[sceptic]

ok

[han]

I actually like some of the things sceptic has written in this thread a lot. Especially the part about posting even if you don't have a well thought out opinion or can't always phrase your thoughts as well as some others.

I do think it is clear that sceptic misread jdonn's post.

[jdonn]

Sorry to all about the hijacking. I'll go back to the original topic and make the observation that many people for capital punishment are making the argument "some people don't deserve to live" whereas many people against it are arguing "no one has the right to kill any other person". However it is entirely possible to believe both those statements are true, which (I think) would argue against capital punishment. I think to be in favor you would have to specifically believe the first is true and the second is false. I definitely believe the second is true which is the basis of my argument, and to be honest I try to avoid thinking about the first.

[Al_U_Card]

Hey Josh

Since your signature was a problem, might I suggest...

arrogant superstar with a hormone problem

it might not have anything to do with you, but it certainly has a ring to it....

[jtfanclub]

If I were King, then I'd execute everybody I didn't like. Cut me off in traffic? Of with his head! Put me on hold? Off with her head! Torture a little boy? Off with his head!

Which, completely by coincidence, seems to be how the American justice system works. People get the death penalty for being undesirable and accused of a capital crime. Ted Kennedy types can drown a woman and get away with it.

What I don't understand is how the arguments in favor of the death penalty are not also in favor of torture. I mean, if the guy who threw the 5 year old girl to the aligators 'deserves' to die, doesn't he also 'deserve' to have his testicles zapped every morning? Doesn't he 'deserve' to have his legs shattered and forced to drag himself through broken glass? I hear that China is very efficient at this.

Or why not use them as host bodies? Somebody needs a heart transplant, and matches somebody on death row, out come the knives! Painless, and one person who doesn't deserve to live could save the lives of a half dozen people who do. It's amazing what can be done, as soon as you decide that some people 'deserve' to live and others 'deserve' to die.

Once you take that first step, it's all downhill from there.

[finally17]

Codo, on Feb 21 2008, 08:39 AM, said:

These questions had never been answered by the pro death penalty fraction.
I guess this is because there is no answer. You must decide in each single case. But if you do so, you can be lucky to find a judge who dislikes the needle, or you have a fan of the needle. This sounds not fair at all.

Actually, the US Supreme Court agrees with you. It's their opinion that the decision to be put to death must be made by a jury, not a judge. What the Constitutional arguments they used were, I can not say.

Some states were not always doing this, they were allowing sentencing by judge, but maybe four years back the Supreme Court overturned the sentences (not the convictions) of people sentenced in this way. I can not recall if these sentences were simply commuted to life imprisonment, or if the criminals were given a new trial for sentencing purposes (you really would need a whole new trial to re-present the evidence).

Generally sentencing is still determined by a judge. I think it's probably likely, although I am not sure, that a jury can say "execute" and the judge say no for reasons of law.

[blackshoe]

bid_em_up, on Feb 21 2008, 11:01 AM, said:

Their right to exist ceased the moment they chose to commit such crimes.

Certainly a possible view, but... where is the line drawn? Who decides where to draw it? What gives them the right to draw it?

[luke warm]

kenberg, on Feb 21 2008, 07:54 AM, said:

This topic does get people worked up. There are the practical arguments and there are the moral arguments and there is something to be said for trying to keep them compartmentalized.

exactly so... my feeling is, if one can't handle the practical matters of leadership (eg if they interfere with one's morality and/or philosophy) one should let others lead... but i do believe that this is an issue that does have a practical side, which means (imo) that it can't be determined simply by what one believes

on moral grounds i'm opposed to the death penalty (and abortion, etc), but if i was in a position of authority i'd have to be shown which view would be the more beneficial to my citizens... practically speaking, i think that if the death penalty was carried out within a month or two, capital offenses would drop... as the system presently stands, a murderer/rapist/kidnapper/whatever has years to live (at great expense) and many appeals to file

blackshoe said:

bid_em_up, on Feb 21 2008, 11:01 AM, said:

Their right to exist ceased the moment they chose to commit such crimes.

Certainly a possible view, but... where is the line drawn? Who decides where to draw it? What gives them the right to draw it?

as king, you do

[Winstonm]

Quote

practically speaking, i think that if the death penalty was carried out within a month or two, capital offenses would drop...

If criticism of the government were followed by quick, public executions, government criticism would drop, too.

But sentences are not designed as deterants - they are punishments. Before the ultimate punishment terminally affects the outcome, it behooves society to be damn well certain they have convicted the right party and the crime is deserving of the penalty.

[mycroft]

To add to bid_em_up's recitation, I give you:

David Milgaard, who picked up a beautiful 20-year-old nurse, raped her, stabbed her 27 times, and dumped her in an alley snowbank in subzero temperatures.

Guy Paul Morin, who abducted his neighbor's nine-year-old daughter, raped her, murdered her and left her in a field 50 km away - then went back home.

Oh, Except that they didn't.

I guess everyone knows where I stand on this one, now.

Sorry for cheating and writing in American, i.e. neighbor and Fahrenheit; I'm sure mikeh knew where I was going, as did a number of others who know where I live; it was necessary for the plot.

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Feb 21 2008, 07:28 PM, said:

But sentences are not designed as deterants - they are punishments.

In fairness and to take the other side of this for a little bit, I thought they were both a punishment and a deterent. Not that I have been convinced in the slightest that capital punishment is an effective deterent. But goodness knows I would drive a lot faster in most situations if I was not worried about getting a ticket.

[finally17]

jdonn, on Feb 21 2008, 08:01 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Feb 21 2008, 07:28 PM, said:

But sentences are not designed as deterants - they are punishments.

In fairness and to take the other side of this for a little bit, I thought they were both a punishment and a deterent.

It is also called variously:

The prison system.
The correctional system
The penal system

And is the end result of violation of the "public safety system."

Furthermore, we don't just talk about sentence lengths, we talk about "recidivism rates" and "rehabilitation."

All of these things imply different goals, some differences minor, others extreme. It's really a mixed bag.

[kenrexford]

For what it is worth, each State presumably has a different standard as to the purposes and principles of felony sentencing. In Ohio, a statement of purposes and principles is actually statutorily provided.

O.R.C. §2929.11:

(A.) A court that sentences an offender for a felony shall be guided by the overriding purposes of felony sentencing. The overriding purposes of felony sentencing are to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others and to punish the offender. To achieve those purposes, the sentencing court shall consider the need for incapacitating the offender, deterring the offender and others from future crime, rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution to the victim of the offense, the public, or both.

(B.) A sentence imposed for a felony shall be reasonably calculated to achieve the two overriding purposes of felony sentencing set forth in division (A) of this section, commensurate with and not demeaning to the seriousness of the offender’s conduct and its impact upon the victim, and consistent with sentences imposed for similar crimes committed by similar offenders.

(C.) A court that imposes a sentence upon an offender for a felony shall not base the sentence upon the race, ethnic background, gender, or religion of the offender.

Of course, all of this is B.S. The reality is that sentencing ranges are established by some legislative drafter who recommends this to a sponsor, who sponsors a bill that no one reads, all to establish ranges that seem to some guy in a dusty room to be somehow fair. Occasional tweaks may occur, but that is usually for domestic violence, sex offenses, or DUI's, where political money is to be made by introducing a new "tough on crime" statute. Then, whatever ranges exist end up being "fine-tuned" by the police, who determine how long to continue an investigation, and prosecutors, who determine how many charges to stack and how much time to actually subject a person to. Then, after negotiations based upon issues that are irrelevant to "justice," like police errors, lack of proof, cooperation through a friends-and-family plan (signing up as a State witness), and the like, some batch of time is proposed to a judge known to have certain tolerance levels and some predictability, completely unrelated to any real concept of neutrality or consistency from hick jurisdiction to hick jurisdiction. All of this is monitored by an attorney for the accused who is appointed and bored, retained and ignorant, or retained and competent, with a very rare appointed and competent if you are in an interesting city.

Kind of like how politicians are interested in the People.

[Winstonm]

Quote

But goodness knows I would drive a lot faster in most situations if I was not worried about getting a ticket.

There can certainly be a deterant effect of punishment - but that is not its primary purpose. The purpose is to penalize; the effect of this penalty may be deterance.

The 65-MPH sign is not designed to prevent you from driving 75 MPH - it is there to collect a fine from you if you are caught. The sign represents the law. The fine represents the penalty. Without the sign, there is no deterance.

[finally17]

I love that rant. Seriously.

[blackshoe]

luke warm, on Feb 21 2008, 06:01 PM, said:

as king, you do

I don't trust democracy much. I trust monarchy less..

[bid_em_up]

mycroft, on Feb 21 2008, 07:40 PM, said:

To add to bid_em_up's recitation, I give you:

David Milgaard, who picked up a beautiful 20-year-old nurse, raped her, stabbed her 27 times, and dumped her in an alley snowbank in subzero temperatures.

Guy Paul Morin, who abducted his neighbor's nine-year-old daughter, raped her, murdered her and left her in a field 50 km away - then went back home.

Oh, Except that they didn't.

I guess everyone knows where I stand on this one, now.

Sorry for cheating and writing in American, i.e. neighbor and Fahrenheit; I'm sure mikeh knew where I was going, as did a number of others who know where I live; it was necessary for the plot.

Whoop-tee-do.

These cases are in no way, shape, form or fashion similar to the ones that I gave, and you damn well know it. Please don't try and compare the cases I listed versus cases that relied on the testimony of accomplices, hearsay and other felons for the police to make their case in favor of your position. It is absolute and total bullshit for you to attempt to do so.

In the cases I listed, there is absolutely no doubt as to whether or not you have the right person. Or that their crimes were of such a nature that the perpetrators deserve the worst fate possible.

In the case of the girl fed to the alligators, her mother, who was also a victim during the same crime, survived and identified their attacker. The man admitted to forcing the girl out of the car and thowing her into the marshes of Alligator Alley knowing that the alligators would eat her. There is absolutely no doubt that you have the right person, and that he is guilty as charged.

In the case of the Jessica Lunsford, her DNA was found in her killers residence, and I don't mean hair or trace fibers. Her urine was in his closet, from where he had locked her in it, amongst other things. She had tears in her vaginal walls and her blood was all over his bed. He admitted to raping her several times and stuffing her into garbage bags before burying her when he found out the police were looking for both him and her. She supposedly was still alive at the time police came and knocked on the door where he was living (his roommates answered the door and said he was not there), but they did not actually search the place to see if he (or Jessica) was there. He didn't even have enough balls to actually kill her before shoving her into the garbage bags; he just left her to suffocate to death after being buried. HE told the police where the body was buried. Again, there is absolutely no doubt that you have the right person and that he is guilty as charged.

Note, I have not said the death penalty should be applied unilaterally to everyone who has been found guilty of what is considered to be a capital crime. Yes, of course, mistakes are possible, and the justice system should be absolutely certain that it has the right person and that the punishment befits the crime before applying its finality as means of punishment.

But that does not mean that the death penalty is never an appropriate sentence.

And I guess you know where I stand as well.

[Codo]

bid_em_up, on Feb 22 2008, 01:01 AM, said:

[However, if you honestly believe that someone who rapes a 10 year old girl and then buries her alive or that someone who feeds a FIVE year old to an alligator somehow deserves or has the right to live out the rest of their lives in prison (which, to me, is exactly what you are saying if you think the death penalty is never appropriate) while these young innocent children died terrifying deaths at their hands, then, yes, I think your opinion (not you) is stupid.

Their right to exist ceased the moment they chose to commit such crimes.

Who are you to claim this?

You decide which murder was worse enough to be punished by the death penalty and which is not?
And people who have another opinion have a stupid opinion?

This speaks for itself, thank you for you wothless comments.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Feb 21 2008, 07:28 PM, said:

Quote

practically speaking, i think that if the death penalty was carried out within a month or two, capital offenses would drop...

If criticism of the government were followed by quick, public executions, government criticism would drop, too.

But sentences are not designed as deterants - they are punishments. Before the ultimate punishment terminally affects the outcome, it behooves society to be damn well certain they have convicted the right party and the crime is deserving of the penalty.

i disagree, winston... i think they are deterrents, or can be

Winstonm, on Feb 21 2008, 09:58 PM, said:

There can certainly be a deterant effect of punishment - but that is not its primary purpose.

imo, even if true that doesn't matter....

blackshoe, on Feb 21 2008, 10:41 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 21 2008, 06:01 PM, said:

as king, you do

I don't trust democracy much. I trust monarchy less..

who cares? the question was, if you were king etc etc... i have my reasons for declining, you have yours (you don't trust yourself - which frankly is a good reason)

[helene_t]

Winstonm, on Feb 22 2008, 03:58 AM, said:

There can certainly be a deterant effect of punishment - but that is not its primary purpose. The purpose is to penalize; the effect of this penalty may be deterance.

The 65-MPH sign is not designed to prevent you from driving 75 MPH - it is there to collect a fine from you if you are caught. The sign represents the law. The fine represents the penalty. Without the sign, there is no deterance.

I don't understand. If there was no penalties, a significant number of people would not respect the law. I don't know many people who would commit arson, rape or murder in the absence of the thread of punishment, but I am sure there are some who would, and I do know some who would do shoplifting. I might even commit some crimes myself such as cheating with certain taxes or fees that I consider unfair.

To me this is almost the only purpose of punishment. I know some would say that "the bastard deserves to go to prison", but in evolutionary psychology the explanation for such sentiments is deterrence.