death penalty

[BigJim]

If enough people see things the same way, have the same ideals, are willing to work towrds the same goals, and basically function the same way at all levels, then, yes, I could see this working.

The ironic thing is Mike, it doesn't have to be that way. You can have as many different idealisms, goals and religions in the world as you like. All it would take is for them to respect each other and hell, stop the press and shock horror!!!!.........appreciate each other for it. If people could (and one they day they will) take that philosophical jump, then it would all fall into place remarkably easilly.

 

[nosforatiop]

Wow.....long thread, some very cool points of view on this. However there are two grey areas that haven't really been explored entirley.

Grey area #1:
A man comes home to find his wife and baby girl sliced to ribbons, the sick fuck of a killer is sitting there smoking a ciggarette with blood covering himself. The man loses it, beats the shit out of the killer, gets a gun out of his closet, and empties the cartridge into the bastard, ending his sorry existence.

Grey area #2:
(Based off of someone close to me, except for the murder part) Johnny is paranoid schizophrenic, he has medical care through SSI (government) his medication is constantly being changed in both dosage and regulation. In a nutshell he's not getting the care he needs to really combat his problem. He has severe stomach pains caused by the stress of the voices he hears, and the illusions he sees. They say deeply negative and horrible things to him. One day the voices in his head tell him whos responsible for all his suffering, and even worse this same person is causing constant others to suffer the same way. He's warned countless others but noone believes him. He feels he has to kill this person no matter what the cost, lives are at stake, both his and others. So he goes through with it, doesn't really matter how, he just kills them as quick and painless as possible.

So what do these two gentlemen above deserve to have happen to them? They've both commited murder.

 

[BigJim]

Well under most states with the death penalty, neither of those would count as a capital murder, and so would'nt be eligible for the death penalty. Of course, the state of the justice system has allowed cases of mental ill-health and diminished responsibility to slip through before, because of manipulating lawyers and incompetent judges. I know that before the UK axed the death penalty in the early 1960's, neither one of these would have gone to a hanging. Far more likely the sentence would have been served in Broadmoore secure hospital.

 

[avethibaltus]

Zero tolerance:
Certain crimes must be punished without exception or leniency. The intentional taking of human life (note that I didn't say murder because that has legal connotations that must be considered separately) and crimes against children. Where this doesn't happen, violent crime will rise and increasingly drastic measures will be forced upon the populace in an effort to curb abuses.

Do as I say, not as I do:
Further, there must be a fundamental change away from violence as **THE** problem solver. This has to start at the top and work its way through the entire culture. No parent can tell his son or daughter "violence is not the answer" or "solve your problems by talking" when they can turn on the nightly news and watch the powerful nations walking all over less powerful nations and getting away with it.

Don't believe everything you see but it will influence you anyway:
If you accept the logic that propaganda functions because people believe things after they've heard or seen it enough, then consider what the developing minds of your children are going through when they watch 20 - 50 murders or violent crimes on television each day or kill 150 "evil creatures" in less than 15 minutes in their latest computer game.

Why is this happening:
We are training killers, we are giving them the tools to kill, we provide them with the logic to kill, and we can't understand why they kill or what we should do with them once they have killed.

What goes around comes around:
In the good old days, we defended democracy and ourselves against unprovoked aggression. Nowadays, we conduct preemptive strikes and "push democracy".

 

[Oddjob0226]

That bad? What I don't understand is that when I listen to my music, they complain, but thye play their music so you can hear it for 3 blocks in any direction. 🙄 I want to live in the country, far far away from people.

I get to hear my favorite song every night - you knwo, the one that goes "Thump... THUMP... Thump thump...THUMP...thump...THUMP THUMP...thump"

 

[Oddjob0226]

The ironic thing is Mike, it doesn't have to be that way. You can have as many different idealisms, goals and religions in the world as you like. All it would take is for them to respect each other and hell, stop the press and shock horror!!!!.........appreciate each other for it. If people could (and one they day they will) take that philosophical jump, then it would all fall into place remarkably easilly.

I'm certainly not dissagreeing with this, and you're right, there are so many people out there that do get along, or -at least- leave each other alone. I live a few miles from churches, synagogs (sorry about the spelling), a mosque, a Buddist temple and a house of worship for Wiccans. A little north of me there's Hindu & Sihk temples as well, and there's never been any kind of problem or issue around me that might occur somewhere else in the world. And subsequently there's a lot of great restaurants.......

Literally across the street (or, highway) is the Scientologist Celebrity Center - I keep watching for Tom Cruise or Lisa Marie Presley but so far nothing.

But I also realize that while you and I might agree to this, there are plenty of humans who don't. Not just don't agree, but actively would join in making sure the the things you mentioned would never happen. There are people in this country that have kids - lots of them - becuase that's what Hitler would want them to do, it's their job, a way of protecting their race and one day having enough 'soldiers' to make their dreams become reality by force. They are DEDICATING THEIR LIVES and reproduction processes in a serious persuit of this. And they're not "tools of the government" because they don't like the government and will have as little to do with them as possible. Then you add those people to the people who want to ignite dirty bombs in cities, whose liftstyle is dictated by their trade in illegal drugs not how they respect or feel about others, blue collar con men who bilk old folks out of their savings for home repair, white collar con men who tamper with their pension plans, people who want to undo history by instilling new codes of behavior now, Branch Davidians who have sex with 10 year olds and beat children into seiziers in a "whipping room" while teaching parents how to kill themselves and their kids in case the government comes for them - and their supporters who feel that these people are VICTIMS, well, when I see folks like this, no matter how strongly I see your point, THEY don't, and don't want to. Then add a few thousand people who have similar values or apathy and multiply that by the countries on the planet, and the possibly of current reality changing looks pretty bleak.

 

[Oddjob0226]

Wow.....long thread, some very cool points of view on this. However there are two grey areas that haven't really been explored entirley.

Grey area #1:......


Grey area #2:......

So what do these two gentlemen above deserve to have happen to them? They've both commited murder.

Yeah, and there's a lot of other grey ares as well, like some of the ones I previously listed. And something similar in your second example happend in Ft.Worth. A pretty normal average family, not really "joiners", had a son go to jail on drug charges. The other son developed Schizophrenia, and committed a non-violent crime related to this illness. The family addmitted his wrong doing in courts and asked for help with treating him, since there is both the stigma attached to mental illness (you don't see diabetics treated as bad guys - damn those freaks!) and the required treatment is intense and continuous, therefore exspensive, which the family couldn't afford. Well, the court says they cannot involved themselves in treatment to that degree if the crime is non-violent. Well, the guy's illness gets worse, he ends up killing 5 people in one night, and now he's on death row in part becuase he knew right from wrong and he's still a potential threat. Now the parents are big anti-death penalty opponents. There was a similar pizza restaurant murder in Houston where two innocent teens were convicted and got life. It turned out that the murderer was a mentally ill guy already in jail. But by the time this was discovered one of the teens had already been beaten to the point of permanant brain damage by another violent inmate - another reason to consider that prison rape and jail cell justice isn't really such a great idea, either. The mother for the murder victim is now trying to get a moratorium on TX death sentances to happen since she feels terrible that she had a hand in this.

While I support JUDICIOUS use of the death penalty, I do so with some humility and I am not overly happy when it ends up being meted out. Oh, I get the feelings of vengance and moral superiority, but those stay with me. Except the friends and family of the victims, whom I would never presume to tell them what to feel, people who go to the prisons with their "amusing" plaquards whenever there's an execution really bother me. And it's odd when the good Christians who carry those signs forget that anger and pride are also deadly sins.

 

[BigJim]

Oddjob, those last two posts are two of the most constructive I've read yet, in this thread.

As for people who's whole purpose in life is hatred, you'll find that a lot of the mentalities that breed those people are deliberatley engineered by people who benefit from having society full of internal conflict.

Interesting reading OJ.

 

[BigJim]

From a panel discussion show called Good News Week broadcast on ABC in Australia...

"Texas legislator Jim Pitts, has proposed a bill that allows the state to execute murderers as young as eleven."


But why stop there Jim? Just think for the under fives you could have the electric high-chair.
Or maybe you could just leave them alone with a dinner fork and a power point.
Still maybe Jim does have a point, executing children would be much easier. It takes a dozen guards to force an adult into the chair, but with kids , you could just turn off the music and they all rush to sit down!
Of course, not suprisingly, the more liberal minded people in Texas who oppose Jim's bill say it's inhumane to execute 11 year olds. You should keep them on death row till their 17th birthday, THEN kill them.


M'lud, the prosecution rests...

 

[Oddjob0226]

Oddjob, those last two posts are two of the most constructive I've read yet, in this thread.

Thanks. Sometimes by debating and sorting things out, I can learn. Or it can make me a better person. Or It gets me depressed. Name calling can be fun (!), but it doesn't much help me (and us) explore who I/we am or the world around me. Wanking tosser!

I understand the TX governer might be considering a moratorium on executions. Although I am pro-death penalty, I can live with this. I hate paying for the food clothing & bedding of some of these horrible people that were not created by politicians or a secret group, but they are just people who do evil, rotten things against others in society becuase that is their nature. On the other hand, it doens't sit well with me that someone who wasn't guilty will die - and what's as bad, the killer is still loose somewhere else doing it again. Something not often considered by the the hard-core death penalty people who believe that even if someone is found to be in what's called "actual innocense" he should still die since he was legally convicted and sentanced. I just stay out of trouble and pay my rent, meanwhile.

Hey - Where's MY parade?

 

[BigJim]

I hate paying for the food clothing & bedding of some of these horrible people that were not created by politicians or a secret group, but they are just people who do evil, rotten things against others in society becuase that is their nature.

Most decent citizens do. But do you also hate paying three times what that would cost to actually apply the death penalty instead of imprisoning them for life? Isn't it also a thing worth considering that a lot of jurors are less willing to reach a guilty verdict if the death penalty will be the result? More guilty criminals are actually found as such, when the jury is less worried about being responsible for an execution.

 

[kurchatovium]

The reason its costs so much to off them is because of the endless appeals that run on for 13 to fourteen years. The cost of some potassium chloride and a load of tranquilizers and sedatives I think shouldn't run more than twenty bucks. Of course there should be some sort of review before the penalty is enforced I think that should take a year and then if the review panel finds no reason for a retrial or dismissal its nighty-night time. So bottom line is I think it could be made cheaper if we wanted too.

 

[His Divine Shadow]

Of course it could be cheaper, but, it could only be cheaper if the government got off their collective @$$$ and did something about it. (Which is roughly as likely as Tron being named a saint by the Vatican)

 

[BigJim]

The reason its costs so much to off them is because of the endless appeals that run on for 13 to fourteen years. The cost of some potassium chloride and a load of tranquilizers and sedatives I think shouldn't run more than twenty bucks. Of course there should be some sort of review before the penalty is enforced I think that should take a year and then if the review panel finds no reason for a retrial or dismissal its nighty-night time. So bottom line is I think it could be made cheaper if we wanted too.

True, but then you'd get even more innocent suckers being slooted judicially. I already posted the details of the 23 up to 1974. As years go by and the FOIA lets more details out or better science reveals more details we'll see more. Quite a few will have been because of the popular vote pandering of the arse currently in the Oval Office.

 

[kurchatovium]

Thats why I think there should be an independent review of the evidence just to be on the safe side. The panel would have one year to weigh the evidence to see if anyone was being railroaded. I don't think it would add that much to the expense.

 

[BigJim]

Thats why I think there should be an independent review of the evidence just to be on the safe side. The panel would have one year to weigh the evidence to see if anyone was being railroaded. I don't think it would add that much to the expense.

I'd agree on that idea. Any independant review would be good. But who exactly would appoint people to this "independant review"? Whoever it was would benefit from pleasing people like the psychopath President. The problem is that the system is so far stuck up it's own arse in red tape and corruption, that no "independant review" will ever be exactly that.

I'll make a little prediction now for the next few years. Sometime after Dubya is happily retired and serving on two dozen company boards and a few quangoes, evidence will start to emerge in greater quantity of his mis-handling of the judicial process in Texas. As Governor he wasn't directly involved in the judicial process, but he repeatedly refused to modernise outdated and obsolete legislation and on one occasion even cruelly imitated a woman's last plea before she was botched to death.

"Oh puh-lease don't kill me!"

Even if she was guilty that was an outrageous act of bad taste on his part.

 

[kurchatovium]

I think they could be independently elected or appointed by the courts. Although the problem with the courts is there are some judges who are very leanient. Example there was an instance of a woman who scalded her little girl to death with boiling water. It took the child 19 days to die. The judge let her go with only probation. I do not want this judge deciding anything.

However with that being said I think if the panel were big enough and the decision had to be uniamous to overturn the verdict I think it could work.

 

[BigJim]

I think they could be independently elected or appointed by the courts. Although the problem with the courts is there are some judges who are very leanient. Example there was an instance of a woman who scalded her little girl to death with boiling water. It took the child 19 days to die. The judge let her go with only probation. I do not want this judge deciding anything.

However with that being said I think if the panel were big enough and the decision had to be uniamous to overturn the verdict I think it could work.

Independantly elected by who? The people? The same people who are being conned into thinking they're free because they get a choice between two selected puppets every four years? Or elected by the courts.......the courts who are riddled with people who have been selected by the "Puppet of the half-decade" choice and their underlings. Judges who know about the legal cons and scams I talked about in my 2 9/11 threads, but ignore them because of their nice, protected jobs and pensions.

If it is selected under anything recognised by the "old system" then it'll be just as big a failiure as all other things have been up till now. The system we've got now has consistantly failed to look after us for centuries. A new and on it's own, meritorious idea isn't going to make anyone any happier, unless it's part of a system that actually IS free and fair.

 

[kurchatovium]

I think independently elected by the people would be fine. I think we could do better than the judge who let that mother go scot free.
But this is a two way street, people have to care enough to get the system the way they want it. They whine and complain but they don't want to read up on the judges and stuff to make intelligent choices. If people are just going to sit on their butts and say things aren't fair then nothing will change. We can do a better job. The key word their is "do" which implies action of some sort.

 

[BigJim]

We can do a better job. The key word their is "do" which implies action of some sort.

I'd agree with that, but I think we'd disagree on what action to take. If it was up to me, I'd gut the entire political system and drag the bones out of it 1 by 1. Working within the current system dooms any worthwhile enterprise to failiure, because it only exists to perpetuate itself, not actually serve the poor fuckers who fund it.

The exact methods I use will eventually surface in the final part of my 9/11 series. I should get around to posting Part 3 sometime tomorrow.

 

[Oddjob0226]

Part of the problem I think might be thatthe jsutice system is a little skewed. Really, there are some players involved here who are looking to make a profit on justice - the attorneys. The police don't make a profit; they make their living as police and just do their jobs. The plaintiffs don't want profit so much as they want justice, they want someone to be held responsible for injustice that has befallen them - except for the scammers and frivilous suits, the plaintiffs don't really want to be there in court and would probably choose not to have whatever happened to them never happen in the 1st place. The jury makes, like, $6 an hour, so they aren't making any real money. The defendant is trying to not get fined/jailed etc... and is looking for freedom - he's not gonna make any money and has no choice in being in court. The judge, while he gets paid to be in court, also gets paid no matter what the outcome of the trial is. He's not paid by the sway of the verdict. No doubt some lawyers, amny lawyers (?) do have a sense of right and wrong, but they also love debate and the intellectual chess match of building arguments; it's often said that lawyers are frustrated performers, as well - it's like if a trekkie could somehow make a living at being a trekkie. Except for the publicly appointed attournys, it's the lawyers that sway the judge and jury, with arguments not "facts", and the people who are most in the mix to make money. Why not just change they system so that the lawyers are much like the police, juries and judges - out to serve a casue for what society believes is just and not so much out to have a job that makes big bucks. But then this would require changes in legislation, and most legislators are either lawyers or businessmen who employ lawyers.

 

[BigJim]

Lawyers allow a change of the system that limits their earnings? In the country where everyone is either a lawyer, training to be a lawyer, or about to call their lawyer?

I agree with you mate, but I think it's less likely than me being voted a mod, Steve joining Hitler's fan club and Tron being voted humanitarian of the year.......all in the same week.

 

[renaissance]

I beleive that in a world where one can not be absolutly certian of ones guilt or innocence, the risk of killing a inocent person out ways the benifits of capital punishment. People are falable. I do believe that those who commit such crimes should be incarcerated for life; the worst prison is the one in your own mind.

 

[BigJim]

I agree with that 100% Ren. Given that we're all going to die one day anyway, there's a school of thought that says the worst punishment is to have your remaining time on Earth as miserable as possible.

 

[Dragon321]

just jumping in on the argument while only reading the last page...sorry, force of habit.

the legal system is inherently flawed due to the fact that it relies almost solely on subjective judgement, interpretation of facts, all of which are connected to fallible emotionally swayable humans. there is no such creature as a completely impassionate and impartial judiciary. the function of the lawyer is to exploit this for the benefit of his client, and by extension himself/herself. this is regardless of the cause or the lawyer's motives. any lawyer who does no more than present the pure evidence will almost certainly lose.

the death penalty is in a fix: it is inhumane to use methods such as the electric chair, but these are criminals we are talking about, at least the one's that aren't wrongly accused. methods such as the lethal injection are pointless: if you end a criminal's life painlessly and swiftly, how is that more punishment that allowing a person to langour in prison, the closest man made institution to hell?
and dont even get me started on low security cushy prisons for white collar crimes: nepotism sickens me. the death penalty, even in its cruellest form, looks like a better option than life imprisonment. and any facility that would torture its inmates to death probably wouldnt balk at torturing them for life.