tellingly, who they murdered, and the patterns reveal a deeply discriminatory trend. Young, ignorant, and minority perps who kill white women are vastly more likely to be executed for the same crime. This can be fixed, but as it currently stands it's not really just.

What is the death penalty?

A useful tool for prosectutors to get suspects to take plea deals.

A strong from of catharsis for victims and society in general.

A way of feeding some ancient idea of justice and/or honor.

I don't have a real moral problem with the Death Penalty, but I'm not naive enough to think it's a good social policy (in which the benefits outweigh the costs), as I simply don't value the need for revenge that highly. And you don't need to talk about the death penalty long before that emotion is revealed as the core behind it's support.

Kanluwen wrote:Then keep it in your damned pants, moron. It's not hard to ensure that you don't do something stupid while under the influence.

It won't let me though, moron... this is socially awkward...



It is also not hard to do a walking handstand, and to juggle as well, because we all know how to keep a clear head after a solid six pack right?

Kanluwen wrote:You have to be mentally defective or something.
The MOST COMMON false rape allegations are--skanks crying rape. Gee. Whodathunkit. It's a popular blackmail tactic, it's a popular civil suit tactic, and it's becoming far too common in this day and age because of the fact it's too easy to play it up for all it's worth in the court of public opinion and get a big media frenzy going around a case. Duke Lacrosse=best example of that tactic.

Date rape is, again, something that can be investigated and found to be either unfounded accusations/trying to cover up sexual relations or an actual claim.

Yeah, but you're treating the difference between false rape claims and actual date rape as self evident. Turns out you actually need courts to figure those things out.

Then keep it in your damned pants, moron. It's not hard to ensure that you don't do something stupid while under the influence.

So you're saying at this point you wouldn't sleep with your partner if either of you had been drinking... That's not a particularly practical line approach.

Relapse wrote:I understand the concern of executing an innocent man, but how much more common is it that a paroled murderer kills someone else after they get out?
It could be an interesting statistic to look into.

It would also be interesting to see how many paroled murderers have become upstanding members of society after their release.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A moderator said:

I notice a couple of guys in this thread whose posting style has gone into the personal attack zone.

You know who, and you know it's against the rules.

When discussing an emotive issue such as rape and the death penalty, it is very important to look at facts not just opinions.

Kilkrazy wrote:A moderator said:

I notice a couple of guys in this thread whose posting style has gone into the personal attack zone.

You know who, and you know it's against the rules.

When discussing an emotive issue such as rape and the death penalty, it is very important to look at facts not just opinions.

I think one of those people was me? I apologize for not calling him a pile of bananas, in regards to his comment towards sebster.

...o...k...

Rape IS a clear-cut case.
It's having sex with someone against their will.
Period. End of story. Is that too complicated or do you want me to draw you a picture with crayons?

Then keep it in your damned pants, moron. It's not hard to ensure that you don't do something stupid while under the influence.

You have to be mentally defective or something

@Kanluwen - If you can't be right, at least be polite.

If you can do this with crayons though... I would like to see it anyway .

glory wrote:I think this is where our thought processes diverge. I think that killing someone is quite different from throwing them into jail for the rest of their lives. I just don't get this willingness to systematically murder innocents.
This feels like arguing whether the sky is blue or not.

As for the jury thing, I did mention it was an exaggeration. But even so, a system that first murders someone innocent and then turns around and says that it's not to blame, is not a good system. Again, I'm at loss as to how to argue this with someone who just seems to have a significantly different view of something of what I've always considered to be obvious. We may just have to agree to disagree on this.

Well... if you really think there's such a huge difference between living the rest of your life locked in a cage and dying may be we will have to agree to disagree. They both seems rather similar to me.

I guess it's a system of values though. Was the North justified in killing Southerners during the U.S. Civil War to end slavery? I would say they were.

Polonius wrote:I don't have a real moral problem with the Death Penalty, but I'm not naive enough to think it's a good social policy (in which the benefits outweigh the costs), as I simply don't value the need for revenge that highly.

That's about where I stand; in it's current incarnation (in the United States) it's not too useful. I'd keep the possibility for it open, should it become more cost-effective/applied more objectively.

One thing I'm still interested in is the number of innocent/likely innocent executions versus innocent/likely innocent imprisonment. As others have noted, there seems to be an emotional reaction to the death penalty that might be influencing it unduly, but there's also a more in-depth (and expensive) appeals process, so I'm wondering how they balance out.

I do like revenge, but as I said above, I don't think prison is a great place to be either.

Albatross wrote:@Kanluwen

morons here stating that rape shouldn't be a death penalty offense

You sound a little hysterical here - climb down from your high-horse. My point was that rape cases are not cut-and-dried, and not as easy to detect as 'Murder by Blunt Object To The Head', for example . You've just spent a page arguing the same point in a roundabout way.

found something on thejusticecenter.org:

The United States now stands alone with countries such as Cuba, China, Egypt,
and Saudi Arabia in authorizing the death penalty for non-homicide rape.

As you can see, America is in sparkling company.... So, what you're saying is that the rest of the world is WRONG on this issue, and that you, China (which also executes tax-evaders), Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Cuba are RIGHT?


And you say I'M a moron?

ZOMG! You insulteded me!

Grow a thicker skin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:You have to be mentally defective or something.
The MOST COMMON false rape allegations are--skanks crying rape. Gee. Whodathunkit. It's a popular blackmail tactic, it's a popular civil suit tactic, and it's becoming far too common in this day and age because of the fact it's too easy to play it up for all it's worth in the court of public opinion and get a big media frenzy going around a case. Duke Lacrosse=best example of that tactic.

Date rape is, again, something that can be investigated and found to be either unfounded accusations/trying to cover up sexual relations or an actual claim.

Yeah, but you're treating the difference between false rape claims and actual date rape as self evident. Turns out you actually need courts to figure those things out.

Then keep it in your damned pants, moron. It's not hard to ensure that you don't do something stupid while under the influence.

So you're saying at this point you wouldn't sleep with your partner if either of you had been drinking... That's not a particularly practical line approach.

No, it's not a practical line approach. But that's how I've been living my adult life, so far.

And in regards to the false rape claims/date rape:

Have I said that it needs to be accusation, trial, execution with no stops for investigating?

No. In fact, I've stated NUMEROUS times that it takes TIME for proof to come forward. It's one of the biggest downfalls of the system right now, because yes--there ARE a lot of false rape convictions. DNA evidence is starting to help a lot in clearing those up, but that still does not mean that it shouldn't be a death penalty offense once the crime is actually proved.

Ahtman wrote:*turns on flamethrower*

Well I suppose if the death penalty was good enough for Jesus of Nazareth it is good enough for or criminals.

*runs away*

Well played sir.

ZOMG! You insulteded me!

Grow a thicker skin.

Converse like an adult, it's not too much to ask, man....
Someone had made the point that the death-penalty should apply to all rape cases - my point was that there are shades of grey in cases such as these, too many to make the DP viable in EVERY case. You seem to share this opinion, so I'm not sure why you decided to burst into flames and insult a bunch of people. If you disagree with someone, you should still try to be mature about it. Now, I would never support the DP for rape - but that's beside the point.

Rape is almost never about sexual desire, it is about exerting power over the victim.

Regardless of the lifestyle choices a person has made, we are all protected by the same laws and should be treated equaly.

I recently had a heated discussion with my house mate about a prostitute who was raped, she felt that it wasn't possible to rape a prostitute and that at worst all the attacker should be charged with was non payment for services rendered.

She failed to understand that the justice system in the UK is not interested in the individual, niether is it interested in wether or not the accused comited the crime. All the courts are interested in is seeing that the procedure is followed correctly, to the courts the outcome is irrelevant because if the Police and the CPS have done their job properly then the acccused will always be the person who comited the alledged offence and therefor will always be found guilty and punished.

I went on to ask her how she would feel if a friend or family member was raped by someone the Police had not previously charged because all their prior attacks were against prostitutes and therefor not considered to be rape, just agrevated theft. She didn't have an answer for that.

Rape can be very difficult to prove or disprove, that is why there are so few prosecutions and convictions. Many cases never make it to court as the victims are to scared or embarassed to come forward or give evidence. There are also a huge amount of variables to take into account, especialy where alcohol and drugs are involved.

Whilst I am an advocate for the re-introduction of the death penalty, I do not believe it should be used lightly, and only when guilt has been proved not only beyond reasonable doubt but also with overwhelming evidence.

Serial rapists I feel should be executed, as should first time rapists who carry out a violent sexual assualt. However someone who took advantage of a person whilst drunk or otherwise incapacitated needs closer consideration. As always every case is different so therefor every case should be judged individualy.

Kanluwen wrote:
Be more specific. Are you asking if I'm saying that rape should be a death penalty offense?

Yes.

Kanluwen wrote:
In which case, yes it should. However, I see no issue with having a timeframe between the sentencing and the actual execution in rape cases. Like you and I discussed earlier here--it takes time to catch a false victim in their line of BS or to confirm it.

The serial rapist angle also allows for cases to be added on or removed with follow-up investigations.

That would involve massive changes to criminal law.

dogma wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:
Be more specific. Are you asking if I'm saying that rape should be a death penalty offense?

Yes.

Kanluwen wrote:
In which case, yes it should. However, I see no issue with having a timeframe between the sentencing and the actual execution in rape cases. Like you and I discussed earlier here--it takes time to catch a false victim in their line of BS or to confirm it.

The serial rapist angle also allows for cases to be added on or removed with follow-up investigations.

That would involve massive changes to criminal law.

Is change really such a bad thing though?

In this instance, yes.

You're essentially rescinding the right to a timely trial.

How so?

I said that the rapist's file should remain open, with the possibility of adding on additional rapes if they come to light. I also said that the authorities need to actually start watching the victim over time, rather than just rushing a prosecution because it's convenient.

Kanluwen wrote:How so?

This part.

Kanluwen wrote:
I also said that the authorities need to actually start watching the victim over time, rather than just rushing a prosecution because it's convenient.

I don't see the problem...

So what if it takes a decent amount of time for the case to reach a conclusion?

It's a far better way to operate than having to payout after clearing someone through appeals.

Indefinite limbo while waiting for prosecution leads to sentencing without conviction.

@squilverine - Pretty much agreed with everything in your last post. Did you watch 'The Force' last night? Documentary on 4 about a specialist rape squad. Seemed to draw the conclusion that there are a lot of grey areas when it comes to detecting rape. There were 15,000 rapes reported in the UK last year, but less than 1000 convictions.
Food for thought...

dogma wrote:Indefinite limbo while waiting for prosecution leads to sentencing without conviction.

We both can agree that justice needs to be done, rape is a difficult crime to prove(reliably), and that there's no real easy way to deal with it.

Right?

Let's call it quits and tackle the real issue.

Why the hell they let a bunch of convicted life sentencees out in my backyard

You know it is possible to deny parole in the course of sentencing.

Why the hell they let a bunch of convicted life sentencees out in my backyard?

Maybe 'they' read Dakka, mate....

Kanluwen wrote:Then keep it in your damned pants, moron. It's not hard to ensure that you don't do something stupid while under the influence.

sebster wrote:So you're saying at this point you wouldn't sleep with your partner if either of you had been drinking... That's not a particularly practical line approach.

Some people don't need to get someone drunk to get laid. Only Sith deal in absolutes... and this thread seems to be full of them...

Anyway, I had refused to comment on this post, but I personally hate loop-hole-laws. Funny story:
I once had to pay child support because my wife and I weren't married. See, since we weren't married, they saw me as a "Non-custodial Father". I care for my kids, and was there for them since day one and never left, but they still wanted money. So, I essentially laundered my own money through California State Child Services and back to myself...

In the case of the convicted life sentencees, the government should do what they do best:
Create another loop hole law that will work around the current loop hole, allowing them to jump the constitution like the Dukes of Hazzard.

...I just got the mental image of the General Lee full of judges wearing the ol' white wigs jumping over the Bill from Schoolhouse Rock.

And lemme tell you...it's awesome.

My theory is that Bush had a dream where that happened, and the next morning he came up with "signing statements".

Relapse wrote:A bit of info on repeat offenders.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A bit of info on repeat offenders.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism

I guess the thing to do now is find out how many people were convicted of murder, apply that 1.2% talked of and compare it the the number of people theoretically mistakenly executed and see which number is greater.

Execpt the problem is that these are not equivalencies.

there could be a 100% recidvism rate but it would still not make it okay for the state to kill an innocent man. you cannot compare the two on a one for one basis. The Blackstone ratio, a common legal ratio for these matters, has it at a 10:1 i.e its better for 10 guilty men to go free than one innocent man be punished. and i personally find that too low, but whatever, so instead of needing 1.2% of people incarcerated for murder to be innocent, we only need .12%

The National District Attorneys Association argues that wrongful convictions are episodic, not epidemic, and almost always arise from well-intentioned law enforcement work, not from incompetence or dishonesty. If pressed to place a number on wrongful convictions, district attorneys tend to say it’s less than 1 percent of all cases charged. Conversely, members of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers say wrongful convictions are epidemic in multiple jurisdictions and frequently arise from incompetent or dishonest law enforcement personnel. If pressed, defense lawyers say the percentage of wrongful convictions is between 5 and 10 percent.

From CQ Researcherhttp://cqresearcherblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/wrongful-convictions-overview-from.html

finding an accurate error rate in felony convictions is difficult but i think we can agree that it is likely somewhere between one and five percent. we don't know exactly, we don't have good statistics on it, but it seems like this is a reasonable conclusion to make

Then we clearly have gone above and beyond the Balckstone Ratio, and even likely above and beyond a 1:1 ratio (such a ratio would be immensely unjust) Given the state of our justice system, it seems that the death penalty is morally indefensible .

tblock1984 wrote:Some people don't need to get someone drunk to get laid. Only Sith deal in absolutes... and this thread seems to be full of them...

Oh snap!

In the case of the convicted life sentencees, the government should do what they do best:
Create another loop hole law that will work around the current loop hole, allowing them to jump the constitution like the Dukes of Hazzard.

Yes, please!

Kanluwen wrote:No, it's not a practical line approach. But that's how I've been living my adult life, so far.

“Are you going to have a beer with dinner?”
“No, and you shouldn’t have a wine, because I’m hoping to get lucky after this and we both need to be completely sober to ensure informed consent.”
“Certainly, it is the only way for sensible adults to live.”
“Otherwise one of us might wake up tomorrow and regret this, and that means the death penalty for the other person.”

And in regards to the false rape claims/date rape:

Have I said that it needs to be accusation, trial, execution with no stops for investigating?

No, and I didn’t say or imply that you did. Stop the histrionics and follow the conversation.

You’re assuming the crime consists of either horrible rapists or lying skanks. It isn’t that simple. Rape is a highly complex, difficult issue, and it often isn’t clear exactly what is and isn’t rape, even when all the facts are known. When you throw in unreliable witnesses it becomes extremely difficult to know for sure.

Kanluwen wrote:I also said that the authorities need to actually start watching the victim over time, rather than just rushing a prosecution because it's convenient.

“What’s happened to you is horrible, Ms Jones. We’ve sent a car to go and arrest Mr Mahoney. In due course he’ll be tried and hopefully executed for what he’s done. In the meantime we’re just going to need for you to sign this form, to authorise police to keep an eye on you, to make sure you aren’t a lying slut. You understand it’s just procedure.”

tblock1984 wrote:Some people don't need to get someone drunk to get laid.

Mad props on the inane mischaracterisation of my post. No really, that’s some funny stuff.

Meanwhile, Kanluwen was saying he would never sleep with a girl if either of them had had a drink. I pointed out that a lot of people are likely to have sex after having some drinks. Whether it’s a night on the town, or having been to a party or whatever, normally the situations that get people in the mood are situations involving some alcohol. Now. Obviously from there you get into increasing levels of intoxication, to the point where a person can be so intoxicated they cannot give informed consent and it becomes rape. Exactly when that point is reached becomes very difficult to determine.

My point was that Kanluwen’s standard of even one drink was ridiculous, and would make a significant amount of sex technically rape.

My point was that Kanluwen’s standard of even one drink was ridiculous, and would make a significant amount of sex technically rape.

That would make me, everyone I know - and most people on THIS SITE - a serial rapist.

Hell, most sexually active British people would be......

Of course, the British NEED a drink to procreate. What sober individual would consider sleeping with a Brit without some 'Dutch Courage'.

sebster wrote:

My point was that Kanluwen’s standard of even one drink was ridiculous, and would make a significant amount of sex technically rape.

Holy crap, my wife and I have been raping each other for years!!



Seriously, the level of dumb in this thread is even higher than normal OT threads. I am actually dumber for having read through it.

Of course, the British NEED a drink to procreate. What sober individual would consider sleeping with a Brit without some 'Dutch Courage'.

Your mum.



BOOM!

meh

Fizzywig wrote:

Relapse wrote:A bit of info on repeat offenders.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism


Automatically Appended Next Post:
A bit of info on repeat offenders.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm#recidivism

I guess the thing to do now is find out how many people were convicted of murder, apply that 1.2% talked of and compare it the the number of people theoretically mistakenly executed and see which number is greater.

Execpt the problem is that these are not equivalencies.

there could be a 100% recidvism rate but it would still not make it okay for the state to kill an innocent man. you cannot compare the two on a one for one basis. The Blackstone ratio, a common legal ratio for these matters, has it at a 10:1 i.e its better for 10 guilty men to go free than one innocent man be punished. and i personally find that too low, but whatever, so instead of needing 1.2% of people incarcerated for murder to be innocent, we only need .12%

The National District Attorneys Association argues that wrongful convictions are episodic, not epidemic, and almost always arise from well-intentioned law enforcement work, not from incompetence or dishonesty. If pressed to place a number on wrongful convictions, district attorneys tend to say it’s less than 1 percent of all cases charged. Conversely, members of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers say wrongful convictions are epidemic in multiple jurisdictions and frequently arise from incompetent or dishonest law enforcement personnel. If pressed, defense lawyers say the percentage of wrongful convictions is between 5 and 10 percent.

From CQ Researcherhttp://cqresearcherblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/wrongful-convictions-overview-from.html

finding an accurate error rate in felony convictions is difficult but i think we can agree that it is likely somewhere between one and five percent. we don't know exactly, we don't have good statistics on it, but it seems like this is a reasonable conclusion to make

Then we clearly have gone above and beyond the Balckstone Ratio, and even likely above and beyond a 1:1 ratio (such a ratio would be immensely unjust) Given the state of our justice system, it seems that the death penalty is morally indefensible .

What I'm wondering about with my statement is if more people are killed by convicted murderers who are released than there are innocent people executed. If this is the case, then it seems that it would be better to have executions. The data might be hard to obtain since there are too many people with axes to grind, both pro and con, to get accurate figures.
Execution is not not an easy decision either way, except for some of the more outrageous and cold blooded killers.

Relapse wrote:What I'm wondering about with my statement is if more people are killed by convicted murderers who are released than there are innocent people executed. If this is the case, then it seems that it would be better to have executions. The data might be hard to obtain since there are too many people with axes to grind, both pro and con, to get accurate figures.

Shouldn't you consider the option of imprisoning people and not letting them out?

If you're going to compare something to the innocents executed wrongly, you need to compare it to prisoners who have escaped and gone on to kill someone.

sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:What I'm wondering about with my statement is if more people are killed by convicted murderers who are released than there are innocent people executed. If this is the case, then it seems that it would be better to have executions. The data might be hard to obtain since there are too many people with axes to grind, both pro and con, to get accurate figures.

Shouldn't you consider the option of imprisoning people and not letting them out?

If you're going to compare the straight maths of innocents executed wrongly to determine if we should be executing prisoners, you need to compare it to prisoners who have escaped and gone on to kill someone.

I had, but in the end, I'm pro death peanalty for some cases, such as the ones I posted links to early on in the thread.

Albatross wrote:

Of course, the British NEED a drink to procreate. What sober individual would consider sleeping with a Brit without some 'Dutch Courage'.

Your mum.



BOOM!

LOL

Even funnier becuase it's true...