Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
FRODO:It's a pity Bilbo didn't kill him when he had the chance.
GANDALFity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death and judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends.
Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing
So do you advocate the death penalty for multiple robberies? How about bar fights? Basically, what kind of violence justifies an execution?
The repeated kind. I'm willing to give someone a chance to prove that what they did was due to an error of judgement, a lapse of reasoning, whatever. I believe the primary purpose of any penal system should be the rehabilitation and eventual re-admittance of the prisoner into society. But I also believe that you only get to fool me once, and if you prove, through your actions, that you don't want to be a part of a civilized peaceful society, then you can be executed, and that it is in societies best interest to do so.
Your bloody-minded approach to a civil society certainly is at odds with your cuddly-wuddly squiggoth avatar!
This "one strike and you're out forever" policy would require a massive shift in social spending and priorities, the prison system especially, or the government would be executing hundreds of people a day, essentially for the crime of being poor and/or addicted and desperate.
How do you get "one strike" from a proposed system that only executes repeat offenders, and makes every effort to rehabilitate on the first go-round? How do you get executing people for being poor out of restricting this to violent criminals? And, if you're poor and desperate and mug someone, that person doesn't get unmugged due to your desperation.
Reading comprehension is a lost art.
curran12 wrote:You know those people who have been proven innocent after a long stint in prison seem pretty happy and not criminal.
It's easy to appear happy once the outcome has turned in your favour. Have you seen the interviews with them when they're on year 19? Have you seen the damage to the rest of their lives that lengthy incarceration has caused? The PTSD? The scars from the torture they endured in prison? (Referring to conflict with other prisoners).
Kilkrazy wrote: There is a sad case in Japan where a man was convicted of murder 48 years ago, and has been on death row ever since. DNA testing has now shown that the evidence against him may have been fabricated, and he has been released.
The same page has a load more death row stories, mostly from the USA.
How do you return to the real world at that point? I mean, for one, you've been convicted of murder. Even if it's overturned, it's still a black mark on your life. It'd basically be a death sentence for your career, as you've not applied any skills you had for half a century. God forbid you do anything relating to programming. If he were a programmer, the last thing he'd remember using are punch cards.
Easy E wrote: FRODO:It's a pity Bilbo didn't kill him when he had the chance.
GANDALF: Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death and judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends.
Balrog: Roar!
GANDALF: Fly you fools... *whip* You shall not pass. Waaahaaaa falling into the abyss.
I've seen the movie too, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the discussion. Are you really citing "Gandalf"?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: There is a sad case in Japan where a man was convicted of murder 48 years ago, and has been on death row ever since. DNA testing has now shown that the evidence against him may have been fabricated, and he has been released.
The same page has a load more death row stories, mostly from the USA.
Yeah, that's sad. But there's a reason it is newsworthy, and that's because it doesn't happen very often. We had something like 30 murders last weekend in Chicago. In one weekend. One city, one weekend.
And why was he convicted? " key evidence against him may have been fabricated,". Someone committed a criminal act that led to his conviction. How is this different than if he were the victim of a murder? It's very sad that any innocent person is the victim of any crime.
From the article: "Like most death row inmates in Japan, Hakamada was largely held in solitary confinement during his 48 years in prison. His mental health has deteriorated as a result of the decades he spent isolated, Amnesty said."
Totally preferable outcome.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/05/01 15:58:03
Kilkrazy wrote: There is a sad case in Japan where a man was convicted of murder 48 years ago, and has been on death row ever since. DNA testing has now shown that the evidence against him may have been fabricated, and he has been released.
The same page has a load more death row stories, mostly from the USA.
How do you return to the real world at that point? I mean, for one, you've been convicted of murder. Even if it's overturned, it's still a black mark on your life. It'd basically be a death sentence for your career, as you've not applied any skills you had for half a century. God forbid you do anything relating to programming. If he were a programmer, the last thing he'd remember using are punch cards.
In the UK we dish out substantial monetary compensation to the people who spent a long time inside before they were exonerated.
If they wanted to die instead, they could commit suicide.
It's easy to appear happy once the outcome has turned in your favour. Have you seen the interviews with them when they're on year 19? Have you seen the damage to the rest of their lives that lengthy incarceration has caused? The PTSD? The scars from the torture they endured in prison? (Referring to conflict with other prisoners).
In that case, we should probably execute soldiers after deployment huh? After all, they have just as much if not more trauma than anyone going to prison.
And it's a tragedy that we don't have specialists who could help people with mental illness, we could call them psychologists or psychiatrists or something.
I don't disagree that being falsely imprisoned would be tremendously depressing.
It is a more complex issue and I definitely think that your points make more sense when looking at the subject pragmatically.
I guess back to the OP that the person suffered is perhaps a hit or miss. On one hand we should perhaps offer quick deaths for these people as we simply want to rid them from society, on the other hand it is very hard to feel any empathy for a Rapist who buried his victim alive. That is muddying the waters with personal opinions and feelings though.
If capital punishment has to stay I definitely think Hypoxia should be used as the method demonstrated at the end of this documentary. Person doesn't suffer, but they die.
So do you advocate the death penalty for multiple robberies? How about bar fights? Basically, what kind of violence justifies an execution?
The repeated kind. I'm willing to give someone a chance to prove that what they did was due to an error of judgement, a lapse of reasoning, whatever. I believe the primary purpose of any penal system should be the rehabilitation and eventual re-admittance of the prisoner into society. But I also believe that you only get to fool me once, and if you prove, through your actions, that you don't want to be a part of a civilized peaceful society, then you can be executed, and that it is in societies best interest to do so.
Your bloody-minded approach to a civil society certainly is at odds with your cuddly-wuddly squiggoth avatar!
This "one strike and you're out forever" policy would require a massive shift in social spending and priorities, the prison system especially, or the government would be executing hundreds of people a day, essentially for the crime of being poor and/or addicted and desperate.
How do you get "one strike" from a proposed system that only executes repeat offenders, and makes every effort to rehabilitate on the first go-round? How do you get executing people for being poor out of restricting this to violent criminals?
Apologies, I should have wrote one strike and then you're out, or two strikes and you're out. I do understand your position, I just really don't think it is possible to implement the kind of flaw and corruption proof justice system it would require.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/05/01 16:10:58
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
If they wanted to die instead, they could commit suicide.
Is that not a crime over there?
Yeah, we have suicide watch on prisons here, because we wouldn't want to deprive the prison owner of his bed fees.
d-usa wrote:Execute innocent people because we can't be arsed to have non-torturous prisons...
You're making a long line of arguments that are all predicated on the idea that the end result of our legal system is that we have to falsely convict innocent people. Maybe, instead of worrying about whether the falsely convicted are executed, or placed within a barbarous prison system, or allowed to live out their days in a prison-resort, we could focus on the real issue that appears to be that we convict all together too many innocent people. From reading this thread, I've learned one thing, and that's that our justice system is so completely inept that the vast majority of prisoners are probably innocent, and all decisions involving how to handle them within the system must be focused on protecting this innocent majority.
What a load of crap. If you cared half as much about the falsely convicted as you seem to, you'd be in a thread about the flaws in our judicial system, not one about the consequences of criminal activity.
My main objection to the death penalty is that there is always the possibility that an executed person will later be discovered to be innocent and whilst you can always free a wrongly convicted prisoner you cannot resurrect a corpse.
I actually think this particular case, as horrible as the botching of the execution was, is totally the wrong one to hang a debate on the merits of capital punishment on. This guy was a sadistic rapist who buried his victim alive and his guilt is not in doubt. I can’t bring myself to have any sympathy for him.
A far better case to be discussing is someone like Glenn Ford, who was on death row for 30 years after being convicted on flimsy testimony and has now been proven to have been nowhere near the site of the murder. That’s a battle worth fighting.
So who was it who said that it was unlikely that new evidence would crop up after 30 years? And said we should trust the police to have done the job right at the beginning?
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
A Town Called Malus wrote: So who was it who said that it was unlikely that new evidence would crop up after 30 years? And said we should trust the police to have done the job right at the beginning?
A Town Called Malus wrote: So who was it who said that it was unlikely that new evidence would crop up after 30 years? And said we should trust the police to have done the job right at the beginning?
So the only way to lower the costs of executions is to limit the appeals of those condemned. Doesn't sound like justice to me.
It does if the one party is appealing for appeals sake. In some of these cases, how is it that ANYONE could come up with "new" evidence after 15, 20 or 30+ years? I think that the instances of newer technology (like DNA) being used to solve or reverse convictions is extremely rare and that most police agencies will have done their jobs properly the first time.
Also from the article Lucius linked above, at the time of writing there had been 144 death row acquittals in the USA in the last 40 years. That's an average of 3 to 4 acquittals a year. That is 3 to 4 innocent people who would have died whilst the real guilty party went free. And once someone is dead, there is less push and reason to investigate the case and expose their innocence. They certainly can't keep pushing for it and their lawyer probably won't keep pushing without their client alive.
I think if you were to, off the top of my head, go out and murder 77 people, 10 to 21 years sounds like a sane sentence. We're all Buddha's children, guys. Everyone deserves a 78th chance.
Seaward wrote: I think if you were to, off the top of my head, go out and murder 77 people, 10 to 21 years sounds like a sane sentence. We're all Buddha's children, guys. Everyone deserves a 78th chance.
You're such a softie.
I think we should implement a system where every parent has to pass a means test to prove they earn at least $60,000 a year. Failing this test means execution of the child, as poor children are much more likely to grow up be violent criminals. Society would benefit greatly as less money would be have to spent on law enforcement as less people grow up and choose a career in crime.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Prestor Jon wrote: Because children don't have any legal rights until they're adults. A minor is the responsiblity of the parent and has no legal rights except through his/her legal guardian or parent.
I think it's amazing to think that we're willing to institute a poor solution to a problem because we're too lazy to fix another problem within the system.
You make that argument and then go on to argue in post after post about how gakky life is in prison due to inmate violence, contracting HIV and whatnot. I'll just leave your own quote for you to ponder.
Seaward wrote: I think if you were to, off the top of my head, go out and murder 77 people, 10 to 21 years sounds like a sane sentence. We're all Buddha's children, guys. Everyone deserves a 78th chance.
If that's Breivik you're referring to you're kidding yourself if you think there's even a snowball's chance in hell that he's ever getting out again.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/05/01 17:23:44
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
Of course killing any human being is unethical even in self defense.... We are part of each other and we are human beings.
Sorry, I don't agree with you that self-defense killing is unethical. Personally I see it as one of the most ethical things to do.
To put this in a situation: say someone breaks into my home. my wife, kids and myself are there. This person goes after one of my kids. By your reasoning, I should let this fether do whatever the hell they want with my kids, because killing them on sight is "unethical". No. Protecting myself (and by extension, my kids are myself, because they do not possess the capacity to defend themselves) and my family is the most ethical thing that I can do as a father and a man in Western Society.
Wow. So you decided to blow them away. Everytime I've heard that defense we usually throw the person in jail. You had the means. All you have to do is yell "Stop or I will shoot!" The person will stop. there are very few people are willing to tangle with someone who has a gun. If they pick up your kid and hold a knife to their head, then blow out their knee caps. If they die from their injuries you didn't murder them you didn't kill them, they died. But the fact remains is that we cannot digress ourselves down to murdering people who enter our house, our house is our castle, but you can't just kill the person because they are robbing you or attacking your kids, you have the power, and they don't.
If they wanted to die instead, they could commit suicide.
Is that not a crime over there?
No. ITs not. if the commit Sudako or the Japanese suicide execution it is not a crime.
If anyone doesn't want to live anymore, that is fascinating, let them die, but discuss with them why they want to die.
See I am a Kantian so..... Yeah. The Death Penalty is something that is beyond our scope.
See there are three theories of Punishment. Retributive (Deserts Theory)- Punishment should be given only when it is deserved and only to the exxtent it is deserved
Utilitarian (Results theory)- Punishment always should have as its aim the good of society.
Restitution (Compensation Theory) - justice is served only if the victims of a crime or offense are provided with restitution or compensation for the harm done to them.
The arguments against Captial punishment are usually various. Violation of the Value of Life Principle, Effect on the criminal's victim or on society, denial of the chance for rehabilitation, executing an innocent person, and ineffectiveness as a deterrent. So basically the main reason someone would commit a crime is because they were deseperate, or they are bonkers crazy. We cannot go down to their level and kill them, wouldn't that justify their murders?
Those people are not coming back, why not just lock them up provide them food and subistence and forget their existence? But give them a chance to rehabilitation? A chance for them to come back to society.
Lets say there is an 18 year old this kid murder his parents in a fit in rage. Low and behold he is given the death penalty, twenty years later regrets what he did and wants to rehabilitate under these circumstances he cannot, he is barred from this chance of redeempetition because of what he did twenty years ago.
Does this man deserve death? Does this man truely deserve to be locked up forever or to be killed? Most people who are given the death penalty in two decades or so usually commit suicide. Because they have truly given up on life. Of course most people will swat my argument away.
But for those who believe that the death penalty is something that works as a detterent. How so? Has crime decreased since the implementation of the death penalty? No. It has not. People ignore it because most crimes or murders are done for what I have said in a heat of passion or they are desperate or the rarer one they are crazy (or have a mental condition).
Source for arguments (Ethics Theory and Practice Jacques P. Thiroux and Keith W. Krasemann)
No human being deserves death, "No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. " (John donne)
We are apart of each other and we cannot deny humans their right to live. I am not saying they get off scott-free, but they are given a chance if they have proven themselves able and in the right mind to come back to society. This would be difficult to get, but not impossible. People can still get a prison sentence but its not for a lifetime* (unless the crime committed is a crime against humanity and or they have a mental condition then they are given to a mental institute for study and rehabilitation)
But the arguments for the 'morality' of capital punishment Is that it is an effective deterrent (Yup sure...) - IT dis-encourages people to kill and commit crime!! It is economic!- Its cheaper to kill the person! Revenge -eye for an eye Effect upon Society's Laws- By having the option of applying the death penalty some argue we give strong sanction to the entire criminal law enforcement system, we put teeth into that system. The forfeiture of Killers Right- They forfeited their right to be a person and a human being the minute they killed someone. The Useleness of Rehabilitation- Rehabilitation doesn't work
Seaward wrote: I think if you were to, off the top of my head, go out and murder 77 people, 10 to 21 years sounds like a sane sentence. We're all Buddha's children, guys. Everyone deserves a 78th chance.
You're such a softie.
I think we should implement a system where every parent has to pass a means test to prove they earn at least $60,000 a year. Failing this test means execution of the child, as poor children are much more likely to grow up be violent criminals. Society would benefit greatly as less money would be have to spent on law enforcement as less people grow up and choose a career in crime.
Yep
most people that are desperate often commit crimes. These people are angry at society for their placement in the world. Can you blame them? Adversity where ever they go? They are desperate so they turn to crime and try to rebel against society and its rules, because the think its full of s---.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/05/01 17:29:36
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Seaward wrote: I think if you were to, off the top of my head, go out and murder 77 people, 10 to 21 years sounds like a sane sentence. We're all Buddha's children, guys. Everyone deserves a 78th chance.
If that's Breivik you're referring to you're kidding yourself if you think there's even a snowball's chance in hell that he's ever getting out again.
This. Breivik will not get out. Norway has a system where the maximum initial sentence is 21 years, however that sentence can be extended later after assessments as to whether the inmate is still a threat to the general public.
It can be extended in blocks of 5 years at a time.
It just looks like it could feed a lot of starving Irish.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Wow. So you decided to blow them away. Everytime I've heard that defense we usually throw the person in jail. You had the means. All you have to do is yell "Stop or I will shoot!" The person will stop. there are very few people are willing to tangle with someone who has a gun. If they pick up your kid and hold a knife to their head, then blow out their knee caps. If they die from their injuries you didn't murder them you didn't kill them, they died. But the fact remains is that we cannot digress ourselves down to murdering people who enter our house, our house is our castle, but you can't just kill the person because they are robbing you or attacking your kids, you have the power, and they don't.
No... So I say "stop or ill shoot" and they dont... Let's say I follow your advice, and I knee cap them... Now, I probably get sued by the person breaking into MY house, and whether I win or not, I'm still probably going to be heavily in debt or bankrupt paying for my legal/civil defense. Not to mention, I will probably get slammed with numerous, lesser charges that won't get thrown out in court. However, at least in the state I'm living in now, where Castle Laws are pretty strong, if someone that I don't want in my house is there, and I shoot them center mass with my firearm, I may spend a night or two in city/county holding cells while they do the initial investigation into whether it was self-defense (which shouldn't take long, it's my damn house), but after that, most of my legal troubles will be over.
And honestly, where do you live where you honestly think that someone is going to be robbing you/yours or attacking you and ISNT armed in some way? In most cases, you having the means to protect yourself is merely leveling the playing field, it doesnt give you some magic power to stop them by itself.
Wow. So you decided to blow them away. Everytime I've heard that defense we usually throw the person in jail. You had the means. All you have to do is yell "Stop or I will shoot!" The person will stop. there are very few people are willing to tangle with someone who has a gun. If they pick up your kid and hold a knife to their head, then blow out their knee caps. If they die from their injuries you didn't murder them you didn't kill them, they died. But the fact remains is that we cannot digress ourselves down to murdering people who enter our house, our house is our castle, but you can't just kill the person because they are robbing you or attacking your kids, you have the power, and they don't.
No... So I say "stop or ill shoot" and they dont... Let's say I follow your advice, and I knee cap them... Now, I probably get sued by the person breaking into MY house, and whether I win or not, I'm still probably going to be heavily in debt or bankrupt paying for my legal/civil defense. Not to mention, I will probably get slammed with numerous, lesser charges that won't get thrown out in court. However, at least in the state I'm living in now, where Castle Laws are pretty strong, if someone that I don't want in my house is there, and I shoot them center mass with my firearm, I may spend a night or two in city/county holding cells while they do the initial investigation into whether it was self-defense (which shouldn't take long, it's my damn house), but after that, most of my legal troubles will be over.
And honestly, where do you live where you honestly think that someone is going to be robbing you/yours or attacking you and ISNT armed in some way? In most cases, you having the means to protect yourself is merely leveling the playing field, it doesnt give you some magic power to stop them by itself.
How would they sue you? The jury would throw that out the minute they heard that. You said stop and they kept moving. You have the perfect right and means to defend yourself. That doesn't happen. they won't sue you. They can't, because they are doing a malicious attack. People who enter the house are desperate most of the time. If you are an upper class they will probably plan it out first.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
How would they sue you? The jury would throw that out the minute they heard that. You said stop and they kept moving. You have the perfect right and means to defend yourself. That doesn't happen. they won't sue you. They can't, because they are doing a malicious attack. People who enter the house are desperate most of the time. If you are an upper class they will probably plan it out first.
It has never been successful in civil court, however in Oregon, it has been tried several times. And while yes, the cases will be thrown out, the fact that I have to get a lawyer means I have to spend money to defend myself against an actual criminal.
I believe in the right to keep & bear arms, the right of self defense and the right to defend others from immediate harm.
I am against the death penalty.
Is this a contradiction? I don't feel that it is.
Why? I believe that it is right to be able to defend oneself and others from an immediate life threatening assault.
However, once the perpetrator has been subdued, tried and incarcerated the immediate threat is gone and you are left with a powerless individual behind bars.
Capital crimes are capital generally because the offender assaulted/killed an individual that was at the moment powerless to defend themselves. So, for our government to kill someone after the threat had been neutralized is, to me, hypocrisy of the highest order.
Such actions by the government, whether supported by the populace or not, does tremendous harm to our culture/society. It does so by creating a rational that allows us violate the principles that our justice system was based upon.
Once society begins to believe that it is ok to ignore the principles that under pin our justice system, the system itself becomes unstable. An unstable system is an easily broken system.
Why is it important to not break our justice system?
If I really have to answer that, then it is unlikely you will ever understand or agree.
ity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death and judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends.
