# Wider Death Penalty Sought



## Jason (Feb 7, 2007)

http://news.aol.com/topnews/article...t/20070207094209990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001


----------



## eaeolian (Feb 7, 2007)

I love this kind of reporting. Those bills don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting passed in the VA legislature, but they'll get some PR out of it...


----------



## nitelightboy (Feb 7, 2007)

I'm all for using the death penalty for more crimes. ANY sex offenders, drug dealers, murderers, etc. And I'm also for killing them alot faster than they are. A person shouldn't be on death row for 15 years. They should be on it for 15 days. Tops.

I always thought that it would be great for these violent criminals to be locked in a room with the victims family. Give 10 minutes and the state won't have to pay a penny for the execution.


----------



## Leon (Feb 7, 2007)

i'm a firm believer that, instead of killing someone, they ought to be sent off to a designated island for permanent residence. after all, i think the general premise of the execution is to permanantly remove the individual from the society which he/she has proven that they cannot be a productive, civil member.

send them off to an island, something nice like Greenland , within a police state ruled by some heartless asshole who serves no other purpose. i can think of a great candidate who'll be free from obligation in 2008.


----------



## nitelightboy (Feb 7, 2007)

Leon said:


> i'm a firm believer that, instead of killing someone, they ought to be sent off to a designated island for permanent residence. after all, i think the general premise of the execution is to permanantly remove the individual from the society which he/she has proven that they cannot be a productive, civil member.
> 
> send them off to an island, something nice like Greenland , within a police state ruled by some heartless asshole who serves no other purpose. i can think of a great candidate who'll be free from obligation in 2008.



I remember England doing that. The island was Australia. Now they're free to leave and host shows on Animal Planet.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Feb 7, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> I remember England doing that. The island was Australia. Now they're free to leave and host shows on Animal Planet.


exactly what I was thinking 

the whole "sending them off" worked better then because they all died of diseases on the way there and once they got there  ... and got hunted by the rich guys who killed off the dodos too.


----------



## Jason (Feb 7, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> I remember England doing that. The island was Australia. Now they're free to leave and host shows on Animal Planet.



CRIKEY!


----------



## Leon (Feb 7, 2007)

now that's what i call a reformed society!


----------



## nitelightboy (Feb 7, 2007)

Reformed. Possibly. But look at some of their role models. A guy dumb enough to pick up a dangerous animal, and say "This is raaaly nawt a guud idea. If this little gauy gits mad, he could boite me and poosibly evin kill me" Smart.


----------



## Leon (Feb 7, 2007)

it'd be cheaper to send them to an island, too. no wasting taxes on holding them in a box, just a plane ticket and a good-fucking-bye. no taxes to pay for shit on the island either, as the islanders would have to support themselves. build them a few buildings to get them started, then it's up to them.

and, on a more theological level, who has the authority to say whether or not a man should die? if you think about it, really, we all have the potential to kill another person. so, in a circular logic sort of way, it's both wrong to kill killers, yet it's very much in our nature to do so 

myself, i'm much more comfortable with saying, "get the fuck off my rock, to an island with other people you might get along with better," than, "your life has reached it's end."


----------



## nitelightboy (Feb 7, 2007)

As far as taxes go...that's why you'd execute them within 15 days of conviction. Probably cheaper than shipping them over seas somewhere.


----------



## ohio_eric (Feb 7, 2007)

Oh goody!

Being absolutely opposed to the death penalty, this is the kind of macho justice nonsense that makes me want to slap some sense into people. The death penalty is nothing but revenge, plain and simple. It has no place in the justice system. All the lawamkers are doing is acting like they're all tough on crime. When in fact they aren't doing anything to really deal with crime other than kill some criminals.


----------



## Leon (Feb 7, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> Oh goody!
> 
> Being absolutely opposed to the death penalty, this is the kind of macho justice nonsense that makes me want to slap some sense into people. The death penalty is nothing but revenge, plain and simple. It has no place in the justice system. All the lawamkers are doing is acting like they're all tough on crime. When in fact they aren't doing anything to really deal with crime other than kill some criminals.



sorta like... they're treating the symptoms, but not the illness.


----------



## nitelightboy (Feb 7, 2007)

The way you treat the illness is to destroy the symptoms. You kill enough people for more kinds of crimes, and watch crime become less and less of a problem. And you're right, it is revenge. Someone killing a mother and sitting in jail for 20 years while they watch cable tv, eat free food, don't contribute anything to society, and earn a college degree isn't *justice*. Them being buried is.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Feb 7, 2007)

death penalty = eye for and eye, it's the same damn thing that's been going on forever, people don't realize this. They get stuck on "you're killing a person!" Yeah, your point is? It's an equal reaction, it is not revenge. Also, revenge can only be enacted by a person wronged, avenge is the word you're wanting...I think...or you could just be totally wrong.

It doesn't matter if you think it's wrong or not, that's the basis behind it.


----------



## Dive-Baum (Feb 7, 2007)

I am all for expanding the Death Penalty...and doing it faster too..Look how fast they strung up Sadaam!! Child Molesters and Rapists should definately be in line on Death Row. Personally I was pissed when they got rid of Ole' Sparky down here in Florida..I say let them fry...slap some extra Crisco on the seat so they don't stick, or use some Teflon in the helmet. Now we have Lethal Injection...Going to sleep is a hell of a lot better option than they gave their victims. Let the punnishment fit the crime.
I also think we should have town hangings and firing squads. Let people see what could happen and see how fast crime rates drop.


----------



## Leon (Feb 7, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> The way you treat the illness is to destroy the symptoms.



a very dicey statement, and not at all true for probably 99% of medical cases. sure, if you have gangrene, due to the lack of a better treatment, the best way to fix it is to chop off the afflicted limb. but if you keep chopping off limbs, where does it stop? it's a slippery slope, and this news article is a very clear statement of that slope, since politicians are talking about making it easier to kill a man.


----------



## nitelightboy (Feb 7, 2007)

Leon said:


> a very dicey statement, and not at all true for probably 99% of medical cases. sure, if you have gangrene, due to the lack of a better treatment, the best way to fix it is to chop off the afflicted limb. but if you keep chopping off limbs, where does it stop? it's a slippery slope, and this news article is a very clear statement of that slope, since politicians are talking about making it easier to kill a man.



But we're not talking about medical cases. We're talking about murders, rapists, drug dealers, and just generally shitty people.


----------



## eaeolian (Feb 7, 2007)

Dive-Baum said:


> I also think we should have town hangings and firing squads. Let people see what could happen and see how fast crime rates drop.



There's some pretty strong historical evidence that public hangings did nothing to deter crime when they were held in England. The evidence over the U.S. death penalty is somewhat murky, but it's at best a minimal deterrent.


----------



## Dive-Baum (Feb 7, 2007)

I think you need to look at the times they were in...More crime per person then anyway


----------



## Drew (Feb 7, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> The way you treat the illness is to destroy the symptoms.



Coming from a long line of doctors, excuse me while I rip you a new one. 

You obviously have little to no understanding of modern medicine if you honestly believe that. Admittedly, that's not entirely your fault, as the pharmaecudical companies have realized there's a lot of money that can be made from this school of thought - just look at how most antidepressants are being marketed (to people who're just feeling a bit down over something, not to people with serious chemical imbalances - if you're feeling down and stressed out because your wife is cheating on you, then dumping her skanky ass is going to make you feel a lot better than popping a pill every now and then, you know?)

The purpose of medicide is to stop the symptoms from happening, period. And the _only_ way to do that is to address the root cause. If you've got a guy with shooting pain in his forearm, then you could just shoot him up with morphine and send him on his merry way with a bottle of percoset, but it makes a lot more sense to repair the broken bone that's causing him the pain, rather than to keep him popping pills ad nauseum. Set the bone, throw it in a cast, if necessary stitch up any ruptures in the skin, and then tell him to take it easy for a few weeks and he'll heal. Keep him drugged up, and he won't. Even if the bone sets itself it most likely won't set correctly, causing him further pain down the road, and if he's anything like I am on percosets, he's just going to hurt himself more when he bangs the arm into something, and probably just get addicted in the process. 

If you gathered ten doctors together and asked them if they, all else equal, would rather treat the symptoms or treat the cause, I guarantee you at LEAST nine out of the ten would say cause, and that possible tenth doctor would be a shitty doctor. 

To extrapotate to the death penalty, killing people who kill people is a lot like slapping a band-aid on a sliver of bone sticking out of a broken arm. Sure, it seems like a short-term solution, but if you dig below the skin, something's SERIOUSLY fucked up down there that you're not doing a thing about, and I guarantee you that you haven't seen the last of it.


----------



## Drew (Feb 7, 2007)

D-EJ915 said:


> death penalty = eye for and eye, it's the same damn thing that's been going on forever, people don't realize this. They get stuck on "you're killing a person!" Yeah, your point is? It's an equal reaction, it is not revenge. Also, revenge can only be enacted by a person wronged, avenge is the word you're wanting...I think...or you could just be totally wrong.
> 
> It doesn't matter if you think it's wrong or not, that's the basis behind it.



I totally disagree. How is an eye for an eye NOT revenge? If someone does something to you or yours, you do the same to them and theirs. That to me is a textbook definition of revenge. 

And for it being "the same damn thing that's been going on forever," please Jeff. By that argument, rape and muder are fine too, as long as you're in a higher class than the people you're raping and mudering. To make that argument is to discount this idea of social and moral progress that our country was founded on - that we COULD be something better than the nation we left behind. 

Fuck, if you don't believe that, go back to singing "God Bless the Queen." Just do it somewhere else where you don't get to vote and interfere with progress in our legal system.


----------



## nitelightboy (Feb 7, 2007)

Drew said:


> You obviously have little to no understanding of modern medicine if you honestly believe that.




You're right, I don't. But this isn't a discussion about medicine and I'm sorry I used that as a rebuttal. With criminals, positive reinforcement, and reformation techniques almost never work. The only way to handle the problem without burdening our society is to get rid of them. Meaning, kill the scum bags.



Drew said:


> I totally disagree. How is an eye for an eye NOT revenge? If someone does something to you or yours, you do the same to them and theirs. That to me is a textbook definition of revenge.



And look at one of my previous posts, I say that it is revenge. And read on as to how I justify revenge.


----------



## Leon (Feb 7, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> But we're not talking about medical cases. We're talking about murders, rapists, drug dealers, and just generally shitty people.



judge not, lest ye be judged


----------



## nitelightboy (Feb 7, 2007)

Don't start the religious stuff....I don't think that the Bible is infallible, nor is everything written for life today.


----------



## Leon (Feb 7, 2007)

death is one of the biggest religious topics on the market .

and, i don't really do the bible myself. i just thought it was an appropriate sentiment, sorta summing up many of my own sentiments regarding the death penalty in our country.


----------



## nitelightboy (Feb 7, 2007)

So you agree with letting violent criminals continue to be violent criminals?


----------



## D-EJ915 (Feb 7, 2007)

Drew said:


> I totally disagree. How is an eye for an eye NOT revenge? If someone does something to you or yours, you do the same to them and theirs. That to me is a textbook definition of revenge.
> 
> And for it being "the same damn thing that's been going on forever," please Jeff. By that argument, rape and muder are fine too, as long as you're in a higher class than the people you're raping and mudering. To make that argument is to discount this idea of social and moral progress that our country was founded on - that we COULD be something better than the nation we left behind.
> 
> Fuck, if you don't believe that, go back to singing "God Bless the Queen." Just do it somewhere else where you don't get to vote and interfere with progress in our legal system.


If you view it from the eye of the individual then it totally is, but from an unrelated view/the legal system it can't possibly be revenge. By using the "eye for an eye" view any act has an act which should be ... like used in the opposite you know, so that "it's been going on forever so rape and such are good" doesn't work at all. I can't correctly word it which is why I usually stay out of political crap, but that's totally putting a negative slant on it which was not intended and wouldn't be put into use anyway.

The death penalty definitely isn't the best way to deal with it, but it's way better than wasting my money on those people, people argue that "they can be reformed" well whatever, they're not coming out so it doesn't matter anyway. A lot of those people are messed up in the head anyway so they'll never "be fixed" so it makes no difference anyway. I know I don't have a "kind" view on "fixing people" but whatever. Anyway...yeah, I don't deal well with assholes.


----------



## Leon (Feb 7, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> So you agree with letting violent criminals continue to be violent criminals?



...amongst other criminals... on an island  ...but seriously, i agree that, at times, when someone commits a crime, they need to be removed from society for a period of time for readjustment until they are civil enough to return to society. i just don't think killing is the answer.



D-EJ915 said:


> I can't correctly word it which is why I usually stay out of political crap, but it's total bullshit.



well, this is good practice. it gets easier the more you try


----------



## Makelele (Feb 7, 2007)

http://blogs.citypages.com/ecassel/2003/08/how_many_innoce.asp


----------



## nitelightboy (Feb 7, 2007)

Leon said:


> ...amongst other criminals... on an island  ...but seriously, i agree that, at times, when someone commits a crime, they need to be removed from society for a period of time for readjustment until they are civil enough to return to society. i just don't think killing is the answer.



The problem is that most violent criminals, even many non violent criminals, will never be reformed and ready to lead a productive life in society. Why waste a perfectly good island on them.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Feb 7, 2007)

Leon said:


> well, this is good practice. it gets easier the more you try


lol I guess, kind of the same thing with those pissing contest jokes or whatever  

btw I usually ninja-edit things like a bajillion times...so always check for updates because I might word something better or get rid of it, etc.


----------



## Leon (Feb 7, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> The problem is that most violent criminals, even many non violent criminals, will never be reformed and ready to lead a productive life in society. Why waste a perfectly good island on them.



i don't think anyone will miss Greenland 

as far as reforming the convicted, i would agree that the present system doesn't really do the job. there are volumes of books already published on the assbackwardness of the current system of imprisonment in the US (and, probably many other countries as well). though, again, i wouldn't say that killing them off is the answer.

come to think of it, maybe Greenland could be the societal reject haven for the whole planet?


----------



## Makelele (Feb 7, 2007)

I'm sure the people who live on Greenland would be really happy.


----------



## Leon (Feb 7, 2007)

Makelele said:


> I'm sure the people who live on Greenland would be really happy.



all three of them? 

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/gl.html
ok, so there are about 56,361 people living there. they can be part of the ruling class


----------



## D-EJ915 (Feb 7, 2007)

Makelele said:


> I'm sure the people who live on Greenland would be really happy.


all 57000 of them  supposedly 24000 people go to UNCC, so twice my school and we have greenland


----------



## HighGain510 (Feb 7, 2007)

I won't say whether I think it is right or wrong as I really don't want to get caught up in that kind of debate right now, but I will say it lowers the amount of *REPEAT* offenders!  I know, I know.... not funny....


----------



## Drew (Feb 7, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> You're right, I don't. But this isn't a discussion about medicine and I'm sorry I used that as a rebuttal. With criminals, positive reinforcement, and reformation techniques almost never work. The only way to handle the problem without burdening our society is to get rid of them. Meaning, kill the scum bags.



A better analogy would be that it DOES make sense to treat the cause and not the symptoms. In other words, address the social and economic issues that drive criminals to rob, steal, and in some instances murder. 

Most people in jail for murder aren't there because they get off on killing people. Sure, the high profile news stories are about serial killers and people who kill their spouses after they run off with the 14-year-old girl at the corner deli, but the vast majority of convicted criminals committed their crimes in the course of a botched robbery. Again, the majority of those didn't rob people because they thought it was fun - they did it because, economically, their backs were against the wall. They were broke, they needed money to survive, so they stick some guy up at gun point, freak out, and end up gunning the guy down. 

Killing these people accomplishes nothing, because there will always be one more person to fill their shoes, and one more family left behind to starve because their father is in jail for murder. It just perpetuates the cycle. If you want to see a REAL drop in the crime rate, take steps to empower the lower class - legislate a national health care system, change the welfare/social security systems so that they at least are able to guarantee a basic standard of living for those without work, and improve the school systems both to get kids off the street and out of gangs and to give them the tools they need to secure steady employment when they graduate from high school or, god forbid, college. 

Again, every time you kill a man who was driven to robbery to feed his family, that's one more family without a father figure and without a source of income, and that many more children who are going to grow up in poverty, believing they were the son of a criminal, and feeling like the upper classes "owed" them something. If anything, the death penalty is a step back, and a cheap rouse to dodge the fundamental issue - a scary percentage of americans turn to crime because they have no other way to feed themselves. 

If we help the disadvantaged get jobs, help the drug addicts kick their addictions before they sell everything they own and then start stealing to support their habits, and get the kids in class and out of the gangs, then violent crime will fall. I absolutely guarantee it.


----------



## nitelightboy (Feb 7, 2007)

Are you implying that these people shouldn't even be in jail since the only reason that they killed someone was because they were breaking the law to begin with and got freaked out? If people are in that situation, there are much better things to do than steal from someone. And allowing these people to even raise children is a crime in and of itself. If a kid sees daddy stealing from people, what do you think that kid is going to do. And you're right, we do need to reform our social and economical programs, but honestly, it's not going to happen. At least not enough to do anything about crime in America. So we have to look at other avenues. And I believe steeper punishments are the way to go.


----------



## Drew (Feb 7, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> Are you implying that these people shouldn't even be in jail since the only reason that they killed someone was because they were breaking the law to begin with and got freaked out?



No. I'm saying these people shouldnt be in jail because frankly their taking actions that put them in jail was something that should have been preventable. I'm not saying "let the murderers go," I'm saying "rather than focusing on killing existing criminals, maybe we should focus on not giving people so many reasons to commit a crime in the first place."

Seriously dude, give me more credit than that. Executing a murder doesn't bring the victim back to life - removing the reasons for the criminal to commit the crime prevents the victim from becoming a victim in the first place. You're talking about a cold blooded system of "justice" that does one thing well - empower those who are already empowered. It's centuries out of date.

So, tell me, Joe, if you were out of work, had three kids to feed, didn't have the education or work experience to get a job, and had been taken off unemployment, and you had $250 in rent due a week ago and your landlord was threatening to turn you out if you didn't have it in three days, and it was December and snowing, how would _*you*_ make ends meet?


----------



## Rev2010 (Feb 7, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> The death penalty is nothing but revenge, plain and simple. It has no place in the justice system. All the lawamkers are doing is acting like they're all tough on crime. When in fact they aren't doing anything to really deal with crime other than kill some criminals.



So I suppose you're quite happy paying taxes to keep murderers alive in jail?? It costs millions upon millions of tax payer dollars each year. People that have proven they're not fit to live with society without being a grave threat. I don't agree with the send them to an island shit as they can then build their own boats and transport themselves back here or somewhere else. I also don't agree with the current handling of the death penalty as it's retardedly expensive. I'm in full support of the death penalty, but good lord can't they do this without the ridiculous amounts of money it costs?


Rev.


----------



## Drew (Feb 7, 2007)

Rev2010 said:


> So I suppose you're quite happy paying taxes to keep murderers alive in jail?? It costs millions upon millions of tax payer dollars each year. People that have proven they're not fit to live with society without being a grave threat. I don't agree with the send them to an island shit as they can then build their own boats and transport themselves back here or somewhere else. I also don't agree with the current handling of the death penalty as it's retardedly expensive. I'm in full support of the death penalty, but good lord can't they do this without the ridiculous amounts of money it costs?
> 
> 
> Rev.



Interesting point, but it actually costs more to execute them than to let them die in jail, between mandatory appeals and the cost of execution. I used to be pro-death for the same reasons until someone pointed this out to me. 

Now you want to talk about a group who shouldn't be in jail, the american penitentiary system is full of petty small time weed dealers, costing millions and millions a year for a crime that, bigger picture, is pretty trivial compared to murderers, rapists, and guys smuggling hundreds of kilos of coke into the country.


----------



## nitelightboy (Feb 7, 2007)

First off, I would have someone take my kids for me. Friends, family, anybody I trusted so that way they wouldn't have to deal with it. Then I'd be hitting up the odd jobs. There's nothing like a Home Depot early in the morning. Contractors pull up and pay a reasonable amount of money per day for people to work hard. If I lose the house, at least I'd be able to afford a cheap storage place to store the kids things that they didn't bring with them. And continue looking for a job where I would be able to make ends meet. Construction springs to mind. Pretty good money, little experience and no education needed. And of course, it doesn't snow in south FL, so I wouldn't have to worry about that.

I agree that social reform would solve lots of problems. I will NEVER debate against you there. However, the chances of the necessary reforms actually coming to life are slim to none. At least in our life time anyway. Until then, we need other methods to deter crime. And the simplest, and probably most effective of these alternatives, is a colder justice system with harsher punishments.

And Drew...I love ya man


----------



## Mastodon (Feb 7, 2007)

This is getting pretty heated, I think we've had a discussion very similar to this before.

Personally, I positively CANNOT see how this solves anything at all.

I don't think expanding the death penalty will do much of anything to deter crimes.

Time would be much better spent examing why certain crimes are commited, how best to identify potential offenders, and what steps can be taken to prevent people from becoming offenders.


----------



## Drew (Feb 7, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> I agree that social reform would solve lots of problems. I will NEVER debate against you there. However, the chances of the necessary reforms actually coming to life are slim to none. At least in our life time anyway. Until then, we need other methods to deter crime. And the simplest, and probably most effective of these alternatives, is a colder justice system with harsher punishments.



Two questions, then:

1.) Why are the chances these needed social reforms coming to pass are slim to none? Under Bush, sure, but Edwards has just laid out a workable health care plan, California is in the process of introducing a state one, and the Democratic-controlled Congress is in the process of trying to raise the minimum wage. Either fund or do away with Bush's No Child Left Behind act, and end this war in Iraq and divert much of the billions in war fundign towards revamping America's public school systems to make them competitive on the global stage, and we're halfway there. 

2.) Where have you seen that a judicial system with capital punishment has a demonstrated, statistically measurable impact on decreasing the crime rate? As someone posted in this thread earlier, there hasn't been a shred of statistical proof for that, yet it's a thesis that gets tossed around a lot by pro-death advocates. 

Killing criminals in the absense of any evidence that doing so actually lowers the crime rate puts us on the same moral ground as those criminals.


----------



## ohio_eric (Feb 7, 2007)

Rev2010 said:


> So I suppose you're quite happy paying taxes to keep murderers alive in jail?? It costs millions upon millions of tax payer dollars each year. People that have proven they're not fit to live with society without being a grave threat. I don't agree with the send them to an island shit as they can then build their own boats and transport themselves back here or somewhere else. I also don't agree with the current handling of the death penalty as it's retardedly expensive. I'm in full support of the death penalty, but good lord can't they do this without the ridiculous amounts of money it costs?
> 
> 
> Rev.




I'd rather pay for murderers to be locked up in jail for the rest of their lives then to pay to have them executed. Killing criminals does nothing. All it does it gives the illusion of safety and justice but it doesn't actual make us more safe or more just. Plus the last time I checked all the appeals death row criminals have to go through cost more than imprisonment. Since even the thought of an innocent man being executed should be absolutely sickening to anyone who even claims to be civilized you have to make absolutely certain that no innocents are executed. So given thatr absolute certainty can be damn near impossible the reasonable alternative is to not kill them at all. 

Let me address a few points raised earlier. 

"Eye for an eye" is a call for FAIR punishment. It's not an excuse to do the same to a criminal that they did to someone else. At the time of that statement, "eye for an eye", robbers were getting their hands cut off and liars getting their tongues cut out. It was a call for fairness and justice not revenge.

The deathpenalty is not a deterent. Think about for second, would serial killers not do what they do because of the consequences? How about the people that walk into a store with an Uzi and open fire? How about the guy who just snapped because his wife is having an affair with the guy who just took away his promotion at work? None of these would end up any different regardless of the punishment. So the death penalty stops nothing.


----------



## Rev2010 (Feb 7, 2007)

Drew said:


> So, tell me, Joe, if you were out of work, had three kids to feed, didn't have the education or work experience to get a job, and had been taken off unemployment, and you had $250 in rent due a week ago and your landlord was threatening to turn you out if you didn't have it in three days, and it was December and snowing, how would _*you*_ make ends meet?



OK, so the person has 3 kids and doesn't have the education or work experience to get another job. Sooo... what would you do to the system to make this person a worthy member of society to *earn* his money?? If he's uneducated and unexperienced why is he having three kids? What's the persons value and how would you accomodate him in our society if he has nothing to offer?? I know what you're saying, if all of society's ills were fixed he wouldn't likely be in this situation and that's your fix. But dude, this is a big complex planet. How would you recommend fixing all the worlds problems so that everyone can grow up educated, financially secure, and productive? People have tried this before... they were socialists.


Rev.


----------



## nitelightboy (Feb 7, 2007)

Drew said:


> Two questions, then:
> 
> 1.) Why are the chances these needed social reforms coming to pass are slim to none? Under Bush, sure, but Edwards has just laid out a workable health care plan, California is in the process of introducing a state one, and the Democratic-controlled Congress is in the process of trying to raise the minimum wage. Either fund or do away with Bush's No Child Left Behind act, and end this war in Iraq and divert much of the billions in war fundign towards revamping America's public school systems to make them competitive on the global stage, and we're halfway there. ..



Because every president has seemed to have the answer. And so far, none have delivered. I honestly don't believe that it could be passed through the legislative system. If, for some strange reason, a reasonable plan is really worked up and passed, I doubt that it will be implemented in a manner that it will actually make things easier. Look at Jeb Bush's idea for school reform. Have a ridiculously difficult test that many college professors can't pass. Make the kids take that. If they don't pass, they stay behind until they do. Now, teachers have to spend all year preparing the kids for the test, instead of actually teaching them things like when we were in school




Drew said:


> 2.) Where have you seen that a judicial system with capital punishment has a demonstrated, statistically measurable impact on decreasing the crime rate? As someone posted in this thread earlier, there hasn't been a shred of statistical proof for that, yet it's a thesis that gets tossed around a lot by pro-death advocates. ..



Alot of violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders. Sexual predators are very well known for this. Get rid of the repeat offenders, and you get rid of a large chunk of crime. Look at the Middle East. Punishments are very severe, and crime is virtually nonexistant, even among the most poverished people. I'm not saying that it's perfect, but it will cut back on crime significantly


----------



## Leon (Feb 7, 2007)

Rev2010 said:


> I don't agree with the send them to an island shit as they can then build their own boats and transport themselves back here or somewhere else.



life outside of a jail cell vs braving icy waters in a wooden canoe. criminals are dumb, but not that dumb


----------



## Drew (Feb 7, 2007)

Rev2010 said:


> OK, so the person has 3 kids and doesn't have the education or work experience to get another job. Sooo... what would you do to the system to make this person a worthy member of society to *earn* his money?? If he's uneducated and unexperienced why is he having three kids? What's the persons value and how would you accomodate him in our society if he has nothing to offer?? I know what you're saying, if all of society's ills were fixed he wouldn't likely be in this situation and that's your fix. But dude, this is a big complex planet. How would you recommend fixing all the worlds problems so that everyone can grow up educated, financially secure, and productive? People have tried this before... they were socialists.
> 
> 
> Rev.



You say "socialist" like it's an insult - sure, it's not a perfect economic system but unless you're thinking of the German National Socialist party (who were neither truely nationalists nor socialists) then I wouldn't exactly use the term derrogatorily. 

It's also not one that's 100% applicable here - I'm not suggesting anything be done to the capitalist free market economy, just a few groundwork tweaks to make sure no one falls through the cracks.

And you're missing the point - the point to give them something to "offer to society" isn't when they're at the end of their rope - the point is long before then. Get them and keep them in school at an early age, improve the school systems so that American students are no longer at the bottom of the developed countries, and maybe this person wouldn't have found themselve in the position they're in. 

And you know what? It's not cheap, but you know what? I bet it's a hell of a lot cheaper than executing people...


----------



## HighGain510 (Feb 7, 2007)

Again, I'm not arguing for or against either side, but I'm curious how the quote "it costs more to execute than it does to let them die in jail" always comes up? I know I've seen it on here in another discussion quite a bit. Is it because lethal injection is expensive? If that were the case, a bullet costs less than a single meal right? Again, I'm not saying "go ahead and shoot them, that's the right thing to do" at all, I'm just trying to understand how it costs less to execute someone than to keep someone in jail for 50 years? It would be fantastic if there was a way to actually make a change in people so we wouldn't have to worry about the subject of a death penalty but the issues are so complex that it doesn't look likely that it will ever get fixed.


----------



## nitelightboy (Feb 7, 2007)

Leon said:


> life outside of a jail cell vs braving icy waters in a wooden canoe. criminals are dumb, but not that dumb



Think about it Leon. People die for freedom. They're willing to risk everything for it. THose icy waters won't stop someone who's truly determined. How about the Cubans who wash up on shore here every day. They go through shark infested waters, the Florida Straights (Which are EXTREMELY rough waters) and go for days without food or drinkable water on a little piece of wood that just barely keeps them afloat.


----------



## ohio_eric (Feb 7, 2007)

So all the European countries, Canada, Australia and New Zealand who don't have the death penalty, yet have a lower murder rate than the USA, how do they manage that?


----------



## Rev2010 (Feb 7, 2007)

Drew said:


> Interesting point, but it actually costs more to execute them than to let them die in jail, between mandatory appeals and the cost of execution.



Yeah, I know. That's exactly why I think it needs to be reworked. Sentencing someone to death should in no way have to cost that much money, especially at the hands of the state. Some states have verged on financial crisis due to high profile crime cases that costs more than the state/county can afford! But I think there's gotta be a faster much cheaper way to go about this.


Rev.


----------



## nitelightboy (Feb 7, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> So all the European countries, Canada, Australia and New Zealand who don't have the death penalty, yet have a lower murder rate than the USA, how do they manage that?



Look at the countries you're talking about. Of course the murder rates are lower. 2 of the 3 have as many people as a couple of states. And Canada...well they're strange. I mean, look a Scott for god's sake.


----------



## Rev2010 (Feb 7, 2007)

Drew said:


> You say "socialist" like it's an insult - sure, it's not a perfect economic system but unless you're thinking of the German National Socialist party (who were neither truely nationalists nor socialists) then I wouldn't exactly use the term derrogatorily.



I'm not saying it derrogatorily. I'm saying it in a sense pointing to the many failed socialist governments that have existed.


Rev.


----------



## Leon (Feb 7, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> They go through shark infested waters, the Florida Straights (Which are EXTREMELY rough waters) and go for days without food or drinkable water on a little piece of wood that just barely keeps them afloat.



shit, i doubt anyone who survives a trip like that, + some frigid ass water, would ever put themselves in such a position as to have to go through it again. i.e., no repeat offenders


----------



## mefrommiddleearth (Feb 7, 2007)

I belive gental(well considering what some of you have addvocated gental is hardly the word)men that I have the perfect solution. I agree whole heartedly with every thing said about the fabulous results of penal colonies australia being an excellent example having gone from a dirty filthy dust hole full of criminals to a dirty filthy dust hole full of yobbo's who's ego's are painfully over inflated by mearly being australian as well as having the odd nice city. however although some land still remains in australia that would be suitable for the task I'm sure that it would eventualy run out would be opposed by filthy hippies. I belive the best and most long sighted solution is a penal colony on mars surly the threat of being sent to an inhospitable hell hole inhabited by the violent and the insane would provide an even greater deterance than the death penalty. the necessites of maintaining life on mars will surely drive those criminals with some organisational and leadership skills to impose a strict tyranny that will be over pushed and over streched by the riots and atempted coups ensuring that even those in leadership will be suitably punished and as it is on another planet indeed a far less hospitoble one escape will be far less likely. gentalmen ready your space ships, get the necessiary court orders their all going to mars.


----------



## Drew (Feb 7, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> Look at Jeb Bush's idea for school reform. Have a ridiculously difficult test that many college professors can't pass. Make the kids take that. If they don't pass, they stay behind until they do. Now, teachers have to spend all year preparing the kids for the test, instead of actually teaching them things like when we were in school
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1.) Jeb's is a very prototypical republican concept, though - set the standards so high that only the most exceptional students can suceed. Don't like it? Then send your children to a ($$$) private school. 

2.) Which begs a whole slew of questions. Are we talking about people who have previously commited similar violent crimes in the past (i.e - murderers who have murdered before), or people committing crimes who have existing (but potentially non-violent) criminal records? Because if it's the later, which I suspect it is, that only enforces my point. And if it's the former, what does killing them do that life in jail wouldn't? 

Also, I'd be curious to see where you're drawing your statistics for the middle east. Can you back that up with hard, accurate data, or are you just speculating?

Again, I've seen no concrete proof that capital punishment in any way decreases the violent crime rate.


----------



## Leon (Feb 7, 2007)

nitelightboy said:


> Look at the countries you're talking about. Of course the murder rates are lower. 2 of the 3 have as many people as a couple of states. And Canada...well they're strange. I mean, look a Scott for god's sake.



by *rate*, i think Eric is talking about percentages, not total population.


----------



## ohio_eric (Feb 7, 2007)

Here's the worldwide murder rates. 

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita


----------



## Rev2010 (Feb 7, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> So all the European countries, Canada, Australia and New Zealand who don't have the death penalty, yet have a lower murder rate than the USA, how do they manage that?



A lot of people will say it's the glorification of violence in American television and movies. Just as well with our video games like Grand Theft Auto. People claim it teaches kids to have violent reactions at very early ages.

***DISCLAIMER**** I'm not saying I believe nor disbelieve any of this. I've never given the proper long hard thought into it. I'm just mentioning it since people have debated this fiercely.


Rev.


----------



## Drew (Feb 7, 2007)

Rev2010 said:


> I'm not saying it derrogatorily. I'm saying it in a sense pointing to the many failed socialist governments that have existed.
> 
> 
> Rev.



Yeah, but how many of them failed for political or military reasons, and how many for economic? I mean, last I heard, Sweden and Norway are doing just fine...


----------



## ohio_eric (Feb 7, 2007)

Leon said:


> by *rate*, i think Eric is talking about percentages, not total population.



Indeed I am. Total numbers are useless when you have one country with 300 million and one with 55 thousand. 

[action="ohio_eric"] took a lot of statistics classes in college [/action]


----------



## Drew (Feb 7, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> Here's the worldwide murder rates.
> 
> http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita



Interesting. Would you agree to a rough correlation between poverty/economic imbalance (which honestly is probably the real culprit) and a higher murder rate?

It makes you wonder what's going to happen to the United States murder rate, if current trends continue.


----------



## Mastodon (Feb 7, 2007)

Rev2010 said:


> OK, so the person has 3 kids and doesn't have the education or work experience to get another job. Sooo... what would you do to the system to make this person a worthy member of society to *earn* his money?? If he's uneducated and unexperienced why is he having three kids? What's the persons value and how would you accomodate him in our society if he has nothing to offer?? I know what you're saying, if all of society's ills were fixed he wouldn't likely be in this situation and that's your fix. But dude, this is a big complex planet. How would you recommend fixing all the worlds problems so that everyone can grow up educated, financially secure, and productive? People have tried this before... they were socialists.
> 
> 
> Rev.



They have 3 kids because it's instinctive to reproduce.

Last week in english we were working with a practice prompt. The prompt was "If you could make one rule that everyone had to follow, what would it be?"

Now I havn't thought this all the way through yet, and I know there is absolutely no way this would ever be set into law in the United States, but this is what I proposed.

Couples whose combined income is below a certain amount (whatever amount would qualify them as empoverished) would be legally allowed to have one offspring. (Presuming that their combined income would be enough to support one child.) The law would an extension of child cruelty laws.

If they violate the law then the newborn child is taken into protective custody and the couple is castrated.

So if there are government funded school reforms, and their are less children in these schools, then they should theoretically have a much better chance of moving on to a higher education.

Which would theoretically allow them to make a higher income and remove themselves from poverty.

Of course, none of this would work since people wouldn't bother going to hospitals to give birth after their second offspring.


I'm sure there are a ton of other reasons that this wouldn't work that I have thought of and forgotten, or just havn't thought of.

In anycase, it was just a haphazzard thought about how to reach the root of the problem.


----------



## Drew (Feb 7, 2007)

Mastodon said:


> If they violate the law then the newborn child is taken into protective custody and the couple is castrated.





Um, way to go from the frying pan to the fire. that's sort of diametrically opposed to everything this country stands for, dude. Big Brother is always watching and whatnot.


----------



## HighGain510 (Feb 7, 2007)

One issue I see with the plan you proposed is what about the people out there NOW who are a prime example of why this wouldn't work: they have child after child and could care less about them? There are women out there who can't keep their legs closed and when they have 5 kids sitting at their house they cry "welfare" so if this system is to take the kids away and put them in protective custody, you're not solving the problem are you? That would just put a bunch of kids out there in protective custody, where you are then 100% supporting the kids instead of the parents doing it which is what THE PARENTS should be doing if they are having kids. If they don't want to have kids, don't have sex. It's that simple... you know what sex leads to, if you can't handle the consequences, don't participate in the action.


----------



## Rev2010 (Feb 7, 2007)

Mastodon said:


> Couples whose combined income is below a certain amount (whatever amount would qualify them as empoverished) would be legally allowed to have one offspring. (Presuming that their combined income would be enough to support one child.) The law would an extension of child cruelty laws.



Awesome post!  Especially calling it an extension of child cruelty laws! One thing though... you say it wouldn't work... it's working quite well in China last I read.

*EDIT - Whoa, post 1001!!


Rev.



HighGain510 said:


> One issue I see with the plan you proposed is what about the people out there NOW who are a prime example of why this wouldn't work:



LOL, give the guy a break... he did say, "Now I havn't thought this all the way through yet,". It's all just hypothetical anyway. 


Rev.


----------



## ohio_eric (Feb 7, 2007)

Drew said:


> Interesting. Would you agree to a rough correlation between poverty/economic imbalance (which honestly is probably the real culprit) and a higher murder rate?
> 
> It makes you wonder what's going to happen to the United States murder rate, if current trends continue.




I've never bought into the poverty causes crime. It's hoplessness that causes crime. You cna be poor but if you have the sense that it can get better or at lease it's going to be all right then you're not likley to commit a crime. It's the people that are desperate and don't care that become criminals. That's what we have to defeat not poverty per se.


----------



## HighGain510 (Feb 7, 2007)

Rev2010 said:


> Dude, give the guy a break... he did say, "Now I havn't thought this all the way through yet,". It's all just hypothetical anyway.
> Rev.




Rev, I wasn't busting his balls about it. I was just stating why I didn't think it was as simple as that.  It's a good thought, and if people out there actually CARED about their kids, it would probably work. The sad truth is a lot of people don't care about them.  Like I said, it's a complex issue, I don't see a simple way of solving it.... unless you go all hardcore about kids like China did, but I don't really think that's a good idea....


----------



## Rev2010 (Feb 7, 2007)

HighGain510 said:


> Rev, I wasn't busting his balls about it.



Heh, I know. I had actually changed my wording cause I didn't want you to get the wrong idea of my "tone". I changed it to, "LOL, give the guy a break" but I see you already replied 


Rev.


----------



## Drew (Feb 7, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> I've never bought into the poverty causes crime. It's hoplessness that causes crime. You cna be poor but if you have the sense that it can get better or at lease it's going to be all right then you're not likley to commit a crime. It's the people that are desperate and don't care that become criminals. That's what we have to defeat not poverty per se.



I guess that makes sense. Poverty can certainly play a role in that - the scenario I put forward is a form of economic hopelessness - but I guess isn't the only factor in play. 

Still it's a step in the right direction, and one not without more wide-reaching benefits. You lose nothing by suceeding, you know?


----------



## ohio_eric (Feb 7, 2007)

Drew said:


> I guess that makes sense. Poverty can certainly play a role in that - the scenario I put forward is a form of economic hopelessness - but I guess isn't the only factor in play.
> 
> Still it's a step in the right direction, and one not without more wide-reaching benefits. You lose nothing by suceeding, you know?




Well if we went back to LBJ's War on Poverty and did things to lessen poverty in this country I would guarantee the crime rate would drop. Once people saw some hope for the future they would be less likely to rob liquor stores and deal drugs.


----------



## Mastodon (Feb 7, 2007)

HighGain510 said:


> One issue I see with the plan you proposed is what about the people out there NOW who are a prime example of why this wouldn't work: they have child after child and could care less about them? There are women out there who can't keep their legs closed and when they have 5 kids sitting at their house they cry "welfare" so if this system is to take the kids away and put them in protective custody, you're not solving the problem are you? That would just put a bunch of kids out there in protective custody, where you are then 100% supporting the kids instead of the parents doing it which is what THE PARENTS should be doing if they are having kids. If they don't want to have kids, don't have sex. It's that simple... you know what sex leads to, if you can't handle the consequences, don't participate in the action.



Exactly, that's why I put the whole bit about castration in there.



drew said:


> Um, way to go from the frying pan to the fire. that's sort of diametrically opposed to everything this country stands for, dude. Big Brother is always watching and whatnot.



Yeah it does, but the question they asked wanted us to write from an angle as if we were a dictator and had absolute power.

Most of us went with the most radical thing we could think of in order to see how well we could back the statement up given 15 minutes of time. Heck, one guy wrote about why everyone should be required to smoke marijuana everyday.


----------



## Aaron (Feb 7, 2007)

i think im gonna move to an island where there is no society, no laws,
politics, or anything else, just 100% natural with a big population of 
women and drugs


----------



## Jason (Feb 7, 2007)

Aaron said:


> i think im gonna move to an island where there is no society, no laws,
> politics, or anything else, just 100% natural with a big population of
> women and drugs



Riight..if you don't have anything to good to say why bother posting in a serious topic?


----------



## mefrommiddleearth (Feb 7, 2007)

You're all ignoring me  ignoring my brilliant idea of a penal colony on mars you will pay 



.jason. said:


> Riight..if you don't have anything to good to say why bother posting in a serious topic?



he in his own way (as have i) has expressed his frustration with the subject the constant grinding clash of opinions surrounding it. It gets to the point where people just want to get off the damn subject permanently so that they can have stable blood pressure for the rest of their lives.


----------



## garcia3441 (Feb 7, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> I've never bought into the poverty causes crime. It's hoplessness that causes crime.



It's not necessarily hopelessness, it's also the lure of easy money. Seriously, which would you prefer earning $7.50 per hour flipping burgers *OR* making $300 a day selling crack or meth?


----------



## ohio_eric (Feb 7, 2007)

garcia3441 said:


> It's not necessarily hopelessness, it's also the lure of easy money. Seriously, which would you prefer earning $7.50 per hour flipping burgers *OR* making $300 a day selling crack or meth?



Think about like this if you were growing up in a neighborhood where you thought the only way to make any real money was to pimp or deal what are you going to do? If you don't think you can get a decent solid paying job and you have zero alternatives other than criminal activity you're screwed. That's what I mean by hopelessness.


----------



## Jason (Feb 7, 2007)

mefrommiddleearth said:


> You're all ignoring me  ignoring my brilliant idea of a penal colony on mars you will pay
> 
> 
> 
> he in his own way (as have i) has expressed his frustration with the subject the constant grinding clash of opinions surrounding it. It gets to the point where people just want to get off the damn subject permanently so that they can have stable blood pressure for the rest of their lives.



OK if it goes you so hot around the collar then don't read it.


----------



## HighGain510 (Feb 7, 2007)

garcia3441 said:


> It's not necessarily hopelessness, it's also the lure of easy money. Seriously, which would you prefer earning $7.50 per hour flipping burgers *OR* making $300 a day selling crack or meth?



+1, that sounds about right to me.  See, that's how I look at it too. If more of these "criminals" would WORK jobs instead of saying "it's hopeless, I'll never get a job, I'll just steal or shoot someone and take their money" I think the problem wouldn't be as bad. I would love to be able to make 3K in a day, but I would NEVER go about doing so in a manner that was in any way illegal. Some people say "why don't I rob that bank?" and they are thinking that seriously.  Before you go saying "well, maybe they CAN'T get hired because they're poor or they have a previous record holding them back" I think just about anyone that REALLY tries to get a job, even if it's a $5.50/hr job making burgers and fries, can get a job.


----------



## mefrommiddleearth (Feb 7, 2007)

.jason. said:


> OK if it goes you so hot around the collar then don't read it.



I think I need to refrase what I've said. This is an important issue, this is an issue that should be disscussed, this is an issue that must be resolved(talking about criminal issues and the death penalty here) but it is frustrating simply not reading it is not really an option or at least most peoples sense of ethics and their moral compultions won't let them view it as one regardless of how "hot under the collar" it makes them. It's perfect provocation for escapism.


----------



## jtm45 (Feb 7, 2007)

"Killing people quicker" ain't no solution to nothing. 

Sorry, but i think the Death penalty sucks majorly.
It's down-right barbarism and fucking primitive.


----------



## Aaron (Feb 7, 2007)

alright this is going a little far don't you think, it sounds like everyone is getting pissed


----------



## Carrion (Feb 7, 2007)

Should the death penalty be used for crimes other than murder?
Yes	67%

Oh come on. Everybody, no matter what race, creed, or religion realizes that killing a human is the ultimate "sin" or "evil" you can do. I don't believe a child molester or drug dealer should serve a death sentence. For one, child molestation is normally a mental disease that requires treatment.


----------



## Aaron (Feb 7, 2007)

Carrion said:


> Should the death penalty be used for crimes other than murder?
> Yes	67%
> 
> Oh come on. Everybody, no matter what race, creed, or religion realizes that killing a human is the ultimate "sin" or "evil" you can do. I don't believe a child molester or drug dealer should serve a death sentence. For one, child molestation is normally a mental disease that requires treatment.



really, thats interesting, i did not know that


----------



## Drew (Feb 7, 2007)

Aaron, post intelligently or stay out of this forum. 

/mod


----------



## Drew (Feb 7, 2007)

HighGain510 said:


> +1, that sounds about right to me.  See, that's how I look at it too. If more of these "criminals" would WORK jobs instead of saying "it's hopeless, I'll never get a job, I'll just steal or shoot someone and take their money" I think the problem wouldn't be as bad. I would love to be able to make 3K in a day, but I would NEVER go about doing so in a manner that was in any way illegal. Some people say "why don't I rob that bank?" and they are thinking that seriously.  Before you go saying "well, maybe they CAN'T get hired because they're poor or they have a previous record holding them back" I think just about anyone that REALLY tries to get a job, even if it's a $5.50/hr job making burgers and fries, can get a job.



That's an absolute copout. You would NEVER do that because, as ohio eric points out, you believe it's possible to make good money legitimately. You have options. In the scenario we're talking, these people don't.


----------



## ohio_eric (Feb 7, 2007)

Drew said:


> That's an absolute copout. You would NEVER do that because, as ohio eric points out, you believe it's possible to make good money legitimately. You have options. In the scenario we're talking, these people don't.





I worked as a substitute teacher for a couple years and I saw dozens of kids that for one reason or another didn't give a shit about anything. They were in and out of juvenile detention and just didn't care. It was depressing as Hell.


----------



## Mastodon (Feb 7, 2007)

HighGain510 said:


> +1, that sounds about right to me.  See, that's how I look at it too. If more of these "criminals" would WORK jobs instead of saying "it's hopeless, I'll never get a job, I'll just steal or shoot someone and take their money" I think the problem wouldn't be as bad. I would love to be able to make 3K in a day, but I would NEVER go about doing so in a manner that was in any way illegal. Some people say "why don't I rob that bank?" and they are thinking that seriously.  Before you go saying "well, maybe they CAN'T get hired because they're poor or they have a previous record holding them back" I think just about anyone that REALLY tries to get a job, even if it's a $5.50/hr job making burgers and fries, can get a job.



What about areas where the job selection is very limited, and what jobs there are don't provide enough income to take care of a family. (I'm thinking about something like the Detroit area).

If they messed up and got their girlfriend pregnant as a teenager, and want to do the most responsible thing by taking care of the mother and offspring, but there are no jobs that provide enough to do so, but they can make enough money to do so by taking part in illegal activities, what do you think they're going to do. (Yes I know that that was a run on sentence).


----------



## Dive-Baum (Feb 7, 2007)

OK...I've got an idea...Let's talk about a subject that isn't so volitile...How about The Middle Eastern Conflicts.... 

That was for you Drew.


----------



## HighGain510 (Feb 7, 2007)

Mastodon said:


> If they messed up and got their girlfriend pregnant as a teenager, and want to do the most responsible thing by taking care of the mother and offspring, but there are no jobs that provide enough to do so, but they can make enough money to do so by taking part in illegal activities, what do you think they're going to do. (Yes I know that that was a run on sentence).



Ah but see, again, in that scenario they shouldn't have been having sex if they were not capable of handling the consequences!  My older brother knocked up his ex-girlfriend when she was just starting college and you know what? He's dealing with that shit right now. He got a job (he's in the army, no less) and manned up to his responsibilty. He could have easily just said "fuck it, I'll go rob people" and gone in that direction, but he didn't. I'm not trying to be a prick but you're twisting what I'm saying here. 

All I am trying to say is that in MOST cases, there ARE in fact jobs available. How is it that illegal immigrants have the ABILITY to accept low-paying jobs doing lawn work or working in Walmart? The reason these immigrants have the ability/opportunity for these jobs is because many Americans won't accept the pay (yes I realize many of those immigrants don't work for the legal minimum wage...) or won't perform the tasks required for the job. THOSE jobs could be taken up by these people, it is THEIR choice. I would understand if they needed monetary help at that point (and I wouldn't mind as much because at least they ARE working), but I don't think they are looking to cut lawns or work at Walmart for $5 an hour or less... heaven forbid.  It's much easier to hold a gun in someone's back and say "give me your wallet" than it is to work 40 hours a week stocking shelves or cutting lawns. THAT is what I'm trying to say... in most cases (not ALL, so don't say that's a copout just because I'm not in those circumstances please) there is SOME option, but they choose the EASIER one which involves illegal activity. Why do I work a REAL job right now? Because I was smart and didn't knock up my girlfriend during high school or college, and then get forced into a burger-flipping position. What you make of your life is all about YOUR choices and self-control... if you lack in both departments that is really on you, no one else. Make the right choices and you can better yourself and contribute positively to society, that's all I want to say.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Feb 8, 2007)

Death penalty - wrong. End of story.


Here's the conundrum for all you advocates. If we use the death penalty as a punishment for murder (is anyone seriously advocating the death penalty for non life-taking crimes?), and we define murder as the taking of a life unjustly (ie., not for self-defense, etc.), if we kill just ONE PERSON who was innocent, then guess what?


We become *murderers*, too. Especially if we lend it our moral and political support, giving it social legitimacy. If you believe *murderers* should be put to death, where does that leave you?



Food for thought.



(There have been over 100 innocent people exonerated who were previously on death row since 1973. These are people who would have been *murdered* in a state-sanctioned execution. Estimates are there are perhaps another 100 people on death row who are innocent. Even if it was only 20, or 10, or even 1, would it be acceptable to be put to death for a crime you did not commit? What if it was YOU, or someone you loved?

25 years ago, the use of DNA evidence in crime investigation was nearly unthinkable. It can now conclusively prove innocence in many of these cases. Who knows what secrets may be soon unlocked in criminal investigation using our continually advancing technology? If we murder these people, all hope for their future exoneration becomes meaningless.)


----------



## HighGain510 (Feb 8, 2007)

The Dark Wolf said:


> There have been over 100 innocent people exonerated who were previously on death row since 1973. These are people who would have been *murdered* in a state-sanctioned execution. Estimates are there are perhaps another 100 people on death row who are innocent. Even if it was only 20, or 10, or even 1, would it be acceptable to be put to death for a crime you did not commit? What if it was YOU, or someone you loved?



That's another thing I always think about when it comes to the death penalty topic... what if the guy you are killing did nothing wrong? I would hate to be in his shoes, I can tell you that much.  That's one reason why I can't really side for or against it. I hate the fact that there are so many of these inmates that come out "reformed" from their stay in prison, only to go and commit the same or worse crimes again. That is really the only reason I can understand why they use the death penalty. I don't think the death penalty is a positive thing, but I also don't think someone who DOES willfully murder someone should EVER be released from prison. Let them rot in there, they took a life. If you CAN prove it was them (and these days lawyers will do everything to keep their guilty client from going to jail even when they know they are guilty, which makes me sick) I don't think they should ever be released. At least that way you know there is NO way they will end up hurting anyone else in society (other than in their pocket by having to pay to keep them in jail, of course). I know some people really can reform once they pay their dues but the fact is there are many who do not, so I'm not really sure what else to do. If one of my family members killed someone, I would still feel the same way about keeping them in prison. I don't buy into the whole "well he has a mental illness.... he just needs to be treated and then released" deal. I think if someone has a mental illness that COULD allow them to kill, and they have previously proved this potential to be true, they need to be put in a psychiatric ward permanently so they cannot affect outer society. Just my  . Again, I don't think killing them is the right way to go, but letting them go free after a few years just doesn't seem right. Once you willfully kill someone you have officially proved yourself a danger to society as a whole IMO.


----------



## Jason (Feb 8, 2007)

> Matt


Ah but see, again, in that scenario they shouldn't have been having sex if they were not capable of handling the consequences!  My older brother knocked up his ex-girlfriend when she was just starting college and you know what? He's dealing with that shit right now. He got a job (he's in the army, no less) and manned up to his responsibilty. He could have easily just said "fuck it, I'll go rob people" and gone in that direction, but he didn't. I'm not trying to be a prick but you're twisting what I'm saying here. 

Yes. SHit happens tho. What about rape or incest? then what?



> Matt



All I am trying to say is that in MOST cases, there ARE in fact jobs available. *How is it that illegal immigrants have the ABILITY to accept low-paying jobs doing lawn work or working in Walmart?* 

Alot of these people live with alot of other people and or on welfare at the same time and collect there earnings plsu goverment assitance.



> Matt



The reason these immigrants have the ability/opportunity for these jobs is because many Americans won't accept the pay *(yes I realize many of those immigrants don't work for the legal minimum wage...) *

BINGO!


> Matt


 I would understand if they needed monetary help at that point (and I wouldn't mind as much because at least they ARE working), but I don't think they are looking to cut lawns or work at Walmart for $5 an hour or less... heaven forbid.  

Yeah that would be ideal BUT the system isn't setup for you to be able to work AND get help. You have to be a lowlife on the system or be off it. PLain and simple. The welfare system SUCKS! If your on welfare or section 8 and work guess what they take what you make and deduct it from your money they give you. SO there is no incentive to work for these people.


> Matt


 It's much easier to hold a gun in someone's back and say "give me your wallet" than it is to work 40 hours a week stocking shelves or cutting lawns. THAT is what I'm trying to say... in most cases (not ALL, so don't say that's a copout just because I'm not in those circumstances please) there is SOME option, but they choose the EASIER one which involves illegal activity. 

Again read above. It's not always black and white.



> Matt


 Why do I work a REAL job right now? Because I was smart and didn't knock up my girlfriend during high school or college, and then get forced into a burger-flipping position. What you make of your life is all about YOUR choices and self-control...* if you lack in both departments that is really on you, no one else.* Make the right choices and you can better yourself and contribute positively to society, that's all I want to say. [/QUOTE]

Amen, I agree. Accept it's on us too cause we pay for it.


----------



## noodles (Feb 8, 2007)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Death penalty - wrong. End of story.
> 
> Here's the conundrum for all you advocates. If we use the death penalty as a punishment for murder (is anyone seriously advocating the death penalty for non life-taking crimes?), and we define murder as the taking of a life unjustly (ie., not for self-defense, etc.), if we kill just ONE PERSON who was innocent, then guess what?
> 
> We become *murderers*, too. Especially if we lend it our moral and political support, giving it social legitimacy. If you believe *murderers* should be put to death, where does that leave you?



This is exactly my problem with the death penalty: there is no going back. A pardon from the governor doesn't bring the guy back to life. Being that, on average, it costs more to execute someone than to keep them alive, I see no real point to capital punishment. It has been proven to not be a deterrent to crime.

Besides, the knowledge that you are going to wake up every day in the same small cell, with absolutely no hope of your situation ever changing, is a far worse punishment. Death would be a release at that point.


----------



## HighGain510 (Feb 8, 2007)

Very good points Jason, can't say I'll disagree with most of that either!  Basically, a LOT of systems that are currently in place are in need of serious reform!


----------



## Drew (Feb 8, 2007)

HighGain510 said:


> TAgain, I don't think killing them is the right way to go, but letting them go free after a few years just doesn't seem right. Once you willfully kill someone you have officially proved yourself a danger to society as a whole IMO.



Well yeah, but it's not like the alternative to capital punishment is five years in jail, you know? 

That sort of an argument just clouds the waters here. Someone might want to confirm this for me, but I BELIEVE that in any state where capital punishment is legal, when the decision to ask for the death penalty is made, the alternative is always life in jail without parole. It's not like by not killing these guys you're letting them back out on the streets one day - you're not. They're off the streets for good either way. It's just a question of executing them or letting them rot in a 6x8 jail cell for the rest of their lives.


----------



## HighGain510 (Feb 8, 2007)

Word, Drew. I wasn't sure if there was anything stating they could never be released when sentenced to life in prison. I thought I heard that they can sometimes be excused, but maybe I was mis-informed. Thanks!


----------



## Makelele (Feb 8, 2007)

HighGain510 said:


> Word, Drew. I wasn't sure if there was anything stating they could never be released when sentenced to life in prison. I thought I heard that they can sometimes be excused, but maybe I was mis-informed. Thanks!



In Finland most criminals convicted to life in prison get released after about 15 years, and as far as I know, none of them have killed again.


----------



## Drew (Feb 8, 2007)

HighGain510 said:


> Word, Drew. I wasn't sure if there was anything stating they could never be released when sentenced to life in prison. I thought I heard that they can sometimes be excused, but maybe I was mis-informed. Thanks!



It depends on the sentence. If you get a 50-year sentence, it's possible you can be paroled early for good behavior. I'm not sure what the deal is with a life sentence and if it's possible to be paroled or not for good behavior, but i DO know that it's possible to be sentenced without parole. If that's the case, then whatever the length of your sentence - five years, twenty years, life - you serve it to the day. 

Someone with a better knowledge of the american judiciary system than I - is a life sentence automatically a sentence without parole, or is it (unintuitively) possible to be paroled while serving a life sentence?


----------



## noodles (Feb 8, 2007)

Wikipedia said:


> The definition varies from one U.S. state to another. Life imprisonment often lasts until the prisoner dies, especially in cases where life imprisonment is imposed as alternative to the death penalty. It is also usual that life terms are given in sentences that are intentionally longer than how long the prisoner is expected to live, e.g. a 200-year sentence for multiple counts of murder. In contrast to that, there are also many states where a convict can be released on parole after a decade or more has passed. For example, sentences of "15 years to life" or "25 years to life" may be given; this is called an "indeterminate life sentence," while a sentence of "life without the possibility of parole" is called a "determinate life sentence." Even when a sentence specifically denies the possibility of parole, government officials may have the power to grant amnesty or reprieves, or commute a sentence to time served. Under the federal criminal code, however, with respect to offenses committed after December 1, 1987, parole has been abolished for all sentences handed down by the federal system, including life sentences, so a life sentence from a federal court will result in imprisonment for the life of the defendant, unless a pardon or reprieve is granted by the President. A broad range of crimes can serve as the predicate act for a life sentence in the United States, ranging from petty theft to murder. Notably, the U.S. Supreme Court on several occasions has upheld lengthy sentences for petty theft including life with the possibility of parole and 50 years to life; neither conflicts with the ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" in the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution because they are not torture. See three-strikes laws for more information.



It is not uncommon to hear of multiple life sentences, or the racking up of years to the point that it is impossible for someone to survive long enough to be released. I think this is a way of ensuring that the convicted isn't going to get out of prison early.

Personally, I think parole is bullshit. If you do the crime, then you should do the time, pure and simple. Time off with good behavior should be replaced with extended time for bad behavior. These aren't school children being granted a reprieve from grounding because they brought up their grades.

On the other hand, imprisonment should be abolished for victimless crime. Why do people go to prison for drug possession, prostitution, or even cheating on their taxes? Prison should serve the sole purpose of protecting society from violent individuals, not detention after school for acting up in class.


----------



## HighGain510 (Feb 8, 2007)

Thanks for the clarification noodles. Nice post!


----------



## stuz719 (Feb 8, 2007)

The real test of support for the death penalty is whether you're prepared to be the one who is executed as a result of the miscarriage of justice.

"The law is an ass" - not only a fool, but also a strong-willed beast of burden that doesn't always walk in the direction we want it to, or indeed walk at all.

The legal system is administered by people, and people make mistakes.

The question you need to ask yourself is: "Am I willing to forfeit my life as one of those mistakes in support of capital punishment?"

If you can *honestly* and *unequivocally* answer "Yes" then you support the death penalty.


----------



## Rev2010 (Feb 8, 2007)

The Dark Wolf said:


> Death penalty - wrong. End of story.
> 
> 
> Here's the conundrum for all you advocates. If we use the death penalty as a punishment for murder (is anyone seriously advocating the death penalty for non life-taking crimes?), and we define murder as the taking of a life unjustly (ie., not for self-defense, etc.), if we kill just ONE PERSON who was innocent, then guess what?



What about serial killers that kill entire families and completely confess to the crime out of pride and also give evidence an innocent man could never possibly give? Should we let these types of serial killers live? There was a program on TV called Most Evil where this doctor interviewed many of these such killers. A number of them said if they were to get out they'd go right back to killing, that they love the rush. Why should these individuals be excused from the death penalty as they're surely not innocent and there is no doubt?


Rev.


----------



## Drew (Feb 8, 2007)

Rev2010 said:


> What about serial killers that kill entire families and completely confess to the crime out of pride and also give evidence an innocent man could never possibly give? Should we let these types of serial killers live? There was a program on TV called Most Evil where this doctor interviewed many of these such killers. A number of them said if they were to get out they'd go right back to killing, that they love the rush. Why should these individuals be excused from the death penalty as they're surely not innocent and there is no doubt?



I'll answer this question right after you explain why it matters that they get the death penalty, as opposed to life in prison without parole in a maximum security prison's solitary confinement cell.


----------



## Rev2010 (Feb 8, 2007)

Drew said:


> I'll answer this question right after you explain why it matters that they get the death penalty, as opposed to life in prison without parole in a maximum security prison's solitary confinement cell.



Quite simple, in cases such as this where there's all this admitted guilt and irrefutable evidence there's no need for a lengthy death row stay. Just put a bullet in their head and we save all the money it would cost to keep them alive.


Rev.


----------



## Mastodon (Feb 8, 2007)

Rev2010 said:


> What about serial killers that kill entire families and completely confess to the crime out of pride and also give evidence an innocent man could never possibly give? Should we let these types of serial killers live? There was a program on TV called Most Evil where this doctor interviewed many of these such killers. A number of them said if they were to get out they'd go right back to killing, that they love the rush. Why should these individuals be excused from the death penalty as they're surely not innocent and there is no doubt?
> 
> 
> Rev.



Because we can study them to find out WHY they have that mentality. Which would hopefully lead to a way to correct this mentality.

Only problem with that is however, si that not all serial killers show signs of their mentality (stereotypical things like torturing animals as a youth etc.)

Even if we couldn't study their behaviour, the purpose of sentencing them to death is to remove them from society correct?

Life in prison accomplishes the same thing.

Why do they deserve to be spared when their victims weren't?

Because who are we to say that he dosn't deserve to live? It's not like he's going to live a glamarous life anyway.


----------



## Drew (Feb 8, 2007)

Rev2010 said:


> Quite simple, in cases such as this where there's all this admitted guilt and irrefutable evidence there's no need for a lengthy death row stay. Just put a bullet in their head and we save all the money it would cost to keep them alive.



Well, for one, it wouldn't be the first time that a case like this has been refuted - the John Ramnsey Bennett case is the most recent example, where the "killer" confessed and provided the police with evidence "only the killer could have known," yet the DNA wasn't a match and family pictures surfaced from the day of the murder that put him at a family dinner in a completely different state than the murder occured in right about when she died. So, it begs the question, if that isn't an open-and-shut case, what _*is?*_

Then, we've already had the "expense" argument. As I've already said here, it's more expensive to execute a prisoner than it is to let them die in jail. Sure, that's largely due to the mandatory appeals, but we can't do away with those - take the above example, where even a confessed killer who knew details only the killer could turned out just to be a delusional man who was absolutely obsessed with the case and had done painstaking research. The fact is, even in cases of supposed "clear cut guilt," you can't execute people without giving them (or in cases like this, their families) the right to an appeal simply because it's the only way you can ensure that you're not executing an innocent man. 

So, even if we ignore the fact that there is no "absolute" confession and the fact that because of that it's still no cheaper, there's still the question of morality. For any reason aside from simple life-or-death self defense, is it ever right to take the right of another human being? If you say yes, can you really justify killing a murderer because it's wrong to kill, since you clearly believe it's right to kill? But if you believe it's NOT right to kill, then how can you kill someone for any reason other than the preservation of someone else's life?

Or, put it another way - are you willing to sacrifice moral authority to save your average taxpayer a fraction of a penny a year, per life?


----------



## Rev2010 (Feb 8, 2007)

Drew, you're overlooking some of what I've said. Once again, forget about cost to execute. I've stated that this obviously needs to be reworked but regardless, in cases where there is irrefutable evidence plus admission or guilt I don't see why there's a need to keep someone alive for 15 years before being executed. You say there is no "absolute" confession, but I'm talking about absolute guilt, not just confession, and there's no way you can say that doesn't exist. If someone kills and confesses, is witnessed by people as being the murder, is caught on video, leaves DNA evidence and is covered in the victims blood and still holding the murder weapon when caught there's no way you can say that person isn't guilty and that _maybe_ it was someone else. In such extremely rare cases with all this evidence I don't see why an instant or quick execution shouldn't be performed. Executing in such a way with a very low cost method wouldn't carry anywhere near the cost of what it is today. As far as the moral stuff goes, nah... that doesn't fly with me  By the way, I know this argument is reserved for extremely rare instances but my purpose for stating such a case was to see what Bob would say since he made it clear he feels death sentence = wrong no matter what due to the possibility of a mistake.


Rev.


----------



## noodles (Feb 8, 2007)

If the moral stuff doesn't work for you, then think of it another way. Would you rather spend the rest of your life in a maximum security prison, never allowed outside, never allowed to mingle with the general population, living in a 6x8 cell with no privacy, or a quick and painless death?

I think most would rather take death. That is exactly why we shouldn't give it to them.


----------



## Rev2010 (Feb 8, 2007)

noodles said:


> If the moral stuff doesn't work for you, then think of it another way. Would you rather spend the rest of your life in a maximum security prison, never allowed outside, never allowed to mingle with the general population, living in a 6x8 cell with no privacy, or a quick and painless death?



Nope, I'd take the cell. They do after all give magazines, books, games, and even cable TV. I'd take that over death in a second. The mind can be a wonderous playground.  


Rev.


----------



## noodles (Feb 8, 2007)

Well, I would be in favor of violent criminals sentenced to life without parole *not* having access to things like games and cable TV. Trust me, after a few weeks, books and magazines just wouldn't cut it for you anymore. Your mind would start tearing itself apart.


----------



## Rev2010 (Feb 8, 2007)

noodles said:


> Well, I would be in favor of violent criminals sentenced to life without parole *not* having access to things like games and cable TV. Trust me, after a few weeks, books and magazines just wouldn't cut it for you anymore. Your mind would start tearing itself apart.



I wholeheartedly agree, but you know that would never happen as then people would call it cruel and unsual punishment.


Rev.


----------



## Drew (Feb 8, 2007)

Rev2010 said:


> I wholeheartedly agree, but you know that would never happen as then people would call it cruel and unsual punishment.



And, um, a bullet to the head isn't?


----------



## Rev2010 (Feb 8, 2007)

Drew said:


> And, um, a bullet to the head isn't?



Gimme a break dude. 


Rev.


----------



## ohio_eric (Feb 8, 2007)

Rev2010 said:


> Gimme a break dude.
> 
> 
> Rev.



So what exactly do you define as cruel and unusal punishment?


----------



## Rev2010 (Feb 8, 2007)

ohio_eric said:


> So what exactly do you define as cruel and unusal punishment?



Torture.


Rev.


----------



## ohio_eric (Feb 8, 2007)

Rev2010 said:


> Torture.
> 
> 
> Rev.



So as long as torture isn't involved any form of execution is fine with you?


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Feb 8, 2007)

Rev2010 said:


> What about serial killers that kill entire families and completely confess to the crime out of pride and also give evidence an innocent man could never possibly give? Should we let these types of serial killers live? There was a program on TV called Most Evil where this doctor interviewed many of these such killers. A number of them said if they were to get out they'd go right back to killing, that they love the rush. Why should these individuals be excused from the death penalty as they're surely not innocent and there is no doubt?



Considering over 100 people have been exonerated in the last 25 years, I don't think those are the exacting standards for evidence in capital punishment cases.


----------



## Mastodon (Feb 8, 2007)

Rev2010 said:


> Nope, I'd take the cell. They do after all give magazines, books, games, and even cable TV. I'd take that over death in a second. The mind can be a wonderous playground.
> 
> 
> Rev.



Sorry but, BULLSHIT.

Max security prisons do not let them have many things at all. They're lucky if they get some paper and a writing utencil.

You WILL go bonkers without human contact.



rev2010 said:


> I wholeheartedly agree, but you know that would never happen as then people would call it cruel and unsual punishment.



It's happening right now dude.


----------



## Rev2010 (Feb 8, 2007)

Mastodon said:


> Sorry but, BULLSHIT.
> 
> Max security prisons do not let them have many things at all. They're lucky if they get some paper and a writing utencil.



Call bullshit all you want dude. There's still this going around in circles bullshit. So if there are no amenities for maximum security prisoners why keep them alive? Why pay tax payer dollars to build, maintain, and run a prision as well as feed, bathe, and cloth the prisoners when they've demonstrated and have been found to be completely incapable of ever existing safely and productively in society? Sorry, but you can happily pay all the money you'd like but I don't think it's right for the rest of us not in agreement with you to have to foot the bill simply because you may think killing a criminal is wrong. I for one do not think it's wrong. Lastly, if I were to commit a crime I certainly would choose a maximum security cell over death. At least staying alive leaves some form of future.


Rev.



The Dark Wolf said:


> Considering over 100 people have been exonerated in the last 25 years, I don't think those are the exacting standards for evidence in capital punishment cases.



Sorry Bob but you didn't answer my question, you avoided it by restating that which I challenged. What about cases where people are 100% guilty and are damned proud of it?? People where they're so boastful of their crime sprees and every bit of evidence clearly proves the individual guilty? Ever seen any interviews with real prolific serial killers? Well, answer the question as to those individuals without the doubt of guilt.


Rev.


----------



## The Dark Wolf (Feb 8, 2007)

Rev2010 said:


> Sorry Bob but you didn't answer my question, you avoided it by restating that which I challenged. What about cases where people are 100% guilty and are damned proud of it?? People where they're so boastful of their crime sprees and every bit of evidence clearly proves the individual guilty?



That's a moral and ethical question, not a legal one. You're putting an impossible hypothetical into play that in all reality has zero bearing on how things really stand in the criminal justice system.

Our system of jurisprudence doesn't work that way. Someone deemed guilty by a jury is legally considered just as guilty as someone who confesses. Even someone who confesses gets a trial. You can't throw the baby out without the bathwater in this situation. If you have one, you have the other.

By defending the death penalty, you're saying you're ok that innocent people have almost assuredly been murdered by state execution.



BTW, I got that it's you at the end of your post.


----------



## Rev2010 (Feb 8, 2007)

The Dark Wolf said:


> BTW, I got that it's you at the end of your post.



Unfortunately I don't have the time to keep asking the same question as it's not being answered. The question being if someone were indeed 100% guilty in every humanly possible way of proof of being a prolific serial killer why would you be in support of keeping them alive at society's expense? - all moral values aside of course.

The true point of my response though is to ask... what's with my signing each post that's such a problem? First Drew, now you. It seems like people point this out when I'm in disagreement. I'm used to signing "Rev." at the bottom of posts. Unless I'm do for a ban as result I think I'll leave myself to not having to remember *not* to sign each post as it's so engrained in me 


Rev.


----------



## Mastodon (Feb 8, 2007)

Rev2010 said:


> Unfortunately I don't have the time to keep asking the same question as it's not being answered. The question being if someone were indeed 100% guilty in every humanly possible way of proof of being a prolific serial killer why would you be in support of keeping them alive at society's expense? - all moral values aside of course.
> 
> The true point of my response though is to ask... what's with my signing each post that's such a problem? First Drew, now you. It seems like people point this out when I'm in disagreement. I'm used to signing "Rev." at the bottom of posts. Unless I'm do for a ban as result I think I'll leave myself to not having to remember *not* to sign each post as it's so engrained in me
> 
> ...



Well if you cast all moral values aside, and you allow for a cheap and immediate execution method with no aquitals, then yeah it would make more sense to just kill them.

Would the money that would have been spent imprisoning this person be used for research into preventive measures though?


----------

