Capital Punishment

[sceptic]

btw, the greatest encouragement to personal change? Having something in common with "little dick" ohmy.gif

 

 

I think the size of my penis is of no concern to you AL

[kenberg]

From the discussion it seems apparent that there are quite a few of us who would take capital punishment off the list of possible penalties but who do not think "Capital punishment is bad, end of discussion".

 

It's possible to be comfortable with the idea of executing the truly vicious and to still think that probably the issues involved in getting it right are too daunting, so we accept life imprisonment as the better choice.

 

I think that it is important for the punishment to be set, and for it to stick, soon after the guilty verdict is delivered. There will of course be some who believe, quite possibly reasonably in my opinion, the the SOB should at least be shot and maybe drawn and quartered. But if the penalty is the maximum that the law provides, and it is certain and is truly life imprisonment, I think most families of victims will be prepared to accept thisI.

 

I feel it is important to acknowledge that as someone who has not experienced such a tragedy I may not know what I am talking about.

[Al_U_Card]

Not THAT little dick.....Cheney is Big Dick and "W" is little dick.

 

Did you know that G.H.W. Bush was known as Prescott's idiot son? Looks like that bloodline is headed nowhere fast...

 

btw self-defense is recognized as not being murder even if the attacker is killed. There is a good reason for that. Something to do with rubber and glue, I gather...

[bid_em_up]

yup thats true, but the world would be a better place if they were allowed to put forward a case for the sentancer to take into consideration

Victims can be witnesses. I don't see any reason why they would be heard beyond that, except maybe in cases such as domestic violence where the criminal may pursue so the same victim in the future.

 

After all, the ones who have stakes in punishment are potential future victims of the same criminal, or of other potential criminals who might be deterred from committing by the thread of punishment.

 

The idea that victims have an interest in revenge just for the sake of it is widespread but I think it's completely irrational. I suppose most (all?) countries' criminal codes are partially based on that idea. I would prefer that not to be the case. Richard puts this simpler: we should have grown beyond the eye-for-an-eye mentality.

In the U.S., many trials will include a "victim impact" portion during the sentencing phase of the trial, where the victim (in a non-murder trial) or the victim's family are allowed to state their feelings/sentiments regarding how their lives have been affected by the crime and the type of sentence they wish to see implemented.

[finally17]

yup thats true, but the world would be a better place if they were allowed to put forward a case for the sentancer to take into consideration

 

 

In the U.S., many trials will include a "victim impact" portion during the sentencing phase of the trial, where the victim (in a non-murder trial) or the victim's family are allowed to state their feelings/sentiments regarding how their lives have been affected by the crime and the type of sentence they wish to see implemented.

Many? I believe it's completely standard practice in the sentencing phase of any trial in the US.

[bid_em_up]

I am surprised that so many intelligent people appear to be against the death penalty. Maybe you have not been through the experience of knowing anyone who was murdered. I do, one of my teachers was murdered along with the sister of one of my classmates when I was 12, both shot in the back of the head, or maybe you are unaware of some of the heinous crimes that are committed in our country.

 

Lets talk real crime for a minute:

 

Someone mentioned Jeffrey Dahmer? He should have been executed. He was later killed by another inmate in prison. Thankfully.

 

Ted Bundy? Fried. Good.

 

Wayne Williams? (The alleged Atlanta Child murderer) Life in Prison. But in his case, the evidence was mostly circumstancial. In this case, life imprisonment was an appropriate sentence since there was a lot of uncertainty regarding the case. There are those who do not believe he was guilty. I lived in Atlanta during this time, you would not believe the amount of fear that the entire city was in.

 

Harrel Franklin Braddy? One you are likely not to have heard of.

 

Mr. Braddy, having been released from prison after serving only 13 out of a 30 year sentence for a previous attempted murder conviction, proceeded to choke his then current girlfriend until she passed out, and then took her and her 5, FIVE, year old daughter in his car. Upon coming to, the girlfriend realized what was occurring, and jumped from the car with her daughter. "Braddy stopped, choked the woman again and put her in the trunk, she testified. Maycock never saw her daughter again. Prosecutors said Braddy then drove to a section of Interstate 75 in the Florida Everglades known as Alligator Alley and dropped Quatisha in the water beside the road."

 

She was alive when alligators bit her on the head and stomach, a medical examiner said.

 

Authorities found the girl’s body two days later, her left arm missing and her skull crushed, prosecutors said. Maycock woke up bleeding and disoriented in a cane field miles from her Miami-Dade County home.

 

The really sad part of this is that this crime occured in 1998. It took until 2007 to actually bring Mr. Braddy to trial due to his (and/or his lawyers) manipulation of the U.S. Justice System, and it will probably take another 15-20 years to actually execute this worthless excuse of a life form.

 

http://www.observationdeck.org/weblogs/vault/?p=62

 

May you fry in hell, Mr. Braddy.

 

If you say that this sorry POS "deserves" another chance, having been given one opportunity already on his previous conviction, that fed a FIVE year old girl to the alligators, and cannot relate to the horror that this girl had to have suffered, there is something wrong with you.

 

John Evander Couey? The sorry bastard (and previously convicted child molester) who killed 10 year old Jessica Lunsford by burying her alive. Why should he have the right to continue to exist on the face of this earth? He had been arrested some 20+ times in 30-year period (and at the time, he was 46). A crack addict. "Couey admitted to raping Jessica after taking her to his room at his half-sister's home, keeping her in bed with him for the rest of the night, then raping her again in the morning. Jessica's clothed body was found inside two tied plastic garbage bags. Her wrists were bound, but she had managed to poke two fingers through the plastic in an attempt to free herself. When the bags were completely removed, investigators saw that she had died clutching her prized purple dolphin." (True Crime).

 

Tell me this POS doesn't deserve to die. He is currently on death row appealing his sentence. Unfortunately, he may actually win because evidently during his initial questioning by police detectives, he requested a lawyer (seven times??) and the idiot cops failed to stop questioning him and provide him with a lawyer. How would you feel if you were Mr. or Mrs. Lunsford and this man were to have his conviction overturned on a technicality of this nature?? Doesn't matter, Mr. Couey will probably survive longer in prison than he would if he was released back into the general public. I doubt he wants to get out of prison.

 

One last one:

 

John Allen Muhammad, the Beltway Sniper. He and his accomplice, Lee Boyd Malvo (who was approximately 17 at the time of the killings), murdered at least 10 people and injured several others in what were random shootings. Mr. Muhammad is currently on death row, but his teenage partner in crime and admitted triggerman in several of the murders only received life in prison because he was under the age of 18. Oh please.

 

These are just a few examples of what the death penalty is MEANT to be used for. These people have (had) no reason to be allowed to continue to exist on the face of this earth.

 

Granted, capital punishment is not a penalty that should be taken lightly. It should be reserved for the most hideous and horrid of crimes and when there is absolutely no doubt with respect to guilt.

 

But to say that it should never be applied is simply absurd, imo.

[bid_em_up]

yup thats true, but the world would be a better place if they were allowed to put forward a case for the sentancer to take into consideration

 

 

In the U.S., many trials will include a "victim impact" portion during the sentencing phase of the trial, where the victim (in a non-murder trial) or the victim's family are allowed to state their feelings/sentiments regarding how their lives have been affected by the crime and the type of sentence they wish to see implemented.

Many? I believe it's completely standard practice in the sentencing phase of any trial in the US.

It could be. It is my understanding that it is usually only used in capital offense cases though (rape, kidnapping, murder, etc.). You dont usually see a "victim impact" phase of say, a bank robbery.

[jdonn]

I am surprised that so many intelligent people appear to be against the death penalty.

 

...

 

But to say that it should never be applied is simply absurd, imo.

And yet you have given no argument in support of it beyond naming people who you feel deserve it and trying to appeal to others' emotions about how terrible they are.

 

I would also note it is not the same to say "X doesn't deserve to live" as it is to say "we or our government or anyone else has the right to kill X".

[sceptic]

the arguement that life is sacrosanct is hardly a good argument for the other side

[cjames]

If someone isn't against death penalty they should read Jens Bjørneboes "Powderhouse" and then re-evaluate their views.

[sceptic]

I am surprised that so many intelligent people appear to be against the death penalty.

 

...

 

But to say that it should never be applied is simply absurd, imo.

And yet you have given no argument in support of it beyond naming people who you feel deserve it and trying to appeal to others' emotions about how terrible they are.

 

I would also note it is not the same to say "X doesn't deserve to live" as it is to say "we or our government or anyone else has the right to kill X".

note taken and accepted, but what has that to do with the debate except point out that two different things have been said,sometimes I wonder about people on these forums

[blackshoe]

But to say that it should never be applied is simply absurd, imo.

Nice rant. Actually, I sympathize with your position. It's that dilemma I spoke of earlier. But... you completely sidestepped what I consider the key question: does society, or the government, or indeed any group, have a right to impose the death penalty? If so, what is the basis of this right?

 

Does an individual have the right to decide that these pieces of ***** (if you want to call them that, do so, don't hide behind a three letter acronym) should die for what they've done? If an individual did so decide, and carried out his own execution, would you applaud him, or try him for murder?

[gwnn]

btw for the Bible-quoters, I believe Republicans like to quote Exodus 21:12 "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death." So using "thou shalt not kill" is somewhat of a double standard. Not to say capital punishment is good. I think it's bad.

[sceptic]

ok, this is for all the people taking the moral high ground on this

 

if we allowed the death penalty in a country, would that not be because most people actually want the death penalty, I am sure if the majority wanted leiniency then they would abolish the death penalty, funny how the Yanks seem to take the moral high ground on this debate

[hrothgar]

Nice rant. Actually, I sympathize with your position. It's that dilemma I spoke of earlier. But... you completely sidestepped what I consider the key question: does society, or the government, or indeed any group, have a right to impose the death penalty? If so, what is the basis of this right?

 

Does an individual have the right to decide that these pieces of ***** (if you want to call them that, do so, don't hide behind a three letter acronym) should die for what they've done? If an individual did so decide, and carried out his own execution, would you applaud him, or try him for murder?

I think that this all boils down to the notion of the social contract...

 

The social contract that prevails in most countries holds that the Government maintains a monopoly on force. If an individual chooses to live as part of civilized society he surrenders certain rights, one of which is the right to extract personal justice.

 

People can and do withdraw from the social contract. There are plenty of folks who commit murder. We call them murderers... We have an expectation that the State will deal with them.

 

from my perspective, murder is murder. Vigilantism is a crime.

[sceptic]

Nice rant. Actually, I sympathize with your position. It's that dilemma I spoke of earlier. But... you completely sidestepped what I consider the key question: does society, or the government, or indeed any group, have a right to impose the death penalty? If so, what is the basis of this right?

 

Does an individual have the right to decide that these pieces of ***** (if you want to call them that, do so, don't hide behind a three letter acronym) should die for what they've done? If an individual did so decide, and carried out his own execution, would you applaud him, or try him for murder?

I think that this all boils down to the notion of the social contract...

 

The social contract that prevails in most countries holds that the Government maintains a monopoly on force. If an individual chooses to live as part of civilized society he surrenders certain rights, one of which is the right to extract personal justice.

 

People can and do withdraw from the social contract. There are plenty of folks who commit murder. We call them murderers... We have an expectation that the State will deal with them.

 

from my perspective, murder is murder. Vigilantism is a crime.

The state or whatever should have the means to decide that someone deserves to die, I would hate to see vigilantees

[luke warm]

except maybe for charles bronsen

[TimG]

ok, this is for all the people taking the moral high ground on this

 

if we allowed the death penalty in a country, would that not be because most people actually want the death penalty, I am sure if the majority wanted leniency then they would abolish the death penalty, funny how the Yanks seem to take the moral high ground on this debate

The majority is not always right.

 

I live in Maine, in these United States of America. There is no death penalty in Maine, nor in 11 other states. The other 38 states, plus the Federal Government, have the death penalty.

 

The quick web reading I have done, reveals that the Federal Government has executed only 3 people since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. My guess is that this small number is because states usually have jurisdiction in homicide cases.

[finally17]

I am surprised that so many intelligent people appear to be against the death penalty.

 

...

 

But to say that it should never be applied is simply absurd, imo.

And yet you have given no argument in support of it beyond naming people who you feel deserve it and trying to appeal to others' emotions about how terrible they are.

 

I would also note it is not the same to say "X doesn't deserve to live" as it is to say "we or our government or anyone else has the right to kill X".

Exactly. It's not a question of what a criminal might or might not deserve.

 

Rather, "is it the right of the state, to enforce this punishment ever?" and furthermore, if you say yes, then a) "how can we legitimately and fairly determine that a person's crimes are worthy of this punishment?" and :) "how can we insure that we never enact this punishment on the innocent?"

 

But many of us say no to the first for whatever reasons (many given), making the others somewhat moot.

[bid_em_up]

I am surprised that so many intelligent people appear to be against the death penalty.

 

...

 

But to say that it should never be applied is simply absurd, imo.

And yet you have given no argument in support of it beyond naming people who you feel deserve it and trying to appeal to others' emotions about how terrible they are.

 

I would also note it is not the same to say "X doesn't deserve to live" as it is to say "we or our government or anyone else has the right to kill X".

I don't feel that I need to give any further argument for it.

 

The original question was "If you were king of the world, is A) Yes, capital punishment is needed sometimes or B ) No, capital punishment is bad, end of discussion". You appear to support the B version.

 

I give the examples only to show why you must have capital punishment. Note, I did not say that all murderers or rapists or whatever should be executed, but there are cases where such punishment befits the crime. If you do not have capital punishment available as an option, then how do you deal with people who commit such atrocities? "Oh sorry, bad boy, don't do it again, in the meantime we will provide you food, shelter and clothing for the rest of your life?"

 

I don't think so.

[jdonn]

I am surprised that so many intelligent people appear to be against the death penalty.

 

...

 

But to say that it should never be applied is simply absurd, imo.

And yet you have given no argument in support of it beyond naming people who you feel deserve it and trying to appeal to others' emotions about how terrible they are.

 

I would also note it is not the same to say "X doesn't deserve to live" as it is to say "we or our government or anyone else has the right to kill X".

I don't feel that I need to give any further argument for it.

That is totally fine, you can of course believe what you want and make whatever arguments for it that you want or don't want. But then it's totally ridiculous of you to classify the opposing viewpoint as absurd if you don't even feel like bothering to put in the effort to make any sort of real argument against it.

 

Is your criterion for determining who receives the death penalty "the ones that seem to me to obviously deserve it"?

[finally17]

ok, this is for all the people taking the moral high ground on this

 

if we allowed the death penalty in a country, would that not be because most people actually want the death penalty, I am sure if the majority wanted leiniency then they would abolish the death penalty, funny how the Yanks seem to take the moral high ground on this debate

i didn't realize this was a discussion of what people want. I thought it was a discussion of what we believe to be right. This is irrespective of the will of the people.

[bid_em_up]

I am surprised that so many intelligent people appear to be against the death penalty.

 

...

 

But to say that it should never be applied is simply absurd, imo.

And yet you have given no argument in support of it beyond naming people who you feel deserve it and trying to appeal to others' emotions about how terrible they are.

 

I would also note it is not the same to say "X doesn't deserve to live" as it is to say "we or our government or anyone else has the right to kill X".

I don't feel that I need to give any further argument for it.

That is totally fine, you can of course believe what you want and make whatever arguments for it that you want or don't want. But then it's totally ridiculous of you to classify the opposing viewpoint as absurd if you don't even feel like bothering to put in the effort to make any sort of real argument against it.

 

Is your criterion for determining who receives the death penalty "the ones that seem to me to obviously deserve it"?

Cases such as these need no "argument" for the existence of capital punishment. They speak for themselves. If you do not understand why, then there is no point in trying to convince you (or anyone else) otherwise.

 

It really isn't about what "my criteria" for capital punishment is. It is about whether or not the option of capital punishment should be available at all. Clearly, there are cases where the punishment fits the crime. If you can look at these cases and say honestly say "no these people should not be executed" or "I honestly believe they could be rehabilitated" (which I note, you haven't), then yes, you are being absurd.

[finally17]

Cases such as these need no "argument" for the existence of capital punishment.  They speak for themselves.  If you do not understand why, then there is no point in trying to convince you (or anyone else) otherwise.

Chuck, you're smarter than this. This claim is just silly.

[jdonn]

It really isn't about what "my criteria" for capital punishment is. It is about whether or not the option of capital punishment should be available at all.

You can't answer one question without the other. How can you think there should be capital punishment but completely ignore the issue of how it is decided who deserves to receive it and who doesn't?