How Many Here Are For the death Penalty?

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Sat May 14, 2005 10:58 am

Come on Spot, publish & be damned!

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat May 14, 2005 11:00 am

spot wrote: Would that you tried, instead of employing spoilers like this. Squits(1) who call me a liar just to divert a discussion don't impress me at all.

I trust you, anastrophe, as far as I could spit into a gale.works out very conveniently for you, indeed. what's amusing is that, a week or so ago, in response to the 'need rent money' thread, you sent email to the miscreant, before i remembered that i had redirected his/her email address to mine, to prevent the miscreant from ever getting a response from some poor sucker.

i've seen your email address. if i were not honorable or trustworthy, i'd post it. if i were not honorable or trustworthy, i'd use my powers as a sysadmin to trace the mail back to source, and see if i could figure out your real identity, and with that info see if i can find some published material. but since you sent the email address to me inadvertently, i deleted it.

so, you sort of win by default. present absurd, convoluted method to "verify" your fictional claim of having been published. a reasonable person, myself, sees right through the deception, and challenges you to prove your fictional claim. you reject the challenge, as i'm 'untrustworthy'.

of course, gosh - just look to the left and below. there's my photo, my name, link to my personal site, from which you can find out eventually where i live. i respect other's right to remain anonymous. i choose not to hide behind anonymity. now, who is more trustworthy - 'spot', who can make up any tale he likes, and refuse to prove any of it - or me, with my identity there for all to see...

(oh - i'll just note here - i actually do suspect that 'spot' has been published. it's certainly plausible, and since it's not terribly difficult for anyone to manage to be published, it would be unsurprising if it turned out to be true. however, spot could claim, if he so desired, that he is a former soviet spy who dated wallace warfield simpson before her marriage to edward VIII. that's the beauty of anonymity)

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat May 14, 2005 11:11 am

i've had a change of heart. i'm calling a truce. i'm weary of attacking spot. i'll accept at face value that you've been published, spot, and i apologize to you for suggesting otherwise.

'pick your battles' comes to mind for me. this is a pointless and unseemly digression. the death penalty is far too serious a topic to be indulging in this tit for tat.

i grieve for any man unjustly executed, or for that matter unjustly incarcerated. any innocent man wrongly accused, convicted, condemned is a blight on our shared humanity - and a threat to any innocent man who may yet be unjustly accused. i note here i use 'man' in the collective, of course - man or woman, makes no difference.

as a young man, i was vehemently opposed to the death penalty. later - perhaps touched by the unfortunate knowledge of crimes committed by vile people against innocents, i became rather vehemently in favor of the death penalty. now, i'm stuck in a rather large grey area, where i quite honestly cannot say definitively that i am either for or against the death penalty. the competing arguments in favor and opposed to the death penalty affect me equally. present me with a richard allen davis - confessed to the crime, irrefutably linked by evidence to the crime - and i'm in favor of it, and argue for it. present me with the numerous men who have been freed from death row by exculpatory DNA evidence, and i ask myself, how can we apply the ultimate 'punishment', which once applied is irretrievable, to any man who claims his innocence?

Post by **spot** » Sat May 14, 2005 12:21 pm

anastrophe wrote: i've seen your email address. if i were not honorable or trustworthy, i'd post it.I refuse to have such an implied threat hanging over my head. My email address, if anyone would like it, is anything at gb4 com, a domain I own. If anyone would like my name, or my postal address, or my phone number, they can ask for a whois response on the domain.

I've thought of a reasonable compromise, since one of the things I do on occasion is publish e-texts onto the Internet, and that carries my name. "When I write for publication, I proof-read carefully and often." applies even more to that work than to my professional work, since I have no sub-editor checking what I do.

I believe that if you check http://www.nisbett.com/hymns/jwg4000.html you'll find the same tone of pedantry that you've been used to here. It is one of a dozen or so books I've published - but not authored - on the Internet. My authored work is not at issue, though again if you press you'll demonstrate you're mistaken, I have several authorial shafts in my quiver yet, including a stack of invoices to mainstream magazine publishers. You'll note that my commentary text here is authored, in case you wiggle on the hook of "written"; I proof-read my own words just as carefully, in that context, as I do the books themselves.

LWR VENTURES · Post by **LWR VENTURES** » Sat May 14, 2005 1:45 pm

Excellent point Anastrophe! Death is not a punishment you can resend once it is applied. Only a perfect justice system should apply such punishments. Besides, death sentences do not deter those who kill. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m starting to think that such sentences create more monsters. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not a statistician, so can any of you prove me wrong? How about torture or enslavement. Or, are we more interested in retribution, than prevention? Think about it. ArenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t these monsters more worried about their comfort and pleasures? They same to adore the concept of death. Why give that to them?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat May 14, 2005 2:24 pm

LWR VENTURES wrote: Excellent point Anastrophe! Death is not a punishment you can resend once it is applied. Only a perfect justice system should apply such punishments. Besides, death sentences do not deter those who kill. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m starting to think that such sentences create more monsters. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not a statistician, so can any of you prove me wrong? How about torture or enslavement. Or, are we more interested in retribution, than prevention? Think about it. ArenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t these monsters more worried about their comfort and pleasures? They same to adore the concept of death. Why give that to them?
because once the monster is dead, it can never kill (rape, kidnap, etc) again.

there are some criminals who are so far beyond redemption, and so cut through with violent intent, that nobody is safe around them - not other prisoners, not the guards. with the exception of a 'perfect' lockup - a cell that is sealed, perhaps - can the monster be prevented from ever harming others again.

yes, i specifically use the word monster. not infrequently, an argument is posed that by referring to them as 'monsters', it is meant to dehumanize them, to make it easier to lack compassion for them. i reject that. 'monster' has a specific meaning. it is an appropriate appellation for some violent criminals.

LWR VENTURES · Post by **LWR VENTURES** » Sat May 14, 2005 2:36 pm

But maybe, just maybe, the monster can kill again , at least by proxy. Dangling death in front of these people may giving them their own martyr, or (notorious) heroes, could be a mistake. Just a thought.

Post by **spot** » Sat May 14, 2005 3:56 pm

anastrophe wrote: a delightful story, oft repeated, likely apocryphal, and pointedly trivializing in the context of this discussion.It is a delightful story, it has been oft repeated, it is quite likely apocryphal, I didn't think it trivialized anything. I put it there because it pleased me. I hope it entertained. I hate writing mounds of boring unrelieved unremitting prose.

anastrophe wrote: your evasion is palpable. indeed, "once is enough". but that's not what you unequivocally stated. it's a valid sentiment indeed, and one i share, but meaningless in the context of your prattling on that it happens "regularly". in my lexicon, 'once' is not equivalent to 'regularly'. had you begun with 'once is enough', your backpedalling wouldn't be so comical.I try hard not to evade. I do get sidetracked. I'd stand by "regularly". It isn't a synonym for "frequently", after all. I used it to suggest that it's a problem that hasn't been fixed. I think it likely that more innocent people are ending in jail now than they did, for example, in the fifties. I think the police are more interested now in clean-up rates than they were then in putting the right person forward for trial.

"when it comes to DNA exonerations, Marshall says, it's important to keep in mind the following: since 1989 more than a hundred people have been released from prison because of DNA tests, 12 of them from death row. While these are just a fraction of the nation's criminal cases, they suggest how false convictions and other defects plague the entire criminal justice system, including the vast majority of cases in which there is no DNA evidence available. "We need to look at DNA as a lens into the problem of wrongful convictions," he says. Marshall argues that DNA is showing how problems such as eyewitness error, prosecutorial misconduct, false confessions and poor legal council corrupt the criminal justice system."The whole of that article, which I hope you regard as balanced, is at http://www.insideout.org/documentaries/dna/thelaw.asp

You and I, anastrophe, would get on pretty well in most other circumstances, and I'm sure you realize this. You have this huge hang-up about the virtue of your Presidency, that's all. Get over it, at least set it aside, there's no reason for it to color your entire interaction with the world. I believe the correct phrase in your hemisphere is "chill, man".

Post by **spot** » Sun May 15, 2005 1:33 pm

reeny wrote: With DNA testing it is extremely unlikely that anyone on death row is innocent.Only a minority of people on death row have had DNA evidence presented to the courts. Whether it's possible to gather it in every circumstance, now or in the future, is debatable. In practice, at the moment, it is found and presented to the courts in a minority of cases.

Where does that leave your position regarding the majority of people on death row, for whom no DNA evidence has been presented, some of whom claim to be innocent of the crime for which they were convicted? We know that in the past such people have been executed and later shown to have been the wrong person. Why do you believe that the majority for whom no DNA evidence has been presented, or for whom no DNA evidence can possibly be presented, can't fit into that same category?

Would you like two new categories, of "guilty of something that deserves execution, and executable" and "guilty of something that deserves execution, but not executable"?

Would you settle for a statistical probability that there's a background count of innocent people being executed, and execute everyone who is "guilty of something that deserves execution"?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun May 15, 2005 1:47 pm

reeny wrote: When it comes to murder, I believe in an eye for an eye. Put murderers to death within 5 years of conviction. With DNA testing it is extremely unlikely that anyone on death row is innocent.
as spot pointed out, DNA testing and evidence is not widely available. 'death row', the colloquial term for those who have been sentenced to die but not yet executed, due to the nature of the judicial beast, is populated with criminals whose offenses go back in many cases as far as the 1970's - far, far predating DNA testing, and because of the time involved, evidence from which DNA could be collected is often long gone.

Now, a fair enough argument might be that for those *now* being convicted of capital offenses, if there is incontrovertible DNA evidence (and, i would submit, other evidence can be incontrovertible - for example, video documentation of the act being committed, or confession to the crime containing details only known previously by law enforcement), then perhaps one can say reasonably that in those cases, execution may be carried out because - due to the nature of the evidence - the judgement has been perfect, so the sentence can be meted out knowing it is just.

Post by **spot** » Sun May 15, 2005 2:13 pm

anastrophe wrote: the judgement has been perfect, so the sentence can be meted out knowing it is just.Consider a police team that believes, rightly, that it has sufficient evidence to bring a case and secure conviction. Someone within that team has additional evidence that would put the conviction in doubt. Would he face approval or censure, if he brings it to light? In an ideal world, of course, he would enhance his position by taking the enquiry back to basics and setting out for another culprit. I don't see ours as an ideal world.

Your judgement on the evidence may be perfect, but your sentence may be unjust. I can think of instances in England where police and expert evidence have been shown to be biased or corrupt or incorrect, and the verdict overturned on appeal as unsafe. The death penalty prevents restitution in such cases.

You're quite right that there are circumstances where applying the death penalty might be equitable (even though it may be immoral - that's a different matter). I suggest that they are:

The probability of the convict's detection, apprehension, sentencing or execution being equal across all sections of society, for any given crime.

The unchallenged, tested and demonstrable probity and quality of the investigators, the prosecutors, the defense, the jury and the judges. I take it as obvious that if a case is subsequently shown to have penalized a person innocent of the charges brought, then those in the chain which caused the penalty should be punished in a way that reflects their culpability. You may note that this was the standard rule in Roman law, for example.

A general knowledge and understanding among the convict's peers of the laws of which he was found guilty. If that already exists, then fine - I merely point out that it must.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun May 15, 2005 2:29 pm

spot wrote: Consider a police team that believes, rightly, that it has sufficient evidence to bring a case and secure conviction. Someone within that team has additional evidence that would put the conviction in doubt. Would he face approval or censure, if he brings it to light? In an ideal world, of course, he would enhance his position by taking the enquiry back to basics and setting out for another culprit. I don't see ours as an ideal world.

Your judgement on the evidence may be perfect, but your sentence may be unjust. I can think of instances in England where police and expert evidence have been shown to be biased or corrupt or incorrect, and the verdict overturned on appeal as unsafe. The death penalty prevents restitution in such cases.

You're quite right that there are circumstances where applying the death penalty might be equitable (even though it may be immoral - that's a different matter). I suggest that they are:

The probability of the convict's detection, apprehension, sentencing or execution being equal across all sections of society, for any given crime.

The unchallenged, tested and demonstrable probity and quality of the investigators, the prosecutors, the defense, the jury and the judges. I take it as obvious that if a case is subsequently shown to have penalized a person innocent of the charges brought, then those in the chain which caused the penalty should be punished in a way that reflects their culpability. You may note that this was the standard rule in Roman law, for example.

A general knowledge and understanding among the convict's peers of the laws of which he was found guilty. If that already exists, then fine - I merely point out that it must.in truncating my sentence, you've elided 'if', 'incontrovertible' and 'perhaps'. those three words completely change the fragment you quoted. you're welcome to selectively quote however you like, it is your privilege. but you've warped and distorted what i wrote in doing so.

i make no argument contrary to what you've written above, because it's non-responsive to what i actually wrote.

Post by **spot** » Sun May 15, 2005 2:53 pm

anastrophe wrote: in truncating my sentence, you've elided 'if', 'incontrovertible' and 'perhaps'. those three words completely change the fragment you quoted. you're welcome to selectively quote however you like, it is your privilege. but you've warped and distorted what i wrote in doing so.

i make no argument contrary to what you've written above, because it's non-responsive to what i actually wrote.Perhaps I misunderstand the purpose of quoting. Obviously it can't be to pretend your other text never existed, since it's still there in the thread. I use it - wrongly, it seems - to focus my remarks as coming in at that point in what you were saying. I dislike posts which don't quote selectively, simply because there's no need. I'm not *excluding* your full text. I'm unable to do that, I have no desire to do that, it is not my intention to appear or succeed in doing that.

As for your text you specifically focus on, I note:

There is at least one case so far of DNA evidence which was considered incontrovertible to have been subsequently demonstrated - from the age of the sample - to have been planted in order to secure a conviction. What is incontrovertible today may be found wanting tomorrow.

"confession to the crime containing details only known previously by law enforcement" falls well within existing demonstrated police abuse. My point of "unchallenged, tested and demonstrable probity and quality of the investigators" is singularly relevant to it.

We both have the same "perhaps".

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sun May 15, 2005 3:04 pm

sorry to interrupt. without wordy esoteric arguendo, of which i am fully capable, and i admit a bold affection for Anastrophe, plus i like that Spot likes poetry, let me just say that as a police officer i have seen crap that would curl your toenails and met people that i would pull the switch on personally without compunction. i know serial killers, baby killers, grandma killers. and they are guilty as hell. in fact have told me they are. i know ALL the arguments for and against. but come into my world gentlemen.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun May 15, 2005 3:08 pm

spot wrote: I misunderstand the purpose of quoting.spot wrote: your other text never existedspot wrote: I use it - wronglyspot wrote: I dislike posts

fair enough.

Post by **spot** » Sun May 15, 2005 3:12 pm

lady cop wrote: sorry to interrupt. without wordy esoteric arguendo, of which i am fully capable, and i admit a bold affection for Anastrophe, plus i like that Spot likes poetry, let me just say that as a police officer i have seen crap that would curl your toenails and met people that i would pull the switch on personally without compunction. i know serial killers, baby killers, grandma killers. and they are guilty as hell. in fact have told me they are. i know ALL the arguments for and against. but come into my world gentlemen.I have a number of ideas regarding the increasing prevalence of people like this, lady. But this isn't the thread to mention them. I'm grateful to you for making life safer for the majority of your citizens, it must be even more unpleasant a duty than I can easily imagine.

Do you think someone within a police team who has additional evidence, that would put the prospect of an otherwise certain conviction in doubt, would face approval or censure from his team or his boss by bringing it to light? You're exactly the person to ask about this.

Post by **spot** » Sun May 15, 2005 3:13 pm

anastrophe wrote: fairhardly!

anastrophe wrote: enough.Just so. And we were getting on so well, too.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun May 15, 2005 3:17 pm

lady cop wrote: sorry to interrupt. without wordy esoteric arguendo, of which i am fully capable, and i admit a bold affection for Anastrophe, plus i like that Spot likes poetry, let me just say that as a police officer i have seen crap that would curl your toenails and met people that i would pull the switch on personally without compunction. i know serial killers, baby killers, grandma killers. and they are guilty as hell. in fact have told me they are. i know ALL the arguments for and against. but come into my world gentlemen. i'll use this as a stepping-stone to digression. one of the biggest problems we have in modern society is the 'cult of the victim'. we are told, in no uncertain terms, by the government, by law enforcement, by the popular press, to not fight back when faced with crime. don't resist - give them what they want. this notion that one is engaging in simple commerce with the perpetrator - give the perp your wallet, they'll take it, tip their hat, and move on - only promulgates a potentially fatal mode of operation. a great many crimes are not 'about' what they ostenstibly seem. as most people know - rape has little to sex, and everything to do with power.

our society encourages the law abiding to disarm, to be passive under attack, to not resist, to not fight back. this often results in innocent people led to slaughter by those without conscience. had the potential victim fought back, they might (note carefully, *might*) not have become a victim, and the world might have had one less monster roaming the streets.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun May 15, 2005 3:21 pm

spot wrote: hardly!

Just so. And we were getting on so well, too.
unremarkably, this isn't so. if you'll review the topic, you'll note i tendered an open, public apology to you along with retraction, even before you presented your evidence of being published. it was sincere and heartfelt, believe it or not. you followed up with multiple posts, continuing in our former mode of attack/counter-attack, and never acknowledged the apology.

so, no, at least from your half of the conflict, we were clearly not getting along any better. since you rejected my apology by clear omission, my brief moment of magnanimity has collapsed, i'm afraid. i'm dealing with - yes, i'll say it - a troll, who will not acknowledge or accept an olive branch tendered.

so be it.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sun May 15, 2005 3:32 pm

spot wrote:

Do you think someone within a police team who has additional evidence, that would put the prospect of an otherwise certain conviction in doubt, would face approval or censure from his team or his boss by bringing it to light? You're exactly the person to ask about this.damn, i was going to go watch masterpiece theater....i can only say this at the risk of you thinking me naive...we are sworn. most of us take that very seriously. we are supposed to put all evidence to DA pro or con. has it ever been abused? yes.we all have "throw-down guns" . but on the other hand there are some like me, a killer who was looking at death row took a plea. will do 15. after that was a done deal she confessed all to me. every detail. i could have gone right to the DA with an affidavit and had the plea thrown out. but didn't. there is nothing malicious in most prosecution, but are we human and hate some of these people? yes.

Post by **spot** » Sun May 15, 2005 3:32 pm

anastrophe wrote: unremarkably, this isn't so. if you'll review the topic, you'll note i tendered an open, public apology to you along with retraction, even before you presented your evidence of being published. it was sincere and heartfelt, believe it or not. you followed up with multiple posts, continuing in our former mode of attack/counter-attack, and never acknowledged the apology.

so, no, at least from your half of the conflict, we were clearly not getting along any better. since you rejected my apology by clear omission, my brief moment of magnanimity has collapsed, i'm afraid. i'm dealing with - yes, i'll say it - a troll, who will not acknowledge or accept an olive branch tendered.

so be it.It might have meant something had you not told everyone in the next sentence that your apology was tactical. "'pick your battles' comes to mind for me" somewhat waters down the appearance of sincerity or any feeling of the heart. It makes your apology look somewhat calculated. I would add that I hadn't seen your post when I made mine which follows it.

It may have been clear to you that we were not getting on any better, but I would hope anyone reading the thread would feel I have been totally lacking in antagonism. (I tried "fully agonistic" there, but it didn't work.)

The reality, as opposed to the tactics, is that I'm discussing the thread between your eruptions of spleen, and you're enacting "i find some of your ideologies - those you've expressed here - quite ugly, and will counter them at every turn." Which has nothing to do with apologies relating to publishing.

How about you counter my ideologies whenever I bring them up, and co-exist in the long periods between?

twosteaks · Post by **twosteaks** » Sun May 15, 2005 3:34 pm

I am also for the death penalty, the less yanks about the better.

Post by **spot** » Sun May 15, 2005 3:34 pm

lady cop wrote: damn, i was going to go watch masterpiece theater....i can only say this at the risk of you thinking me naive...we are sworn. most of us take that very seriously. we are supposed to put all evidence to DA pro or con. has it ever been abused? yes.we all have "throw-down guns" . but on the other hand there are some like me, a killer who was looking at death row took a plea. will do 15. after that was a done deal she confessed all to me. every detail. i could have gone right to the DA with an affidavit and had the plea thrown out. but didn't. there is nothing malicious in most prosecution, but are we human and hate some of these people? yes. That sounds admirably honest, lady. Thank you. And I do mean it when I say I think you make the world a better place.

Post by **spot** » Sun May 15, 2005 3:40 pm

twosteaks wrote: I am also for the death penalty, the less yanks about the better.Twosteaks, you are an unmitigated dork. Go and wash yourself thoroughly before you post again, you smegmatic birdbrained creature. We're trying to be cultured in here!

twosteaks · Post by **twosteaks** » Sun May 15, 2005 3:50 pm

calm down, i was just expressing an opinion, which is most probably held by most people.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sun May 15, 2005 3:53 pm

hi steaks...i notice your union jack but residence spain. and your bio says "parasite". may i ask what that means? and welcome to FG .note, i love the union jack, have one tattooed on my bicep.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun May 15, 2005 4:01 pm

spot wrote: It might have meant something had you not told everyone in the next sentence that your apology was tactical. "'pick your battles' comes to mind for me" somewhat waters down the appearance of sincerity or any feeling of the heart. It makes your apology look somewhat calculated. I would add that I hadn't seen your post when I made mine which follows it.
are you not familiar with the term 'pick your battles'? i'm not asking sarcastically. it means rather than falling into this BS tit for tat, this attack/counterattack mode we have both been participating in, that it would be better all around to reserve ones energy for the real battles - the ones that are about the topic at hand, not linguistic, grammar digressions and metadiscussion.

but, again, you betray yourself. "it might have meant something". it was clearly stated, publicly. had you had any interest in *not* continuing these petty bouts of bickering, you'd have acted honourably and at least *acknowledged* - if not accepted - the apology. while obviously one cannot *expect* that one's apology will be accepted, likewise the refusal of the other party to even acknowledge the apology rather speaks volumes.

The reality, as opposed to the tactics, is that I'm discussing the thread between your eruptions of spleen, and you're enacting "i find some of your ideologies - those you've expressed here - quite ugly, and will counter them at every turn." Which has nothing to do with apologies relating to publishing.
telling. i wrote that well before my apology. and again, you went on to continue the 'attack' mode, referring well back to posts you had previously already responded to, AFTER my apology.

it's behaviour like that that earns you the label of troll. you're not arguing in good faith - you do antagonize (just so, as directly above), even after a tendered apology. i wrote "i'll accept at face value that you've been published, spot, and i apologize to you for suggesting otherwise." what part of that sounded insincere? the bulk of my post was responsive to the topic. you chose to counterpoise the apology with 'pick your battles' to conclude that the apology was insincere. okay. your choice, certainly. had you any actual interest in ending the bickering, in moving forward with a clean slate when someone opens with "i've had a change of heart", we'd not be back here, again, today.

thus it will be i guess. you'll spew your socialist dogma, and i'll be right there pointing out the fallacies. oh, never fear - that last line is there precisely because i know you'll use it as a launching point for more antagonism. putting the lie to your hollow claim above.

twosteaks · Post by **twosteaks** » Sun May 15, 2005 4:06 pm

hi lady cop, yes i am from england, however i moved to spain(tenerife) around 9 yrs ago.

As for the parasite, well i am in sales, i think that says it all!!

Why would you have a union jack tattoo? lovely as may be.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun May 15, 2005 4:07 pm

to make this clear, this is the (latest) dispute, i'm curious what *OTHERS*, not you spot, think of this.

given the two following quotes, would you consider them to be equivalent in meaning? note, emphasis added for the adled.

Quote one: the judgement has been perfect, so the sentence can be meted out knowing it is just.

Quote two: Now, a fair enough argument might be that for those *now* being convicted of capital offenses, if there is incontrovertible DNA evidence (and, i would submit, other evidence can be incontrovertible - for example, video documentation of the act being committed, or confession to the crime containing details only known previously by law enforcement), then perhaps one can say reasonably that in those cases, execution may be carried out because - due to the nature of the evidence - the judgement has been perfect, so the sentence can be meted out knowing it is just.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun May 15, 2005 4:12 pm

Why don't we start a new thread about the DP wherein members may only respond to the issue at hand?

Or start a post death penalty thread where all ad hominem attacks are put to death by being moved to that thread without reference as to where they came from. Let's all be taken out of context.

Or start a What's up with you? forum for members that feel personally harassed or attacked to confront their abuser?

Or report any posts that you feel are abusive by hitting that nice little triangle in the bottom and then ignore the abuse on the boards.

Sorry, just wishing this topic was getting somewhere.

For my contribution:

Killers that want to be put to death have a catch 22. Suicide is illegal. So is euthanasia.

Maybe living with what they are is the worst punishment they could get.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun May 15, 2005 4:19 pm

koan wrote:

Killers that want to be put to death have a catch 22. Suicide is illegal. So is euthanasia.

Maybe living with what they are is the worst punishment they could get.

i'm actually of that mind. death comes to us all, eventually. living an existence in a 4'x6' cell, no intellectual stimulation of any kind. that would be worse than death, perhaps. of course, that would be 'cruel and unusual punishment'. gets back to whether it's retribution we're after. many killers, rapists, etc are unreformable. what to do with them? keep them alive, at the taxpayer's expense, for fifty, sixty years? XYZ repeat rapist provided with free lodging, food, for the rest of his life, in 'reward' for his crimes? i took a tour of a county jail facility once with a friend of mine who was in law enforcement. TV's everywhere. lots of weighlifting equipment where the violent offenders can become even stronger. three hot meals a day.

a better way of life than some of them have on the outside.

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Sun May 15, 2005 4:26 pm

suicide illegal...so do we prosecute the dead offender?..... i think i am going to start a thread on jail/prison life if there is any interest. the jail you saw Paul is not typical. three squares and a bed, yes. and meds. weightlifting is OUT. TV's are on for 4 hours to PBS.

Post by **spot** » Sun May 15, 2005 4:28 pm

anastrophe wrote: i'm actually of that mind. death comes to us all, eventually. living an existence in a 4'x6' cell, no intellectual stimulation of any kind. that would be worse than death, perhaps. of course, that would be 'cruel and unusual punishment'. gets back to whether it's retribution we're after. many killers, rapists, etc are unreformable. what to do with them? keep them alive, at the taxpayer's expense, for fifty, sixty years? XYZ repeat rapist provided with free lodging, food, for the rest of his life, in 'reward' for his crimes? i took a tour of a county jail facility once with a friend of mine who was in law enforcement. TV's everywhere. lots of weighlifting equipment where the violent offenders can become even stronger. three hot meals a day.

a better way of life than some of them have on the outside.This notion that "many killers, rapists, etc are unreformable" has cropped up several times in this thread, and yet the United States is full of professing Christians. It's a central dogmatic tenet of every branch of Christianity that this is not the case, that God's grace is unconstrained and that He both can and will break the stony hearts of all who turn to him in faith and repentance. The sad thing is that any evidence that this occurs is screamed down so often with accusations of confidence trickery on the part of the penitent. By all means say that many refuse to repent or change. To call any of them "unreformable" is beyond your experience and against the evidence. I have no objection to "unreleasable" as an alternative.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun May 15, 2005 4:30 pm

anastrophe wrote: i'm actually of that mind. death comes to us all, eventually. living an existence in a 4'x6' cell, no intellectual stimulation of any kind. that would be worse than death, perhaps. of course, that would be 'cruel and unusual punishment'. gets back to whether it's retribution we're after. many killers, rapists, etc are unreformable. what to do with them? keep them alive, at the taxpayer's expense, for fifty, sixty years? XYZ repeat rapist provided with free lodging, food, for the rest of his life, in 'reward' for his crimes? i took a tour of a county jail facility once with a friend of mine who was in law enforcement. TV's everywhere. lots of weighlifting equipment where the violent offenders can become even stronger. three hot meals a day.

a better way of life than some of them have on the outside.

I think the quality of jail life is deeply entwined in this topic if we consider incarceration to be a more fit punishment than the DP. I have heard a number of times of people deliberately getting arrested because life in jail was preferable to life outside of it. This is just wrong. Perhaps a specific jail could be designed for murderers and other serious crimes that provides less comfort.

The stats on murderers killing again when released disproves the need to kill them to prevent repetition. Mass murderers or multiple charges puts them in jail for the rest of their life. Killers that think they should die should be put in mental institutions indefinately.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Sun May 15, 2005 4:37 pm

spot wrote: This notion that "many killers, rapists, etc are unreformable" has cropped up several times in this thread, and yet the United States is full of professing Christians. It's a central dogmatic tenet of every branch of Christianity that this is not the case, that God's grace is unconstrained and that He both can and will break the stony hearts of all who turn to him in faith and repentance. The sad thing is that any evidence that this occurs is screamed down so often with accusations of confidence trickery on the part of the penitent. By all means say that many refuse to repent or change. To call any of them "unreformable" is beyond your experience and against the evidence. I have no objection to "unreleasable" as an alternative.I'm not sure what Christianity has to do with this topic. What I do know is that "unreformable" is a perfectly legitimate term. My grandfather has been visiting Jackson State Prison every Saturday for over 50 years, singing to and ministering to the inmates there. He has been close to some of the most vile, repugnant criminals there are. When I say "close to" I don't mean in close proximity to, I mean he is a confidant. The stories I have heard from him about some of these inmates would chill your blood. I am certain he kept the worst of the stories from me. Unreleasable? You bet your ass a whole bunch of them are just that.

Prison is not for rehabilitation, it is for punishment.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun May 15, 2005 4:49 pm

spot wrote: This notion that "many killers, rapists, etc are unreformable" has cropped up several times in this thread, and yet the United States is full of professing Christians. It's a central dogmatic tenet of every branch of Christianity that this is not the case, that God's grace is unconstrained and that He both can and will break the stony hearts of all who turn to him in faith and repentance.

just so. "all who turn to him in faith and repentance". many killers, rapists, etc, would laugh madly at the though of 'turn[ing] to him in faith and repentance'. that the dogma exists is unquestionable. its existence is meaningless to whether an individual accepts it. or are you suggesting that society has an obligation to force christianity upon the condemned rapist, kidnapper, etc, relentlessly, until they finally agree to accept the dogma?

The sad thing is that any evidence that this occurs is screamed down so often with accusations of confidence trickery on the part of the penitent. do you mean here in the US or in the UK? or both?

By all means say that many refuse to repent or change. To call any of them "unreformable" is beyond your experience and against the evidence. I have no objection to "unreleasable" as an alternative.
objection noted. serial murder is beyond my experience also, that doesn't mean the appelation doesn't fits those who commit it. i have, thankfully enough, never met a serial killer, or rapist, or kidnapper, or child molester. i've no desire to do so in order to determine whether i'm incorrect in judging that some of them are unreformable or irredeemable. since it's a personal value judgement, and not a matter of policy or law, then what, exactly, are you barking about, spot?

Post by **spot** » Sun May 15, 2005 4:51 pm

BabyRider wrote: I'm not sure what Christianity has to do with this topic. What I do know is that "unreformable" is a perfectly legitimate term. My grandfather has been visiting Jackson State Prison every Saturday for over 50 years, singing to and ministering to the inmates there. He has been close to some of the most vile, repugnant criminals there are. When I say "close to" I don't mean in close proximity to, I mean he is a confidant. The stories I have heard from him about some of these inmates would chill your blood. I am certain he kept the worst of the stories from me. Unreleasable? You bet your ass a whole bunch of them are just that.

Prison is not for rehabilitation, it is for punishment.Well, it's a vew, BabyRider. A whole lot of people have published contrary views for hundreds of years, but I've seen "Prison is not for rehabilitation, it is for punishment" before as well.

If anyone has five minutes to spare, I've been reading http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... rison.html and I quite liked its tone.

You have the culmination of the American Dream, BabyRider. People have spent over four hundred years creating paradise on earth in your land. If you have, as you have, a quarter of the world's prison population locked up in your jails, you might like to ask whether it's the lack of effort toward rehabilitation that's building up the pressure.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun May 15, 2005 4:53 pm

BabyRider wrote: Prison is not for rehabilitation, it is for punishment.

i don't think it's for either. actually. all i want a prison to do is keep predators segregated from non-predators.

when the circus comes to town (an archaic metaphor i admit), if a lion escapes from its cage, they shoot it. they don't wait for it to kill someone before shooting it - in the hopes that the lion won't act upon its native urge, that it will take a christian, charitable emphasis to heart and not kill anyone.

we release lions onto mainstreet every day, but rather than shooting them, we are required to protect their privacy and not let anyone know. this is madness.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Sun May 15, 2005 4:55 pm

I don't think it's the lack of effort toward rehabilitation, I think it's all the idiots out there breaking the law.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun May 15, 2005 4:56 pm

koan wrote:

The stats on murderers killing again when released disproves the need to kill them to prevent repetition.
perhaps. but if that's the case, then why lock them up for any interval in the first place? if the risk is low as the statistics suggest, then there's little point to locking them up in the first place. unless the intent is retribution.

Post by **spot** » Sun May 15, 2005 5:00 pm

BabyRider wrote: I don't think it's the lack of effort toward rehabilitation, I think it's all the idiots out there breaking the law.As you will, BabyRider. But they're your idiots. They grew that way in the society America wrapped them in at birth. To put it simply, you have problems that other places don't have. You can't blame your indigenous idiots for that statistical mountain.

BabyRider · Post by **BabyRider** » Sun May 15, 2005 5:03 pm

Nope, can't blame the criminals for crime...no way....that would encourage horrendous things like ACCOUNTABILITY!!!! *gasp* And all this time I was under the impression that people had free will.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun May 15, 2005 5:10 pm

spot wrote: To put it simply, you have problems that other places don't have.
the UK has no crime? no criminals? no prisons? no prisoners?

Post by **spot** » Sun May 15, 2005 5:19 pm

lady cop wrote: spot we are getting along, but this is NOT an American problem! you have yours, russia has theirs. unfortunately ours get more publicity. I go back to that statistic, lady. You have a quarter of the world's prison population in your jails, out of a twentieth of the world's population. You have one of the few prison systems that increases shareholder profit by expanding in size. Some people have suggested a correlation between prisoner-years and shareholder dividend.

It is a truism that the fewer laws you have, the fewer criminals there are in your society. The fewer people you find guilty, the fewer criminals you have. The fewer criminals you sentence to terms in jail, the lower your proportion of prisoners to population. Russia and England have fewer criminals because we declare fewer people to be criminals. Once someone has a criminal record, they have a far higher probability of being found guilty in the future than someone who hasn't got one.

Is there nothing that could go, from your statutes, which results in many Americans being declared criminals for the first time, but does far less harm than subsequent jail time?

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun May 15, 2005 5:28 pm

spot wrote:

It is a truism that the fewer laws you have, the fewer criminals there are in your society. The fewer people you find guilty, the fewer criminals you have. The fewer criminals you sentence to terms in jail, the lower your proportion of prisoners to population. Russia and England have fewer criminals because we declare fewer people to be criminals.
it logically then follows, via this reductionist fallacy, that if you eliminate all laws, you eliminate all criminals.

how great would that be! the US could have a zero crime rate, and zero prison population, by just eliminating all the laws.

why didn't someone think of that before!

Post by **spot** » Sun May 15, 2005 5:28 pm

anastrophe wrote: the UK has no crime? no criminals? no prisons? no prisoners?no, i'm not saying that. thanks for asking, better than just putting the words in my mouth then attacking me for them!

Post by **spot** » Sun May 15, 2005 5:30 pm

anastrophe wrote: it logically then follows, via this reductionist fallacy, that if you eliminate all laws, you eliminate all criminals.

how great would that be! the US could have a zero crime rate, and zero prison population, by just eliminating all the laws.

why didn't someone think of that before!The reverse, of course, was tried during Prohibition. I believe you're still suffering the consequences of that blunder.

Any argument, taken to its extreme limit, is likely to fail. I'm a moderate.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sun May 15, 2005 5:38 pm

spot wrote: The reverse, of course, was tried during Prohibition. I believe you're still suffering the consequences of that blunder.

Any argument, taken to its extreme limit, is likely to fail. I'm a moderate.
regarding prohibition, i think it's perhaps off the mark to suggest that it is the 'reverse' of having no laws, however, it is clear that the malum prohibitum legal ethos is frequently flawed, as opposed to malum in se. our current drug laws - the modern prohibition - are, i believe, responsible for the particularly high incarceration rates here. as soon as we stop locking up non-violent drug offenders, we won't have the overcrowding problems that allow violent felons to be released early - because they weren't condemned under the same maximum sentencing guidelines that apply to the drug offenders.