Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Five reasons to oppose death penalty
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedFive reasons to oppose death penalty

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 11>
Author
Message
Tuzvihar View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: May 18 2005
Location: C. Schinesghe
Status: Offline
Points: 13536
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Five reasons to oppose death penalty
    Posted: July 03 2006 at 17:39
I quote after http://www.nodeathpenalty.org:



1. The death penalty is racist.

The 1972 Furman V. Georgia case abolished the death penalty for four years on the grounds that capital punishment was rife with racial disparities. Over twenty five years later, those disparities are as glaring as ever.

African Americans are 12% of the U.S. population, but are 43% of prisoners on death row. Although Blacks constitute 50% of all murder victims, 83% of the victims in death penalty cases are white.

Since 1976 only ten executions involved a white defendant who had killed a Black victim.

In all, only 37 of the over 18,000 executions in this country's history involved a white person being punished for killing a Black person.

A comprehensive Georgia study found that killers of whites are 4.3 times more likely to receive a death sentence than killers of Blacks.

More than 75% of those on federal death row are non-white. Of the 156 federal death penalty prosecutions approved by the Attorney General since 1988, 74% of the defendants were non-white.

The crime of being poor and Black

Girvies Davis spent 16 years on death row. He was sentenced to death in 1978, accused of being an accomplice in a robbery in which someone else shot and killed the victim. There was no physical evidence linking him to the crime. He was convicted purely on the basis of a signed "confession" -- a confession in which he also confessed to 9 other murders known to have been committed by others. He was illiterate at the time he supposedly penned the confession. Girvies said that police took him out for a ride and threatened to shoot him "while trying to escape" if he didn't sign the confession. The police admitted that they took him for a drive, claiming it was to search for evidence! Despite this information, Illinois gov. Jim Edgar refused to commute Girvies Davis sentence or allow a retrial, and he was executed on May 17, 1995. He died because he was poor and Black.


2. The death penalty punishes the poor.

If you can afford good legal representation, you won't end up on death row.

Over 90 percent of defendants charged with capital crimes are indigent and cannot afford to hire an experienced criminal defense attorney to represent them. They are forced to use inexperienced, underpaid court-appointed attorneys.

In most states the pay for court appointed attorneys is so low that lawyers assigned to capital cases will lose $20-$30 an hour if they do an adequate job. In Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi defense attorneys are paid a flat fee of $1,000 -- which translates into about 5 dollars an hour for most lawyers.

In 1996 Clinton cut federal funding to 20 legal resource centers which provided counsel to poor defendants. Now, all of the centers that received this funding have shut down.

Many capital trials last less than a week -- hardly enough time to present a good defense.

The wealthy don't get punished

Between 1971 and 1977, an estimated 500 people burned to death in Ford Pinto crashes. Ford Motor Company knew that the Pinto's rear gas tank tended to puncture even in low-speed crashes. But Ford made a calculation that it could save millions of dollars if it opted to pay for damages and medical bills in Pinto explosion cases rather than install an $11 safety device that prevented the gas tank ruptures. Ford made a calculated decision to sell a lethal product, yet it was acquited of criminal charges. But even had they been convicted, there would be no Ford Motor Company executives sitting on death row. When it comes to capital punishment, our justice system can be compared to a fishing net in the ocean which has the peculiar quality of catching the minnows and letting the whales pass through!


3. The death penalty condemns the innocent to die.

Since 1976, more than 100 people have been released from prison after being sentenced to death despite their innocence. In other words, 1 in 7 of those on death row have been freed after being fully exonerated.

The book, In Spite of Innocence, notes that between 1900 and 1992 there have been 416 documented cases of innocent persons who have been convicted of murder or capital rape -- a third of whom were given a death sentence. The authors discovered that in 23 of these cases, the person was executed.

Illinois has released as many from death row as it has executed since 1976. As a result, an Illinois Supreme Court Justice said, "Despite the courts' efforts to fashion a death penalty scheme that is just..., the system is not working. Innocent people are being sentenced to death... If this is the best our state can do, we have no business sending people to their deaths."

President Clinton has called appeals by death row prisoners "ridiculous" and "interminable." He signed a law that limits prisoners to a single habeas corpus appeal within one year of conviction. Under this law, many of those released from death row due to innocence since 1976 would be dead.

"I am an innocent man."

Leonel Torres Herrera was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1982 murders of two police officers. New evidence was brought forward which proved that Herrera's brother committed the murders. By Texas law, which states that any new evidence must be presented within 30 days of the conviction, this new revelation was irrelevant. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Texas ruling, arguing that Herrera's claim of "actual innocence" was in itself not a constitutional claim for which judicial relief could be granted. Thus, though the court agreed he was innocent, Leonel was executed on May 12, 1993.


4. The death penalty is not a deterent to violent crime.

An FBI study shows that states which have abolished the death penalty averaged lower murder rates than states which have not.

More executions, more murders

Texas moved from its first execution after Furman in 1982 to becoming the national leader in the use of the death penalty. During the same period, the state also experienced a tremendous growth in its violent crime rate. From 1982 to 1991, the national crime rate rose by 5%. In the same period, the Texas crime rate rose by 24%, and the violent crime rate in Texas rose by nearly 46%. In Texas, more people die from gunshot wounds than traffic accidents. A strong case can be made that, rather than decreasing murder, capital punishment actually has a brutalizing effect on society, contributing to an increase in murder.


5. The death penalty is "cruel and unusual punishment."

In the decades since Furman 13 people have been executed who were under the age of 18 when they committed the crime for which they were convicted. Seventy more juveniles are currently on death row awaiting execution.

Since Furman 34 mentally retarded inmates have been executed.

RICKY RAY RECTOR died in order to help Bill Clinton get elected President. Ricky was black and mentally retarded. In 1992, Clinton left the campaign trail and returned to Arkansas to oversee Ricky's execution so he could show that he was "tough on crime." Ricky had absolutely no understanding of what was about to happen to him. As a part of his last meal, he requested pie for dessert, but explained he would eat it when he came back. He was executed on Jan. 24, 1992.



I think it speaks for itself. Nothing to add. The third point especially makes me mad!
"Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent."

Charles Bukowski
Back to Top
chamberry View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 24 2005
Location: Puerto Rico
Status: Offline
Points: 9008
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 03 2006 at 20:24
I never liked the idea and posibly never will. I think is wrong and those points above clearly proves it.

Back to Top
TheProgtologist View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: May 23 2005
Location: Baltimore,Md US
Status: Offline
Points: 27802
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 03 2006 at 22:00
Spoken like a person that doesn't live in the US.

My city of Baltimore was the murder capitol of the US a few years ago.We have a trial going on here right now where 2 grown men slit 3 children's throats...all of the children were 3 and under.What do you think is a fitting punishment for them?


Back to Top
King of Loss View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 21 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Status: Offline
Points: 16889
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 03 2006 at 22:02
Originally posted by TheProgtologist TheProgtologist wrote:

Spoken like a person that doesn't live in the US.

My city of Baltimore was the murder capitol of the US a few years ago.We have a trial going on here right now where 2 grown men slit 3 children's throats...all of the children were 3 and under.What do you think is a fitting punishment for them?
 
Life Sentence.
 
Life Sentence is a good punishment actually, because I believe the death penalty makes it easier for the murderers to get away with, such as the murderer of hundreds in the Oklahoma bombings.
Back to Top
TheProgtologist View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin

Joined: May 23 2005
Location: Baltimore,Md US
Status: Offline
Points: 27802
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 03 2006 at 22:05
Do you pay taxes?Each of those men will cost the American taxpayer between 80-100k a year.

Do you really want your hard earned tax dollars to go for supporting those animals for life?


Back to Top
zappaholic View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 24 2006
Location: flyover country
Status: Offline
Points: 2822
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 03 2006 at 22:08
One big reason NOT to oppose the death penalty:
 
If you commit a murder, or rape someone, or molest a child, YOU HAVE GIVEN UP YOUR RIGHT TO BE TREATED AS A HUMAN BEING.
 
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." -- H.L. Mencken
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 03 2006 at 22:14
Meh, I'm more concerned about the 2nd Amendment. I'd rather have no civilian gun use at all. Handguns for one, should be banned completely IMO. No gun should be automatic. Shotguns and snipers should be outlawed.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 03 2006 at 22:26

I don't support the death penalty, but that's based on a personal philosophy that nobody including the state has the right to take a person's like. This same tired argument is continuously laid out against the death penalty, and its points are all inadequate at best.

Points one and two are hardly means for abolishing the death penalty. Even if a so called racial bias exists, which is hardly proven by those statistics which could be for a myriad of other reasons, the same so called bias would also exist in non-capital cases.

Same to be said about legal representation, yes the rich can afford better lawyers, but that hardly constitutes a bias. Again, the same "bias" would then exist in non-capital cases, so should the system of trial by jury be eliminated on those grounds?

Due to new technology, the extreme care now taken in capital cases, and the reluctance of states to execute it death row inmates, point three has become all but mute. There's been innocent people who have spent their life in prison and rotted to death. Unfortunately, innocent people will be wrongly convicted in either circumstance.

Point Four: So let's reverse the statement. You're saying that the death penalty actually encourages crime? That statement is just as ridiculous as the statistics backing it. Statistics are clever little trigger points that you can throw into a conversation to win over the majority of the public, but if one were to actual analyse most of them, a multitude of explanations are apparant instead of the one trying to be sold to you.

Point 5 is very outdated. Due to since passed legislation mentally retarded criminals and juvenilles cannot be executed in America.

Originally posted by TheProgtologist TheProgtologist wrote:

Do you pay taxes?Each of those men will cost the American taxpayer between 80-100k a year.

Do you really want your hard earned tax dollars to go for supporting those animals for life?

Due to trial costs springing from the millions of appeals inevitably ensuing after a death conviction, the average death row inmate costs the public more than if he'd spent his life in prison.



Edited by Equality 7-2521 - July 03 2006 at 22:28
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
AtLossForWords View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 11 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6699
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 03 2006 at 22:56
Originally posted by TheProgtologist TheProgtologist wrote:

Do you pay taxes?Each of those men will cost the American taxpayer between 80-100k a year.

Do you really want your hard earned tax dollars to go for supporting those animals for life?
 
It costs money to execute people, I'm not talking about trials and etc, but just the process itself.  Those people also spend time in jail during the process as well.  Since taxpayers are going to spend money either way, why not spend it on a more accurate punishment, and possibly a more effective deterrent.
 
I think if the death penalty were eliminated, the focus would shift towards the effects of life imprisonment.  At the same time arguement is made against life imprisonment, more information will come out about just how bad it is, and this press may make it a more effective deterrent.
 

"Mastodon sucks giant monkey balls."
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 03 2006 at 23:06
Originally posted by AtLossForWords AtLossForWords wrote:

Originally posted by TheProgtologist TheProgtologist wrote:

Do you pay taxes?Each of those men will cost the American taxpayer between 80-100k a year.

Do you really want your hard earned tax dollars to go for supporting those animals for life?
 
It costs money to execute people, I'm not talking about trials and etc, but just the process itself.  Those people also spend time in jail during the process as well.  Since taxpayers are going to spend money either way, why not spend it on a more accurate punishment, and possibly a more effective deterrent.
 
I think if the death penalty were eliminated, the focus would shift towards the effects of life imprisonment.  At the same time arguement is made against life imprisonment, more information will come out about just how bad it is, and this press may make it a more effective deterrent.
 
 
I'm not so sure that would happen. No politician would go as far as to criticize life imprisonment for fear of appearing to be weak on crime. And I'm not sure how effective of a deterrent it would be given that federal prisons tend to offer a better living standard than most inner cities.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 03 2006 at 23:17
Originally posted by TheProgtologist TheProgtologist wrote:

Do you pay taxes?Each of those men will cost the American taxpayer between 80-100k a year.

Do you really want your hard earned tax dollars to go for supporting those animals for life?
 
I agree, but even worst than the cost we have:
 
  1. Risk of escape.
  2. Presidential or Governors pardon considering that they are no longer a risk.
  3. Criminality will rise inside the prisons.
  4. If too many animals like this are jailed for live, the prisons will be crowded and many other criminals (suposedly less dangerous) will be released on parole to leave space.

Just understand this, if this guys escape or are pardoned they will go to the streets and their hate against society will increase exponentially, so the danger will be higher.

I don't know if death penalty is deterrent and honestly I don't care, this guys are beyond redemption and if dead they will no longer be a risk for society.
 
Until when will people care more of the civil rights of the criminal than for the victim and their families?
 
Iván
 
BTW: I don't deny there probably is a racist component in the number of condemned, but it's very easy to play with statistics
 
1.- African Americans are 12% of the U.S. population, but are 43% of prisoners on death row.
 
The percentage doesn't mention if this kind of crimes are commited with more frequency in African American communities and by African Americans, which is also a posibility.
 
How many Latinos are in death row? Aren't Latins also a minority? Aren't most Latins poor inmigrants? And Chineese, Japanese, etc?
 
2.- Although Blacks constitute 50% of all murder victims,
 
According to Department of Justice statistics, 94 percent of African Americans killed between 1976 and 1999 were killed by other African Americans, so 47 of each 50 African American killed is murdered by another African American.
 
This means that that exatly 47% of the crimes in USA are commited by the 12% of African Americans.
 
3.- 83% of the victims in death penalty cases are white.
 
Do you forget that 56% of the people in death role are not African Americans? Do they mention how many of this white victims were killed by Whites, Latins, African Americans or any other racial group?.
 
Also important to notice that most minority group victims are young between 14 and 24 during gang fights (Also by Department of Justice) so it's harder to find one individual person guilty to take to the death row, in the case of White victimss, most are killed individually during an assault so the criminal is easier to find.
 
But of course an African American, Latino or other minority group murderer of a white victim will probably get death penalty easier than in the opposite case.
 
If you don't give full statistics this are worth nothing, data can be manipulated
 


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 03 2006 at 23:56
            
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 03 2006 at 23:52
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

  1. Risk of escape.
  2. Presidential or Governors pardon considering that they are no longer a risk.
  3. Criminality will rise inside the prisons.
  4. If too many animals like this are jailed for live, the prisons will be crowded and many other criminals (suposedly less dangerous) will be released on parole to leave space.

Just understand this, if this guys escape or are pardoned they will go to the streets and their hate against society will increase exponentially, so the danger will be higher.

I don't know if death penalty is deterrent and honestly I don't care, this guys are beyond redemption and if dead they will no longer be a risk for society.
 
Until when will people care more of the civil rights of the criminal than for the victim and their families?
 
Iván
 
 
Yes all those possibilities are problems, but the way to come about fixing them is not to start whacking people off. Unemployment could easily be solved by killing all unemployed people, but would that be acceptable? An exagerration I know, but you see my point.
 
Those problems can be fixed by building more prisons, fixing parole laws, and increasing security in prisons.
 
 
Call me idealistic and impractical but isn't rehabilitation the ultimate goal?
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
AtLossForWords View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 11 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6699
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 04 2006 at 00:04
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

Originally posted by AtLossForWords AtLossForWords wrote:

Originally posted by TheProgtologist TheProgtologist wrote:

Do you pay taxes?Each of those men will cost the American taxpayer between 80-100k a year.

Do you really want your hard earned tax dollars to go for supporting those animals for life?
 
It costs money to execute people, I'm not talking about trials and etc, but just the process itself.  Those people also spend time in jail during the process as well.  Since taxpayers are going to spend money either way, why not spend it on a more accurate punishment, and possibly a more effective deterrent.
 
I think if the death penalty were eliminated, the focus would shift towards the effects of life imprisonment.  At the same time arguement is made against life imprisonment, more information will come out about just how bad it is, and this press may make it a more effective deterrent.
 
 
I'm not so sure that would happen. No politician would go as far as to criticize life imprisonment for fear of appearing to be weak on crime. And I'm not sure how effective of a deterrent it would be given that federal prisons tend to offer a better living standard than most inner cities.
 
I didn't say a politician would support it, but at least, you could expect a political action committee to address the effects of life imprisonment.
 
It's true that federal prisons can offer a better standard of living that certain areas of inner cities, but an inner city can't effect the pyche of a human being the wail a prison can.  Prisoners are cut off from society, detached from their desires.  They can't fullfil their lives the same way in prison.  When someone is executed it's over, but when someone contemplates whatever horrors they can concieve of living in a separate controlled among the other dregs of society, they may think twice about evil actions.

"Mastodon sucks giant monkey balls."
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 04 2006 at 00:08
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

 
Yes all those possibilities are problems, but the way to come about fixing them is not to start whacking people off. Unemployment could easily be solved by killing all unemployed people, but would that be acceptable? An exagerration I know, but you see my point.
 
Those problems can be fixed by building more prisons, fixing parole laws, and increasing security in prisons.
 
 
Call me idealistic and impractical but isn't rehabilitation the ultimate goal?
 
Well, appart from being an idealist which is not bad, you haven't seen what I seen.
 
I made legal penal practice in prisons here in Perú where we don't have death penalty and listened criminals speaking of killing as if they were going to the movies, really it's scary.
 
This people are beyond redemption, they are not going to be rehabilited, it's impossible, they even told me things like "What's the problem? We kill, recieve 10 years, pay 2 prison days for one working journey and are out in 4 years with good conduct."
 
This guys will be saved by nobody,. they are cold blooded, not animals because animals kill for hunger, this are worst, they rape, kill, assault and stab you and then go home to kiss their kids.
 
Now lets see your solutions:
 
  1. More prisons: Who pays that? Do you know that a night in prisons costs more to Americans that a night in a 4 stars hotel?
  2. Fixing parole laws: Impossible, if there's no space they have to give parole, there's not another solution.
  3. Seccurity in Prisons: Wow what an idealist, there's no perfect seccurity, the risk is always there, do you know how many Prison guards are invoived in drug traffivc, bribes and everything corrupt?

Those who kill, lost their right to live (except some eceptional cases) not the state, the jury, Bush or Arnold take their right to live, they lost their right by their own hand.

Iván
 
 
 
            
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 04 2006 at 00:40
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

 
Yes all those possibilities are problems, but the way to come about fixing them is not to start whacking people off. Unemployment could easily be solved by killing all unemployed people, but would that be acceptable? An exagerration I know, but you see my point.
 
Those problems can be fixed by building more prisons, fixing parole laws, and increasing security in prisons.
 
 
Call me idealistic and impractical but isn't rehabilitation the ultimate goal?
 
Well, appart from being an idealist which is not bad, you haven't seen what I seen.
 
I made legal penal practice in prisons here in Perú where we don't have death penalty and listened criminals speaking of killing as if they were going to the movies, really it's scary.
 
This people are beyond redemption, they are not going to be rehabilited, it's impossible, they even told me things like "What's the problem? We kill, recieve 10 years, pay 2 prison days for one working journey and are out in 4 years with good conduct."
 
This guys will be saved by nobody,. they are cold blooded, not animals because animals kill for hunger, this are worst, they rape, kill, assault and stab you and then go home to kiss their kids.
 
Now lets see your solutions:
 
  1. More prisons: Who pays that? Do you know that a night in prisons costs more to Americans that a night in a 4 stars hotel?
  2. Fixing parole laws: Impossible, if there's no space they have to give parole, there's not another solution.
  3. Seccurity in Prisons: Wow what an idealist, there's no perfect seccurity, the risk is always there, do you know how many Prison guards are invoived in drug traffivc, bribes and everything corrupt?

Those who kill, lost their right to live (except some eceptional cases) not the state, the jury, Bush or Arnold take their right to live, they lost their right by their own hand.

Iván
 
 
 
 

The right to life is intrinsic to a human being. It can't be loss, it can't be taken away no matter the crime.

I'm not saying there's perfect security but heightening it would decrease the amount of escapees which already really isn't that high. Most of those who escape are recaptured before any crime can be committed.

Overall I'm not a big fan of parole. In most situations it shouldn't be allowed, and I think the laws should be changed to not allow it in those situations. Yes I'm aware that more prisons would equate to higher tax dollars, and as much as it pains me to say it, I believe it would be worth it in this situation.

Yes some criminals are beyond rehabilitation, child molesters come to mind given the recidivism, but some have hope. What about the man who walks in on his wife having sex with another man and shoots them both. Yes disgusting, but the man is not a cold-blooded killer and a repeated offense is very low. I'd rather see this man live a fulfilling life, fighting to come to terms with himself, than lying on a table with a syringe in his arm.

Originally posted by AtLossForWords AtLossForWords wrote:

[  
It's true that federal prisons can offer a better standard of living that certain areas of inner cities, but an inner city can't effect the pyche of a human being the wail a prison can.  Prisoners are cut off from society, detached from their desires.  They can't fullfil their lives the same way in prison.  When someone is executed it's over, but when someone contemplates whatever horrors they can concieve of living in a separate controlled among the other dregs of society, they may think twice about evil actions.
 
Agree fully. The loss of freedom is a horror I'd rather not think of.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
NetsNJFan View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: April 12 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3047
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 04 2006 at 00:52
Its a tought issue, I think both sides have very valid viewpoints here.  I think it should be reserved for only the most egrecious offenses.
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 04 2006 at 00:57
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

The right to life is intrinsic to a human being. It can't be loss, it can't be taken away no matter the crime.

I don't think so, every right has a duty attached to it, if you assault a person or steal you're acting against his freedom so you loose your right to freedom, nobody is against this, at least nobody rational.
 
And by the way according to your Constitution the right to freedom is intrinsec to every person.
 
A person who doesn't respect the life of other person MAY loose the right to his own life.
 
I'm not saying there's perfect security but heightening it would decrease the amount of escapees which already really isn't that high. Most of those who escape are recaptured before any crime can be committed.
 
Yes, but why if that only escaped convict kills somebody of your family? (Hope this will never happen) or a person of any family? Why take the risk?

Overall I'm not a big fan of parole. In most situations it shouldn't be allowed, and I think the laws should be changed to not allow it in those situations. Yes I'm aware that more prisons would equate to higher tax dollars, and as much as it pains me to say it, I believe it would be worth it in this situation.

Where do you want the prison? If it's built far away the city as we did in Puno and nobody ever could escape (4,800 Mts above the Sea Level, no human contact with the prissoners, you could see ten miles around), Civil Right watchers will accuse your country of being unhuman as did with us.
 
Maybe you would like the prisons in the city, how about one built next door to your house? Will you ever be able to sleep?
 
Yes some criminals are beyond rehabilitation, child molesters come to mind given the recidivism, but some have hope. What about the man who walks in on his wife having sex with another man and shoots them both. Yes disgusting, but the man is not a cold-blooded killer and a repeated offense is very low. I'd rather see this man live a fulfilling life, fighting to come to terms with himself, than lying on a table with a syringe in his arm.
 
The man who kills his wife and/or lover will never recieve death penalty (Unless the crime was prepared and knowing he would find the wife bought a gun and went eith the purpose of killing, and even in this case he would never recieve death penalty), because the emotional impact is a text book case of diminished capacity.
 
My opinion is to give death penalty to certain cases, repetead criminals, child rapistss with the death of the kid or even a woman, those who kill a witness of a  crime to hide it and a couple more.
 
Iván


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - July 04 2006 at 00:58
            
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 04 2006 at 01:42
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

The right to life is intrinsic to a human being. It can't be loss, it can't be taken away no matter the crime.

I don't think so, every right has a duty attached to it, if you assault a person or steal you're acting against his freedom so you loose your right to freedom, nobody is against this, at least nobody rational.
 
And by the way according to your Constitution the right to freedom is intrinsec to every person.
 
A person who doesn't respect the life of other person MAY loose the right to his own life.
 
I'm not saying there's perfect security but heightening it would decrease the amount of escapees which already really isn't that high. Most of those who escape are recaptured before any crime can be committed.
 
Yes, but why if that only escaped convict kills somebody of your family? (Hope this will never happen) or a person of any family? Why take the risk?

Overall I'm not a big fan of parole. In most situations it shouldn't be allowed, and I think the laws should be changed to not allow it in those situations. Yes I'm aware that more prisons would equate to higher tax dollars, and as much as it pains me to say it, I believe it would be worth it in this situation.

Where do you want the prison? If it's built far away the city as we did in Puno and nobody ever could escape (4,800 Mts above the Sea Level, no human contact with the prissoners, you could see ten miles around), Civil Right watchers will accuse your country of being unhuman as did with us.
 
Maybe you would like the prisons in the city, how about one built next door to your house? Will you ever be able to sleep?
 
Yes some criminals are beyond rehabilitation, child molesters come to mind given the recidivism, but some have hope. What about the man who walks in on his wife having sex with another man and shoots them both. Yes disgusting, but the man is not a cold-blooded killer and a repeated offense is very low. I'd rather see this man live a fulfilling life, fighting to come to terms with himself, than lying on a table with a syringe in his arm.
 
The man who kills his wife and/or lover will never recieve death penalty (Unless the crime was prepared and knowing he would find the wife bought a gun and went eith the purpose of killing, and even in this case he would never recieve death penalty), because the emotional impact is a text book case of diminished capacity.
 
My opinion is to give death penalty to certain cases, repetead criminals, child rapistss with the death of the kid or even a woman, those who kill a witness of a  crime to hide it and a couple more.
 
Iván
 
A person who assaults someone is deprived of his freedom until his debt has been paid, then it is regranted to him. If we had the same liberty to manipulate one's life like this I'd be for a temporary sentence of death, but until then I think we should have a little more respect for a person's most basic right.
 
A personal tradgedy will do little to effect my opinion on something. Why take the risk? That's fragile ground you're jumping on there. If we were to find a gene that makes someone more likely to commit murder, should we imprison those people before any murder is commited? Why take the risk? You have to weight the pros and cons. I think it turns out in my favor here.
 
Up until five years ago I could hop on a bus and in 7 mins be at a prison. I slept fine. Build them in the city, build them in the country.
 
Yes I'm aware a man in that situation would never recieve the death penalty and would probably get a relatively lenient sentence for two cases of first degree manslaughter. But I was offering an example of when rehabilitation is clearly possible.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 04 2006 at 02:00
Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

 
A person who assaults someone is deprived of his freedom until his debt has been paid, then it is regranted to him. If we had the same liberty to manipulate one's life like this I'd be for a temporary sentence of death, but until then I think we should have a little more respect for a person's most basic right.
 
Properties or even freedom can be replaced, a human life don't.
 
A criminal should not be alive, breathing, havoing 3 meals a day, using ddrugs, drinking alcohol (It happens all the time) and even watching TV while the victim is six feet under.
 
A life must be paid with a life, call it revenge, honestly I can't care less, but society is better with less of this scum.
 
A personal tradgedy will do little to effect my opinion on something. Why take the risk? That's fragile ground you're jumping on there. If we were to find a gene that makes someone more likely to commit murder, should we imprison those people before any murder is commited? Why take the risk? You have to weight the pros and cons. I think it turns out in my favor here.
 
That's absurd, a person is not guilty for something he/she has never done, even if he/she has 1,000 genes, human mind is too powerful too control criminal instincts, once the person has shown he/she is not able to control those instincts....FRY THEM.
 
Up until five years ago I could hop on a bus and in 7 mins be at a prison. I slept fine. Build them in the city, build them in the country.
 
The problem is why the honest citizen who respects the law has to provide  a criminal with better life than they will have ouutsoide without working?
 
Build more jails, buy close circuits, prepare more guards, provide the criminals with nutritive and healthy food, check theyare not too cold or too hot, goive them meduicines and health care, allow them to watch TV and enjoy a much more comfortable life that homelss but hones people have to sufffer.
 
At the end the stupid honest citizen is the one who pays the bills.
 
Yes I'm aware a man in that situation would never recieve the death penalty and would probably get a relatively lenient sentence for two cases of first degree manslaughter. But I was offering an example of when rehabilitation is clearly possible.
 
You are talking about a normal and decent citizen who had the disgrace to find himself in a terrible situation, he can be redemed.
 
But a guy who has entered to jail many times and each one gets worst, rapes kids and murders them, accept money to kill for contract are beyond redemption.
 
Please don't compare.
 
Iván
            
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 04 2006 at 02:58
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Equality 7-2521 Equality 7-2521 wrote:

 
A person who assaults someone is deprived of his freedom until his debt has been paid, then it is regranted to him. If we had the same liberty to manipulate one's life like this I'd be for a temporary sentence of death, but until then I think we should have a little more respect for a person's most basic right.
 
Properties or even freedom can be replaced, a human life don't.
 
A criminal should not be alive, breathing, havoing 3 meals a day, using ddrugs, drinking alcohol (It happens all the time) and even watching TV while the victim is six feet under.
 
A life must be paid with a life, call it revenge, honestly I can't care less, but society is better with less of this scum.
 
A personal tradgedy will do little to effect my opinion on something. Why take the risk? That's fragile ground you're jumping on there. If we were to find a gene that makes someone more likely to commit murder, should we imprison those people before any murder is commited? Why take the risk? You have to weight the pros and cons. I think it turns out in my favor here.
 
That's absurd, a person is not guilty for something he/she has never done, even if he/she has 1,000 genes, human mind is too powerful too control criminal instincts, once the person has shown he/she is not able to control those instincts....FRY THEM.
 
Up until five years ago I could hop on a bus and in 7 mins be at a prison. I slept fine. Build them in the city, build them in the country.
 
The problem is why the honest citizen who respects the law has to provide  a criminal with better life than they will have ouutsoide without working?
 
Build more jails, buy close circuits, prepare more guards, provide the criminals with nutritive and healthy food, check theyare not too cold or too hot, goive them meduicines and health care, allow them to watch TV and enjoy a much more comfortable life that homelss but hones people have to sufffer.
 
At the end the stupid honest citizen is the one who pays the bills.
 
Yes I'm aware a man in that situation would never recieve the death penalty and would probably get a relatively lenient sentence for two cases of first degree manslaughter. But I was offering an example of when rehabilitation is clearly possible.
 
You are talking about a normal and decent citizen who had the disgrace to find himself in a terrible situation, he can be redemed.
 
But a guy who has entered to jail many times and each one gets worst, rapes kids and murders them, accept money to kill for contract are beyond redemption.
 
Please don't compare.
 
Iván
 
 
Obviously on this first point we stand idealogically opposed. An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind. The only compelling arguement I can see for death is for someone who is such a high security risk that any chance in escape is too dangerous to take, for example Osama Bin Laden. In that case I'll regretably accept the death penalty. But when a prisoner can be reasonably contained instead of killed, save a life.
 
Ok a criminal doesn't have it better off inside jail than outside. Yes, federal prisons at times can be little more than resort homes, but God help you if you find yourself in a prison at the state level. Plus say all you want about the supposed care they are in but the fact that someone tells you when to watch tv, when to eat, when to sleep, when to wake up, takes away something dearer than those luxories which you are provided with. He may have a better standard of living than the homeless man. But being able to chose which step you sleep on is better than being told to sleep in a warm bed if you ask me.
 
As I said before, some criminals can be rehabilitated and others can't. I accept that reality and I even pointed out in cases of pedafilia that rehabilitation is especially impossible. I said rehabilitation is the goal; I never said it's always an attainable one. So lock them up for life, don't take it from them.
 
I was not making a comparison; I was showing a circumstance where rehabilitation is possible.


Edited by Equality 7-2521 - July 04 2006 at 02:59
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 11>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.191 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.