Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on August 08, 2015, 10:41:04 AM
-
I've pretty much made it known here that my feelings on the death penalty have changed with all the DNA exonerations, etc., but that there are clear cases where it should be swiftly administered - heinous crimes with multiple unbiased witnesses, confession, video, etc. If ever there was a clear case of implementing the death penalty, this is it. One juror stopped it.
It's the way our trial by jury system works, so I guess I can't be too irate, but I can grumble. Don't they ask the potential jurors if they could apply the death penalty if needed? It sounds like this juror was against it from the git-go.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/08/1-juror-firmly-opposed-death-penalty-for-theater-shooter-james-holmes/?intcmp=hpbt1
-
Unfortunate, IMO, but them's the breaks. I assume the prosecution had a dismissal option during voir dire. They gambled, and lost.
-
The trouble is that for some of these crazies prison isn't really a punishment. They can't cope with the outside world anyway so it's sort of a lifetime meal ticket.
-
When a dog demonstrates dangerous behavior and is determined to be unsafe, we put it down.
It's just no longer feasible to keep the dog alive, and confinement is not the answer. If anything, the confinement if cruel.
It's not about punishment. It's just what has to be done.
Why do we treat the person that has acted in the manner of a dangerous dog with more value on life (not quality of life, but just life) than a dangerous animal? If anything, we should be quicker to put the human down. The dog doesn't even understand it's actions. The person does. =|
-
In general this board supports the idea of nullification of bad laws by jurors. That just happened although in this case we'd probably line up for a chance to shoot the guy.
-
I am going to take the position of the Loyal Opposition.
The jury has done justice not only for the defendant and the victims of his crimes, but for society as a whole. Death sentences have not been swift, sure, and certain since somewhere between the last quarter of the 1800s and the first quarter of the 1900s. My memory is a little fuzzy on the date but somewhere around 1960 or 1970 the average length of time between sentencing and execution became greater than 5 years.
Since the 1980s the cost of appeals of a death sentence, which the taxpayers are obliged to pick up, crossed over the mark of $1Million per year.
The cost of the most secure incarceration publicly known in the US is still under $100K per year.
Life without parole is a savings to the taxpayers of $900K per year, and does not put the families of the victims on a near-perpetual rollercoaster of emotions with appeals and stays and the like.
If it's going to take on average more than 15 years to put down a viscous animal I'd rather just cage it and call it a day. Especially when many SCOTUS watchers are suggesting that because of the time lag between sentencing and execution the execution has little if any meaning to the defendant by the time it is carried out and that may be the hook on which SCOTUS hangs its decision to end the death penalty.
stay safe.
-
I am going to take the position of the Loyal Opposition.
The jury has done justice not only for the defendant and the victims of his crimes, but for society as a whole. Death sentences have not been swift, sure, and certain since somewhere between the last quarter of the 1800s and the first quarter of the 1900s. My memory is a little fuzzy on the date but somewhere around 1960 or 1970 the average length of time between sentencing and execution became greater than 5 years.
Since the 1980s the cost of appeals of a death sentence, which the taxpayers are obliged to pick up, crossed over the mark of $1Million per year.
The cost of the most secure incarceration publicly known in the US is still under $100K per year.
Life without parole is a savings to the taxpayers of $900K per year, and does not put the families of the victims on a near-perpetual rollercoaster of emotions with appeals and stays and the like.
If it's going to take on average more than 15 years to put down a viscous animal I'd rather just cage it and call it a day. Especially when many SCOTUS watchers are suggesting that because of the time lag between sentencing and execution the execution has little if any meaning to the defendant by the time it is carried out and that may be the hook on which SCOTUS hangs its decision to end the death penalty.
stay safe.
So, what your saying is we should streamline and expedite the appeals process so that the time between scentancing and execution is more reasonable (and significantly cheaper) in cases where any reasonable doubt isn't even applicable?
-
What else is life in prison if not a death sentence? If you're going to imprison someone for the rest of their natural life....you might as well break out the rope.
-
If it's going to take on average more than 15 years to put down a viscous animal I'd rather just cage it and call it a day. Especially when many SCOTUS watchers are suggesting that because of the time lag between sentencing and execution the execution has little if any meaning to the defendant by the time it is carried out and that may be the hook on which SCOTUS hangs its decision to end the death penalty.
stay safe.
Is it supposed to have a meaning for the defendant?
-
So, what your saying is we should streamline and expedite the appeals process so that the time between scentancing and execution is more reasonable (and significantly cheaper) in cases where any reasonable doubt isn't even applicable?
The problem is that once the jury decides, the applicability of "reasonable doubt" is eliminated.
More to the point that I was making is those who plead guilty to a capital offense who then turn around and appeal the carrying out of a death sentence over technical issues such as claiming, for instance, that because nobody can prove that the first drug used in lethal injection actually keeps them from feeling pain there is a chance the method violates the 8th Amendment.
Or perhaps more to the point the SJW lawyers and organizations that use the cases as platforms for their opposition to the death penalty.
IF we are going to have a death penalty it needs to be something that has impact on the convicted while the immediate memory/thoughts of the crime remain in their mind. When it gets to be a disembodied process at the end of repetitive appeals and reviews I cannot fathom how the convicted can relate the awesomeness of the penalty with the severity of the deed they committed.
I'm not completely convinced any more that the convicted ought to be taken from the courtroom to the gallows so the bars can reopen. That comes from the uncertainty of the evidence sometimes presented to prove the crime, the political nature of some prosecutions. (This one currently under discussion is a good example. The trial was more about gun control than it was about multiple brutal murders.)
stay safe.
-
The problem is that once the jury decides, the applicability of "reasonable doubt" is eliminated.
More to the point that I was making is those who plead guilty to a capital offense who then turn around and appeal the carrying out of a death sentence over technical issues such as claiming, for instance, that because nobody can prove that the first drug used in lethal injection actually keeps them from feeling pain there is a chance the method violates the 8th Amendment.
Or perhaps more to the point the SJW lawyers and organizations that use the cases as platforms for their opposition to the death penalty.
IF we are going to have a death penalty it needs to be something that has impact on the convicted while the immediate memory/thoughts of the crime remain in their mind. When it gets to be a disembodied process at the end of repetitive appeals and reviews I cannot fathom how the convicted can relate the awesomeness of the penalty with the severity of the deed they committed.
I'm not completely convinced any more that the convicted ought to be taken from the courtroom to the gallows so the bars can reopen. That comes from the uncertainty of the evidence sometimes presented to prove the crime, the political nature of some prosecutions. (This one currently under discussion is a good example. The trial was more about gun control than it was about multiple brutal murders.)
stay safe.
I agree with needing some appeals process, especially if the "beyond a reasonable doubt" is "proven" because a jury thinks so or because somebody thinks so.
But when evidence is comprised of things like video, DNA and absolute proof that this person did this thing? These mass murderers who've openly killed as a statement of some kind and the question has never been 'who did it?' but 'why did he do it?' and there wasn't even any reasonable doubt to begin with, I don't see why we don't have some legal loophole that just allows the authorities to put them down...
Than again, that's maybe more of a personal view of these kinds of killers than one that can be applicable from a legal standpoint. =|
Sorry, I'm just rambling at this point.
Personally, I'm not opposed to the death penalty on any moral grounds. My moral hangup is on it being applied without any possibility of a mistake and if that cannot be done, perhaps I shall have to change my stance on it.
-
There have been too many instances of fraud, corruption and politics in our "justice" system for me to be a hardline supporter of capital punishment. The continued improvement in modern forensic science (wizardry?) and DNA testing is helping to prevent mistakes but it's not perfect, probably never will be. However in cases where there is no possibility of convicting the wrong person, no possibility of doubt then I'm all for the swift execution of the condemned. The Aurora theater shooting case and the Ft. Hood terrorist attack are just 2 cases where immediate execution upon conviction would have been appropriate.
-
There have been too many instances of fraud, corruption and politics in our "justice" system for me to be a hardline supporter of capital punishment. The continued improvement in modern forensic science (wizardry?) and DNA testing is helping to prevent mistakes but it's not perfect, probably never will be. However in cases where there is no possibility of convicting the wrong person, no possibility of doubt then I'm all for the swift execution of the condemned. The Aurora theater shooting case and the Ft. Hood terrorist attack are just 2 cases where immediate execution upon conviction would have been appropriate.
Not to mention there have been several scandals of late with state crime labs falsifying results. That puts a damper on absolutely trusting DNA evidence.
-
There have been too many instances of fraud, corruption and politics in our "justice" system for me to be a hardline supporter of capital punishment. The continued improvement in modern forensic science (wizardry?) and DNA testing is helping to prevent mistakes but it's not perfect, probably never will be. However in cases where there is no possibility of convicting the wrong person, no possibility of doubt then I'm all for the swift execution of the condemned. The Aurora theater shooting case and the Ft. Hood terrorist attack are just 2 cases where immediate execution upon conviction would have been appropriate.
This has been my view for a long time. Reasonable doubt isn't enough, imo, for a sentence that is irrevocable. Sure, 20 years behind bars for a crime you didn't commit ain't much better, but at least they can let you go with a good likelihood of a payout if there was colorful prosecution methods employed.
But when there is guilt with NO doubt, such as this, I am all in favor of a swift death penalty. And to be honest, for an even broader range of crimes than we currently use it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I am going to take the position of the Loyal Opposition.
The jury has done justice not only for the defendant and the victims of his crimes, but for society as a whole. Death sentences have not been swift, sure, and certain since somewhere between the last quarter of the 1800s and the first quarter of the 1900s. My memory is a little fuzzy on the date but somewhere around 1960 or 1970 the average length of time between sentencing and execution became greater than 5 years.
Since the 1980s the cost of appeals of a death sentence, which the taxpayers are obliged to pick up, crossed over the mark of $1Million per year.
The cost of the most secure incarceration publicly known in the US is still under $100K per year.
Life without parole is a savings to the taxpayers of $900K per year, and does not put the families of the victims on a near-perpetual rollercoaster of emotions with appeals and stays and the like.
If it's going to take on average more than 15 years to put down a viscous animal I'd rather just cage it and call it a day. Especially when many SCOTUS watchers are suggesting that because of the time lag between sentencing and execution the execution has little if any meaning to the defendant by the time it is carried out and that may be the hook on which SCOTUS hangs its decision to end the death penalty.
Your position seems to presuppose that there's something rational and proper over an appeals process that lasts so long and costs so much.
Fact not in evidence.
The solution is to speed up the process and reduce the cost. Frivolous appeals? Fine the lawyers who file them. High cost of maintaining the prisoner? Make prisons more like prisons and less like country clubs or gymnasia.
-
The Aurora theater shooting case and the Ft. Hood terrorist attack are just 2 cases where immediate execution upon conviction would have been appropriate.
Except that execution allows the Fort Hood shooter to go out as a martyr, at least in his eyes and in the view of other anti-U.S. terrorist types. For him I favor keeping him alive, under humane but not "comfortable" conditions, so he can spend the rest of his life reflecting on the fact that he failed to achieve martyrdom.
-
One of twelve hung things up on the death penalty. One person out of twelve might believe it isn't right to execute a crazy person, no matter what the crazy person does.
Gotta admit, the more time I spend working in the justice system, the less support I feel for capital punishment. I believe in our system, but also acknowledge that it is imperfect.
-
We should tell Mugabe this guy is the dentist who shot Cecil and extradite him to Zimbabwe . . .
-
What is the value in executing someone who is obviously insane?
I also don't see the point in making prisons into medieval dungeons. Holding people in those conditions is a proven way to make whatever behaviours they had beforehand worse.
Not sure the cost is an issue either - death penalty cases are peanuts in the grand scheme of jailing millions of people every year. We need to come up with a way of settling neighbourhood mischief and drug abuse that doesn't require rounding up prisoners by the train load.
-
What is the value in executing someone who is obviously insane?
One less waste of oxygen...
-
What is the value in executing someone who is obviously insane?
I also don't see the point in making prisons into medieval dungeons. Holding people in those conditions is a proven way to make whatever behaviours they had beforehand worse.
Not sure the cost is an issue either - death penalty cases are peanuts in the grand scheme of jailing millions of people every year. We need to come up with a way of settling neighbourhood mischief and drug abuse that doesn't require rounding up prisoners by the train load.
The cost to taxpayers (and society in general) is huge, but that's a good thing because that's a lot of money to be directed to politicians' cronies, some of which comes back to the pols as political contributions or just good old fashioned kickbacks and bribes. Everybody loses, except for those in power. Often, quite by accident, justice gets done, but that's no longer the point.
-
What else is life in prison if not a death sentence? If you're going to imprison someone for the rest of their natural life....you might as well break out the rope.
If he goes to prison and put into general population, he will be dead in a few years. He is not the typical criminal that goes to prison.
-
Hawkmoon -
You got my thoughts on the protracted appeals process 180* off course.
De Selby -
SCOTUS has already ruled (25+ years ago) that executing an insane person is cruel and unusual because they are not able to comprehend why they are being put to death. Bringing up a distraction such as you did just clutters up the discussion with needing to remind you of facts.
As for the cost issue - come up with a program that will work with American criminals in American society without ever making reference to how anybody anywhere else does anything and I'll listen to you (with one exception discussed below).
The only program I am aware of that has just slightly better than a snowball's chance in hell is the transference of the English MH "therapeutic community" model. With a huge IF - which is if the model can be sustained on the outside so the released criminal participant can continue uninterrupted for a minimum of ten years. (Look at Delancy Street and Amity - they started out as treatment programs and have morphed over the years into an industrial complex that provides a way for participants to get those uninterrupted 10 years. Last time I checked with Amity (about 5 years ago) they were struggling to remain non-profit. Hard to do when you have more money pouring in than you can use to expand and bring in more participants.)
stay safe.
-
Skid, it is not a distraction to observe that the legal definition of "insane" both for criminal responsibility and eligibility for punishment bears no relationship to common sense or reality. It's quite common for people who are literally bat *expletive deleted*it crazy to be convicted and found, legally speaking, sane when they'd otherwise be committed for treatment.
As for American prisons, it's bizarre that you'd require no examination of anywhere else in the world as an option. But anyway, how about the US before the 90's? We didn't always imprison millions of people every year. We still don't have to.
-
But anyway, how about the US before the 90's? We didn't always imprison millions of people every year. We still don't have to.
You're right. We could go back to the crime rate of the 70s. We have that option.
We also could have a revival of the people that results in the citizens of the country actually acting like Christians rather than just calling themselves that.
Those are pretty much the only options. I suppose we could also go back to institutionalizing the insane, but that pretty much only has an effect on the splashy crimes liberals love.
My guess is we are headed for option 1, though. I'll keep praying for option 2, miracles do happen.
-
Wouldn't have so many in jail if we hanged 'em like we used to ;)
-
You're right. We could go back to the crime rate of the 70s. We have that option.
We also could have a revival of the people that results in the citizens of the country actually acting like Christians rather than just calling themselves that.
Those are pretty much the only options. I suppose we could also go back to institutionalizing the insane, but that pretty much only has an effect on the splashy crimes liberals love.
My guess is we are headed for option 1, though. I'll keep praying for option 2, miracles do happen.
Why is it that mass incarceration or prayer are the only ways to reduce crime?
That seems a bit narrow focused.
-
My view of government enforced death penalty has steadily declined over the decades, but only because my view of competence of the government has steadily declined. In cases like this where there is no debate that the "suspect" committed the murders as he was caught in the act, and where even his own defense did not question that he pulled the trigger I don't have a problem with it. As for mental health issues, at some point I think insanity as a "defense" wears thin. Not sure exactly where, but I think a dozen fresh corpses and five or six dozen in the hospital probably does it.
If he goes to prison and put into general population, he will be dead in a few years. He is not the typical criminal that goes to prison.
So locking him up is essentially willfully executing him by proxy? As someone who opposes the death penalty in all cases, are you okay with that?
What is the value in executing someone who is obviously insane?
The same value served by executing anyone. And simultaneously the same value in caging someone for the rest of their life when they are obviously insane. Neither is intended to reform the criminal. Both are intended to prevent recidivism, at least for crimes committed outside of prison. Both are intended to take away the remainder of the criminal's life.
It's quite common for people who are literally bat *expletive deleted*it crazy to be convicted and found, legally speaking, sane when they'd otherwise be committed for treatment.
First of all, it takes an awful lot to be committed for treatment. Plenty of bat *expletive deleted*it crazy people out there who cause a lot of trouble but either don't cross the threshold for commitment or else are released after a few hours or days.
Second, whether or not the government definition of crazy is sufficient, just about everyone who commits multiple-murders are crazy for some definition of the word. That doesn't mean they bear no responsibility for their actions.
-
Why is it that mass incarceration or prayer are the only ways to reduce crime?
That seems a bit narrow focused.
One way to reduce crime is to reduce crimes.
You send those lawmakers to the various legislative bodies and what do you think? They feel duty-bound to make laws.
They even copy each others' statutes and ordinances just to show they've "done something" during their tenure.
"Hey, they did it in Montanissippi, why not here in Missontana?"
They bend over backwards to dream up laws just to have something to do.
I'd prefer to vote for someone who has something to un-do.
Terry
-
Skid, it is not a distraction to observe that the legal definition of "insane" both for criminal responsibility and eligibility for punishment bears no relationship to common sense or reality. It's quite common for people who are literally bat *expletive deleted*it crazy to be convicted and found, legally speaking, sane when they'd otherwise be committed for treatment.
So apparently you choose not to research the SCOTUS decision, which says essentially the same thing you are jumping up and down on your soapbox about. Which makes discussing anything except the existence of the ruling a distraction. But for the sake of carrying this ad absurdium I'll let you instruct me on how someone *expletive deleted*it crazy can effectively participate in their defense and understand the import of both the crime they stand accused of and the penalty they face. SCOTUS did leave open the door for the *expletive deleted"it crazy who could be restored to those levels by medical treatment (generally psychotropic medication).
Just as an aside, are you aware than in the 1970s America deinstitutionalized over 90% of the *expletive deleted*it crazy people that were previously locked away in mental wards because they were not a threat to themself or to others? And yet here we are talking about some guy who most likely is not *expletive deleted*it crazy who has clearly demonstrated that he was a danger to others.
e]As for American prisons, it's bizarre that you'd require no examination of anywhere else in the world as an option. But anyway, how about the US before the 90's? We didn't always imprison millions of people every year. We still don't have to.
Whoa, there! I thought we were discussing the option of life imprisonment vs. the death penalty. Where did all these other millions of folks get tickets to join the conversation?
But to honor your request for an explanation of why I asked to limit the discussion to American society and the American penal system - it is because American society is just as unique as, for instance, Japanese or Finnish or Norwegian or even British societies and like those the odds of changing American society to even remotely resemble those would take, at a rapid (read: forced) pace, something like eight generations. FYI America finds itself in, depending on how you want to count it, either the 1st or 2nd generation of an attempt to force such a change. I am sure you are aware of the pushback that effort is receiving. Remember, it takes less than 5% of the population to run an effective resistance, while it takes around 65% over two to three generations to allow changes to be made "for" them.
stay safe.
-
Cordex, the legal standard for insanity in criminal cases is higher in every jurisdiction in America than it is for treatment - you might do well to look up in your state how much easier it is to be committed for treatment than found not guilty by reason of insanity. Commitment is much, much more common everywhere. Since John Hinckley insanity is basically not a defense.
How do you think insane people are affected by executions? Is there some diagnosis of schizophrenia that leaves the hallucinations being stayed by executions of others?
Skid, I read that rant and see no rebuttal to my point. You seem to be alleging that because insane people can be medicated to sanity for execution (even though they were so insane they couldn't be executed at the time of conviction! Read that decision mate) there's therefore no issue of mental illness in death sentencing or criminal punishment. I refer you to Aileen Wuornos' last video.
Terry, inventing crime with long punishments is a key reason why more people are in prison. I agree with you 100 percent - forcing legislatures to be part time would be a great benefit. More so if done fifty years ago.
-
Cordex, the legal standard for insanity in criminal cases is higher in every jurisdiction in America than it is for treatment - you might do well to look up in your state how much easier it is to be committed for treatment than found not guilty by reason of insanity. Commitment is much, much more common everywhere. Since John Hinckley insanity is basically not a defense.
As with so much of what you post, that is irrelevant.
How do you think insane people are affected by executions? Is there some diagnosis of schizophrenia that leaves the hallucinations being stayed by executions of others?
Prevention of crime in others is not the sole - or even most important - purpose of criminal punishment. Lifelong imprisonment is equally useless in preventing other insane people from harming others.
-
Why is it that mass incarceration or prayer are the only ways to reduce crime?
That seems a bit narrow focused.
Well, from the American experience, those are the ones that have worked. There is, of course, the Levitt view that another effective means of decreasing crime is murdering in the womb those with higher potential for criminal behaviour, but I disagree with not only the means, but the effectiveness of that strategy. So that leaves me with two with a proven track record.
-
Well, from the American experience, those are the ones that have worked. There is, of course, the Levitt view that another effective means of decreasing crime is murdering in the womb those with higher potential for criminal behaviour, but I disagree with not only the means, but the effectiveness of that strategy. So that leaves me with two with a proven track record.
So now it's three options? You can't seriously be declaring the "American experience" as defined by those three, yet claiming to be an economist.
Cordex, I think pointing out that executing the mentally ill has no effect and that lots of mentally ill people get convicted of crimes is quite relevant to the thread. After all, it's a thread about someone with obvious mental illness being convicted of a crime. But we've explored our definitions of mental illness sort of - we haven't talked about what "relevant" means, and I suppose it's possible you don't accept any commonly known dictionary definition of relevant.
-
So now it's three options? You can't seriously be declaring the "American experience" as defined by those three, yet claiming to be an economist.
Cordex, I think pointing out that executing the mentally ill has no effect and that lots of mentally ill people get convicted of crimes is quite relevant to the thread. After all, it's a thread about someone with obvious mental illness being convicted of a crime. But we've explored our definitions of mental illness sort of - we haven't talked about what "relevant" means, and I suppose it's possible you don't accept any commonly known dictionary definition of relevant.
No, it's two that have worked with a country made up as our currently is, the third is not an option. Unless, of course, you wish to proffer some other suggestions rather than playing games without actually adding to the discussion.
-
Cordex, I think pointing out that executing the mentally ill has no effect and that lots of mentally ill people get convicted of crimes is quite relevant to the thread. After all, it's a thread about someone with obvious mental illness being convicted of a crime. But we've explored our definitions of mental illness sort of - we haven't talked about what "relevant" means, and I suppose it's possible you don't accept any commonly known dictionary definition of relevant.
Execution absolutely does have an effect. Indeed it has a near perfect preventative effect for repeat offenses, simply not necessarily for others who are sufficiently mentally ill. The same can be said for any other punishment.
Again, imprisoning the mentally ill for life or any other amount of time has no more preventative effect for others than execution. For that matter, mentally ill persons actively under treatment often commit heinous crimes, so even prophylactic treatment is not effective in that regard. Does that mean those options should likewise be discarded?
I think your posts over the years have well demonstrated that you have a very different idea of relevance.
-
No, it's two that have worked with a country made up as our currently is, the third is not an option. Unless, of course, you wish to proffer some other suggestions rather than playing games without actually adding to the discussion.
Less lead in the food chain, economic growth leading to reduced desperation, more advanced drug syndicates making the product available at cheaper prices for less seller risk, better education for more people, less racist violence... etc.
There are lots of reasons why crime might be down. Those are just a few.
Note: the combined magical effects of prayer plus any of the above might well make America as safe as Norway. I'm assuming based on the statistics that we all quit praying, and that any reduction in crime takes account of the loss of its magical powers.
-
Execution absolutely does have an effect. Indeed it has a near perfect preventative effect for repeat offenses, simply not necessarily for others who are sufficiently mentally ill. The same can be said for any other punishment.
Again, imprisoning the mentally ill for life or any other amount of time has no more preventative effect for others than execution. For that matter, mentally ill persons actively under treatment often commit heinous crimes, so even prophylactic treatment is not effective in that regard. Does that mean those options should likewise be discarded?
I think your posts over the years have well demonstrated that you have a very different idea of relevance.
Life imprisonment has the same effect for the crazy, and doesn't require us stooping to execute well, the crazy.
-
Not even close. You offer up the lives of other prisoners and guards to keep you comfortable
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
.
So locking him up is essentially willfully executing him by proxy? As someone who opposes the death penalty in all cases, are you okay with that?
No, I'm not. Just because a person can't function as a normal person in society, doesn't mean that they should be subjected to basically torture by death in a prison. If they are not mentally able to function in society according to the norms of society, they placing them in a mental health facility where they can be free of harm from others and unable to cause harm to others is probably the best thing to do. I know there are people that call psychology a pseudo science but the environment of the mental hospitals, especially the ones for criminals is a great place for advances in psychological science. These finding then can be used to better other people with mental health issues in the future.
-
Life imprisonment has the same effect for the crazy, and doesn't require us stooping to execute well, the crazy.
As csd notes, there are other lives risked when you stick someone in a box for the rest of their life. Besides that, pretending that locking someone up until they die is more moral than killing them outright takes some mental agility.
-
No, I'm not. Just because a person can't function as a normal person in society, doesn't mean that they should be subjected to basically torture by death in a prison. If they are not mentally able to function in society according to the norms of society, they placing them in a mental health facility where they can be free of harm from others and unable to cause harm to others is probably the best thing to do. I know there are people that call psychology a pseudo science but the environment of the mental hospitals, especially the ones for criminals is a great place for advances in psychological science. These finding then can be used to better other people with mental health issues in the future.
I agree that imprisoning some insane people may actually be more cruel than execution. I am less convinced that mental institutions are a better choice in any regard for handling people who have, for instance, slaughtered a dozen folks. I think that goes a bit beyond not being able to "function as a normal person." For the mentally ill who haven't gone to those extremes i think there are probably plenty of better options than imprisonment.
-
Less lead in the food chain, economic growth leading to reduced desperation, more advanced drug syndicates making the product available at cheaper prices for less seller risk, better education for more people, less racist violence... etc.
There are lots of reasons why crime might be down. Those are just a few.
Note: the combined magical effects of prayer plus any of the above might well make America as safe as Norway. I'm assuming based on the statistics that we all quit praying, and that any reduction in crime takes account of the loss of its magical powers.
The rising crime rates in Baltimore and New York belie your explanations for the change in crime rates since the 1970s.
And I love the "better education" throw-away. Any examples as to how that would and has worked? It clearly is not the cause of the drop in crime since the 70s.
-
Oh, I'd also like to know how we are going to get more lead out of the environment today, as well.
-
How do you think insane people are affected by executions?
Well, I'm not a doctor, but I think it results in permanent cessation of respiration, circulation, and brain activity.
-
So many excuses so lil time
Aside from the innate dishonesty of enabling bad behavior you also do those you enable no favors
Key thing that has to change is folks need to learn is that bad behavior has consequences . It's apparently much harder than you would imagine
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
I agree that imprisoning some insane people may actually be more cruel than execution. I am less convinced that mental institutions are a better choice in any regard for handling people who have, for instance, slaughtered a dozen folks. I think that goes a bit beyond not being able to "function as a normal person." For the mentally ill who haven't gone to those extremes i think there are probably plenty of better options than imprisonment.
They are not exactly hospitals one can check themselves in and out of, it's mental hospital for violent criminals or a mental hospital wing in a prison.
-
As csd notes, there are other lives risked when you stick someone in a box for the rest of their life. Besides that, pretending that locking someone up until they die is more moral than killing them outright takes some mental agility.
At least it's a reversible action, when the state gets it wrong.
-
At least it's a reversible action, when the state gets it wrong.
I am in complete agreement where there is an element of doubt. I don't think that comes into play here, does it?
They are not exactly hospitals one can check themselves in and out of, it's mental hospital for violent criminals or a mental hospital wing in a prison.
So we are back to boxing people up until they die.
-
Why is it that mass incarceration or prayer are the only ways to reduce crime?
That seems a bit narrow focused.
Mass incarceration keeps the bad guys in a prison which seems to have the effect of greatly reducing their interactions with the public ... you know, like patronizing "stop & robs" (IE., small package stores) and ... well, commiting other unpleasantries.
IMHO prayer is completly useless. But it does give one a nice warm feeling inside....which is pretty much what I suspect it's like to be a liberal sometimes. [tinfoil]
-
So we are back to boxing people up until they die.
What is another alternative?
-
What is another alternative?
Cultural change. But its too hard and folks have to wanna change
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
Cultural change. But its too hard and folks have to wanna change
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
I'm all for public stocks for petty crimes.
-
The change needs to come from within. And some cultures aren't interested
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
Interestingly on point:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-flawed-missing-men-theory-1439159236
(Google "The Flawed Missing Men Theory" to read the whole article)
However, if the war on drugs played any role in shaping the contemporary black family, it is almost impossible to decipher from the data. As of 1979, only 5.7% of U.S. prisoners were incarcerated for drug offenses. Yet by that time nearly half of black births were already to single mothers. The number of men imprisoned for drug crimes rose only modestly until 1990, four years after Congress passed the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, legislating harsher sentences for crack cocaine, a move often cited as a cause of the disproportionately black prison population.
Far from leading to more fatherless children, the growing number of black men imprisoned for drugs coincided with a flattening of the percentage of black single mothers, after a 30-plus-year upward climb.
Read the rest.
-
The change needs to come from within. And some cultures aren't interested
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
Is Scared Straight still a program given to troubled youths?
-
Yup
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
What is another alternative?
In some cases there is none. In cases where there is no doubt as to their guilt and the crime is appropriately heinous, execution.
-
Is Scared Straight still a program given to troubled youths?
It scares the kids that are willing to be scared. There are a lot of kids that are not moved by the presentation (often saying that it is much less intimidating than home life). There are also kids who see getting locked away as a rite of passage as well as a chance to meet up with relatives and friends. We had four generations locked up in the same facility. There was not 35 years between the youngest (16) and the oldest (50) which ought to give you some idea of what sort of "society" they came from.
stay safe.
-
In some cases there is none. In cases where there is no doubt as to their guilt and the crime is appropriately heinous, execution.
Have we not "studied" the insane and mentally ill to death? Yet, we still fail to identify those that need treatment/are dangerous. And keep in mind that in the late 60's-early 70's liberals championed De-institutionalization, which many now see as a complete failure.
But, he continued, ''It happened much faster than we foresaw.'' The discharge of mental patients was accelerated in the late 1960's and early 1970's in some states as a result of a series of court decisions that limited the commitment powers of state and local officials.
Dr. Brown insists, as do others who were involved in the Congressional legislation to establish community mental health centers, that politicians and health experts were carrying out a public mandate to abolish the abominable conditions of insane asylums. He and others note - and their critics do not disagree - that their motives were not venal and that they were acting humanely. - http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-mental-patients-began.html
Anyway, is not violating the rules of society prove a mental illness? Especially one as heinous and grotesque as mass or serial killing (or even just one). This is such a case where the ultimate punishment is warranted.
-
Might depend on what the laws/rules of society are that get violated. I can think of several examples off the top of my head where individuals violating the rules of society ended up getting laws changed.
I support a medical treatment for most mentally ill but there is a local example where my opinion leans toward plain old euthanasia. The 2 brothers that murderd 5 members of their own family and tried to kill the 6th. I don't care how old they are, there is no rehab, no treatment for something like that. Once it is proven that they in fact did it, all the i's are dotted and all the t's crossed just put them down like you would a rabid dog, no enmity, no hate, maybe a bit of sadness for a lost soul but that's about it.
-
For the pro death penalty folks.
Could you be the person who pulls the trigger, puts the noose around the head & pulls the trap, push the plunger on the syringe, hit them in the head with a killing hammer, tie them to a pole & light the fire, strap them to a chair, hook the electrodes up, & pull the switch, etc?
I'm not talking about killing someone who entered your house to cause harm to you and your family, but a person who has been caught, tried and imprisoned awaiting execution.
-
If their crime warranted it, and if I KNEW they were guilty then I think maybe I could.
-
For the pro death penalty folks.
Could you be the person who pulls the trigger, puts the noose around the head & pulls the trap, push the plunger on the syringe, hit them in the head with a killing hammer, tie them to a pole & light the fire, strap them to a chair, hook the electrodes up, & pull the switch, etc?
I'm not talking about killing someone who entered your house to cause harm to you and your family, but a person who has been caught, tried and imprisoned awaiting execution.
Yes. Well, not the burn them at the stake one, but the rest, yeah.
I'd probably have a problem if you handed me an axe, too. I'm not skilled enough to make it quick and painless.
-
For the pro death penalty folks.
Could you be the person who pulls the trigger, puts the noose around the head & pulls the trap, push the plunger on the syringe, hit them in the head with a killing hammer, tie them to a pole & light the fire, strap them to a chair, hook the electrodes up, & pull the switch, etc?
I'm not talking about killing someone who entered your house to cause harm to you and your family, but a person who has been caught, tried and imprisoned awaiting execution.
Yes.
And your inclusion of methods that are no longer permitted is a cheap appeal to emotionalism. And for that I don't think I'd have problems lighting the fire under you or braining you. Except that those methods are not allowed so it's really a moot issue regarding those methods.
stay safe.
-
Yes.
And your inclusion of methods that are no longer permitted is a cheap appeal to emotionalism.
Still done in other parts of the world.
-
Skid, it is not a distraction to observe that the legal definition of "insane" both for criminal responsibility and eligibility for punishment bears no relationship to common sense or reality. It's quite common for people who are literally bat *expletive deleted*it crazy to be convicted and found, legally speaking, sane when they'd otherwise be committed for treatment.
As for American prisons, it's bizarre that you'd require no examination of anywhere else in the world as an option. But anyway, how about the US before the 90's? We didn't always imprison millions of people every year. We still don't have to.
Unfortunately many of those imprisoned are for bullshit crimes like drug possession and other victimless crimes.
-
For the pro death penalty folks.
Could you be the person who pulls the trigger, puts the noose around the head & pulls the trap, push the plunger on the syringe, hit them in the head with a killing hammer, tie them to a pole & light the fire, strap them to a chair, hook the electrodes up, & pull the switch, etc?
I'm not talking about killing someone who entered your house to cause harm to you and your family, but a person who has been caught, tried and imprisoned awaiting execution.
For the guy that killed that Crow couple and wounded their daughter just for stopping to help him along the road, I would do all of those things, in sequence >:D
-
Could you be the person who pulls the trigger, puts the noose around the head & pulls the trap, push the plunger on the syringe, hit them in the head with a killing hammer, tie them to a pole & light the fire, strap them to a chair, hook the electrodes up, & pull the switch, etc?
In cases where guilt is not in doubt and the crime merited it? Not a duty I would want, but better than letting them kill again. I'd prefer the quickest, least painful method available.
Let me ask you a couple questions in return:
If you were in a survival situation where you teamed up with someone but they turned out to be a bad choice, would you execute them?
If you had to hike a long distance in order to ensure the survival of yourself and loved ones wherein the alternative to traveling was almost certain death, but one of your loved ones were unable to make the trip, would you kill them?
-
For the pro death penalty folks.
Could you be the person who pulls the trigger, puts the noose around the head & pulls the trap, push the plunger on the syringe, hit them in the head with a killing hammer, tie them to a pole & light the fire, strap them to a chair, hook the electrodes up, & pull the switch, etc?
What about if it was Hitler? Because asking if someone would burn somebody at the stake is essentially Godwining the thread.
-
For the pro death penalty folks.
Could you be the person who pulls the trigger, puts the noose around the head & pulls the trap, push the plunger on the syringe, hit them in the head with a killing hammer, tie them to a pole & light the fire, strap them to a chair, hook the electrodes up, & pull the switch, etc?
I'm not talking about killing someone who entered your house to cause harm to you and your family, but a person who has been caught, tried and imprisoned awaiting execution.
Yes, for the same reasons I pay taxes and have hunted my own meat. I try hard to avoid being a hypocrite. However flawed they nay be, I benefit from the protections of law enforcement and our judicial system. If capital punishment is on the table and validated by due process, I would feel obliged to flip the switch, pull the lever, push the plunger, etc., even at the risk of being traumatized by the experience. That some other poor shmuck gets paid to do it is not an insulating factor as you imply.
-
Unfortunately many of those imprisoned are for bullshit crimes like drug possession and other victimless crimes.
What percentage do you imagine are in for drug possession and I choose the words imagine for a reason
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
For the pro death penalty folks.
Could you be the person who pulls the trigger, puts the noose around the head & pulls the trap, push the plunger on the syringe, hit them in the head with a killing hammer, tie them to a pole & light the fire, strap them to a chair, hook the electrodes up, & pull the switch, etc?
I'm not talking about killing someone who entered your house to cause harm to you and your family, but a person who has been caught, tried and imprisoned awaiting execution.
Absolutely could I don't need to be in another room pushing the plunger into some an IV line I can sit right down next to him thump up the vein and send them off
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
then turn around and appeal the carrying out of a death sentence over technical issues such as claiming, for instance, that because nobody can prove that the first drug used in lethal injection actually keeps them from feeling pain there is a chance the method violates the 8th Amendment.
A situation where it would have been nice if the first judge to hear this argument had set a precedent by pulling a large pistol out from under the bench, shooting the complainer and his lawyer in the head, and closing the case.
-
What about if it was Hitler? Because asking if someone would burn somebody at the stake is essentially Godwining the thread.
I'm not opposed to hard labor, he could be breaking big rocks into little rocks for the rest of his life.
-
I'm not opposed to hard labor, he could be breaking big rocks into little rocks for the rest of his life.
The problem is that we don't have mass murderers doing hard labor. Just look at Charles Manson.
I suppose there's always the Dahmer alternative, where somebody in the prison population whacks him. That kind of takes responsibility away from the people (us) that should be doing that though.
-
The problem is that we don't have mass murderers doing hard labor. Just look at Charles Manson.
...because I'm not in charge. :)
-
For the pro death penalty folks.
Could you be the person who pulls the trigger, puts the noose around the head & pulls the trap, push the plunger on the syringe, hit them in the head with a killing hammer, tie them to a pole & light the fire, strap them to a chair, hook the electrodes up, & pull the switch, etc?
I'm not talking about killing someone who entered your house to cause harm to you and your family, but a person who has been caught, tried and imprisoned awaiting execution.
Sure.
-
I'm not talking about killing someone who entered your house to cause harm to you and your family, but a person who has been caught, tried and imprisoned awaiting execution.
Probably, yeah.
Some of the described methods, though, I would want nothing to do with, and would prefer to substitute '.45ACP to the brain' instead.
-
The problem is that we don't have mass murderers doing hard labor. Just look at Charles Manson.
.
...because I'm not in charge. :)
More like SCOTUS ruled hard labor to be cruel and unusual and made the prisons cut it out.
At one time, IIRC, hard labor at Ft. Levenworth (the military prion) was sewing mail bags for the USPS. And getting paid for it.
The last time I know of anybody getting away with making little rocks out of big rocks was the Disciplinary Platoon at MDRD San Diego, where I was TAD as a guard between schools on base in 1969. M-W-F they hand mixed concrete and poured it into 20'x10'x6' forms. T-Th-Sat they broke the cured pads into concrete dust they used to mix the next week. Sitting on a lifeguard chair wearing a tropical (Jungle Jim) helmet and cradling a 12-guage while they sweated and looked through the fence at the plans taking off from Lindberg Field. (There may have been other folks doing it after that - I just don't know about them.)
stay safe.
-
I saw some rock breakers at the Navy brig in Groton as late as '88-'89. The brig backed up to a big ole outcrop of native granite. the rock breakers were slowly enlarging the yard.
-
For the pro death penalty folks.
Could you be the person who pulls the trigger, puts the noose around the head & pulls the trap, push the plunger on the syringe, hit them in the head with a killing hammer, tie them to a pole & light the fire, strap them to a chair, hook the electrodes up, & pull the switch, etc?
I'm not talking about killing someone who entered your house to cause harm to you and your family, but a person who has been caught, tried and imprisoned awaiting execution.
You forgot being drawn and quartered. But yes, I could do it. The a-hole that's the subject of this thread, the guy that shot Cong. Giffords, Jeffrey Dahmer, the two boys in OK, the guy in Montana that killed the family who stopped to help, child molesters. You name the method and I'll follow through with the punishment.
Remember, I sat on a jury where a mother abused and killed her 5 year old daughter. I had to look at the autopsy photos of a cute little girl systematically starved and beaten to death.
So yeah, I could have executed the mom and then have slept well that night and every night thereafter. Sadly, Illinois had abolished the death penalty, so the judge could only give her 40 years.
-
You forgot being drawn and quartered. But yes, I could do it. The a-hole that's the subject of this thread, the guy that shot Cong. Giffords, Jeffrey Dahmer, the two boys in OK, the guy in Montana that killed the family who stopped to help, child molesters. You name the method and I'll follow through with the punishment.
Remember, I sat on a jury where a mother abused and killed her 5 year old daughter. I had to look at the autopsy photos of a cute little girl systematically starved and beaten to death.
So yeah, I could have executed the mom and then have slept well that night and every night thereafter. Sadly, Illinois had abolished the death penalty, so the judge could only give her 40 years.
Damn. I'm sorry, but thank you for taking that hit for the team. =(
-
I would not object to capital juries being told that one of them would be chosen to administer the sentence
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
I would not object to capital juries being told that one of them would be chosen to administer the sentence
Might solve the problem of people not wanting to serve on juries >:D
-
There's something different about a guy who shoots up a theatre because he thinks he's batman, and a guy who kills his ex wife because he's pissed off. Getting all blood thirsty for revenge on a guy who sees things and hears voices just makes no sense.
-
Not blood thirsty. Practical. Never wanna share a cell with em
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
There's something different about a guy who shoots up a theatre because he thinks he's batman, and a guy who kills his ex wife because he's pissed off. Getting all blood thirsty for revenge on a guy who sees things and hears voices just makes no sense.
You are imputing an emotional reaction where it doesn't necessarily exist. Your world view is your business, but don't blame us because you reflexively assume the worst of people with contrary views and then expect to be taken seriously but are not.
-
There's something different about a guy who shoots up a theatre because he thinks he's batman, and a guy who kills his ex wife because he's pissed off. Getting all blood thirsty for revenge on a guy who sees things and hears voices just makes no sense.
Yeah, the latter might actually reform :facepalm:
So - you think our legal system farked up because he was actually determined to be sane enough to stand trial ???
I guess that's your opinion, but if he's sane enough to be tried then he's sane enough to be executed.
-
Yeah, the latter might actually reform :facepalm:
So - you think our legal system farked up because he was actually determined to be sane enough to stand trial ???
I guess that's your opinion, but if he's sane enough to be tried then he's sane enough to be executed.
We're talking about execution here tallpine, not locking the guy away. There are very good reasons to keep these folks out of society - there are really no good reasons to visit retribution on them. The retributive part of the criminal justice system should be reserved for people who chose to do wrong, not for people who have completely lost the plot and are obviously ill.
The legal system is farked because it doesn't distinguish between the two at the moment.
Something you should be aware of is that it's possible for people who are found incompetent to stand trial to be treated to minimal sanity and then tried....and convicted of the crime, even though they committed the crime in a state that left them incompetent to stand trial!
"Insanity" essentially has no legal meaning anymore - no criminal defense lawyer in America wants to run that defense, because it virtually cannot succeed. That is definitely a problem. I like to show the videos of aileen wournos before her execution as an example....you have to be wilfully committed to executing the lame and dumb to watch that and think "yep, she's sane enough to get he needle."
-
We're talking about execution here tallpine, not locking the guy away. There are very good reasons to keep these folks out of society - there are really no good reasons to visit retribution on them. The retributive part of the criminal justice system should be reserved for people who chose to do wrong, not for people who have completely lost the plot and are obviously ill.
The legal system is farked because it doesn't distinguish between the two at the moment.
So in addition to being an attorney in Australia, you are also a psychiatric MD who has examined the defendant ???
-
So in addition to being an attorney in Australia, you are also a psychiatric MD who has examined the defendant ???
I'm an Attorney in America, and I can tell you with confidence that in no jurisdiction is a medical diagnosis of mental illness enough to complete a defense of insanity.
-
The retributive part of the criminal justice system should be reserved for people who chose to do wrong, not for people who have completely lost the plot and are obviously ill.
Locking someone up until they die is not retributive?
-
Locking someone up until they die is not retributive?
Not necessarily, no.
-
Attorney in America...
Sounds like a TV show.
Did you move to the States, or do you just mean you're credentialed to practice law here?
-
Sounds like a TV show.
Did you move to the States, or do you just mean you're credentialed to practice law here?
It's my home and I'm licensed there. I live away though.
-
In some cases there is none. In cases where there is no doubt as to their guilt and the crime is appropriately heinous, execution.
The problem I have with that is twofold. First, how do we define it legally when it's ok to do X because this time we're really sure he did it? Second, there's already a problem with convicting based on faulty or non existent evidence as a way for prosecutors to pad their resume. Creating a "really super mega guilty" category would just mean that those same innocent people would get convicted under that, and a bunch more innocent people would be convicted under the old standard because it would be perceived as less serious. "Well, I'm not really convinced he's guilty so I can't convict him of being mega guilty, but he probably did it so let's lock him up for life."
I don't disagree in theory but I am worried about the execution, pun intended.
-
I'm an Attorney in America, and I can tell you with confidence that in no jurisdiction is a medical diagnosis of mental illness enough to complete a defense of insanity.
Nor should it be.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
-
It's my home and I'm licensed there. I live away though.
Are you filling the position there vacated by Joseph (Joe) Morrisey?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Morrissey and http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/red-faces-as-court-rejects-silkysmooth-lawyer/2006/04/26/1145861419459.html
stay safe.
-
I'm an Attorney in America, and I can tell you with confidence that in no jurisdiction is a medical diagnosis of mental illness enough to complete a defense of insanity.
Is the medical profession somehow obliged to adopt the definition of "insanity" the legal profession uses? Or, perhaps I should ask is the legal profession obliged to adopt the same definition of insanity the medical profession uses?
I thought to be legally "insane" the ... "defendant" must not understand the quality and or nature of his actions. In other words, if someone thinks he's picking daffodils when, in reality, he's stabbing his aunt Martha to death with a kitchen knife, he's insane.
The medical profession tends to use more case specific terminology ... I don't think, unless I am mistaken, that "insane" is actually even a legitimate medical diagnosis. Sorta like the word "crazy."
Perhaps the reason why "insanity" is unpopular is that it so rarely works. Just because one might be "mentally ill" doesn't mean he doesn't know the difference between picking daffodils and stabbing relatives to death.
-
Not necessarily, no.
Then what makes the difference between retributive confinement until death and non-retributive confinement until death?
-
Then what makes the difference between retributive confinement until death and non-retributive confinement until death?
Extra cheese ???
-
It's my home and I'm licensed there. I live away though.
Oh, thank god.
=D
-
It's my home and I'm licensed there. I live away though.
In our experience, Americans are uncouth misfits who should be run out of their own barbaric country.
-
Extra cheese ???
I think you just won. :lol:
-
We're talking about execution here tallpine, not locking the guy away. There are very good reasons to keep these folks out of society - there are really no good reasons to visit retribution on them. The retributive part of the criminal justice system should be reserved for people who chose to do wrong, not for people who have completely lost the plot and are obviously ill.
The legal system is farked because it doesn't distinguish between the two at the moment.
Something you should be aware of is that it's possible for people who are found incompetent to stand trial to be treated to minimal sanity and then tried....and convicted of the crime, even though they committed the crime in a state that left them incompetent to stand trial!
"Insanity" essentially has no legal meaning anymore - no criminal defense lawyer in America wants to run that defense, because it virtually cannot succeed. That is definitely a problem. I like to show the videos of aileen wournos before her execution as an example....you have to be wilfully committed to executing the lame and dumb to watch that and think "yep, she's sane enough to get he needle."
You seem to be working under the assumption that the death penalty is being used as some sort of punishment.
-
I think you are presuming that being a mite touched precludes being able to choose to do wrong. This can be , but is not always, the case
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I'm not necessarily pro death penalty, mostly because I don't trust the state to not screw up in a system that rewards the prosecution for locking people up, but is the death penalty actually retributive? Or is it to remove someone from society who cannot be rehabilitated or trusted to be loose in society?
-
You seem to be working under the assumption that the death penalty is being used as some sort of punishment.
The appropriate punishment for a murderer.
I'm beyond tired of hearing that .gov shouldn't kill murderers because (gasp) they might screw it up. The government screws up everything. Next "justification," please.
-
The appropriate punishment for a murderer.
I'm beyond tired of hearing that .gov shouldn't kill murderers because (gasp) they might screw it up. The government screws up everything. Next "justification," please.
Except that most things the government screws up can be fixed or at least gotten around.
When they stick you in the ground it's kind of permanent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I'm not necessarily pro death penalty, mostly because I don't trust the state to not screw up in a system that rewards the prosecution for locking people up, but is the death penalty actually retributive? Or is it to remove someone from society who cannot be rehabilitated or trusted to be loose in society?
[/b]
This. Culling is a legitimate exercise when the object is dangerous. Rabid animals are destroyed. Having demonstrably taken another life absent reasonable justification or circumstances warranting lesser punishment, capital punishment is not, or should not be, punitive, but rather an exercise in prevention. Nature-based ostracism is not viable for humans, and life imprisonment does not guarantee elimination of future hazard.
-
Except that most things the government screws up can be fixed or at least gotten around.
When they stick you in the ground it's kind of permanent.
Taking away the 20 or 30 best years of your life is sorta permanent too - assuming you even survive incarceration.
Of course, IMO the best "capital punishment" is meted out by a would-be victim - no chance of getting the wrong person =)
-
The CT Supreme Court just retroactiveified the legislation that outlawed the death penalty.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/08/13/connecticut-supreme-court-says-the-death-penalty-is-unconstitutional-banning-it-for-remaining-inmates-on-death-row/
This decision comes three years after Connecticut abolished capital punishment while leaving death sentences intact for inmates already on death row. Lawmakers also kept the death penalty as an option for crimes committed before that 2012 bill was signed into law.
In the case before the state’s highest court, an inmate sentenced to death a decade ago argued that he should not be executed because his crime was committed before Connecticut prohibited future death sentences.
The justices agreed with that basic principle, saying the state could not execute someone who committed a crime before that same crime would no longer warrant a death sentence.
:facepalm: [tinfoil] 'Splain that to me. My head hurts too much trying to figure it out. I'm still trying to figure out how they can go all ex post facto on a law that specifically left all previous death sentences intact (because they were not specifically included).
These guys https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders along with some others get moved back to some version of not-death-row. How much more does one need to do to qualify as "heinous" and "without redeeming social quality"?
stay safe.
-
Then what makes the difference between retributive confinement until death and non-retributive confinement until death?
I'd tend to go with how they're allowed to treat you.
If you're a sort of well-meaning Typhoid Mary*, or just prone to the occasional psychic break where you start seeing people as xenomorphs or whatever, and they can't medicate you consistently enough to prevent that from happening 'occasionally'. Then you get a 'nice' detention, much like an Alzheimer's patient might get. You aren't charged for your stay, if you do any work, you're paid at least minimum wage, etc...
Prison they'd have much more control over you.
*Her actual behavior was less than ideal, given that they tracked it down to her and she kept working in the food industry infecting others.
-
Taking away the 20 or 30 best years of your life is sorta permanent too - assuming you even survive incarceration.
Of course, IMO the best "capital punishment" is meted out by a would-be victim - no chance of getting the wrong person =)
Sure the time spent would be irreplaceable. But you can be set free to live the remainder of your time, with a sizable "sorry 'bout that" check if dealt the right hand and it is played well.
If a high enough burden of proof is met, I've got no problem with the death penalty. In fact, I full support it and think it should be used more for a wider variety of crimes. But the burden of proof needs to meet absolute certainty, IMO, before it is applied.
-
There's something different about a guy who shoots up a theatre because he thinks he's batman, and a guy who kills his ex wife because he's pissed off. Getting all blood thirsty for revenge on a guy who sees things and hears voices just makes no sense.
The former needs to be put down, he is a danger to society. The latter should walk, as he was obviously putting down a rabid animal.
;) ;) =D
-
Scout -
Remember to save me some marshmallows. I think we have adjoining seats in the fiery pit. ;)
stay safe.
-
Scout -
Remember to save me some marshmallows. I think we have adjoining seats in the fiery pit. ;)
stay safe.
I'll cover the graham crackers. Surely someone will be along with chocolate.
-
I'll cover the graham crackers. Surely someone will be along with chocolate.
I think the ex-wives are bringing the chocolate. It is hell after all.
-
The former needs to be put down, he is a danger to society. The latter should walk, as he was obviously putting down a rabid animal.
;) ;) =D
You sir have a point.
No laughing matter there though - I blame the law. For whatever reason the paternalistic conservatives and man hating branch of feminists have managed to conspire to make a family law system that literally destroys men.
-
I'm not necessarily pro death penalty, mostly because I don't trust the state to not screw up in a system that rewards the prosecution for locking people up, but is the death penalty actually retributive? Or is it to remove someone from society who cannot be rehabilitated or trusted to be loose in society?
I'm with you on the first part, but in the second part, I think you're stating it as if retribution versus punishment are somehow mutually exclusive.
Across a sample of society, and in any given individual, it's probably a mixture of both.
I have an intellectual kind of disappointment with the whole damned thing because he was a pretty bright individual who was studying neuroscience, and could have made significant contributions in that field. Now (given that he survives the prison environment) he still might, a la the birdman of Alcatraz meme. (Yeah, I know, that was overdramatized and fictionalized in the movie.)
As a side comment, it sometimes seems that somehow there is a point in the population's intellect versus social adaptation "Quotient," if you will, where a certain amount of instability may occur. That is, where intellect actually interferes with social adaptation.
Yet, with still higher intellect, the person realizes his maladaptive behavior and "acts normal."
The smartest person I ever knew once remarked, "Bright people join Mensa. Very bright people join Mensa Squared. But very, very bright people join the Rotarians and the Lions club and their church choir."
In other words, Leonard Hofstadter was wayyyyy smarter than Sheldon Cooper.
Terry
-
You sir have a point.
No laughing matter there though - I blame the law. For whatever reason the paternalistic conservatives and man hating branch of feminists have managed to conspire to make a family law system that literally destroys men.
It used to be common to hear that the Democrats/liberals wanted to run the country as its mother and the Republicans/conservatives wanted to be the father.
The truth about western civilization is maternalism is a more accurate description than paternalism . There is very little left in society that is truly patriarchal, even among the Republicans/conservatives. The west is a feminist culture already IMHO.
-
It used to be common to hear that the Democrats/liberals wanted to run the country as its mother and the Republicans/conservatives wanted to be the father.
The truth about western civilization is maternalism is a more accurate description than paternalism . There is very little left in society that is truly patriarchal, even among the Republicans/conservatives. The west is a feminist culture already IMHO.
I entertain the notion that this is a result of the successive slaughter of our best, brightest, strongest, and bravest men and boys in successive wars.
You keep culling puppies with upright pointy ears out of puppy litters for generations, and sooner or later, you end up with puppies with limp floppy ears.
If ya get my drift.
Terry, 230RN
-
I entertain the notion that this is a result of the successive slaughter of our best, brightest, strongest, and bravest men and boys in successive wars.
You keep culling puppies with upright pointy ears out of puppy litters for generations, and sooner or later, you end up with puppies with floppy ears.
If ya get my drift.
Terry, 230RN
It only took the Brits 2 wars.
stay safe.
-
I entertain the notion that this is a result of the successive slaughter of our best, brightest, strongest, and bravest men and boys in successive wars.
You keep culling puppies with upright pointy ears out of puppy litters for generations, and sooner or later, you end up with puppies with limp floppy ears.
If ya get my drift.
Terry, 230RN
It only took the Brits 2 wars.
stay safe.
Terry is spot on.
Skid is focusing too close to the present.
Not really, they'd been shipping the best and brightest all around the empire for quite awhile to get them slaughtered in various and sundry manner
-
Actually many of "best and brightest" weren't getting shipped around the world to die for the Empire. Mostly it was the idiot sons that they didn't trust to run the family business/estate, that got shipped off to the Army/Navy. It was only once the meat grinder of the Western Front and then getting ground up in France, Africa, the Far East, and in the Atlantic that the flower of British manhood was destroyed.
-
Actually many of "best and brightest" weren't getting shipped around the world to die for the Empire. Mostly it was the idiot sons that they didn't trust to run the family business/estate, that got shipped off to the Army/Navy. It was only once the meat grinder of the Western Front and then getting ground up in France, Africa, the Far East, and in the Atlantic that the flower of British manhood was destroyed.
1914-16 wrote the future of 20-21st century Europe more than any other event/time. 1939-45 sharpened the pencil.
-
RKL -
In sheer numbers the Brits had been shipping their menfolk around the globe for several centuries. But for the most part those were not "the best and the brightest" - neither the private soldier and certainly not the officers.
WWI was when the educated middle class began entering service to save Britain from invasion by the Hun. Oh, yeah! And to honor its treaties to save France from the Hun and stop the rape of Belgian babies. WWII was a repeat of the reasons for the educated middle class to enter service, plus the dirty Jap who was threatening the Empire's cash cow holdings.
stay safe.