Again, this has nothing to do with capital punishment. Quit changing the subject.
I'm not trying to change the subject, it's just part of my overall point that morality and being for or against risking the loss of innocent life is selective. All that may get lost in the shuffle of trying to respond to everyone, but I'm not trying to pull a fast one on you. If you don't get my point, that's cool, it is sometimes hard to convey one's position over a message board. I could repeat it, or we can just stop the entire debate, up to you.
a) This is bullshit. If you were about to be shot by some criminal and an armed cop was there, damn right you'd want him to use his judgement and shot the perp.
Then my opinion on what I prefer is bullshit, oh well. And?
I would prefer a trial based-death penalty rather than a cop on the beat judging a situation based death penalty. I find it has a lot less risk. Now, my reason was only to make a point. I actually do support an armed police force, even though those assholes have killed innocent people. And not just innocent mistakes because they missed judge. No. Actual mistakes based on racism, bigotry and stereotyping. But I feel there is a greater good done to a community to have cops armed, because here our citizens are armed too.
Likewise, it is my opinion, there is a greater good served with the death pThe corrupt establishment guaranteed that. Had the death penalty been on the statutes, they might never have been freed.[/qs]
So because of that one situation the entire death penalty should be abolished? I simply don't agree. I still feel some crimes warrent the death penalty.
There are clear differences between firing on someone to save lives and the cold-blooded execution of a helpless victim. I've been over this and you have not responded.
Well then let me respond. I don't feel someone like Gacy is a "helpless victim." They are far from even being considered human. Don't try to paint someone like that as some poor, helpless victim when 33 fucking bodies were found under his trailer.
Lets take a look at a few of these "helpless victims."
On Death Row:
Lawrence Bittaker - convicted of rape, torture, kidnapping, and murder.
One of the crimes:
quote:On June 24, 1979, they claimed their first victim, 16-year-old Cindy Schaeffer. They picked her up near Redondo Beach, Norris forcing her into the van. He duct taped her mouth and bound her arms and legs. Bittaker drove the van to a fire road on San Gabriel Mountains out of sight of the highway. Both men raped the girl, and then Bittaker wrapped a straightened wire coat hanger around her neck. He tightened the wire with vise-grip pliers, strangling her to death. They wrapped her body in a plastic shower curtain and dumped it in a nearby canyon.
Jessie Campbell III: Murder, attempted murder, first-degree assault, and weapons violations for the August 26, 2000, shooting deaths in Hartford of 20-year-old LaTaysha Logan and 18-year-old Desiree Privette and the shooting of Privette's aunt, Carolyn Privette.
Steven Hayes: Sentenced to death on all six possible death-penalty counts: killing Jennifer Hawke-Petit and Michaela and Hayley [Petit] in the course of a single action; killing a child under the age of 16; killing Hawke-Petit in the course of a kidnapping; killing Hayley in the course of a kidnapping; killing Michaela in the course of a kidnapping; and killing Hawke-Petit in the course of a sexual assault.
Todd Rizzo: The 1997 murder of 13-year-old Stanley Edwards of Waterbury. He lured Edwards into his backyard under the guise of hunting snakes and then hit him 13 times with a three-pound sledgehammer. (Note: The Connecticut Supreme Court ordered a new penalty hearing in Rizzo's case in 2003, but he was sentenced to death again in 2005.)
Here's a fun case:
Thomas Eugene Creech: Previously on Idaho's death row; in 1977 the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Idaho's previous death penalty on his appeal.
He was put in general population...
Sentenced AGAIN to the death penalty for murder, by beating an inmate to death on May 13, 1981.
The poor, poor hepless victims, in my opinion, should be put to death.
You are in favour of execution, but seem unwilling to be executed.
So your vid would seem to support capital punishment for those potentially dangerous and violent individuals who commit relatively minor crimes such as auto-theft rather than murderers who are not a physical threat to other prisoners.
What it actually shows is a man who has killed twice in cold blood, and yet has not received the death penalty. However IF he commits one more murder, then he will get it.
My point was this, what do you do with that guy? When you can't obviously reform him. He is going to kill at will. Has no regard for human life. How many more times does he have to kill before you can consider him fit for the death penalty? Or if not the death penalty, then what exactly do you do with him?
I just don't mean punishment in the sense that the worst is the best. I feel execution is enough. There is, in my opinion, no need to torture for example just to get more justice from the punishment.
Yeah, but there's always another option besides killing the guy. I don't think its some necessity.
And most are not executed for that. But look at the video I posted for Strag, what do you do, what are those OTHER options when a guy has killed, been punished, killed again, was punished again, and is threatening to eventually kill again? I'm not saying kill him for making the threat, but lets say he goes through with it. He kills a third time. Now what? What are the options left?
I don't really think there's anything wrong with it either. I just don't think we need it.
Cool
For many, death is the ultimate suffering. Too, sitting on Death Row has gotta be torturous. I could see it either way.
Well they have to sit on death row, for a few reasons. 1, they are allowed to appeal, not just be put to death. Sometimes appeals take many, many years. 2, they are often high profile cases, and a good target for someone trying to make a name for himself in the jail. 3, they are Level 4 inmates, the most dangerous of the most dangerous, so they are deemed a high threat to staff. It is the one unit that must maintain these guys in solitary.
I suppose you could drug 'em. There's always another option.
If you want to cite self-defense as the criteria for imposing the death penalty
At no point in this entire debate have I sighted SELF-defense as a criteria for the death penalty. I have repeatedly said in the defense of others.
I'll repeat it, as I've done:
quote:(A) it serves as justice for the victims family (B) the psycological effects of long-term solitary confinment actually increase the violent behavior (C) they possess a greater threat to those who come in contact with them.
See, nothing about SELF-defense at all.
We are basically talking about maximum security type restrictions.
Curiously, those two videos I posted, with the inmates who kill other inmates, were commited in a SuperMax - the best of the best. As the link describes it: a prison within a prison.
And hey, wouldn't you know it, there is a controversy regarding that type of inmate housing too:
quote:Controversy
Supermax and Security Housing Unit (SHU) prisons are controversial; some claim that the living conditions in such facilities violate the United States Constitution, specifically, the Eighth Amendment's proscription against "cruel and unusual" punishments. In 1996, a United Nations team assigned to investigate torture described SHU conditions as "inhuman and degrading". A New York Bar association comprehensive study suggests that supermax prisons constitute "torture under international law" and "cruel and unusual punishment under the U.S. constitution".
So now what?
There are multiple options for those who are completely unable to be rehabilitated and who are determined to impose their own warped lack of morality on others.
Please tell me what that is? Death Penalty is no good. Supermax is considered torture, and cruel and unusual. Where does that HONESTLY leave us?
No matter what is tried as a solution to the problem of extremely violent offenders, it seems someone is going to take issue with it. Either it's not morally just to have a death penalty, or, it is unconstitutional to place them in a supermax.
And yet another question now needs to be dealt with, what is worse, torture or the death penalty?
If he is known to be that dangerous then there is no excuse for allowing him to kill again whilst in custody is there?
But how do you stop it? Because that my friend would be a great help not just in this thread but to those responsible for housing these people.
If we can't contain dangerous criminals then we need to improve the prison system.
I posted it while suspended upside down in a tank of live piranhas.
Then I retract my previous statement and award you badass of the week, sir. Now, seriously, I will actually go to sleep. Hope America is ok when I wake up.
No, you are correct. Not in a supermax. The footage is from Lock up Raw - I did some editting for that show so I've obsessed on jails ever since then.
The prison in question is California State Prison, Corcoran - which does have a (SHU) Special Housing Unit. Which has been described as unconstitutional, etc...
The problem ISN'T that the person is housed in a SHU or Supermax, it's that you can't keep them there forever. They are rewarded for good behavior, which in those units it's pretty much you just did your time. The will, in most cases, see general population again. And that is where they can get violent.
But I'd still like the issue to be addressed that, given that the death penalty is seen as wrong, and the SHU type housing is seen as wrong, as are Supermax's, what then is the right thing to do with the extremely violent offenders?
So self-defense (in the widest sense of the term that includes the defense of others) isn't your criteria then? Forgive my confusion. I thought we agreed on this as the criteria upon which the morality of killing someone rests. No?
We corrected it in message 136 - "You (Straggler) didn't just say self-defense, you also said in the defense of others. The "others" is what I'm talking about."
I addressed the confusion already. In the defense of OTHERS is what I'm talking about.
If you want to cite self-defense as the criteria for imposing the death penalty
I didn't, as you can hopefully see from what I wrote. So pick up the needle and move it to the next song so the party can continue.
I gave you my criteria, now going on three time. My main one has always been (A) justice for the victim and their family...
First, I was having fun with Dr. A given that a cupcake appeared on this thread and was, hopefully, some ligh-hearted humor.
But if you want to be shitty about it...
I don't think that you can realistically argue errors won't be made, so you need to say what you think of those mistakes. Does it affect your opinion that the death penalty is ok?
You are happy to let prisoners who are more dangerous to other inmates live whilst you want to kill off prisoners who are less dangerous to other inmates anyway on the basis that they have committed crimes you feel justify the death penalty.
How many hypotheticals do you have wrapped up in one example?
Death row is for those convicted to death, by a jury. Not simply because they are dangerous.
It's not crimes I feel justify the death penalty, although I do have my favorites. It's what the law says is punishable by death. You're arguing against my OPINION on what I feel makes the death penalty worth while having.
I stated earlier in this thread that ALL of our reasoning is flawed and inconsistent. You guys kept arguing so I've kept going. But do you really want to keep trying to rationalize my irrational opinions?
Thus we can eliminate protecting other prisoners as a criteria for imposing the death penalty because you are not applying this in a logically consistent manner.
I don't believe it was ever criteria in a court for the death penalty, Straggler. It's just my OPINION on why it is a good thing to have.
If the family and/or victim feel that justice can only be served by locking the perpetrator up in a dungeon and torturing them for the rest of their life are we happy to apply this as justice?
You do get that the death penalty is already an established system, right? You do know that no one consults the victim's family for anything, right?
That criteria is simply my OPINION on why it is a good form of justice.
You get that this whole time, you and the others have been arguing against my absolutely irrational opinion on the death penalty?
My criteria could be, I just like to see motherfuckers die, and it would not effect anything one way or the other?
I don't think we can or should base the law or legal punishments on such retributional thinking. The law has to take a rational approach to morality rather than emotive otherwise it cannot be applied consistently. The law has to have a reasoned basis beyond pandering to who shouts the loudest or who is the most upset. It may seem cold. But it has to be rational otherwise it is chaotic and inconsistent.
Yeah, and all that has already been decided. There are already established forms of punishment. The death penalty has functioned as a form of punishment for a long, long while. In recent years, the ever increasing complaints has caused a re-evaluation of it in some states. Some states have opted to abolish it, replacing it with Supermax's and more and more Special Housing Units. But as I pointed out, there are those who find that for of punishment as being cruel and unusual, and also see it as torture. So eventually, there will come a point where that method too is re-evaluated.
But the question will alwasy be, what do you do with the convicted violent criminals?
Except that you insist upon ignoring the context for that selection; avoidability and clear social benefit.
Police shootings by beat cops are avoidable - 100% avoidable. You guys avoid it in the UK by not arming your beat cops.
Civilians shooting the wrong person can be avoided - 100% avoided, by not allowing citizens to carry weapons. Try getting that passed in the US.
And fine, lots may not agree with arming cops in certain situations or having armed citizens, but it doesn't matter what they think. Both are already established systems that function and cause more innocent lives to be lost than the death penalty could even hope to acheive.
Executions are 100% avoidable and provide no social benefit that you have ever pointed out.
What is the social benefit of having a prison system? 85% of those released commit a crime again. In some cases it actually makes the person more likely to be violent. They are least likely to get a job. Usually come out with a drug dependency. What's point of it?
What's the social benefit of arming civilians and beat cops?
And since the former option is not available in life or death policing situations, what you would prefer is yet another pointless waste of pixels.
What was the life and death police situtation in this case: Amadou Diallo
quote:Amadou Diallo (September 2, 1975 — February 4, 1999) was a 23-year-old Guinean immigrant in New York City who was shot and killed on February 4, 1999 by four New York City Police Department plain-clothed officers: Sean Carroll, Richard Murphy, Edward McMellon and Kenneth Boss. The four officers fired a total of 41 shots.
quote:The officers claimed that they loudly identified themselves as NYPD officers and that Diallo ran up the outside steps toward his apartment house doorway at their approach, ignoring their orders to stop and "show his hands". The porch lightbulb was out and Diallo was backlit by the inside vestibule light, showing only a silhouette. Diallo then reached into his jacket and withdrew his wallet. Seeing the suspect holding a small square object, Carroll yelled "Gun!" to alert his colleagues. Believing Diallo had aimed a gun at them at close range, the officers opened fire on Diallo. During the shooting, lead officer McMellon tripped backward off the front stairs, causing the other officers to believe he had been shot.
The four officers fired forty-one shots. The post-shooting investigation found no weapons on Diallo's body; the item he had pulled out of his jacket was not a gun, but a rectangular black wallet. The internal NYPD investigation ruled the officers had acted within policy, based on what a reasonable police officer would have done in the same circumstances with the information they had.
These were four trained police officers who were NOT in any danger, but still killed a man in a hail of 41 bullets for not understanding english and pulling out his wallet to show ID.
Except that it's not a single situation, as you well know.
Neither are police shootings of unarmed victims, that out numbers those innocent killed by the death penalty. And they can be avoided by not having armed beat cops like you guys do in the UK. Neither are civilians mistakenly killing people, that can also be avoided.
The reason I keep bringing that up is because the reason given to abolish the death penalty is there is a risk of innocent lives lost. I'm just pointing out how many other functioning systems also do that, in greater numbers and they are still in effect but very avoidable.
That the death row inmate is a helpless victim is simply a fact, one that you are trying to obscure with cheap appeals to emotion.
I just don't see them as human anymore. So if you want to call him a victim by that literal criteria, cool. I don't agree but I see your point.
Gacy was not some kind of ogre, living in the hills. He was all too human, an otherwise ordinary Homo sapiens, who just so happened to like killing people. To mislabel such individuals as other than human is nothing but a sop to our unwillingness to acknowledge that violence is an unfortunate part of human nature. I'm not trying to excuse someone like Gacy; nothing could excuse those actions. But to call him inhuman is simply childish nonsense and, in my opinion, dangerous nonsense. If we are ever to understand what makes a man like Gacy into a killer (and hopefully reduce the chances of it happening with other people) then acknowledging his humanity is a vital first step. To do otherwise is to sweep an uncomfortable truth under the carpet.
Understand him all you want. Just when you're done, make sure to strap him to a table and end his life. You're not doing anything by keeping hiim alive. Throwing him into a cage and forgetting he exists isn't either. It may make you feel better that capital punishment isn't being carried out but you are still torturing this "human" by doing so.
And to think, you chide us with old Bill Hicks routines, telling us to stay asleep, whilst engaging in such a silly fantasy. Remove the log from your own eye.
The Hicks reference was for the outrageous opinion that the US carries out honest to goodness assassinations. That when they say "trust us, he's guilty" we have to believe it.
If the death penalty was abolished tomorrow, I would no more give a shit than if it never was abolished. We would just move the conversation to the moral and ethical qualities of solitary confinement and Special Housing Units. There will always be a problem with ANY form of punishment.
See, there's the hypocrisy. You are happy for innocent people to die so that you can enjoy a nice cathartic homicide, but only so long as it is someone else who pays that price. If I were wrongfully imprisoned, I would be livid about it, but I would not be calling for the abolition of prisons as a result. If, on the other hand, you were on death row, would you really say "Well, I may be innocent, but my death is a price I am willing to pay for the sake of the wonderful benefits that state-sanctioned homicide brings our society."? No you would not. You're happy for innocent people to die 100% avoidable deaths, but only so long as it's not you or yours. Forgive me if I find that attitude both reprehensible and short-sighted.
Fair enough, you want capotal punishment as vengence and you don't care that it will inevitably execute innocent people.
I don't WANT capital punishment. Capital punishment exists. I happen to agree with that form of justice. It may be irrational but it just is what I "feel."
If it was gone tomorrow, abolished forever, then I would stop having an opinion on it. Then I may have an opinion on whatever new form of punishment was established for the extremely violent. I may find myself supporting the argument that Special Housing Units and Supermax's are a form of torture, I may not. The point is I don't care one way or the other WHAT is done, just that something SHOULD be done.
The debate here was, WHY is capital punishment wrong. It then became a debate on my opinion. I had fun, but do you guys really want to keep going there?
I was told one of the reasons was the loss of innocent life. All I did was point to other functioning systems that ALSO risk innocent life, to a greater degree, and are ALSO 100% avoidable.
I can keep telling you about what my brain thinks though, if that's what you want?
Yeah, go figure!
™ Version 4.2
