Aside from seconding everything in spot's last post, which I do, it should be made clear that the adage "an eye for an eye" was not meant to say that the punishment should be the same as the crime. It was said to point out that the punishment should not exceed the crime, as was common in those days. In no way was this phrase uttered to support things such as the death penalty.
btw studies do show that CP does not deter crime. I shall go look for them.
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Here's a reasonable proposal to reduce B to an absolute minimum, before the topic gets back into the hands of "Outraged of Leamington Spa" in a few minutes. For every death B, the killer A and everyone in his chain of command must serve 100 hours community service in A's birthplace as atonement. That puts a few footsoldiers rebuilding walls and houses for a month each, a few bloody-handed pilots doing the same for a year or two, a few Generals serving 15-30 year sentences on the ground, and some damned Commander in Chief guaranteed to work for the general good for the first time in history.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
States Without the Death Penalty Have Better Record on Homicide Rates
A new survey by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty. The Times reports that ten of the twelve states without the death penalty have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above. During the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48% - 101% higher than in states without the death penalty. "I think Michigan made a wise decision 150 years ago," said the state's governor, John Engler, a Republican, referring to the state's abolition of the death penalty in 1846. "We're pretty proud of the fact that we don't have the death penalty." (New York Times, 9/22/00)
source
spot,
you'll first need to convince them that killing in war is the same as killing in civil circumstance. That is a long upward hill to climb. Not that I think you can't do it.
A new survey by the New York Times found that states without the death penalty have lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty. The Times reports that ten of the twelve states without the death penalty have homicide rates below the national average, whereas half of the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above. During the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48% - 101% higher than in states without the death penalty. "I think Michigan made a wise decision 150 years ago," said the state's governor, John Engler, a Republican, referring to the state's abolition of the death penalty in 1846. "We're pretty proud of the fact that we don't have the death penalty." (New York Times, 9/22/00)
source
spot,
you'll first need to convince them that killing in war is the same as killing in civil circumstance. That is a long upward hill to climb. Not that I think you can't do it.
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
koan wrote: you'll first need to convince them that killing in war is the same as killing in civil circumstance. That is a long upward hill to climb. Not that I think you can't do it.And yet the dead children and unarmed inoffensive civilians are just as dead, just as much innocent victims of the killers, the deaths are just as statistically predictable. The exculpatory "we didn't intend it, it was an accidental consequence of our action, the damage was incidental to our main purpose" is supposed to totally wipe the slate clean of any ethical dilemma. Well tosh, it doesn't in the slightest. I stand by my suggested act of atonement. Why on earth should some invulnerable bastard in gold braid or wearing a G-suit be immune from all calls to penance?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
spot wrote: And yet the dead children and unarmed inoffensive civilians are just as dead, just as much innocent victims of the killers, the deaths are just as statistically predictable. The exculpatory "we didn't intend it, it was an accidental consequence of our action, the damage was incidental to our main purpose" is supposed to totally wipe the slate clean of any ethical dilemma. Well tosh, it doesn't in the slightest. I stand by my suggested act of atonement. Why on earth should some invulnerable bastard in gold braid or wearing a G-suit be immune from all calls to penance?
There is one basic difference between war and murder which is why it is inappropriate to discuss it in this thread. One is illegal by the laws of the state, the other is sanctioned and pursued by the elected leadership on behalf of the state.
Otherwise, I agree with you, Spot. War is far more devastating and horrific with its genocidal acts. But it requires its own thread really. It is a far different beast to civilian murder.
There is one basic difference between war and murder which is why it is inappropriate to discuss it in this thread. One is illegal by the laws of the state, the other is sanctioned and pursued by the elected leadership on behalf of the state.
Otherwise, I agree with you, Spot. War is far more devastating and horrific with its genocidal acts. But it requires its own thread really. It is a far different beast to civilian murder.
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
OpenMind wrote: There is one basic difference between war and murder which is why it is inappropriate to discuss it in this thread. One is illegal by the laws of the state, the other is sanctioned and pursued by the elected leadership on behalf of the state.
Otherwise, I agree with you, Spot. War is far more devastating and horrific with its genocidal acts. But it requires its own thread really. It is a far different beast to civilian murder.
I had thought we were discussing morality, not legislation. Whether a life sentence should be served until death intervenes or whether a court-sanctioned parole hearing should have the option to release the prisoner into the community under license. That's what a sentence of "30 years to life" means - that the first date on which a parole hearing can consider releasing the prisoner is 30 years from the date of incarceration. The thread seeks to prohibit parole hearings where a sentence has been passed which includes "life" as a possible term. The legislation is that a parole hearing can convene. The thread seeks to impose its own moral perspective over that legislation. So did I with my comment on military sanctioned death - the legislation says it's allowed, my moral sense is that penance should nevertheless be paid by the killer.
So, as I thought we would do (and ignoring for the moment life sentences for non-killers), we have distinguished between legal and illegal killing. To bring down the remainder of my now-reduced options, "My call would be to reduce the number of those deaths (people killed by killers) to an absolute minimum". Koan is offering hard evidence that exercising the death penalty is counter-productive in that regard.
I can demonstrate that killers on parole in the community have a lower rate of killing than the average equal-age-sex-and-race citizen at large. If you were to arbitrarily jail a thousand killers on parole or a thousand equal-age-sex-and-race citizens at random, the number of subsequent deaths on the street would be lower in the second case and not the first. Why do you people want to jail killers who have been approved for release by a parole board?
Otherwise, I agree with you, Spot. War is far more devastating and horrific with its genocidal acts. But it requires its own thread really. It is a far different beast to civilian murder.
I had thought we were discussing morality, not legislation. Whether a life sentence should be served until death intervenes or whether a court-sanctioned parole hearing should have the option to release the prisoner into the community under license. That's what a sentence of "30 years to life" means - that the first date on which a parole hearing can consider releasing the prisoner is 30 years from the date of incarceration. The thread seeks to prohibit parole hearings where a sentence has been passed which includes "life" as a possible term. The legislation is that a parole hearing can convene. The thread seeks to impose its own moral perspective over that legislation. So did I with my comment on military sanctioned death - the legislation says it's allowed, my moral sense is that penance should nevertheless be paid by the killer.
So, as I thought we would do (and ignoring for the moment life sentences for non-killers), we have distinguished between legal and illegal killing. To bring down the remainder of my now-reduced options, "My call would be to reduce the number of those deaths (people killed by killers) to an absolute minimum". Koan is offering hard evidence that exercising the death penalty is counter-productive in that regard.
I can demonstrate that killers on parole in the community have a lower rate of killing than the average equal-age-sex-and-race citizen at large. If you were to arbitrarily jail a thousand killers on parole or a thousand equal-age-sex-and-race citizens at random, the number of subsequent deaths on the street would be lower in the second case and not the first. Why do you people want to jail killers who have been approved for release by a parole board?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
spot wrote: And yet the dead children and unarmed inoffensive civilians are just as dead, just as much innocent victims of the killers, the deaths are just as statistically predictable. The exculpatory "we didn't intend it, it was an accidental consequence of our action, the damage was incidental to our main purpose" is supposed to totally wipe the slate clean of any ethical dilemma. Well tosh, it doesn't in the slightest. I stand by my suggested act of atonement. Why on earth should some invulnerable bastard in gold braid or wearing a G-suit be immune from all calls to penance?
Not to mention the death caused by sanctions, which intentionally targets the weak mainly women, children and elderly...innocent people who are only guilty by geography.
Not to mention the death caused by sanctions, which intentionally targets the weak mainly women, children and elderly...innocent people who are only guilty by geography.
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
A member of the armed forces of a nation that is a signatory to the Geneva and Haig Conventions and who is under military command who kills at a time of war or in defence of his or her country is not a murderer nor are his commanders.
A member of the armed forces of a nation that is a signatory to the Geneva and Haig Conventions and who is under military command who kills in contravention to the permissions granted under these conventions should be subject to military courts martial and face military punishment.
A person who attacks civilians or members of a military force and who is a member of a nation who is either not a signatory of the H & GC or who engages in actions that run counter to the H & GC is at best an unlawful combatant and in general terms is a murderer.
A person who kills another as a deliberate premeditated act, or in the execution of another crime is a murderer.
If insane people or people with impaired mental capacities kill, then they are still murderers.
Murder should be punished with death.
The ONLY remaining issue is where a crime has been so obscene that death is a soft option and a period of punishment should precede execution.
A member of the armed forces of a nation that is a signatory to the Geneva and Haig Conventions and who is under military command who kills in contravention to the permissions granted under these conventions should be subject to military courts martial and face military punishment.
A person who attacks civilians or members of a military force and who is a member of a nation who is either not a signatory of the H & GC or who engages in actions that run counter to the H & GC is at best an unlawful combatant and in general terms is a murderer.
A person who kills another as a deliberate premeditated act, or in the execution of another crime is a murderer.
If insane people or people with impaired mental capacities kill, then they are still murderers.
Murder should be punished with death.
The ONLY remaining issue is where a crime has been so obscene that death is a soft option and a period of punishment should precede execution.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
OpenMind wrote: That's not quite what I said which was that However, I would ask you if it is fair to spend our money on convicts when the families of victims are left to find their own way, and it is far from a happy one. This, to me at any rate, appears to be a gross injustice to law abiding citizens.As we were discussing before Spot decided the thread was unproductive, You said the victim's family should get recompense from the murderer. You then said that if the murderer had no money, the gov't should pay in his stead. When the gov't 'pays' it isn't the gov't paying, it's us, the taxpayers.
I should not be responsible for paying a murderer's fines or penalties. If an uninsured motorist destroys another person's car in a collision, does the gov't buy the victime a new car??
If the murdered person's family is left destitute, there are mechanisms in place to take care of them. No new rule/law need be created for that.
I should not be responsible for paying a murderer's fines or penalties. If an uninsured motorist destroys another person's car in a collision, does the gov't buy the victime a new car??
If the murdered person's family is left destitute, there are mechanisms in place to take care of them. No new rule/law need be created for that.
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
golem wrote: A member of the armed forces of a nation that is a signatory to the Geneva and Haig Conventions and who is under military command who kills at a time of war or in defence of his or her country is not a murderer nor are his commanders.
A member of the armed forces of a nation that is a signatory to the Geneva and Haig Conventions and who is under military command who kills in contravention to the permissions granted under these conventions should be subject to military courts martial and face military punishment.
A person who attacks civilians or members of a military force and who is a member of a nation who is either not a signatory of the H & GC or who engages in actions that run counter to the H & GC is at best an unlawful combatant and in general terms is a murderer.
A person who kills another as a deliberate premeditated act, or in the execution of another crime is a murderer.
If insane people or people with impaired mental capacities kill, then they are still murderers.
Murder should be punished with death.
The ONLY remaining issue is where a crime has been so obscene that death is a soft option and a period of punishment should precede execution.
You forgot to add "IMO".
Diuretic's post had me applauding. Well done.
golem,
did you read any of the death penalty info or comments? on what information have you based your opinion from the part about "murder should be punished with death" and on? Your summary of what defines a murderer provides no argument for your conclusion. IMO, capital punishment falls under the premeditated category.
A member of the armed forces of a nation that is a signatory to the Geneva and Haig Conventions and who is under military command who kills in contravention to the permissions granted under these conventions should be subject to military courts martial and face military punishment.
A person who attacks civilians or members of a military force and who is a member of a nation who is either not a signatory of the H & GC or who engages in actions that run counter to the H & GC is at best an unlawful combatant and in general terms is a murderer.
A person who kills another as a deliberate premeditated act, or in the execution of another crime is a murderer.
If insane people or people with impaired mental capacities kill, then they are still murderers.
Murder should be punished with death.
The ONLY remaining issue is where a crime has been so obscene that death is a soft option and a period of punishment should precede execution.
You forgot to add "IMO".
Diuretic's post had me applauding. Well done.
golem,
did you read any of the death penalty info or comments? on what information have you based your opinion from the part about "murder should be punished with death" and on? Your summary of what defines a murderer provides no argument for your conclusion. IMO, capital punishment falls under the premeditated category.
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Capital punishment is nothing more than a medical procedure in which the patient dies. It is a medical procedure that rids society of elements that have proved to be injurious to society by their actions.
Furthermore it provides a means or the victims and their families to take revenge for a wrong done and there is absolutely nothing wrong with demanding revenge as part of restitution for a wrong.
Not only murder should result in death being imposed on the perpetrator of a crime. Some crimes result in a living death for the victims, crimes such as rape and abuse of children. In the later case the death penalty should be mandatory.
The same applies to many terrorists. If a person commits an offence that actually results in or potentially might result in death or serious injury to civilians, and that person is motivated by religious beliefs, then they should be put down like a dog. Coldly, mercilessly, with no comfort of any form, simply either taken outside and shot or tied down and euthanised.
I have no pity for such people. None at all.. They have by their actions relinquished any claim to being human and so relinquished any human rights they might otherwise have.
Furthermore it provides a means or the victims and their families to take revenge for a wrong done and there is absolutely nothing wrong with demanding revenge as part of restitution for a wrong.
Not only murder should result in death being imposed on the perpetrator of a crime. Some crimes result in a living death for the victims, crimes such as rape and abuse of children. In the later case the death penalty should be mandatory.
The same applies to many terrorists. If a person commits an offence that actually results in or potentially might result in death or serious injury to civilians, and that person is motivated by religious beliefs, then they should be put down like a dog. Coldly, mercilessly, with no comfort of any form, simply either taken outside and shot or tied down and euthanised.
I have no pity for such people. None at all.. They have by their actions relinquished any claim to being human and so relinquished any human rights they might otherwise have.
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
golem,
the way you state your opinion as fact has me wondering if you believe precisely what you say or if you are taking that line for debate purposes. Can you clarify before I respond?
the way you state your opinion as fact has me wondering if you believe precisely what you say or if you are taking that line for debate purposes. Can you clarify before I respond?
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
golem wrote: Capital punishment is nothing more than a medical procedure in which the patient dies. It is a medical procedure that rids society of elements that have proved to be injurious to society by their actions.
So Harrold Shipman was not a murderer because he only carried out medical procedures in which the patient died?
Is murder by the state and different to murder by the individual?
How namy people have been executed only to be posthumously exhonorated?
The world is not as black and white as your view of it.
So Harrold Shipman was not a murderer because he only carried out medical procedures in which the patient died?
Is murder by the state and different to murder by the individual?
How namy people have been executed only to be posthumously exhonorated?
The world is not as black and white as your view of it.
-
Captain Ray
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:04 pm
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
How namy people have been executed only to be posthumously exhonorated?
That is a good question? I assume you know the answer, or you wouldn't have posed it...
Raymond
That is a good question? I assume you know the answer, or you wouldn't have posed it...
Raymond
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Captain Ray wrote: That is a good question? I assume you know the answer, or you wouldn't have posed it...
Raymond
Given that there was no timeframe on the question the only answer is too many.
Certainly the last two people hanged in this country were both later found to be innocent.
Raymond
Given that there was no timeframe on the question the only answer is too many.
Certainly the last two people hanged in this country were both later found to be innocent.
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
The Risk of Executing the Innocent
Since 1973, fifty-nine death row inmates have been released after evidence of their innocence emerged. Some of these prisoners came within days of execution. In far too many of the cases, the trial lawyer failed to do the basic investigation necessary to exonerate the client. It took an average of 7 years from conviction until these people were released. Yet many politicians are pushing for expedited appeals schedules that would terminate in much less time, thereby increasing the likelihood that evidence of innocence will not be established before execution.
Some of those released from death row during the past 20 years include:
* Wilbert Lee and Freddie Pitts in Florida in 1975. They were convicted of a double murder and sentenced to death. They were released and received a full pardon from Governor Askew because of their innocence. Another man had confessed to the killings.
* Randall Dale Adams in Texas in 1989. He was ordered to be released by the Texas Court of Appeals after new evidence emerged. The prosecutors declined to seek a new trial. Adams was the subject of the movie, The Thin Blue Line, which was produced while he was still in prison.
* Clarence Brandley in Texas in 1990. Brandley was awarded a new trial when evidence of racism, perjury and suppression of evidence was uncovered. After ten years on death row, all charges were dropped.
* Gary Nelson in Georgia in 1991. Nelson's representation at trial was a disgrace. Fortunately, a major law firm in Atlanta took over his case. The county district attorney eventually acknowledged: "There is no material element of the state's case in the original trial which has not subsequently been determined to be impeached or contradicted."
* Kirk Bloodsworth in Maryland in 1993. Bloodsworth was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a young girl. He was first granted a new trial and given a life sentence. He was released after subsequent DNA testing confirmed his innocence.
* Walter McMillian in Alabama in 1993. His conviction was overturned by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, and he was freed, after three witnesses recanted their testimony and prosecutors agreed the case had been mishandled. His case was the subject of a 60 Minutes investigation.
* Andrew Golden in Florida in 1994. Golden's conviction was overturned by the Florida Supreme Court in 1993. The court held that the state had failed to prove that the victim's death was anything but an accident. Golden, a former teacher, was released into the waiting arms of his children on January 6, 1994.
* Rolando Cruz in Illinois in 1995. Cruz was sentenced to death for the murder of 10-year-old Jeanine Nicarico. Another man, Brian Dugan, confessed to the killing. An assistant state attorney general resigned and other law enforcement officials protested, because they thought it improper to continue the prosecution of Cruz, whom they said was innocent. In July, 1994, the state Supreme Court overturned Cruz's conviction. Cruz was acquitted at his retrial in November, 1995.
source
Since 1973, fifty-nine death row inmates have been released after evidence of their innocence emerged. Some of these prisoners came within days of execution. In far too many of the cases, the trial lawyer failed to do the basic investigation necessary to exonerate the client. It took an average of 7 years from conviction until these people were released. Yet many politicians are pushing for expedited appeals schedules that would terminate in much less time, thereby increasing the likelihood that evidence of innocence will not be established before execution.
Some of those released from death row during the past 20 years include:
* Wilbert Lee and Freddie Pitts in Florida in 1975. They were convicted of a double murder and sentenced to death. They were released and received a full pardon from Governor Askew because of their innocence. Another man had confessed to the killings.
* Randall Dale Adams in Texas in 1989. He was ordered to be released by the Texas Court of Appeals after new evidence emerged. The prosecutors declined to seek a new trial. Adams was the subject of the movie, The Thin Blue Line, which was produced while he was still in prison.
* Clarence Brandley in Texas in 1990. Brandley was awarded a new trial when evidence of racism, perjury and suppression of evidence was uncovered. After ten years on death row, all charges were dropped.
* Gary Nelson in Georgia in 1991. Nelson's representation at trial was a disgrace. Fortunately, a major law firm in Atlanta took over his case. The county district attorney eventually acknowledged: "There is no material element of the state's case in the original trial which has not subsequently been determined to be impeached or contradicted."
* Kirk Bloodsworth in Maryland in 1993. Bloodsworth was convicted and sentenced to death for the rape and murder of a young girl. He was first granted a new trial and given a life sentence. He was released after subsequent DNA testing confirmed his innocence.
* Walter McMillian in Alabama in 1993. His conviction was overturned by the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, and he was freed, after three witnesses recanted their testimony and prosecutors agreed the case had been mishandled. His case was the subject of a 60 Minutes investigation.
* Andrew Golden in Florida in 1994. Golden's conviction was overturned by the Florida Supreme Court in 1993. The court held that the state had failed to prove that the victim's death was anything but an accident. Golden, a former teacher, was released into the waiting arms of his children on January 6, 1994.
* Rolando Cruz in Illinois in 1995. Cruz was sentenced to death for the murder of 10-year-old Jeanine Nicarico. Another man, Brian Dugan, confessed to the killing. An assistant state attorney general resigned and other law enforcement officials protested, because they thought it improper to continue the prosecution of Cruz, whom they said was innocent. In July, 1994, the state Supreme Court overturned Cruz's conviction. Cruz was acquitted at his retrial in November, 1995.
source
-
Captain Ray
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:04 pm
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
hmmm.. well... I am not sure that I get your answer..
I wonder.. How many guilty people who should be put down are sitting around watching cable T.V. while their victims lay in a morgue somewhere? I wonder how many children's mothers were raped and brutally murdered by some criminal who is getting his bachelors degree in a federal penitentiary on the tax payers dime? I wonder how many appeals a death row inmate is entitled to, while his victims have to deal with the sorrow he inflicted upon them..
Too many.. I suppose I can live with that answer.
Raymond
I wonder.. How many guilty people who should be put down are sitting around watching cable T.V. while their victims lay in a morgue somewhere? I wonder how many children's mothers were raped and brutally murdered by some criminal who is getting his bachelors degree in a federal penitentiary on the tax payers dime? I wonder how many appeals a death row inmate is entitled to, while his victims have to deal with the sorrow he inflicted upon them..
Too many.. I suppose I can live with that answer.
Raymond
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
I'd also ask how many criminals are working in government and big business positions enjoying an extremely wealthy lifestyle with very expensive lawyers.
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Here's another good site.
Wrongful Conviction Reading Room
Wrongful Conviction Reading Room
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Free at last
POSTED 24 MAY 2001 After 15 years in prison for a rape he didn't commit, Jeffrey Pierce, 39, walked away from an Oklahoma prison May 7, leaving the state to figure out how many other innocent people were falsely imprisoned on testimony from Joyce Gilchrist, a chemist at the Oklahoma City crime lab.
...
Pierce was not an isolated problem with the handling of evidence. In January, Christopher Ochoa walked after more than a decade in a Texas prison, falsely convicted for a rape-murder and finally exculpated by DNA fingerprinting.
...
In the Rampart scandal In Los Angeles, more than 110 convicts have been released due to irregularities with testimony and evidence. In April, a federal judge ruled that police officials, the mayor, city attorney, and city council may be charged under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law
(there is a lot of info for those who look)
POSTED 24 MAY 2001 After 15 years in prison for a rape he didn't commit, Jeffrey Pierce, 39, walked away from an Oklahoma prison May 7, leaving the state to figure out how many other innocent people were falsely imprisoned on testimony from Joyce Gilchrist, a chemist at the Oklahoma City crime lab.
...
Pierce was not an isolated problem with the handling of evidence. In January, Christopher Ochoa walked after more than a decade in a Texas prison, falsely convicted for a rape-murder and finally exculpated by DNA fingerprinting.
...
In the Rampart scandal In Los Angeles, more than 110 convicts have been released due to irregularities with testimony and evidence. In April, a federal judge ruled that police officials, the mayor, city attorney, and city council may be charged under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations law
(there is a lot of info for those who look)
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Here's an interesting article about life sentences and parole
National Study by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch Finds Majority Face Life for First Offense
(New York, October 12, 2005)â€There are at least 2,225 child offenders serving life without parole (LWOP) sentences in U.S prisons for crimes committed before they were age 18, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International said in a new joint report published today.
While many of the child offenders are now adults, 16 percent were between 13 and 15 years old at the time they committed their crimes. An estimated 59 percent were sentenced to life without parole for their first-ever criminal conviction. Forty-two states currently have laws allowing children to receive life without parole sentences.
National Study by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch Finds Majority Face Life for First Offense
(New York, October 12, 2005)â€There are at least 2,225 child offenders serving life without parole (LWOP) sentences in U.S prisons for crimes committed before they were age 18, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International said in a new joint report published today.
While many of the child offenders are now adults, 16 percent were between 13 and 15 years old at the time they committed their crimes. An estimated 59 percent were sentenced to life without parole for their first-ever criminal conviction. Forty-two states currently have laws allowing children to receive life without parole sentences.
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Accountable wrote: I should not be responsible for paying a murderer's fines or penalties. If an uninsured motorist destroys another person's car in a collision, does the gov't buy the victime a new car??
If the murdered person's family is left destitute, there are mechanisms in place to take care of them. No new rule/law need be created for that.
I can agree with you on the above statements. My main concern is that the victims' families get help over and above the murderer who, in my mind, must prove they are worth having our money spent on their rehabilitation.
If the murdered person's family is left destitute, there are mechanisms in place to take care of them. No new rule/law need be created for that.
I can agree with you on the above statements. My main concern is that the victims' families get help over and above the murderer who, in my mind, must prove they are worth having our money spent on their rehabilitation.
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
As always in these debates, the terms "criminals" and "murderers" is depersonalized so those who wish to be judges don't have to think of them in human terms.
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Captain Ray wrote: hmmm.. well... I am not sure that I get your answer..
I wonder.. How many guilty people who should be put down are sitting around watching cable T.V. while their victims lay in a morgue somewhere? I wonder how many children's mothers were raped and brutally murdered by some criminal who is getting his bachelors degree in a federal penitentiary on the tax payers dime? I wonder how many appeals a death row inmate is entitled to, while his victims have to deal with the sorrow he inflicted upon them..
Too many.. I suppose I can live with that answer.
Raymond
posted by Koan
Since 1973, fifty-nine death row inmates have been released after evidence of their innocence emerged. Some of these prisoners came within days of execution.
That means there are 53 real murderers walking free laughing because someone else was convicted for their crimes. If the executions had been carried out they would probably have been laughing even harder because there is no way anyone would bother investigating any further to find the real culprit.
Let's assume it's you that's accused of murder.
How strict would you want the rules of evidence to be then?
Would you want the right of appeal against conviction?
Would you bother you that so long as you are executed for a crime you did not commit that the real murderer is walking free?
How many appeals should you be allowed if it was you wrongly?
Or do you truly believe that only the guilty are ever brought to trial?
In which case why bother with a trial just give the police the right to execute criminals-after all, they never get it wrong and some people are just so obviously criminals
If you don't have strict control of the police and prosecuting authorities and demand the highest standards of proof more guilty people get off with it because the police just go for the likeliest culprit rather than making sure they get the right one.
I don't know-or really care- what tribal sub group you belong to but I hope for your sake you never happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and resemble the man seen running away from the scene of the crime and get identified in a line up by the eye witness.
posted by golem
The same applies to many terrorists. If a person commits an offence that actually results in or potentially might result in death or serious injury to civilians, and that person is motivated by religious beliefs, then they should be put down like a dog. Coldly, mercilessly, with no comfort of any form, simply either taken outside and shot or tied down and euthanised.
I have no pity for such people. None at all.. They have by their actions relinquished any claim to being human and so relinquished any human rights they might otherwise have.
Executing terrorists creates martyrs, much more useful than a forlorn prisoner rotting in a jail.
On the other hand if Nelson Mandela had been executed how do you think South Africa would be faring now?
How do you feel about state terror? If you can imagine for a moment you were palestinian what would you think of Israel? Even if you don't support terror what actions on the part of the israelis would make you first to have sympathy for the terrorist, then in to a passive supporter and then on to an active supporter. Never mind the past and who did what to whom you have to deal with the situation as it now is and find a way forward or live in eternal conflict.
It's a lesson the Britih learned in 1916 at the easter rising-it failed because of the lack of popular support-executing those involved (apart from de-valera cos he was a yank) turned them in to martyrs and a damp squib of a rebellion in to a full blooded one especially after the black and tans got involved.
originally posted by golem
A member of the armed forces of a nation that is a signatory to the Geneva and Haig Conventions and who is under military command who kills at a time of war or in defence of his or her country is not a murderer nor are his commanders.
A member of the armed forces of a nation that is a signatory to the Geneva and Haig Conventions and who is under military command who kills in contravention to the permissions granted under these conventions should be subject to military courts martial and face military punishment.
Modern warfare between nation states is all out, total, no holds barred warfare. In ww2 both sides deliberately targeted civilians. warfare in the 21st century is warfare to destrtoy your enemy it's no longer just for control of resources.
The idea that you can have limited warfare with only military targets being destroyed is ludicrous. It's an illusion perpetrated by politicians that want to use warfare as a tool in diplomacy along with the notion that only the bad guys die. It's also an illusion that make all out war the more likely. imo
I'm all for a war against terror but you need a rapier not a grenade that takes out the whole room including bystanders and pisses off the rest of the household.
Mind You I still believe a life sentence should mean just that. Some people just should not be allowed to walk the streets ever again. But if you put them down like a dog then you are just like them.
I wonder.. How many guilty people who should be put down are sitting around watching cable T.V. while their victims lay in a morgue somewhere? I wonder how many children's mothers were raped and brutally murdered by some criminal who is getting his bachelors degree in a federal penitentiary on the tax payers dime? I wonder how many appeals a death row inmate is entitled to, while his victims have to deal with the sorrow he inflicted upon them..
Too many.. I suppose I can live with that answer.
Raymond
posted by Koan
Since 1973, fifty-nine death row inmates have been released after evidence of their innocence emerged. Some of these prisoners came within days of execution.
That means there are 53 real murderers walking free laughing because someone else was convicted for their crimes. If the executions had been carried out they would probably have been laughing even harder because there is no way anyone would bother investigating any further to find the real culprit.
Let's assume it's you that's accused of murder.
How strict would you want the rules of evidence to be then?
Would you want the right of appeal against conviction?
Would you bother you that so long as you are executed for a crime you did not commit that the real murderer is walking free?
How many appeals should you be allowed if it was you wrongly?
Or do you truly believe that only the guilty are ever brought to trial?
In which case why bother with a trial just give the police the right to execute criminals-after all, they never get it wrong and some people are just so obviously criminals
If you don't have strict control of the police and prosecuting authorities and demand the highest standards of proof more guilty people get off with it because the police just go for the likeliest culprit rather than making sure they get the right one.
I don't know-or really care- what tribal sub group you belong to but I hope for your sake you never happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and resemble the man seen running away from the scene of the crime and get identified in a line up by the eye witness.
posted by golem
The same applies to many terrorists. If a person commits an offence that actually results in or potentially might result in death or serious injury to civilians, and that person is motivated by religious beliefs, then they should be put down like a dog. Coldly, mercilessly, with no comfort of any form, simply either taken outside and shot or tied down and euthanised.
I have no pity for such people. None at all.. They have by their actions relinquished any claim to being human and so relinquished any human rights they might otherwise have.
Executing terrorists creates martyrs, much more useful than a forlorn prisoner rotting in a jail.
On the other hand if Nelson Mandela had been executed how do you think South Africa would be faring now?
How do you feel about state terror? If you can imagine for a moment you were palestinian what would you think of Israel? Even if you don't support terror what actions on the part of the israelis would make you first to have sympathy for the terrorist, then in to a passive supporter and then on to an active supporter. Never mind the past and who did what to whom you have to deal with the situation as it now is and find a way forward or live in eternal conflict.
It's a lesson the Britih learned in 1916 at the easter rising-it failed because of the lack of popular support-executing those involved (apart from de-valera cos he was a yank) turned them in to martyrs and a damp squib of a rebellion in to a full blooded one especially after the black and tans got involved.
originally posted by golem
A member of the armed forces of a nation that is a signatory to the Geneva and Haig Conventions and who is under military command who kills at a time of war or in defence of his or her country is not a murderer nor are his commanders.
A member of the armed forces of a nation that is a signatory to the Geneva and Haig Conventions and who is under military command who kills in contravention to the permissions granted under these conventions should be subject to military courts martial and face military punishment.
Modern warfare between nation states is all out, total, no holds barred warfare. In ww2 both sides deliberately targeted civilians. warfare in the 21st century is warfare to destrtoy your enemy it's no longer just for control of resources.
The idea that you can have limited warfare with only military targets being destroyed is ludicrous. It's an illusion perpetrated by politicians that want to use warfare as a tool in diplomacy along with the notion that only the bad guys die. It's also an illusion that make all out war the more likely. imo
I'm all for a war against terror but you need a rapier not a grenade that takes out the whole room including bystanders and pisses off the rest of the household.
Mind You I still believe a life sentence should mean just that. Some people just should not be allowed to walk the streets ever again. But if you put them down like a dog then you are just like them.
-
CheshireCat
- Posts: 1550
- Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 10:15 am
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
golem wrote: Capital punishment is nothing more than a medical procedure in which the patient dies. It is a medical procedure that rids society of elements that have proved to be injurious to society by their actions.
Furthermore it provides a means or the victims and their families to take revenge for a wrong done and there is absolutely nothing wrong with demanding revenge as part of restitution for a wrong.
Not only murder should result in death being imposed on the perpetrator of a crime. Some crimes result in a living death for the victims, crimes such as rape and abuse of children. In the later case the death penalty should be mandatory.
The same applies to many terrorists. If a person commits an offence that actually results in or potentially might result in death or serious injury to civilians, and that person is motivated by religious beliefs, I have no pity for such people. None at all.. They have by their actions relinquished any claim to being human and so relinquished any human rights they might otherwise have.
I have to address this post. I have been following the thread, and I haven't posted because I am torn by this thread. In my profession, I am involved death on a daily basis. A lot of the time we (being techs and DVMs) are the ones that are taking a life. Granted the animal might not have the best quality of life, or it may be that this animal has mauled a child or killed another animal, it is still taking a life. It is nothing to be taken lightly, no matter how "right" it may be, or that you percieve it to be.
Life is a gift, to all of us, and it should be treated with respect. If circumstances call for the death of an individual, it should be done quickly and without production. We honor the dead by showing compassion for the living. We all live our entire lives in the shadow of death, there is no getting out of here alive.
"then they should be put down like a dog. Coldly, mercilessly, with no comfort of any form, simply either taken outside and shot or tied down and euthanised."
I take great offense to this statement. Shame on you.
Furthermore it provides a means or the victims and their families to take revenge for a wrong done and there is absolutely nothing wrong with demanding revenge as part of restitution for a wrong.
Not only murder should result in death being imposed on the perpetrator of a crime. Some crimes result in a living death for the victims, crimes such as rape and abuse of children. In the later case the death penalty should be mandatory.
The same applies to many terrorists. If a person commits an offence that actually results in or potentially might result in death or serious injury to civilians, and that person is motivated by religious beliefs, I have no pity for such people. None at all.. They have by their actions relinquished any claim to being human and so relinquished any human rights they might otherwise have.
I have to address this post. I have been following the thread, and I haven't posted because I am torn by this thread. In my profession, I am involved death on a daily basis. A lot of the time we (being techs and DVMs) are the ones that are taking a life. Granted the animal might not have the best quality of life, or it may be that this animal has mauled a child or killed another animal, it is still taking a life. It is nothing to be taken lightly, no matter how "right" it may be, or that you percieve it to be.
Life is a gift, to all of us, and it should be treated with respect. If circumstances call for the death of an individual, it should be done quickly and without production. We honor the dead by showing compassion for the living. We all live our entire lives in the shadow of death, there is no getting out of here alive.
"then they should be put down like a dog. Coldly, mercilessly, with no comfort of any form, simply either taken outside and shot or tied down and euthanised."
I take great offense to this statement. Shame on you.
"My body is the earth but my head is in the stars."
God Bless BR!!!
God Bless BR!!!
-
Captain Ray
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:04 pm
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
In 1985, 13-year-old Karen Patterson was shot to death in her bed in North Charleston, S.C. Her killer was a neighbor who had already served 10 years of a life sentence for murdering his half-brother Charles in 1970. Joe Atkins cut the Pattersons' phone lines, then entered bearing a machete, a sawed-off shotgun, and a pistol. Karen's parents were chased out of their home by Atkins. Karen's mom ran to the Atkins home nearby, where Joe then murdered his adopted father, Benjamin Atkins, 75, who had worked to persuade parole authorities to release Joe from the life sentence.
When Katy Davis observed three strangers outside her Austin, Texas, apartment, she walked away. Returning later, she was attacked and forced to open the door by Charles Rector, on parole for a previous murder. The men ransacked her apartment, abducted her and took her to a lake where she was beaten, gang-raped, shot in the head and repeatedly forced underwater until she drowned.
Ruby Longsworth of Pasadena, Texas, met Jeffrey Barney through a prison ministry, then helped him get paroled from an auto-theft sentence. Her kindness was repaid when Barney raped and sodomized her, then strangled her with a cord. She had made the mistake of calling Barney "a bum" after she had gotten to know him better.
In 1965, Robert Massie murdered mother of two Mildred Weiss in San Gabriel, Calif., during a follow-home robbery. Hours before execution, a stay was issued so Massie could testify against his accomplice. Massie's sentence was commuted to life when the Supreme Court halted executions in 1972. Receiving an undeserved second chance, Massie was paroled, but eight months later robbed and murdered businessman Boris Naumoff in San Francisco.
Finding 53 people who were exonerated of the particular crime they were charged with is proof that the system works.. Letting killers walk free only ends in tragedy for the innocent.
There are roughly 3,487 people on death row..only 915 of them have been put down. SOURCE How come the anti-death penalty crowd spends so much time worrying about the criminals but never seem to address the concerns for the victims or their families?
A person doesn't just trip over a garden shovel, and the next thing you know.. they are on death row.. They are there for a reason.
Raymond
When Katy Davis observed three strangers outside her Austin, Texas, apartment, she walked away. Returning later, she was attacked and forced to open the door by Charles Rector, on parole for a previous murder. The men ransacked her apartment, abducted her and took her to a lake where she was beaten, gang-raped, shot in the head and repeatedly forced underwater until she drowned.
Ruby Longsworth of Pasadena, Texas, met Jeffrey Barney through a prison ministry, then helped him get paroled from an auto-theft sentence. Her kindness was repaid when Barney raped and sodomized her, then strangled her with a cord. She had made the mistake of calling Barney "a bum" after she had gotten to know him better.
In 1965, Robert Massie murdered mother of two Mildred Weiss in San Gabriel, Calif., during a follow-home robbery. Hours before execution, a stay was issued so Massie could testify against his accomplice. Massie's sentence was commuted to life when the Supreme Court halted executions in 1972. Receiving an undeserved second chance, Massie was paroled, but eight months later robbed and murdered businessman Boris Naumoff in San Francisco.
Finding 53 people who were exonerated of the particular crime they were charged with is proof that the system works.. Letting killers walk free only ends in tragedy for the innocent.
There are roughly 3,487 people on death row..only 915 of them have been put down. SOURCE How come the anti-death penalty crowd spends so much time worrying about the criminals but never seem to address the concerns for the victims or their families?
A person doesn't just trip over a garden shovel, and the next thing you know.. they are on death row.. They are there for a reason.
Raymond
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Captain Ray wrote: Finding 53 people who were exonerated of the particular crime they were charged with is proof that the system works.. Letting killers walk free only ends in tragedy for the innocent.
No, it's proof the the system is imperfect and that killing people makes the imperfection uncorrectable.
In the same way, finding 4 cases where released prisoners re-offended does not mean that every jailed murderer will forever be a danger to society.
Captain Ray wrote: There are roughly 1,000 people on death row.. they are responsible for at least 1,895 horrible murder/rape/tortures. How come the anti-death penalty crowd spends so much time worrying about the criminals but never seem to address the concerns for the victims or their families?
They're two completely separate questions. One is prevention of a miscarrage of justice by a flawed system and the other is recompence for the victims of crime. Advocating the one does not prevent the other.
Also, objecting to the imposition of the death penalty does not imply support for lax sentencing or early release of people who remain a danger to society.
Captain Ray wrote: A person doesn't just trip over a garden shovel, and the next thing you know.. they are on death row.. They are there for a reason.
Yes, quite possibly because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and had a bloody awful lawyer.
No, it's proof the the system is imperfect and that killing people makes the imperfection uncorrectable.
In the same way, finding 4 cases where released prisoners re-offended does not mean that every jailed murderer will forever be a danger to society.
Captain Ray wrote: There are roughly 1,000 people on death row.. they are responsible for at least 1,895 horrible murder/rape/tortures. How come the anti-death penalty crowd spends so much time worrying about the criminals but never seem to address the concerns for the victims or their families?
They're two completely separate questions. One is prevention of a miscarrage of justice by a flawed system and the other is recompence for the victims of crime. Advocating the one does not prevent the other.
Also, objecting to the imposition of the death penalty does not imply support for lax sentencing or early release of people who remain a danger to society.
Captain Ray wrote: A person doesn't just trip over a garden shovel, and the next thing you know.. they are on death row.. They are there for a reason.
Yes, quite possibly because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time and had a bloody awful lawyer.
-
Captain Ray
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:04 pm
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
OK.. so your premise then is that bad lawyers get people put on death row.. my POV is that really good lawyers get life sentences for their murderous clients who then get out of jail and rape, torture, and kill innocent victims.
I came up with four examples.. I could come up with many more..
There is no sense in feeding and housing these thugs. Judge them fairly, and if found guilty.. put them to death.
Give them ample opportunity to challenge the charges leveled against them.. and if they are guilty.. put them to death.
It's the only sensible solution.
Raymond
I came up with four examples.. I could come up with many more..
There is no sense in feeding and housing these thugs. Judge them fairly, and if found guilty.. put them to death.
Give them ample opportunity to challenge the charges leveled against them.. and if they are guilty.. put them to death.
It's the only sensible solution.
Raymond
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
gmc wrote: Let's assume it's you that's accused of murder.
How strict would you want the rules of evidence to be then?
Would you want the right of appeal against conviction?
Would you bother you that so long as you are executed for a crime you did not commit that the real murderer is walking free?
How many appeals should you be allowed if it was you wrongly?
Or do you truly believe that only the guilty are ever brought to trial?
In which case why bother with a trial just give the police the right to execute criminals-after all, they never get it wrong and some people are just so obviously criminals
emphasis added
I think these questions bear repeating. With the addition: Do you assume that you will never find yourself on trial for a) a crime you didn't commit or b) inflated charges beyond a crime you may have committed?
edit to add: missed the cross post. Ray, your "if they are found guilty" qualifier is the bone of contention. It relies on an infallible justice system.
How strict would you want the rules of evidence to be then?
Would you want the right of appeal against conviction?
Would you bother you that so long as you are executed for a crime you did not commit that the real murderer is walking free?
How many appeals should you be allowed if it was you wrongly?
Or do you truly believe that only the guilty are ever brought to trial?
In which case why bother with a trial just give the police the right to execute criminals-after all, they never get it wrong and some people are just so obviously criminals
emphasis added
I think these questions bear repeating. With the addition: Do you assume that you will never find yourself on trial for a) a crime you didn't commit or b) inflated charges beyond a crime you may have committed?
edit to add: missed the cross post. Ray, your "if they are found guilty" qualifier is the bone of contention. It relies on an infallible justice system.
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Captain Ray wrote: OK.. so your premise then is that bad lawyers get people put on death row.. my POV is that really good lawyers get life sentences for their murderous clients who then get out of jail and rape, torture, and kill innocent victims.
I came up with four examples.. I could come up with many more..
There is no sense in feeding and housing these thugs. Judge them fairly, and if found guilty.. put them to death.
Give them ample opportunity to challenge the charges leveled against them.. and if they are guilty.. put them to death.
It's the only sensible solution.
Raymond
No - my premise is that people CAN be on death row without being guilty and that you cannot argue from the specific to the general.
Do not take a single example of what can happen and turn it into the thing that happens in every case.
I came up with four examples.. I could come up with many more..
There is no sense in feeding and housing these thugs. Judge them fairly, and if found guilty.. put them to death.
Give them ample opportunity to challenge the charges leveled against them.. and if they are guilty.. put them to death.
It's the only sensible solution.
Raymond
No - my premise is that people CAN be on death row without being guilty and that you cannot argue from the specific to the general.
Do not take a single example of what can happen and turn it into the thing that happens in every case.
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Yes it should but even that is too good for some people what with DNA testing nowadays if they are found guilty then they should be executed
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
haggis wrote: Yes it should but even that is too good for some people what with DNA testing nowadays if they are found guilty then they should be executed
Forensic DNA Laboratory Error Rates
(Last updated 22 April 2002)
On this page I provide a review of the current status of error rates in forensic DNA typing and provide documents detailing false matches. To view and print these documents below requires Adobe Acrobat Reader 3.0 or higher. Some of these files don't always open properly with Microsoft Internet Explorer or Netscape 6.0. Netscape Navigator 4.7 seems to be the most reliable.
The infallibility test is failed again.
Forensic DNA Laboratory Error Rates
(Last updated 22 April 2002)
On this page I provide a review of the current status of error rates in forensic DNA typing and provide documents detailing false matches. To view and print these documents below requires Adobe Acrobat Reader 3.0 or higher. Some of these files don't always open properly with Microsoft Internet Explorer or Netscape 6.0. Netscape Navigator 4.7 seems to be the most reliable.
The infallibility test is failed again.
-
Captain Ray
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:04 pm
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Bryn Mawr wrote: No - my premise is that people CAN be on death row without being guilty and that you cannot argue from the specific to the general.
Do not take a single example of what can happen and turn it into the thing that happens in every case.
Why can I not site a single example? That is what you are doing isn't it? You have found several examples of the system working perfectly.. where innocent men (I use that term loosely) had there sentences commuted, or who were exonerated of the crimes they were accused of.
The fact is.. that 3,487 people are on death row.. They are not nice people.. they were tried IAW the law, and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They were sentenced to death by a jury of their peers.
You want to go look at some of these cases to see why a jury of their peers deemed death an appropriate punishment? I will go look it up for you if you like...
You act as if just some bizarre set of circumstances can get any ol' Joe a bed and free health care in Supermax.. that's just ridiculous!? These are very bad men.. who did very bad things.. they don't deserve your mercy.. they certainly don't deserve me paying the all ready extraordinary tax burden that I am saddled with keeping them alive..
Raymond
Do not take a single example of what can happen and turn it into the thing that happens in every case.
Why can I not site a single example? That is what you are doing isn't it? You have found several examples of the system working perfectly.. where innocent men (I use that term loosely) had there sentences commuted, or who were exonerated of the crimes they were accused of.
The fact is.. that 3,487 people are on death row.. They are not nice people.. they were tried IAW the law, and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They were sentenced to death by a jury of their peers.
You want to go look at some of these cases to see why a jury of their peers deemed death an appropriate punishment? I will go look it up for you if you like...
You act as if just some bizarre set of circumstances can get any ol' Joe a bed and free health care in Supermax.. that's just ridiculous!? These are very bad men.. who did very bad things.. they don't deserve your mercy.. they certainly don't deserve me paying the all ready extraordinary tax burden that I am saddled with keeping them alive..
Raymond
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Ray, your "common sense" is just that "common". I tend to give weight to experts who have studied and analysed the phenomenon.
article
excerpts to challenge your "These are very bad men.. who did very bad things.." statement implying that things are black and white:
When Dennis L. Rader was arrested as the B.T.K. (bind, torture, kill) serial killer suspectâ€and eventually charged with 10 killingsâ€his Wichita, Kan. community reacted with shock and contradiction. After all, he was a leader in his church, a husband and father of two, living among the very neighbors whom he secretly terrorized.
Dr. David Buss, an evolutionary psychologist at The University of Texas at Austin and author of the just-published “The Murderer Next Door: Why the Mind is Designed to Kill†has conducted an unprecedented set of studies investigating the underlying motives and circumstances of murders
“Though we may like to think that murderers are either pathological misfits or hardened criminals,†he added, “the vast majority of murders are committed by people who, until the day they kill, seem perfectly normal.â€
In Buss’s sample of 429,729 homicide FBI files, 13,670 were cases in which a husband killed his wife. A husband discovering his wife having an extramarital affair is one of the leading causes of women being murdered, particularly when the woman is dramatically younger than her husband. This leads to a disturbing theoryâ€the more good-looking, healthy and fertile the woman, the more motivated the man will be to kill her upon discovering a sexual infidelity.
Separation is also a powerful trigger for murder. According to a study of homicides in Chicago, 50 percent of wife killings took place within the first two months of the separation, and an astonishing 85 percent of these women were killed within the first year. In contrast, among the women who contemplated killing their mates, getting dumped accounted for only 13 percent.
Buss’s homicidal fantasy research revealed that 91 percent of men and 84 percent of women have had at least one vivid fantasyâ€often intense and astonishingly detailedâ€of committing murder.
“As an evolutionary psychologist,†he added, “I’ve become accustomed to critics who confuse what is with what ought to be. We can prevent murder, in principle, through a deep understanding of its underlying psychological circuits and designing environments that prevent their activation.â€
article
excerpts to challenge your "These are very bad men.. who did very bad things.." statement implying that things are black and white:
When Dennis L. Rader was arrested as the B.T.K. (bind, torture, kill) serial killer suspectâ€and eventually charged with 10 killingsâ€his Wichita, Kan. community reacted with shock and contradiction. After all, he was a leader in his church, a husband and father of two, living among the very neighbors whom he secretly terrorized.
Dr. David Buss, an evolutionary psychologist at The University of Texas at Austin and author of the just-published “The Murderer Next Door: Why the Mind is Designed to Kill†has conducted an unprecedented set of studies investigating the underlying motives and circumstances of murders
“Though we may like to think that murderers are either pathological misfits or hardened criminals,†he added, “the vast majority of murders are committed by people who, until the day they kill, seem perfectly normal.â€
In Buss’s sample of 429,729 homicide FBI files, 13,670 were cases in which a husband killed his wife. A husband discovering his wife having an extramarital affair is one of the leading causes of women being murdered, particularly when the woman is dramatically younger than her husband. This leads to a disturbing theoryâ€the more good-looking, healthy and fertile the woman, the more motivated the man will be to kill her upon discovering a sexual infidelity.
Separation is also a powerful trigger for murder. According to a study of homicides in Chicago, 50 percent of wife killings took place within the first two months of the separation, and an astonishing 85 percent of these women were killed within the first year. In contrast, among the women who contemplated killing their mates, getting dumped accounted for only 13 percent.
Buss’s homicidal fantasy research revealed that 91 percent of men and 84 percent of women have had at least one vivid fantasyâ€often intense and astonishingly detailedâ€of committing murder.
“As an evolutionary psychologist,†he added, “I’ve become accustomed to critics who confuse what is with what ought to be. We can prevent murder, in principle, through a deep understanding of its underlying psychological circuits and designing environments that prevent their activation.â€
-
Captain Ray
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:04 pm
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Koan... I am not sure I get what it is you are trying to say.. the BTK killer, should be put to death immediatly. I don't really care what his motivation was, how clever he was, or if he had a healthy childhood.
He commited the murders.. he tortured innocent women.. he should die.
Pretty black and white, I know..
Raymond
He commited the murders.. he tortured innocent women.. he should die.
Pretty black and white, I know..
Raymond
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Captain Ray wrote: Koan... I am not sure I get what it is you are trying to say.. the BTK killer, should be put to death immediatly. I don't really care what his motivation was, how clever he was, or if he had a healthy childhood.
He commited the murders.. he tortured innocent women.. he should die.
Pretty black and white, I know..
Raymond
I'm trying to say that unless you base your opinion on facts and studies and researched analysis it doesn't carry much weight.
He commited the murders.. he tortured innocent women.. he should die.
Pretty black and white, I know..
Raymond
I'm trying to say that unless you base your opinion on facts and studies and researched analysis it doesn't carry much weight.
-
Captain Ray
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:04 pm
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
koan wrote: I'm trying to say that unless you base your opinion on facts and studies and researched analysis it doesn't carry much weight.
I do base my opinion on facts.. not studies though.. I don't need some pin-head psychologist to explain to me why some nut-job decides to bind a womans hands behind her back and ritualistically remove her breasts with a dull knife, while sodomizing her... I don't really care what caused the nut-job to do that..
I just think he should be put to death.
Raymond
I do base my opinion on facts.. not studies though.. I don't need some pin-head psychologist to explain to me why some nut-job decides to bind a womans hands behind her back and ritualistically remove her breasts with a dull knife, while sodomizing her... I don't really care what caused the nut-job to do that..
I just think he should be put to death.
Raymond
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Captain Ray wrote: I do base my opinion on facts.. not studies though.. I don't need some pin-head psychologist to explain to me why some nut-job decides to bind a womans hands behind her back and ritualistically remove her breasts with a dull knife, while sodomizing her... I don't really care what caused the nut-job to do that..
I just think he should be put to death.
Raymond
Your welcome to your opinion. It is bluntly and blindly argued for the purposes of debate. Nevertheless, it is "common", which is part of what worries me. I've seen what happens to the mob mentality when suddenly the mob turns against them. Flies out the window fast but a little too late.
I just think he should be put to death.
Raymond
Your welcome to your opinion. It is bluntly and blindly argued for the purposes of debate. Nevertheless, it is "common", which is part of what worries me. I've seen what happens to the mob mentality when suddenly the mob turns against them. Flies out the window fast but a little too late.
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
koan wrote: The infallibility test is failed again.
I cannot say that I'm happy with your link.
It contains 8 individual errors (operator error), one paper from 1988/9 when DMA typing had only just been developed and was not in forensic use and one paper which admits that the major source of errors was the limitations of the form used to report the results.
No, DNA testing is not infalable - operator error and deliberate tampering will always preclude total infalability, but 8 cases in the millions performed is fairly close.
I cannot say that I'm happy with your link.
It contains 8 individual errors (operator error), one paper from 1988/9 when DMA typing had only just been developed and was not in forensic use and one paper which admits that the major source of errors was the limitations of the form used to report the results.
No, DNA testing is not infalable - operator error and deliberate tampering will always preclude total infalability, but 8 cases in the millions performed is fairly close.
-
Captain Ray
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:04 pm
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
koan wrote: Your welcome to your opinion. It is bluntly and blindly argued for the purposes of debate. Nevertheless, it is "common", which is part of what worries me. I've seen what happens to the mob mentality when suddenly the mob turns against them. Flies out the window fast but a little too late.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.. Hey man.. this is America.. (for me at least) where we are allowed to do that.
I get the distinct impression that to you, there is no amount of horror that a person can inflict on another person that would justify the state sanctioned termination of their life.. that Is a position that I simply cannot understand.
Some people should die.. some souls deserve to go to hell..
They will go to hell anyway... why shouldn't we expedite the affair?
Raymond
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.. Hey man.. this is America.. (for me at least) where we are allowed to do that.
I get the distinct impression that to you, there is no amount of horror that a person can inflict on another person that would justify the state sanctioned termination of their life.. that Is a position that I simply cannot understand.
Some people should die.. some souls deserve to go to hell..
They will go to hell anyway... why shouldn't we expedite the affair?
Raymond
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Captain Ray wrote: Why can I not site a single example? That is what you are doing isn't it? You have found several examples of the system working perfectly.. where innocent men (I use that term loosely) had there sentences commuted, or who were exonerated of the crimes they were accused of.
No, those examples were provided by Koan. You cannot cite a single example because you then try to make a general conclusion and that is false logic.
I do not claim the the system is working perfectly - quite the opposite. Because the system cannot work perfectly and there will always be a chance that an innocent person will be found guilty I am saying that the death penalty cannot be appropriate - too many innocent people are put to death in error and cannot be brought back.
Captain Ray wrote: The fact is.. that 3,487 people are on death row.. They are not nice people.. they were tried IAW the law, and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They were sentenced to death by a jury of their peers.
You want to go look at some of these cases to see why a jury of their peers deemed death an appropriate punishment? I will go look it up for you if you like...
Quoting individual cases and showing that the people involved are "not nice" does not prove that none of the people now on death row or who might be on death row in the future are necessarily guilty.
Captain Ray wrote: You act as if just some bizarre set of circumstances can get any ol' Joe a bed and free health care in Supermax.. that's just ridiculous!? These are very bad men.. who did very bad things.. they don't deserve your mercy.. they certainly don't deserve me paying the all ready extraordinary tax burden that I am saddled with keeping them alive..
I assert that a bizarre set of circumstances *could* get any ol' Joe onto death row. It has happened enough times to be a proven fact.
No, those examples were provided by Koan. You cannot cite a single example because you then try to make a general conclusion and that is false logic.
I do not claim the the system is working perfectly - quite the opposite. Because the system cannot work perfectly and there will always be a chance that an innocent person will be found guilty I am saying that the death penalty cannot be appropriate - too many innocent people are put to death in error and cannot be brought back.
Captain Ray wrote: The fact is.. that 3,487 people are on death row.. They are not nice people.. they were tried IAW the law, and found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They were sentenced to death by a jury of their peers.
You want to go look at some of these cases to see why a jury of their peers deemed death an appropriate punishment? I will go look it up for you if you like...
Quoting individual cases and showing that the people involved are "not nice" does not prove that none of the people now on death row or who might be on death row in the future are necessarily guilty.
Captain Ray wrote: You act as if just some bizarre set of circumstances can get any ol' Joe a bed and free health care in Supermax.. that's just ridiculous!? These are very bad men.. who did very bad things.. they don't deserve your mercy.. they certainly don't deserve me paying the all ready extraordinary tax burden that I am saddled with keeping them alive..
I assert that a bizarre set of circumstances *could* get any ol' Joe onto death row. It has happened enough times to be a proven fact.
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Bryn Mawr wrote: I cannot say that I'm happy with your link.
It contains 8 individual errors (operator error), one paper from 1988/9 when DMA typing had only just been developed and was not in forensic use and one paper which admits that the major source of errors was the limitations of the form used to report the results.
No, DNA testing is not infalable - operator error and deliberate tampering will always preclude total infalability, but 8 cases in the millions performed is fairly close.
There is a lack of co-operation to provide error levels from labs. The number of studies into the matter are extremely limited. Legislators don't want the errors rates used for improper defense (article). From the other site I was more interested in the case where a plea bargain had been struck before the evidence was found to be in error. That the test itself is extremely accurate, if not infallible, makes it easy to slide errors past without notice or proper scrutiny.
It contains 8 individual errors (operator error), one paper from 1988/9 when DMA typing had only just been developed and was not in forensic use and one paper which admits that the major source of errors was the limitations of the form used to report the results.
No, DNA testing is not infalable - operator error and deliberate tampering will always preclude total infalability, but 8 cases in the millions performed is fairly close.
There is a lack of co-operation to provide error levels from labs. The number of studies into the matter are extremely limited. Legislators don't want the errors rates used for improper defense (article). From the other site I was more interested in the case where a plea bargain had been struck before the evidence was found to be in error. That the test itself is extremely accurate, if not infallible, makes it easy to slide errors past without notice or proper scrutiny.
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
koan wrote: There is a lack of co-operation to provide error levels from labs. The number of studies into the matter are extremely limited. Legislators don't want the errors rates used for improper defense (article). From the other site I was more interested in the case where a plea bargain had been struck before the evidence was found to be in error. That the test itself is extremely accurate, if not infallible, makes it easy to slide errors past without notice or proper scrutiny.
I wouldn't argue against that in the slightest. Just didn't like the example.
You also forgot the cases involving Chimera - where the subject has two distinct sets of DNA.
I wouldn't argue against that in the slightest. Just didn't like the example.
You also forgot the cases involving Chimera - where the subject has two distinct sets of DNA.
-
Captain Ray
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:04 pm
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Cary Ann was an average 8 year old little girl. Brown hair framed her sweet face, and big brown eyes enhanced her constant, glowing smile. This darling won the hearts of any who crossed her path with her soft-spoken ways and zest for life.
On September 1, 1979, Cary and her step-brother were riding bikes in the neighborhood. A friendly man in an old car pulled up beside her. He seemed to know her father and he persuaded Cary to show him where she lived.
She parked her bike in front of a nearby church and climbed into the car. That was the last time Cary was seen alive.
Soon after, a family member of Robert Glen Coe reported suspicions of him to the police. He was consequently arrested and charged with the kidnapping, rape and murder of Cary Ann.
Most of the confession was a nightmare for the family. There was, however, one part of the Coe's testimony that stood out. It was that something that told Cary's loved ones that the Lord had taken care of her, even to the end. Just prior to ending the misery of this poor defenseless angel, Coe said she looked up at him with trusting eyes and said, "Jesus loves you."
Coe was brought to trial and found guilty in 1981. He was sentenced to two life sentences for the kidnapping and rape. He was given the death penalty for murder.
For 21 years this case languished through the judicial system.
After 21 years of trial and appeals, Robert Glen Coe was executed on April 19, 2000.
21 years!! He got to live 21 years!?!?! She lived only eight.. Is that justice in your mind? Are you happy that this pervert got to live for 21 years on your dime while this lovely child was raped and tortured after having only lived eight years? Are you telling me that this Coe deserved any measure of mercy?
I just don't understand where you liberals are coming from...
Raymond
On September 1, 1979, Cary and her step-brother were riding bikes in the neighborhood. A friendly man in an old car pulled up beside her. He seemed to know her father and he persuaded Cary to show him where she lived.
She parked her bike in front of a nearby church and climbed into the car. That was the last time Cary was seen alive.
Soon after, a family member of Robert Glen Coe reported suspicions of him to the police. He was consequently arrested and charged with the kidnapping, rape and murder of Cary Ann.
Most of the confession was a nightmare for the family. There was, however, one part of the Coe's testimony that stood out. It was that something that told Cary's loved ones that the Lord had taken care of her, even to the end. Just prior to ending the misery of this poor defenseless angel, Coe said she looked up at him with trusting eyes and said, "Jesus loves you."
Coe was brought to trial and found guilty in 1981. He was sentenced to two life sentences for the kidnapping and rape. He was given the death penalty for murder.
For 21 years this case languished through the judicial system.
After 21 years of trial and appeals, Robert Glen Coe was executed on April 19, 2000.
21 years!! He got to live 21 years!?!?! She lived only eight.. Is that justice in your mind? Are you happy that this pervert got to live for 21 years on your dime while this lovely child was raped and tortured after having only lived eight years? Are you telling me that this Coe deserved any measure of mercy?
I just don't understand where you liberals are coming from...
Raymond
-
cherandbuster
- Posts: 8594
- Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 11:33 am
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Captain Ray wrote: I just don't understand where you liberals are coming from...
Raymond
Hi Raymond,
I consider myself a liberal on many issues: abortion, gay marriage, etc. What you may call a social liberal.
But I agree with you on this one.
That guy shoulda fried long ago.
Raymond
Hi Raymond,
I consider myself a liberal on many issues: abortion, gay marriage, etc. What you may call a social liberal.
But I agree with you on this one.
That guy shoulda fried long ago.
Live Life with
PASSION!:guitarist
PASSION!:guitarist
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Captain Ray wrote:
21 years!! He got to live 21 years!?!?! She lived only eight.. Is that justice in your mind? Are you happy that this pervert got to live for 21 years on your dime while this lovely child was raped and tortured after having only lived eight years? Are you telling me that this Coe deserved any measure of mercy?
I just don't understand where you liberals are coming from...
Do you not understand yet? A single case does not prove anything.
Yes, I agree that a person who could do that should not be released – ever.
But no, because one person has done something so horrific, it does not make it right to kill everyone convicted of murder.
You cannot argue from the specific to the general.
21 years!! He got to live 21 years!?!?! She lived only eight.. Is that justice in your mind? Are you happy that this pervert got to live for 21 years on your dime while this lovely child was raped and tortured after having only lived eight years? Are you telling me that this Coe deserved any measure of mercy?
I just don't understand where you liberals are coming from...
Do you not understand yet? A single case does not prove anything.
Yes, I agree that a person who could do that should not be released – ever.
But no, because one person has done something so horrific, it does not make it right to kill everyone convicted of murder.
You cannot argue from the specific to the general.
-
Captain Ray
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:04 pm
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Actually.. I can.. it's easy. I don't know why you think that telling me that I cannot argue a specific to a general somehow makes your point stronger. I can.. and I will!!
The bastard that killed the little girl deserved to die.. Justice was dispensed.. the only reason he got to enjoy 21 years of life was because of people like you. He should have been taken out back and shot the moment that it was clear that he did what he did. The taxpayers should never have had to waste a dime on that freak!!
I have plenty of more examples if you like.. yes.. specifics to a general.. I think it's important to see what the real world results of your ideology are...
Raymond
The bastard that killed the little girl deserved to die.. Justice was dispensed.. the only reason he got to enjoy 21 years of life was because of people like you. He should have been taken out back and shot the moment that it was clear that he did what he did. The taxpayers should never have had to waste a dime on that freak!!
I have plenty of more examples if you like.. yes.. specifics to a general.. I think it's important to see what the real world results of your ideology are...
Raymond
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Captain Ray wrote: Actually.. I can.. it's easy. I don't know why you think that telling me that I cannot argue a specific to a general somehow makes your point stronger. I can.. and I will!!
The bastard that killed the little girl deserved to die.. Justice was dispensed.. the only reason he got to enjoy 21 years of life was because of people like you. He should have been taken out back and shot the moment that it was clear that he did what he did. The taxpayers should never have had to waste a dime on that freak!!
I have plenty of more examples if you like.. yes.. specifics to a general.. I think it's important to see what the real world results of your ideology are...
Raymond
If you have a million instances of an occurrance then it is perfectly possible to select a thousand specific examples and argue that, because all of your examples exhibit characteristic A, every occurrance must exhibit characteristic A.
You have still only hit 0.01% of the population and your conclusion is invalid.
QED
The bastard that killed the little girl deserved to die.. Justice was dispensed.. the only reason he got to enjoy 21 years of life was because of people like you. He should have been taken out back and shot the moment that it was clear that he did what he did. The taxpayers should never have had to waste a dime on that freak!!
I have plenty of more examples if you like.. yes.. specifics to a general.. I think it's important to see what the real world results of your ideology are...
Raymond
If you have a million instances of an occurrance then it is perfectly possible to select a thousand specific examples and argue that, because all of your examples exhibit characteristic A, every occurrance must exhibit characteristic A.
You have still only hit 0.01% of the population and your conclusion is invalid.
QED
-
Captain Ray
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:04 pm
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
I don't see why this is so complicated for you.
Person "a" commits an evil act. Person "a" is thoroughly investigated and been found to have committed said evil act. Person "a" is executed in at least as kind a fashion that one would offer to an innocent unborn child.
Why is that so problematic in your world?
Raymond
Person "a" commits an evil act. Person "a" is thoroughly investigated and been found to have committed said evil act. Person "a" is executed in at least as kind a fashion that one would offer to an innocent unborn child.
Why is that so problematic in your world?
Raymond