Governor denies clemency for ex-gang leader

[gldstwmn]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/12/williams.execution/index.html

Appeals court refuses to block Williams' execution

Monday, December 12, 2005; Posted: 6:01 p.m. EST (23:01 GMT)

SACRAMENTO, California (CNN) -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger denied clemency Monday for convicted killer Stanley Tookie Williams, who co-founded the Crips street gang in Los Angeles.

Schwarzenegger announced the decision shortly after a federal appeals court refused to block Williams' execution by lethal injection scheduled for shortly after midnight local time Monday.

Civil rights leader Jesse Jackson, who met with Williams earlier in the day, criticized Schwarzenegger for deciding not to spare Williams.

Jackson said Williams, who was convicted of killing four people in 1979, had earned clemency and that Schwarzenegger's decision was about "making politicians look tough, but that does not make it right."

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, rejected an affidavit from Williams' lawyers that suggested someone framed the onetime gang leader.

Unless the full 9th Circuit or the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes, Williams is scheduled to die by injection at 12:01 a.m. Tuesday (3:01 a.m. ET) at San Quentin State Prison, near San Francisco.

California's Supreme Court rejected an emergency request to stay the execution on Sunday. The state has executed only 11 inmates since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976.

In their appeal to the 9th Circuit, attorneys pinned their hopes on the declaration of a new witness -- Gordon Bradbury von Ellerman -- a jail trusty detained with Williams in the Los Angeles County Jail from 1979 to 1980.

In the affidavit, von Ellerman said he was the cellmate of another trusty, identified as George "Roger" Oglesby.

Von Ellerman said Los Angeles Sheriff's Department personnel provided Oglesby with documents to aid him in testifying against Williams in return for reduced or dropped charges.

"I was personally aware that Los Angeles Sheriff's Department personnel would often provide information to these inmates so that they could help frame defendants for crimes," he said in the statement.

A statement from Schwarzenegger read: "The possible irregularities in Williams' trial have been thoroughly and carefully reviewed by the courts, and there is no reason to disturb the judicial decisions that uphold the jury's decisions that he is guilty of these four murders and should pay with his life."

Williams, who would be 52 on December 29, spent part of Monday with his attorneys and family members at San Quentin.

While in prison, Williams became an anti-gang crusader, but he has consistently refused to take part in a debriefing with authorities to provide them potentially valuable information about the Crips gangs, said lead prosecutor John Monaghan.

Williams has denounced gang violence and written children's books with an anti-gang message, donating the proceeds to anti-gang community groups.

He said he was trying to prevent young people from making the choices he did, which led to a life of crime and a death sentence.

Celebrities, teachers and anti-death penalty advocates have spoken on Williams' behalf, but Schwarzenegger questioned the sincerity of Williams' conversion to nonviolence.

"Stanley Williams insists he is innocent, and that he will not and should not apologize or otherwise atone for the murders of the four victims in this case," the governor wrote.

"Without an apology and atonement for these senseless and brutal killings, there can be no redemption."

A jury convicted Williams of killing a 26-year-old Los Angeles convenience store clerk in February 1979, shooting him twice in the back with a 12-gauge shotgun while the victim was face down on the floor.

The jury also convicted him of shooting and killing an immigrant Chinese couple and their 41-year-old daughter less than two weeks later while stealing less than $100 cash from their motel.

Both cases were handled in a single trial. Williams was sentenced to death in 1981.

[DavidMn]

I for one am glad. See ya later A**hole.

[gldstwmn]

I for one am glad. See ya later A**hole.

I'm opposed to the death penalty. I'm also wondering if south central is going to go up in flames tonight. I hope not. :(

[DavidMn]

I'm opposed to the death penalty. I'm also wondering if south central is going to go up in flames tonight. I hope not. :(So do I. I respect, but disagree with your position btw.

[EnchantedSLN]

Yeah, expected as much from Arnold. I hope he gets clobbered in the next election.

Oh well. Why should people value life when the state clearly doesn't?

[DavidMn]

Yeah, expected as much from Arnold. I hope he gets clobbered in the next election.

Oh well. Why should people value life when the state clearly doesn't?Yeah, from what I've heard, his re-election chances arent looking too good.

[SteveMacD]

He is going to be terminated.

He WON'T be back.

Hasta la vista, baby.

[amber]

Jon Carroll



Monday, December 12, 2005



"Stanley Tookie Williams, the convicted murderer, has done an impressive amount of stuff since his incarceration in 1981. He has written an autobiography plus eight books for children about gangs and gang violence. He has spoken eloquently about the destruction that drugs and gangs can cause. He has rallied an impressive array of people to the cause of his appeal for clemency from his death sentence. He has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize any number of times.

His supporters say he has turned his life around. He has become a force for good. He merits special consideration because he has been so important in motivating children not to choose the life that he did. Those arguments, quite frankly, make me nuts.

I have no opinion about whether Tookie Williams has been rehabilitated. I'm not even sure that "rehabilitation" is a meaningful concept. A lot of people in prison are con artists; it's a useful skill on the street. The way to clemency was undoubtedly clear to a man of Williams' intelligence, and the fact that he chose that path means that either (a) he has had a change of heart or (b) that he hasn't. I dunno. I can't judge from afar, and neither can you.

I think subjective judgments about character are not really relevant in death penalty cases. To believe that they are relevant is to believe that uncharismatic, untalented, surly and/or mentally retarded death row prisoners are not worth saving, while a really cool guy is. Are we saying that it's OK to kill sneaky little weasel-faced people and not OK to kill handsome, intelligent, well-muscled people? It's fine to construct a hierarchy of character if one is, say, choosing a mate or a president. It certainly may be more convenient for advocates if they choose a guy who can speak well for himself and has done many useful things. But that's not the point.

The death penalty is wrong because the state (which is to say: us) should not be involved in killing people, particularly in cold blood. To kill people because they killed people -- it doesn't make any actual sense. A society should be slightly more civilized than its sociopaths. Revenge is an understandable emotion. Greed is an understandable emotion too, but stealing is still not legal. The death penalty does not deter and it does not cure.

Williams may be guilty of extremely unpleasant crimes; I do not have an opinion on his guilt. His lawyers make a strong case for racial bias on the part of the prosecutor and the jury, but lawyers are paid to make strong cases. They are not quarreling about the facts of the case, which suggests that the facts are against them. But I don't care. Even if I were positive that we were executing only guilty people, I'd be against the death penalty.

But of course we're not sure, and that's the other point. Eyewitnesses are not infallible; law enforcement people will tell you that eyewitness evidence is the most unreliable evidence there is. Juries can be stupid or misguided or both. The state may have an excellent advocate, and the defense lawyers could be drunks one step short of disbarment. Are we really prepared to kill people because their lawyers were drunks?

And I repeat what I said about rehabilitation. Most criminals are drug addicts or alcoholics; it comes with the territory. Drug addicts and alcoholics are among the best con artists in the world. They have had long practice in saying things that people want to hear. They can read a room, because often the room is what's standing between them and their drug of choice. If a jailhouse witness can get time off for testifying in a certain case, of course he will. He might coincidentally be telling the truth, but I wouldn't lend him money on the basis of what he said -- and I sure wouldn't kill another man on his word.

And, sadly, most of the people who testify against criminals are themselves criminals. It's a flawed system. We now know, because of advances in DNA evidence, that innocent men have been executed. I have no idea whether those executions weigh heavily on the prosecutors and police officers who built the case, but they weigh on other people. The governor of Illinois suspended all executions because of the possibility of killing an innocent man. It seems like a good idea for all the states.

At this writing, the fate of Stanley Williams is unknown. Whatever happens to him, it's time to look forward to the next case and all the cases that follow, and bear witness."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/12/DDGQIF5KV91.DTL&hw=jon+carroll&sn=001&sc=1000

[Rickypt]

I doubt a Dem governor would have granted clemency either. Most politicans just don't have the balls to fight the death penalty, even if they oppose it themselves.

Very sad day. I don't see how life without parole isn't a fitting sentence.

[SteveMacD]

I doubt a Dem governor would have granted clemency either. Most politicans just don't have the balls to fight the death penalty, even if they oppose it themselves.
Yeah, but if there was ONE state where his poll numbers would improve by NOT putting a guy to death, it's California.
Very sad day. I don't see how life without parole isn't a fitting sentence.
In this case, I agree that "life" would be best. However, there are times when you just have to thin the heard out every once in a while.

[Richard B]

The title to this thread made me laugh hard. "ex-gang" leader. He's only an "ex" cause he got caught. Idiot still denies responsibility.

Another weed of society plucked. Good...let the grass grow.

[dissention]

This really makes me sad. While it's quite amazing that he still will not admit to the crimes he committed, this type of action is in no way "justice." It solves nothing and only serves to perpetuate barbarism, the very thing that this death sentence supposedly condemns. If this is what passes for justice, I'm sorry to say that the word is being horribly misused; the last time I checked, justice was the principle of moral rightness. I fail to see how moral it is to commit the same act that is being condemned, but in the end, we all create our own heaven and our own hell. The people who support this will realize that soon enough.

[HomerMcvie]

I feel that he committed the ultimate barbarism, murdering innocent people. At least he had years in prison, to think it over, and change his life. BUT, of course, changing his own life, in no way changes the fact that he murdered innocents. I'm glad for him that he was able to change, but the price for his barbarism still must be paid. And, IMO, the payment is past due.

[dissention]

I feel that he committed the ultimate barbarism, murdering innocent people. At least he had years in prison, to think it over, and change his life. BUT, of course, changing his own life, in no way changes the fact that he murdered innocents. I'm glad for him that he was able to change, but the price for his barbarism still must be paid. And, IMO, the payment is past due.

The "payment"? What "payment" is that? How lovely that we're calling actual human life "payment."

It sends shivers down my spine to think that we're incapable of doing what Tookie Williams himself was incapable of doing: showing mercy. It's the ultimate hypocrisy.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

I feel that he committed the ultimate barbarism, murdering innocent people. At least he had years in prison, to think it over, and change his life. BUT, of course, changing his own life, in no way changes the fact that he murdered innocents. I'm glad for him that he was able to change, but the price for his barbarism still must be paid. And, IMO, the payment is past due.

I second that :xoxo: :wavey:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

The "payment"? What "payment" is that? How lovely that we're calling actual human life "payment."


Oh get off your high horse...

I believe you were the one who just commented on how Ms. Coulter didn't "belong on Earth" over at sevenwonders...

While the sucker is getting what he deserves tonight...you can watch old TIVO'D Anderson Coopers...:D That should help make you feel better.

[HomerMcvie]

The "payment"? What "payment" is that? How lovely that we're calling actual human life "payment."
It sends shivers down my spine to think that we're incapable of doing what Tookie Williams himself was incapable of doing: showing mercy. It's the ultimate hypocrisy.
What if it was your Mother that he murdered? Would you feel any different? I empathize with the victim's families.

So under your logic, had Hitler not committed suicide, he too, should have been given life in prison, right?

[Miss Vicky]

This is probably the only decision Ahnuld has made thusfar that hasn't pissed me off.

It's great that the man turned his life around and worked to make things better, but that doesn't change the fact that four people are dead because of him. No amount of good deeds could ever atone for that.

[sasja]

I'll just never be able to understand people that say how wrong it is for murderers to end a human life, and then support the ending of human life in the same breath.

Ban the death penalty, improve rehabilitation, and help foster a world in which violence and aggression are no longer necessary nor options.
Rather than ignore breeding-grounds for violence, help diffuse and prevent!
Love and nurturing will do humanity much more good than revenge, fear and punishment ever will...

Just my , sadly unpopular I find, opinion.

Sasja

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Ban the death penalty, improve rehabilitation, and help foster a world in which violence and aggression are no longer necessary nor options.


Sounds awesome...



What a DREAM world.

[tynan88]

Yer I'm sorry...I can't find the logic in the death penalty, I am of the opinion that rehabilitation should be the aim of prison and that if someone can contribute effectively to society they should be able to...

Yes in my opinion that does include Hitler if he was ever able to do that...I just can not agree with the death penalty.

[sasja]

You know, brown eyes... Lots of "dreams" have been realized throughout human history. Dreams like flight, space exploration, vaccines to cure epedemic diseases.
The ending of Apartheid, the falling of the Berlin Wall, the emancipation of African Americans in this country was a huge, wonderful and realized "Dream"

We are very powerful movers, shakers and Realizers-of-Dreams, we humans.
I am glad. It's what makes us all so special and cherished :)

I am dreaming daily, and working hard as well.

Sasja

[dissention]

What if it was your Mother that he murdered? Would you feel any different? I empathize with the victim's families.

Thanks for proving my point that the death penalty is nothing but government-sanctioned revenge. It has not a thing to do with actual "justice."

So under your logic, had Hitler not committed suicide, he too, should have been given life in prison, right?

Most definitely.

[sasja]

~agrees with Dissention on both counts~

Sasja

[Rickypt]

~agrees with Dissention on both counts~

Sasja

Me too.

I'm actually pretty conservative about jail sentences. For example, I think in most cases that child molesters should be locked up for life.

I just think the death penalty is repugnant and provides no justice. Locking murderers up with no chance for parole does "weed" them from society. If the issue is that it's our tax money paying for their incarceration, I'd rather mine pay for that instead of killing in my name.

[estranged4life]

get life in prison so they will have to interact with the general population (Death penalty cons are guarded and secure from the general population) and have to worry if someone will shove a shive/shank into their body on a daily/nightly basis....Ask good ol' Jeffery Daumer, oops...he got shanked, Oh boo-hoo!!!

Trust me, Being put to sleep like a sick animal is painless compared to having a 5 inch shank shoved into your liver and/or jugular vein and seeing the blood poor...Ya die from shock moreso than blood loss.

I feel this former gang member would be killed within a year if he had his sentence changed to life without parole and if he was to subjected to having to be put among the general prison population (A hint to that is his body building regiment), Mainly because those gang members will feel his is a turncoat, and there will always be someone who will try to do the deed as a glory kill to prove that you never truly escape a gang's reach!

Brian "An eye for an eye will soon leave us all blind" j.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

He's on a high horse? Yes it appears you have confused modern, western ethics for some idiot on a high horse. Step outside your little shelter there and realise that this is not some crazy hippie idea, infact the idea that we can teach people lessons via murder is so barbaric and to believe in this is a sign of stupidity. It is seriously beyond comprehension to me in a modern, western society. Utterly disgraceful and don't take the easy way out and claim I care for this man more than his victims, just a warning incase anyone chooses to because you may aswell write "I'm a close-minded person of low intelligence" in your signature then.

I'm willing to be called barbaric! KILL THEM ALL! :rolleyes:

[Richard B]

Don't forget he was also responsible for co-founding the Crips gangs. They have gone on because of Tookie.

Schwarz said this:
"Is Williams' redemption complete and sincere, or is it just a hollow promise?" Schwarzenegger wrote. "Without an apology and atonement for these senseless and brutal killings there can be no redemption."

He added: "In this case, the one thing that would be the clearest indication of complete remorse and full redemption is the one thing Williams will not do."

I go back and forth on the death penalty. Ultimately it is wrong. Are we, as human beings, sophisticated enough to actually understand and correct these kind of behavioral problems? Do we understand the brain well enough to actually be able to do change or hinder murderers and other violent criminals? No. At least not now or in the near future.

So you want to spend money on keeping this murderer locked up for the rest of his life, in a decent facility and fed three times a day? Frankly, Tookie is afraid to die. If I were in his shoes, I'd rather die than waste away my life in a prison cell. And you know what...anyone can write a book.

I also was unfortunate enough to see the crime scene photographs from his truly brutal killings. Not pleasant.

Like the governor, Tookie refuses to take responsibility for what he did. He's a loser and now for the families of the victims, they will have justice.

I hope none of you here ever, ever have to have a family member or close friend murdered in cold blood.

[Richard B]

I had a afterthought. Would anyone like to see Osama bin Laden killed or dead?

[BombaySapphire3]

originally posted by SteveMACD Yeah, but if there was ONE state where his poll numbers would improve by NOT putting a guy to death, it's California.

Quote:
If so the state has significantly changed demographically since 20 years ago when a state Supreme Court Chief Justice by the name of Rose Bird was railroaded by CA Republicans for her anti -death penatly stance in a recall election.Still one of the great shames of recent CA history.I'm just curious how many other Western industrialized nations still have the death penalty?I know the U.S. is one of the holdouts.No wonder our international reputation as a just.compassionate and humane place has gone to hell in a handbag.

[Moony]

He's on a high horse? Yes it appears you have confused modern, western ethics for some idiot on a high horse. Step outside your little shelter there and realise that this is not some crazy hippie idea, infact the idea that we can teach people lessons via murder is so barbaric and to believe in this is a sign of stupidity. It is seriously beyond comprehension to me in a modern, western society. Utterly disgraceful and don't take the easy way out and claim I care for this man more than his victims, just a warning incase anyone chooses to because you may aswell write "I'm a close-minded person of low intelligence" in your signature then.
Oh, how I love thee.

I'm glad to see there are voices of reason (Dissention, sasja, and others) to counteract the voices of stupidity (we all know who they are)

[Richard B]

I'm glad to see there are voices of reason (Dissention, sasja, and others) to counteract the voices of stupidity (we all know who they are)
Got a better idea then?

[Moony]

Got a better idea then?
That wasn't a dig at you.

[Moony]

Like the governor, Tookie refuses to take responsibility for what he did. He's a loser and now for the families of the victims, they will have justice.
I think it's disgusting that he won't own up to his actions.


I hope none of you here ever, ever have to have a family member or close friend murdered in cold blood.
Therein lies the rub. I am very opposed to the death penalty, and yet, if someone killed one of my loved ones, I think I would screaming for their blood. I shudder to think how I would react in such a situation.

A big contradiction, I know, but...I still believe that as a society, we are above the death penalty.

[Richard B]

That wasn't a dig at you.
Awww...I like the Moony and thanks...but I'm serious...I've pondered this since I was 12 and I just end up more frustrated and confused. I just wish there was a better solution to this mess.

[Moony]

I just wish there was a better solution to this mess.
Me, too, Richard.

Actually, I think the solution lies in nurturing our youth and giving them access to quality education, jobs, and opportunities.

Then again, I'm probably being naive.

[Richard B]

Therein lies the rub. I am very opposed to the death penalty, and yet, if someone killed one of my loved ones, I think I would screaming for their blood. I shudder to think how I would react in such a situation.

A big contradiction, I know, but...I still believe that as a society, we are above the death penalty.
I feel the same way. It's such an ugly catch 22 and thinking about it makes my brain hurt.

A friend and I checked out this web site a few months ago (Tookie unrelated) and thought about picking a death row inmate to write to. I want to hear their thoughts. Kinda weird, I know. Like Tookie, some of them admit their innocence while on death row.

[sasja]

Having worked in Juvenile Forensics, yes, there ARE better ideas AND they are worked on daily and nightly by very overworked, underpaid, highly caring and dedicated social workers and therapists and psychiatrists, in programs that constantly get fundings cut or yanked.

Early intervention and treatment and teaching kids better skill-sets help tremendously. I have worked with a group of juvenile sex-offenders of which, so far and 6 years later, 85 % managed to NOT repeat-offend .
However, many kids do NOT get the compassion, care, treatment and intervention it would take to allow them to be productive and healthy members of our group (society). The prisons are overflowing with them at later ages :(

I personally think that, as a society, it is the duty of everyone belonging to the societal group to keep the group healthy and functioning and safe.
If that means dedicating money and resources to understand, treat and diminish the deviate element, that is what needs to be done.

Just "locking-up after violent acts have been committed and laws have been broken" is obviously NOT key to solving the issue, nor is: "sitting around and waiting till a murderer is grown and allowed to act out, then realizing this and killing him/her in turn" , for fundamentally it changes NOTHING.

It's just a band-aid for the symptom, and a lowering ourselves to the standard we are wishing to weed out.

The penal system as it stands needs complete revision. That is another very unpopular stance in this society where asking for group-responsibility and giving up something of yourself (oh no! taxes!) to benefit the group setting, are considered almost bigger crimes than committing murder.

The idea is this:

Start in schools (skill teaching classes, anger management, tolerance, multicultural diversity understanding classes) and start with parent education, which should be as standardly prescribed and mandated by pediatricians as your vaccines. Oh boy, that 'll cost a lot of money! Yup. Higher taxes and MUCH more responsibly divvying up of those taxes will be needed. Maybe even, GASP! volunteers!

Then, indentifying risk-children much more efficiently, follow their development and offer them and their families additional support. Counselling, vocational training, outward-bound programs for inner-city kids, all are already proving to have a huge positive impact and making a big difference.

As a group, taking responsibility and making all efforts to see that the violent, the deviate, gets weeded out from the early start, is my idea.

And then, if we still let people fall through the cracks, we should not be allowed to shrug our shoulders and just "kill them" so we don't have to see them around any longer and no longer be reminded of how we failed and allowed murderers and sexoffenders and kidnappers and all those other horrible criminals to grow and fester in our group without doing anything about it.

I am sorry, but it just gets my goat when people who want the rights and priviledges of belonging to a group, are quick to shir the responsibility for keeping it healthy.

There are some people, and granted the numbers are rapidly dwindling due to lack of support and due to burn-out therefor, who are working their butts off to try and prevent murderers ffrom budding out and coming to full bloom.

I burned-out there for a while and am trying to re-charge so I can go back into the trenches.

And I salute all my former colleagues and still friends who are continuing to fight the good fight. One day hopefully the death penalty debate will be a moot point... and prisons rehab centers instead..

Sasja

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Oh, how I love thee.

I'm glad to see there are voices of reason (Dissention, sasja, and others) to counteract the voices of stupidity (we all know who they are)

Counteract the voices of stupidity???...hmmm...

Well if me and homie are considered the "voices of stupidity" then we sure are in the minority...I think there should be more of us to counter the "reason"...there is just way to much of that damn "reason" going on around here. :rolleyes:

(and at least have the guts to name who you are talking about...)

[Brwn_eyes0511]

I think I would screaming for their blood


Uh oh!....

There goes the "reason" I suppose... :rolleyes:

sheesh...you barbaric murderer what's your deal!?! :rolleyes:

[Moony]

Counteract the voices of stupidity???...hmmm...

Well if me and homie are considered the "voices of stupidity" then we sure are in the minority...I think there should be more of us to counter the "reason"...there is just way to much of that damn "reason" going on around here. :rolleyes:
I'm glad you identiy yourself as "stupid." I see you're finally getting the picture!

[Brwn_eyes0511]

I'm glad you identiy yourself as "stupid." I see you're finally getting the picture!

If in your eyes (and others like you) I am considered "stupid"...I must be doing something right...


ROCK ON WITH THE "STUPID"!

[Moony]

Having worked in Juvenile Forensics, yes, there ARE better ideas AND they are worked on daily and nightly by very overworked, underpaid, highly caring and dedicated social workers and therapists and psychiatrists, in programs that constantly get fundings cut or yanked.

Early intervention and treatment and teaching kids better skill-sets help tremendously. I have worked with a group of juvenile sex-offenders of which, so far and 6 years later, 85 % managed to NOT repeat-offend .
However, many kids do NOT get the compassion, care, treatment and intervention it would take to allow them to be productive and healthy members of our group (society). The prisons are overflowing with them at later ages :(

I personally think that, as a society, it is the duty of everyone belonging to the societal group to keep the group healthy and functioning and safe.
If that means dedicating money and resources to understand, treat and diminish the deviate element, that is what needs to be done.

Just "locking-up after violent acts have been committed and laws have been broken" is obviously NOT key to solving the issue, nor is: "sitting around and waiting till a murderer is grown and allowed to act out, then realizing this and killing him/her in turn" , for fundamentally it changes NOTHING.

It's just a band-aid for the symptom, and a lowering ourselves to the standard we are wishing to weed out.

The penal system as it stands needs complete revision. That is another very unpopular stance in this society where asking for group-responsibility and giving up something of yourself (oh no! taxes!) to benefit the group setting, are considered almost bigger crimes than committing murder.

The idea is this:

Start in schools (skill teaching classes, anger management, tolerance, multicultural diversity understanding classes) and start with parent education, which should be as standardly prescribed and mandated by pediatricians as your vaccines. Oh boy, that 'll cost a lot of money! Yup. Higher taxes and MUCH more responsibly divvying up of those taxes will be needed. Maybe even, GASP! volunteers!

Then, indentifying risk-children much more efficiently, follow their development and offer them and their families additional support. Counselling, vocational training, outward-bound programs for inner-city kids, all are already proving to have a huge positive impact and making a big difference.

As a group, taking responsibility and making all efforts to see that the violent, the deviate, gets weeded out from the early start, is my idea.

And then, if we still let people fall through the cracks, we should not be allowed to shrug our shoulders and just "kill them" so we don't have to see them around any longer and no longer be reminded of how we failed and allowed murderers and sexoffenders and kidnappers and all those other horrible criminals to grow and fester in our group without doing anything about it.

I am sorry, but it just gets my goat when people who want the rights and priviledges of belonging to a group, are quick to shir the responsibility for keeping it healthy.

There are some people, and granted the numbers are rapidly dwindling due to lack of support and due to burn-out therefor, who are working their butts off to try and prevent murderers ffrom budding out and coming to full bloom.

I burned-out there for a while and am trying to re-charge so I can go back into the trenches.

And I salute all my former colleagues and still friends who are continuing to fight the good fight. One day hopefully the death penalty debate will be a moot point... and prisons rehab centers instead..

Sasja
Wonderful post. I just wanted to say that I think the ideas you present here deserve to be put into effect.

[BombaySapphire3]

Having worked in Juvenile Forensics, yes, there ARE better ideas AND they are worked on daily and nightly by very overworked, underpaid, highly caring and dedicated social workers and therapists and psychiatrists, in programs that constantly get fundings cut or yanked.

Early intervention and treatment and teaching kids better skill-sets help tremendously. I have worked with a group of juvenile sex-offenders of which, so far and 6 years later, 85 % managed to NOT repeat-offend .
However, many kids do NOT get the compassion, care, treatment and intervention it would take to allow them to be productive and healthy members of our group (society). The prisons are overflowing with them at later ages :(

I personally think that, as a society, it is the duty of everyone belonging to the societal group to keep the group healthy and functioning and safe.
If that means dedicating money and resources to understand, treat and diminish the deviate element, that is what needs to be done.

Just "locking-up after violent acts have been committed and laws have been broken" is obviously NOT key to solving the issue, nor is: "sitting around and waiting till a murderer is grown and allowed to act out, then realizing this and killing him/her in turn" , for fundamentally it changes NOTHING.

It's just a band-aid for the symptom, and a lowering ourselves to the standard we are wishing to weed out.

The penal system as it stands needs complete revision. That is another very unpopular stance in this society where asking for group-responsibility and giving up something of yourself (oh no! taxes!) to benefit the group setting, are considered almost bigger crimes than committing murder.

The idea is this:

Start in schools (skill teaching classes, anger management, tolerance, multicultural diversity understanding classes) and start with parent education, which should be as standardly prescribed and mandated by pediatricians as your vaccines. Oh boy, that 'll cost a lot of money! Yup. Higher taxes and MUCH more responsibly divvying up of those taxes will be needed. Maybe even, GASP! volunteers!

Then, indentifying risk-children much more efficiently, follow their development and offer them and their families additional support. Counselling, vocational training, outward-bound programs for inner-city kids, all are already proving to have a huge positive impact and making a big difference.

As a group, taking responsibility and making all efforts to see that the violent, the deviate, gets weeded out from the early start, is my idea.

And then, if we still let people fall through the cracks, we should not be allowed to shrug our shoulders and just "kill them" so we don't have to see them around any longer and no longer be reminded of how we failed and allowed murderers and sexoffenders and kidnappers and all those other horrible criminals to grow and fester in our group without doing anything about it.

I am sorry, but it just gets my goat when people who want the rights and priviledges of belonging to a group, are quick to shir the responsibility for keeping it healthy.

There are some people, and granted the numbers are rapidly dwindling due to lack of support and due to burn-out therefor, who are working their butts off to try and prevent murderers ffrom budding out and coming to full bloom.

I burned-out there for a while and am trying to re-charge so I can go back into the trenches.

And I salute all my former colleagues and still friends who are continuing to fight the good fight. One day hopefully the death penalty debate will be a moot point... and prisons rehab centers instead..

Sasja
Thank you .This is one of the best and most thoughtful posts I have ever read on this forum!I'm a Psychiatric nurse and work with a forensic population. The ideas you have described so well are exactly what I feel needs to be done. Sadly though it is just an ideal and a dream as long as we have leaders like Arnie and George W. Bush at the helm .Convincing such people of what should be glaringly obvious is a bit like going to the local Zoo and discussing it with a giraffe,and to convice the American public that more taxes need to be paid to support any of these programs?That may be even a more dismal task.

[Moony]

Uh oh!....

There goes the "reason" I suppose... :rolleyes:

sheesh...you barbaric murderer what's your deal!?! :rolleyes:
The keyword there is think. I see you're having reading comprehension problems again.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

more taxes

:shocked:

It's coming out of your f*ckin check buddy...not mine! :lol:

[Moony]

:shocked:

It's coming out of your f*ckin check buddy...not mine! :lol:
You're a f*cking moron! :lol:

[BombaySapphire3]

:shocked:

It's coming out of your f*ckin check buddy...not mine! :lol:
Perhaps I was being too generous when I equated talking to a giraffe with talking to a Republican?:shrug: Maybe a DoDo bird is more like it. on edit if it's a gay Republican make that a deaf DoDo bird.

[Moony]

on edit if it's a gay Republican make that a deaf DoDo bird.
...with no fashion sense and a bad comb over, to boot!

[BombaySapphire3]

...with no fashion sense and a bad comb over, to boot!
I was wondering about what happened to his vow not to discuss politics anymore.I guess even the thought of more taxes was too much for him .:lol:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

You're a f*cking moron! :lol:

Well my statement was a joke...

hmmm...

[Brwn_eyes0511]

...with no fashion sense!

OMG! You really don't know this queer...

:lol:

[Jyqm]

I certainly hope not also but god forbid, then let's make sure that another mother, another set of children etc have to go through the loss also! Just recently an Australian man was executed in Singapore and just watching footage of his mother before and then after her final goodbye....well there's no point imagining because it's impossible from my position but why does she and his whole family have to suffer? The government is doing to the families of these people exactly what was done to the family of their victims, the crime that caused such grief and outrage is repeated with another set of victims. I fail to see how one can claim such outrage at a crime while approving a death themselves and wanting this same grief to be passed on to another set of people.

Rape is such a horrible crime and without a doubt worthy of punishment but how could I say this if I then wanted those who have been convicted of it to be subjected to it? We do not rape the rapist, that is a hideous act committed in non-civilised, disorderly society. The law is supposed to bring order to our society, not commit in return the same acts. What is the point of it at all then? May aswell put society in charge if the law is not above them. It is as though a child has hit someone in class and been reprimanded by the teacher in the form of a hit in the face. This doesn't make sense and clearly the teacher has removed themselves from the position suitable for reprimanding the child. The teacher, being the person elected in charge of the class does not stoop the level of the child's behaviour, they bring punishment via means appropriate to their position. The only thing they'd have possibly done would be to teach the other children that it's alright to hit. There is such an irony to a situation of chaos needing control and a government put in position to bring this control via the means of the same act which put it in the original state of chaos.

Very well said, Lux. I haven't read through this whole thread yet, but now I'm not sure I really have to. Is there anything really to add besides this? It's incredible that so many Americans will decry both murder and tooth-for-a-tooth vengeance, but the blinders go up immediately when the topic turns to capital punishment. There's always a "but."

[Jyqm]

What if it was your Mother that he murdered? Would you feel any different? I empathize with the victim's families.

Since when is the American justice system based on how the victims of a crime feel about it? I'm pretty sure the system is based on laws, not emotions.

So under your logic, had Hitler not committed suicide, he too, should have been given life in prison, right?

That would indeed be the logic.

[Jyqm]

I'm willing to be called barbaric! KILL THEM ALL! :rolleyes:

You been hittin' the sex on the beach again, Kurtz?

[Jyqm]

I had a afterthought. Would anyone like to see Osama bin Laden killed or dead?

If he's killed in the midst of a military action/firefight, well, so it goes with military actions/firefights. If, however, he is captured so that he can be put on trial and "brought to justice," then no, I don't think any government has a right to kill him at that point.

[estranged4life]

I had a afterthought. Would anyone like to see Osama bin Laden killed or dead?

Tim McVeigh received the death penalty, and in my opinion it did not really solve much (Though McVeigh refused to appeal his sentence, And took to the grave any truth of what actually happened here in OKC.)

As for OBL, Stevie Nicks & Lindsey Buckingham will MARRY before he is ever captured :nod:

[Jyqm]

Therein lies the rub. I am very opposed to the death penalty, and yet, if someone killed one of my loved ones, I think I would screaming for their blood. I shudder to think how I would react in such a situation.

A big contradiction, I know, but...I still believe that as a society, we are above the death penalty.

I don't even think that's a contradiction, Moony. Of course the murder of a loved one is an absolutely emotionally devastating event, as is being the victim of any crime, to some extent. And when we're victimized, we want to lash out and get revenge. That's just a natural human emotional response.

And that's why we have laws in the first place, right? Because if we all simply acted on our anger and fear, society would fall apart.

[snowman]

Having worked in Juvenile Forensics, yes, there ARE better ideas AND they are worked on daily and nightly by very overworked, underpaid, highly caring and dedicated social workers and therapists and psychiatrists, in programs that constantly get fundings cut or yanked.

Early intervention and treatment and teaching kids better skill-sets help tremendously. I have worked with a group of juvenile sex-offenders of which, so far and 6 years later, 85 % managed to NOT repeat-offend .
However, many kids do NOT get the compassion, care, treatment and intervention it would take to allow them to be productive and healthy members of our group (society). The prisons are overflowing with them at later ages :(

I personally think that, as a society, it is the duty of everyone belonging to the societal group to keep the group healthy and functioning and safe.
If that means dedicating money and resources to understand, treat and diminish the deviate element, that is what needs to be done.

Just "locking-up after violent acts have been committed and laws have been broken" is obviously NOT key to solving the issue, nor is: "sitting around and waiting till a murderer is grown and allowed to act out, then realizing this and killing him/her in turn" , for fundamentally it changes NOTHING.

It's just a band-aid for the symptom, and a lowering ourselves to the standard we are wishing to weed out.

The penal system as it stands needs complete revision. That is another very unpopular stance in this society where asking for group-responsibility and giving up something of yourself (oh no! taxes!) to benefit the group setting, are considered almost bigger crimes than committing murder.

The idea is this:

Start in schools (skill teaching classes, anger management, tolerance, multicultural diversity understanding classes) and start with parent education, which should be as standardly prescribed and mandated by pediatricians as your vaccines. Oh boy, that 'll cost a lot of money! Yup. Higher taxes and MUCH more responsibly divvying up of those taxes will be needed. Maybe even, GASP! volunteers!

Then, indentifying risk-children much more efficiently, follow their development and offer them and their families additional support. Counselling, vocational training, outward-bound programs for inner-city kids, all are already proving to have a huge positive impact and making a big difference.

As a group, taking responsibility and making all efforts to see that the violent, the deviate, gets weeded out from the early start, is my idea.

And then, if we still let people fall through the cracks, we should not be allowed to shrug our shoulders and just "kill them" so we don't have to see them around any longer and no longer be reminded of how we failed and allowed murderers and sexoffenders and kidnappers and all those other horrible criminals to grow and fester in our group without doing anything about it.

I am sorry, but it just gets my goat when people who want the rights and priviledges of belonging to a group, are quick to shir the responsibility for keeping it healthy.

There are some people, and granted the numbers are rapidly dwindling due to lack of support and due to burn-out therefor, who are working their butts off to try and prevent murderers ffrom budding out and coming to full bloom.

I burned-out there for a while and am trying to re-charge so I can go back into the trenches.

And I salute all my former colleagues and still friends who are continuing to fight the good fight. One day hopefully the death penalty debate will be a moot point... and prisons rehab centers instead..

Sasja

I'm no expert here. But this country has more prisons and inmates than any country in the world. We put more people to death than any country in the world. So, something's not working. In it's essence the above post, though idealistic and difficult for our society to wrap it's arms around, is the the right direction. Our societal problems need to be identified and remedied at the source- not 15-20 years down the road.

[cliffdweller]

The "payment"? What "payment" is that? How lovely that we're calling actual human life "payment."

It sends shivers down my spine to think that we're incapable of doing what Tookie Williams himself was incapable of doing: showing mercy. It's the ultimate hypocrisy.

Agreed. I love how cavalier some people are when it comes to the death penalty...like human life is that easily weighed. "Off with his head!" It's really easy to make such dismissive statements without having to really deal with the issues. It's traumatic and sad for all parties involved :( .

[cliffdweller]

So under your logic, had Hitler not committed suicide, he too, should have been given life in prison, right?

Why don't you use a more fitting analogy? Tookie as Hitler? Hmmm...I don't think that's QUITE accurate but then again you were only trying to get a reactionary rise out of people :rolleyes: I guess I shouldn't expect anything less.

[Miss Vicky]

We put more people to death than any country in the world.

:wavey:

Um... actually China puts more people to death than we do. If you're going to make this sort of claim, you need to do your research.

Some quotes from the Amnesty International website (http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/worldwide.html)

The U.S. has executed over 800 people since 1976, and as of December 2002.

Between April and July 2001, at least 1,781 people were executed in a "strike hard" anti-crime campaign carried out by the Chinese government.

[SuzeQuze]

Me, too, Richard.

Actually, I think the solution lies in nurturing our youth and giving them access to quality education, jobs, and opportunities.

Then again, I'm probably being naive.

No, this is absolutely true. Because I think once they turn to violence it may not be possible to rehabilitate them. I think life in prison without parole is a fair sentence for first degree murder.

I'm also against the death penalty. For those who are for it, consider reading Dead Man Walking to at least see the other point of view. Killing these people costs more money than keeping them in jail for life so from a practical standpoint keeping them in jail is the way to go. Also, victim's families almost always report they don't feel any better after the convicted is put to death. Plus, would you be able to pull that switch? I don't think we should be putting people in the position to have to do that. It is barbaric to kill people as punishment. We are better than that.

No one in power wants to deal with the inner city, especially not the current administration. I'm not sure they see gang members as human beings at all. I would like to see that tide turned and for people in power to provide more resources to schools in poor neighborhoods and other social programs like fair priced housing, etc.

[cliffdweller]

No, this is absolutely true. Because I think once they turn to violence it may not be possible to rehabilitate them. I think life in prison without parole is a fair sentence for first degree murder.

I'm also against the death penalty. For those who are for it, consider reading Dead Man Walking to at least see the other point of view. Killing these people costs more money than keeping them in jail for life so from a practical standpoint keeping them in jail is the way to go. Also, victim's families almost always report they don't feel any better after the convicted is put to death. Plus, would you be able to pull that switch? I don't think we should be putting people in the position to have to do that. It is barbaric to kill people as punishment. We are better than that.

No one in power wants to deal with the inner city, especially not the current administration. I'm not sure they see gang members as human beings at all. I would like to see that tide turned and for people in power to provide more resources to schools in poor neighborhoods and other social programs like fair priced housing, etc.

Exactly, but having to deal with these issues is too difficult, time consuming and cumbersome so let's just kill them off. It's easier and less messy that way :rolleyes:.

[sasja]

Twentyfive nations around the world who still condone execution :( and here are the top twelve with executions per capita:

The twelve countries with the most executions in 2004:
Country Executions Executions per 100 million residents
1 Kuwait 9+ 400
2 China 3,400+ 260
3 Iran 159+ 230
4 Singapore 6+ 140
5 Saudi Arabia 33+ 130
6 Vietnam 64+ 77
7 Belarus 5+ 48
8 Yemen 6+ 30
9 United States 59 20
10 Pakistan 15+ 9
11 Egypt 6+ 8
12 Bangladesh 7+ 5

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment

Sasja

[dissention]

I had a afterthought. Would anyone like to see Osama bin Laden killed or dead?

I was wondering who would be the first to say that, too.

[dissention]

Counteract the voices of stupidity???...hmmm...

Well if me and homie are considered the "voices of stupidity" then we sure are in the minority...I think there should be more of us to counter the "reason"...there is just way to much of that damn "reason" going on around here. :rolleyes:

(and at least have the guts to name who you are talking about...)

No, by all means, keep squawking. I love reading these Christian values of yours.

[TwistedGypsy]

I'm just posting my opinion and am not looking to argue with anyone. My hormones are too bad to start arguing.

I'm for the death penalty. Eye for an eye. A few things bother me about this "Tookie" Williams. If he was so rehibilated then why not drop the "Tookie", his gang nick name. You'd think he'd won't to leave that behind him. And if he was so "right" with God, he wouldn't be begging for his life. He would accept the decision and should be happy that he want have to "suffer" on this Earth. Instead he could go to the Kingdom of Heaven and be with his Lord.
Also why does he have a PR person? It's sickening to see these cold blooded murderers being able to write and publish books and make money off their former crimes. They do not deserve that. I'm sorry if I was in Albert Owens' step-mothers shoes, I would want to give him the shot myself. Or what about the Asian family, the mother, father and daughter brutually gun downed for $120? Where is their justice? Oh, lets not forget the hundreds of others innocent people killed by the Crips, he helped form. I feel no sympathy for this man. Scratch that he is not even a man to me. He's nothing to me.
And I for one would like my family to keep their hard earned money instead of it going to keep these animals alive.
Brit

[Jyqm]

The U.S. has executed over 800 people since 1976, and as of December 2002.

And of course, lucky #1000 was executed just a week or so ago, I believe.

[Jyqm]

I'm just posting my opinion and am not looking to argue with anyone. My hormones are too bad to start arguing.

I'm for the death penalty. Eye for an eye.

Must make for an exciting existence, at any rate.

As a policy, it'd be a really great way to eliminate prisons entirely! Except for people who are found guilty of abduction, I suppose.

And instead of spending money to imprison thieves, we can actually turn a profit by taking their money!

I wonder who would sign up for the job of beating up people found guilty of assault, or ass-f***ing convicted rapists. I just hope those guys aren't too bitter about their punishments when they get set free the next day...

[The Tower]

What if it was your Mother that he murdered? Would you feel any different? I empathize with the victim's families.
Actually, Matthew Shepard’s parents should be the role model on this one. Their child was brutally beaten and left to die. The Shepards opted to settle the case against Aaron McKinney with the penalty of life in prison rather the subject him to the possibility of a death sentence from a jury trial.

It's great that the man turned his life around and worked to make things better, but that doesn't change the fact that four people are dead because of him. No amount of good deeds could ever atone for that.
And having the government kill him for his deeds solves nothing.

Don't forget he was also responsible for co-founding the Crips gangs. They have gone on because of Tookie.
That is an untrue myth. The Crips were founded in the late 60’s. Williams joined in 1971. While Williams liked to claim and brag that he was a co-founder of the gang, it was not true.

I go back and forth on the death penalty. Ultimately it is wrong.
Of course it is.

Are we, as human beings, sophisticated enough to actually understand and correct these kind of behavioral problems? Do we understand the brain well enough to actually be able to do change or hinder murderers and other violent criminals? No. At least not now or in the near future.
And killing people is the solution to this dilemma?

So you want to spend money on keeping this murderer locked up for the rest of his life, in a decent facility and fed three times a day?
I’d rather have my tax dollars imprison criminals than have them contribute to the killing of one innocent person. No one is omniscient. I certainly don’t trust the justice system to be absolutely certain of everyone’s guilt. While prison sentences can be ended, death cannot.

Frankly, Tookie is afraid to die. If I were in his shoes, I'd rather die than waste away my life in a prison cell. And you know what...anyone can write a book.
And your point is?

I also was unfortunate enough to see the crime scene photographs from his truly brutal killings. Not pleasant.
Unfortunately, a large portion of life is not pleasant. Nothing justifies killing.

Like the governor, Tookie refuses to take responsibility for what he did. He's a loser and now for the families of the victims, they will have justice.
Justice or revenge? Killing him changes nothing. The victims are still dead, they will not come back, the memory of them dying will not be erased. The only thing the execution did was show the weakness of American society.

I had a afterthought. Would anyone like to see Osama bin Laden killed or dead?
I don’t want to see anyone killed.

Well if me and homie are considered the "voices of stupidity" then we sure are in the minority.
Unfortunately, the voices of stupidity are in the majority.

And when we're victimized, we want to lash out and get revenge. That's just a natural human emotional response. And that's why we have laws in the first place, right? Because if we all simply acted on our anger and fear, society would fall apart.
Exactly.

Also, victim's families almost always report they don't feel any better after the convicted is put to death.
Why would they? The execution of the murderer doesn’t bring anyone back to life. It doesn’t erase the memory of the victim. It doesn’t change history.

I'm for the death penalty. Eye for an eye.
Pray to whatever gods you may worship if you ever get caught on the wrong side of the fence.

I'm sorry if I was in Albert Owens' step-mothers shoes, I would want to give him the shot myself.
Classy.

[gldstwmn]

What a DREAM world.

You oughta know sweetheart.

[gldstwmn]

I had a afterthought. Would anyone like to see Osama bin Laden killed or dead?

I have seen no proof from our government that bin Laden is guilty of anything. What I do know is that we aided and abetted him when he was fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan.

[TwistedGypsy]

Pray to whatever gods you may worship if you ever get caught on the wrong side of the fence.

Classy.

I don't know if you know, but I'm 6 months pregnant with my first child. I would do anything to keep him safe. And the thought of something ever happening to him tears me apart. I pray that I'm never in that position one day, but God knows what I'd do for the justice of my child.
Brit

[Jyqm]

I don't know if you know, but I'm 6 months pregnant with my first child. I would do anything to keep him safe. And the thought of something ever happening to him tears me apart. I pray that I'm never in that position one day, but God knows what I'd do for the justice of my child.
Brit

Well, not referring to revenge as justice is a start.

[dissention]

I'm sorry if I was in Albert Owens' step-mothers shoes, I would want to give him the shot myself.

Interestingly, Linda Owens, Albert Owens' widow, did not support Williams' execution.

[The Tower]

I don't know if you know, but I'm 6 months pregnant with my first child. I would do anything to keep him safe. And the thought of something ever happening to him tears me apart. I pray that I'm never in that position one day, but God knows what I'd do for the justice of my child.
Brit
I hope for your sake that your child never ends up in any trouble. Stanley Williams had a mother and father.

[gldstwmn]

And instead of spending money to imprison thieves, we can actually turn a profit by taking their money!


They're already doing that.

[snowman]

:wavey:

Um... actually China puts more people to death than we do. If you're going to make this sort of claim, you need to do your research.

Some quotes from the Amnesty International website (http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/worldwide.html)

The U.S. has executed over 800 people since 1976, and as of December 2002.

Between April and July 2001, at least 1,781 people were executed in a "strike hard" anti-crime campaign carried out by the Chinese government.

OK I need to do my research...so with all your facts, figures and quotes- what's your point??

[sasja]

I don't know if you know, but I'm 6 months pregnant with my first child. I would do anything to keep him safe. And the thought of something ever happening to him tears me apart. I pray that I'm never in that position one day, but God knows what I'd do for the justice of my child.
Brit

I am new mom to my first child, who was born 14 weeks ago. I want him to live in a humane society, where an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is archaic, and caring and nurturing and weeding out violence is the order of the day.

I would never want to set him the example that vengeance is ever justified, no matter how hurt and upset we may feel.

Sasja

[TwistedGypsy]

Stanley Williams had a mother and father.
You're breaking my heart.
Brit

[TwistedGypsy]

I am new mom to my first child, who was born 14 weeks ago. I want him to live in a humane society, where an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is archaic, and caring and nurturing and weeding out violence is the order of the day.

I would never want to set him the example that vengeance is ever justified, no matter how hurt and upset we may feel.

Sasja
I would never want to do that either. Like I said I hope I'm never in that position, and I don't know exactly how I would react. But emotions do get in the way of clear thinking especially when it comes to your child. Thats probably what I should have said to begin with.
Congrats on your new son.
Brit

[sasja]

You're breaking my heart.
Brit

Brit, I pray that you and your son never have to be in the position William's parents were.
Believe me when I say that NO ONE means for their child to be a murderer or violent acting out person, and that most if not all mothers feel the way you do towards their unborn or born child....

Congratulations on your pregnancy by the way!

Sasja

[Jyqm]

But emotions do get in the way of clear thinking especially when it comes to your child.

I don't think anyone would argue with that. But again, that's why we have laws, and a justice system that is not based on the emotions of victims.

[TwistedGypsy]

Believe me when I say that NO ONE means for their child to be a murderer or violent acting out person

Sasja

I know that. Believe me when I say NO ONE wants their child forced face down on the concrete and shot in the back. It just seems to me that people are forgeting the victims here. I don't know if Williams' parents were alive when he was sent to jail, but atleast they got to see him. The Owens didn't get that chance. I'm for the victim and I don't see Williams as a victim.
Brit

[HomerMcvie]

Why don't you use a more fitting analogy? Tookie as Hitler? Hmmm...I don't think that's QUITE accurate but then again you were only trying to get a reactionary rise out of people :rolleyes: I guess I shouldn't expect anything less.
My point, that you fail to get in the analogy, IS, how many people must be killed, before the death penalty is considered just? It's a perfect analogy, considering the contention that multiple murders is still no reason to consider a death sentence.
I don't know why I should expect you to understand that point.

[tommer]

i'm so amused by this thread, it's like you're debating the pros and cons of slavery, freedom of religion or women's right to vote, it's so... i donnow... primitive? :cool:

[The Tower]

I know that. Believe me when I say NO ONE wants their child forced face down on the concrete and shot in the back. It just seems to me that people are forgeting the victims here. I don't know if Williams' parents were alive when he was sent to jail, but atleast they got to see him. The Owens didn't get that chance. I'm for the victim and I don't see Williams as a victim.
Brit
You're missing the point. No one is saying that Williams is a victim. The point is that the death penalty is barbaric and is not justifiable punishment for crime.

My point, that you fail to get in the analogy, IS, how many people must be killed, before the death penalty is considered just?
The death penalty is never just.

[Rickypt]

Being against the death penalty doesn't mean you don't care about the victims. Life in prison without parole is fitting sentence. The criminal loses the privilege of having a free life and society benefits with one less danger on the streets.

How does killing the criminal change any of that? It is vengeance, pure and simple. It might bring some peace or sense of justice to the victims' family, but that's not enough to justify state-sponsored killing, in my opinion. There needs to be a compelling public benefit for me to support the death penalty, and there isn't.

[TwistedGypsy]

You're missing the point. No one is saying that Williams is a victim. The point is that the death penalty is barbaric and is not justifiable punishment for crime.

He really suffered didn't he?
Brit

[David]

The death penalty is never just.I wish people wouldn't murder other people.

I also don't like the idea of the death penalty, which is state-sanctioned & state-carried-out killing. I believe that's an abuse of power on the part of the state. The state should be kept on a much shorter leash. With the state going around snuffing out its own citizens, you feel as if you were in nazi Germany or stalinist Russia.

Where do some people get the idea that they have this sort of power over other people?

[David]

There needs to be a compelling public benefit for me to support the death penalty, and there isn't.Like if the meat were used to feed people or something. :eek:

[The Tower]

He really suffered didn't he?
You're right. They should have tortured him to death. But, on second thought, instead of the goal being to kill him, we should set up torture camps and just torture people for their crimes. That's a civilized society in action. Become the criminal. Lower yourself to their level. Commit the atrocities they commit. All in the name of revenge. It's a great way to live.

[SuzeQuze]

Why would they? The execution of the murderer doesn’t bring anyone back to life. It doesn’t erase the memory of the victim. It doesn’t change history.

Exactly. I was just arguing against the point many people make for the death penalty that it somehow helps the victims' families. Although I think you know that and are continuing the argument against that assertion.

[David]

You're right. They should have tortured him to death. But, on second thought, instead of the goal being to kill him, we should set up torture camps and just torture people for their crimes. That's a civilized society in action. Become the criminal. Lower yourself to their level. Commit the atrocities they commit. All in the name of revenge. It's a great way to live.Yeats foresaw such a civilization in "The Second Coming":

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Also, the Stevie reference of course is Taylor Caldwell's "Ceremony of the Innocent," Stevie's favorite novel.

[ragandbone]

Like if the meat were used to feed people or something. :eek:
Ah, a new "Modest Proposal"

[SuzeQuze]

They're already doing that.

Yes, most people may not be aware, but the prison system is largely a for profit industry. I don't know anything further than that because I think I would vomit if I knew the facts although at some point I would like to know more.

[David]

Ah, a new "Modest Proposal"Nature, red in tooth & claw .... &c.

Ew.:eek:

[Jyqm]

My point, that you fail to get in the analogy, IS, how many people must be killed, before the death penalty is considered just?

Invalid question. It's not just, period.

[Gailh]

Here in Britain we don't have the death penalty (although there are plenty who would happily bring it back).

Personally I am against it. I believe that criminals should be punished for their crimes and taking away their liberty is a fitting punishment and also protects the rest of us from them.

In the seventies and eighties we had several people convicted of IRA terrorist offences who were sentenced to life. Subsequently it was proved that they were innocent. If we had had the death penalty they would have been killed.

I don't know all the ins and outs of this case but it has been reported on widely in the UK. I heard that in the US if you are black and kill a white person you are more likely to be sentenced to death than if you are white and kill a black person. Is that really true?

I don't know how I would feel it had been a realtive of mine murdered. But I do know that killing the muderer would not bring them back.

Gail

[Jyqm]

It just seems to me that people are forgeting the victims here.

How so? Nobody is saying that these criminals are good people, or that they should simply be set free without any sort of punishment.

I'm for the victim and I don't see Williams as a victim.

I'm for justice, and philosophical consistency.

[Jyqm]

I heard that in the US if you are black and kill a white person you are more likely to be sentenced to death than if you are white and kill a black person. Is that really true?

Statistics-wise, I do believe it is, although I would imagine there are many more factors at work in those figures.

[Gailh]

Statistics-wise, I do believe it is, although I would imagine there are many more factors at work in those figures.

Such as?

Genuine question.

Gail

[DavidMn]

I'm sorry, but I believe that justice was served in this case. This "person" brutally killed 5? people, and those were 5 people that HE took away their right to live and pursue happiness. God forbid someone brutally kills my mother and father. I would want them dead. And I RESENT someone trying to impose THEIR moral code on me telling me what I should want done to someone that DIRECTLY involves me, and has nothing whatsoever to do with them. I do respect someone that opposes the death penalty, I just dont agree.

[Jyqm]

Such as?

Wealth is the one that springs most immediately to my mind. It's also the case that wealthier people tend to be acquitted or receive much lighter sentences than poorer people. And of course, in the US, a higher proportion of wealthy people are white, and a higher proportion of poor people are black. So the question is, are black people receiving tougher sentences because they're black, or because they're poor?

[DavidMn]

Wealth is the one that springs most immediately to my mind. It's also the case that wealthier people tend to be acquitted or receive much lighter sentences than poorer people. And of course, in the US, a higher proportion of wealthy people are white, and a higher proportion of poor people are black. So the question is, are black people receiving tougher sentences because they're black, or because they're poor?I do agrewe with you in the sense I FIRMLY beiieve it should be applied fairly no matter how much money one has or the color of their skin.

[ragandbone]

I had a teacher in 8th grade who owned a taped copy of a first hand account of an execution, and he played it for our class. I am not sure if I had an opinion on the death penalty before I heard that recording, but I have been very sure ever since: we do not have the right to murder in the name of justice, doing so does not bring about justice.

Every execution that California has carried out, I have found myself up at 12, thinking about it. I am often, otherwise proud to be from California but on these days, I am ashamed.

Here are pages of audio and transcripts on Sound Portraits (they make great audio documentaries):
Sound Portraits: execution tapes (http://www.soundportraits.org/on-air/execution_tapes/)
witness_to_an_execution/ (http://www.soundportraits.org/on-air/witness_to_an_execution/)

Here is a site focusing on death penalty in Missouri, with accounts and audio.
MissouriNet (http://websolutions.learfield.com/deathrow/gestalt/go.cfm?objectid=EEBDD35E-9D5D-4B30-A3455D1F158FB808)

Kay Fulton's audio diary about the execution of McVeigh, she was witness as a relative of one of the victims of the Oklahoma bombings, and she does report a feeling of relief at the execution, which I do not believe is a case for continuing State executions.
http://americanradioworks.publicradio.org/features/mcveigh/diary/execution.html

[Gailh]

Wealth is the one that springs most immediately to my mind. It's also the case that wealthier people tend to be acquitted or receive much lighter sentences than poorer people. And of course, in the US, a higher proportion of wealthy people are white, and a higher proportion of poor people are black. So the question is, are black people receiving tougher sentences because they're black, or because they're poor?

So similar to hurricane Katrina then. Blacks suffered disproportionately because they tend to be poorer not because they're black?

Gail

[Jyqm]

And I RESENT someone trying to impose THEIR moral code on me telling me what I should want done to someone that DIRECTLY involves me, and has nothing whatsoever to do with them.

Should formal laws be abandoned entirely then? If a crime involves only the perpetrator and the victim and has nothing whatsoever do with anybody else (least of all a judge or jury, who are all specifically chosen because they have nothing to do with the crime in question), should we simply dismantle the court system entirely and leave everyone to suss out their own version of vigilantism, lest anyone try to impose their moral code on something that doesn't involve them?

[Jyqm]

So similar to hurricane Katrina then. Blacks suffered disproportionately because they tend to be poorer not because they're black?

Gail

Yep! I actually almost included that example in my post. Of course, the truth likely lies in the grey area in between.

[DavidMn]

Should formal laws be abandoned entirely then? If a crime involves only the perpetrator and the victim and has nothing whatsoever do with anybody else (least of all a judge or jury, who are all specifically chosen because they have nothing to do with the crime in question), should we simply dismantle the court system entirely and leave everyone to suss out their own version of vigilantism, lest anyone try to impose their moral code on something that doesn't involve them?NO, And if the hypothetical killer of my parents were not sentenced to death and instead life in prison, I would abide by that decision.

[ragandbone]

God forbid someone brutally kills my mother and father. I would want them dead. And I RESENT someone trying to impose THEIR moral code on me telling me what I should want done to someone that DIRECTLY involves me, and has nothing whatsoever to do with them. I do respect someone that opposes the death penalty, I just dont agree.

You might "want them dead" and that desire would be your right, in your grief, and I believe it would be my responsibility to help keep you from committing such an act, by supporting public funding of victims' grief counseling, And, I would feel responsible to keep convicted murderers in prison, even for life, so they would not commit murder again. I don't think we should all have to have to be responsible for taking someone's life in order to appease the victims.

[tommer]

I FIRMLY beiieve it should be applied fairly

david, can't you see that saying this is absurd? "death" is unfair. simple. fairness is not the feeling or state to describe the ending of human lives. it is good that there are people, and it is not good and not fair that they die. people are better off being alive, that is their fair state of being.

[DavidMn]

You might "want them dead" and that desire would be your right, in your grief, and I beleive it would be my repsonsibility to help keep you from committing such an act, by supporting public funding of victims' grief counseling, And, I I would feel responsible to keep convicted murderers in prison, even for life, so they would not commit murder again. I don't think we should all have to have to be responsible for taking someone's life in order to appease the victims.You know, that was a really nice way to express your opinion. I'd listen for sure. I always try to keep an open mind, but on this subject its hard for me.

[DavidMn]

david, can't you see that saying this is absurd? "death" is unfair. simple. fairness is not the feeling or state to describe the ending of human lives. it is good that there are people, and it is not good and not fair that they die. people are better off being alive, that is their fair state of being.Fair enough, but what do you say about the fact that a killer took the life of another? That isnt fair either is it?

[The Tower]

God forbid someone brutally kills my mother and father. I would want them dead.
What if the killer was your mother or father and the government imposed the death penalty and killed them? Would you be okay with that?

[The Tower]

Fair enough, but what do you say about the fact that a killer took the life of another? That isnt fair either is it?
Very few things in life are fair. But that doesn't mean that we have to lower our standards because of it.

[DavidMn]

What if the killer was your mother or father and the government imposed the death penalty and killed them? Would you be okay with that?If they brutally murdered someone? It would be hard, but I'd say yes. I dont know, I understand where you're coming from, but I just keep going back to the fact that whoever brutally kills someone is getting off if they dont have the same thing happen to them.

[ragandbone]

You know, that was a really nice way to express your opinion. I'd listen for sure. I always try to keep an open mind, but on this subject its hard for me.
I *is* a hard subject for everyone, but important to discuss, I think.

[begin self-centered comment in middle of important discussion:cripes, look at all of my typos in the post of mine you quoted! Does anyone else transpose all of their letters when typing fast? It is like/kile a typing/pyting dyselxia, seldexia, Dyslexia!/]

[DavidMn]

BUt then again, let me add this to my thoughts. Let's say I happen to come home and find my parents killed and the killer is still in the house, and a situation comes up where I personally have a chance to inflict retribution, I'd have a hard time doing it. I know that sounds totally hypocritical given what I've saud before here, but I'm just trying to feel my way through this whole thought process

[tommer]

Fair enough, but what do you say about the fact that a killer took the life of another? That isnt fair either is it?
of course it's not, yet an individual can choose to be unfair (and hopefully get punished for doing so), while a society or a state must not allow itself to become unfair. again, very simple.

[DavidMn]

of course it's not, yet an individual can choose to be unfair (and hopefully get punished for doing so), while a society or a state must not allow itself to become unfair. again, very simple.You know, the more I think about the stuff that's going on in your part of the world, I can definitely respect where youre coming from.

[The Tower]

If they brutally murdered someone? It would be hard, but I'd say yes. I dont know, I understand where you're coming from, but I just keep going back to the fact that whoever brutally kills someone is getting off if they dont have the same thing happen to them.
Being imprisoned for life, never having any freedom, and growing older and having to live with the irrevocable reality of one's actions is no day in the park.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

I don't know why I should expect you to understand that point.

Homer, buddy...they don't even know what a "point" is! Except for maybe the one at the top of their heads...:woohoo:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Being imprisoned for life, never having any freedom, and growing older and having to live with the irrevocable reality of one's actions is no day in the park.

What makes you think that any of them care about their "actions"? If they had those feelings to being with, then they wouldn't even be in the situation they are in...period.

[DavidMn]

Being imprisoned for life, never having any freedom, and growing older and having to live with the irrevocable reality of one's actions is no day in the park.NO you're righ there. I need to do some more thinking on this subject I think.

[GypsySorcerer]

I do agrewe with you in the sense I FIRMLY beiieve it should be applied fairly no matter how much money one has or the color of their skin.

But, we are incapable of applying it "fairly." We all have our own biases and prejudices, whether they are at the conscious level or not.

Murder is muder, and the death penalty is murder.

[The Tower]

What makes you think that any of them care about their "actions"? If they had those feelings to being with, then they wouldn't even be in the situation they are in...period.
You have a lot of growing up to do.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

You have a lot of growing up to do.

Gee...that's the response...seriously...that's it!?


:lol:

[tommer]

You know, the more I think about the stuff that's going on in your part of the world, I can definitely respect where youre coming from.
i can give you an easy example, terrorists who are responsible to the killing of civilians here, and are getting a long sentence in prison, are usually being demanded by the opposite side therefore freed in all sorts of political agreements, something the victims may find rather unfair. the alternative would be of course the death penalty, which is irreversible. despite my country's tendency to be unfair every now and then, this is too unacceptable.
death penalty does exist here, but in fact it exists in theory only, and under unimplemented military law, and even then, the law itself calls for an immediate mandatory appeal. only one person was sentenced to death in the history of the country, Adolf Eichmann, after being found guilty of crimes against humanity.

[DavidMn]

Gee...that's the response...seriously...that's it!?


:lol:Brandon, chill out. He has a right to speak his mind. I see where you're coming from too, but going after someone just because they have a strong view isnt right either I think.

[DavidMn]

i can give you an easy example, terrorists who are responsible to the killing of civilians here, and are getting a long sentence in prison, are usually being demanded by the opposite side therefore freed in all sorts of political agreements, something the victims may find rather unfair. the alternative would be of course the death penalty, which is irreversible. despite my country's tendency to be unfair every now and then, this is too unacceptable.
death penalty does exist here, but in fact it exists in theory only, and under unimplemented military law, and even then, the law itself calls for an immediate mandatory appeal. only one person was sentenced to death in the history of the country, Adolf Eichmann, after being found guilty of crimes against humanity.You know, seriously if I could wish for one thing right now, it would be that all the people in that part of the world could somehow see past their differences and get along. I know this is coming from someone who has never lived there, but here's hoping one day it happens.:)

[The Tower]

Gee...that's the response...seriously...that's it!?
Yep.

There's no point in me trying to explain my opinion to you when you don't even have an understanding of how people get to the point where they commit crimes and how it's not always so cut and dry. As people get older they tend to get wiser and they look back on the mistakes they have made and suffer because of it. It's called regret. Just because someone is an asshole and they may not regret their actions, they probably regret losing their life to prison. And that in itself is a hard punishment.

[cliffdweller]

My point, that you fail to get in the analogy, IS, how many people must be killed, before the death penalty is considered just?


Oh I get your analogy...it's just that it's piss-poor and reactionary :sorry: You're discounting the huge number of deaths associated with the Holocaust when you so blithely compare Hitler's attrocities to what this guy did. Try again. This time, just don't use one of the most heinous acts of barbarism inflicted upon humanity in recorded history. It's too easy and requires very little thought on the subject.

But moreover, the point is, to murder someone (and government sanctioned no less) for committing murder is a gross contradiction and solves no problems. In fact, it perpetuates the acceptance of violence as a reasonable way of dealing with very complex and difficult societal ills and problems as well as contributing to an overall desensitization to violence in general. In short, noone wins. I can't imagine why one would want to live in a society that considers vengeance an appropriate response to trauma and tragedy. It only perpetuates trauma, how is that so hard to understand?

[Jyqm]

Fair enough, but what do you say about the fact that a killer took the life of another? That isnt fair either is it?

No, of course not. But the purpose of the rule of law is to impose some higher standards on ourselves and not just say, "Ah, well, you know, life's not fair, do what you gotta do."

[Jyqm]

Homer, buddy...they don't even know what a "point" is! Except for maybe the one at the top of their heads...:woohoo:

Where's the last point you made in this thread, Brown Eyes? I'm not sure you've posted anything yet that was any more than a glorified emoticon.

[dissention]

I'm sorry, but I believe that justice was served in this case. This "person" brutally killed 5? people, and those were 5 people that HE took away their right to live and pursue happiness.

Four.

God forbid someone brutally kills my mother and father. I would want them dead.

Of course you would. It's a natural human instinct to want revenge. But justice is not about revenge.

And I RESENT someone trying to impose THEIR moral code on me telling me what I should want done to someone that DIRECTLY involves me, and has nothing whatsoever to do with them. I do respect someone that opposes the death penalty, I just dont agree.

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. The justice system is all about morality; it's about enforcing the moral standards of society. The term justice directly associates to the principle of moral rightness.

[SteveMacD]

I'm sorry, but I believe that justice was served in this case. This "person" brutally killed 5? people, and those were 5 people that HE took away their right to live and pursue happiness.
Four.
Oh, well THAT'S not as bad, then. :rolleyes:

Geez, the guy goes around acting like a badass killing people, but becomes a total pussy when it's his turn to cross the great beyond. A REAL badass would say "yeah, you'd BETTER take my ass out, bitch." Like mama always said, don't dish it out if you can't take it! And, he got lethal injection, the pussy way to go out. I say that if a guy like that thinks he's such a badass, we should slap some bacon on his lap and fry his punk ass.

Sometimes, you just gotta thin the heard out a bit.

[dissention]

Oh, well THAT'S not as bad, then. :rolleyes:

Ah, yes. Leave it to you to infer such a thing. David wrote "5?" as if he wasn't sure of how many people Williams had murdered and I corrected him with the actual number.

[paleshadow]

Jon Carroll



Monday, December 12, 2005



"Stanley Tookie Williams, the convicted murderer, has done an impressive amount of stuff since his incarceration in 1981. He has written an autobiography plus eight books for children about gangs and gang violence. He has spoken eloquently about the destruction that drugs and gangs can cause. He has rallied an impressive array of people to the cause of his appeal for clemency from his death sentence. He has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize any number of times.

His supporters say he has turned his life around. He has become a force for good. He merits special consideration because he has been so important in motivating children not to choose the life that he did. Those arguments, quite frankly, make me nuts.

I have no opinion about whether Tookie Williams has been rehabilitated. I'm not even sure that "rehabilitation" is a meaningful concept. A lot of people in prison are con artists; it's a useful skill on the street. The way to clemency was undoubtedly clear to a man of Williams' intelligence, and the fact that he chose that path means that either (a) he has had a change of heart or (b) that he hasn't. I dunno. I can't judge from afar, and neither can you.

I think subjective judgments about character are not really relevant in death penalty cases. To believe that they are relevant is to believe that uncharismatic, untalented, surly and/or mentally retarded death row prisoners are not worth saving, while a really cool guy is. Are we saying that it's OK to kill sneaky little weasel-faced people and not OK to kill handsome, intelligent, well-muscled people? It's fine to construct a hierarchy of character if one is, say, choosing a mate or a president. It certainly may be more convenient for advocates if they choose a guy who can speak well for himself and has done many useful things. But that's not the point.

The death penalty is wrong because the state (which is to say: us) should not be involved in killing people, particularly in cold blood. To kill people because they killed people -- it doesn't make any actual sense. A society should be slightly more civilized than its sociopaths. Revenge is an understandable emotion. Greed is an understandable emotion too, but stealing is still not legal. The death penalty does not deter and it does not cure.

Williams may be guilty of extremely unpleasant crimes; I do not have an opinion on his guilt. His lawyers make a strong case for racial bias on the part of the prosecutor and the jury, but lawyers are paid to make strong cases. They are not quarreling about the facts of the case, which suggests that the facts are against them. But I don't care. Even if I were positive that we were executing only guilty people, I'd be against the death penalty.

But of course we're not sure, and that's the other point. Eyewitnesses are not infallible; law enforcement people will tell you that eyewitness evidence is the most unreliable evidence there is. Juries can be stupid or misguided or both. The state may have an excellent advocate, and the defense lawyers could be drunks one step short of disbarment. Are we really prepared to kill people because their lawyers were drunks?

And I repeat what I said about rehabilitation. Most criminals are drug addicts or alcoholics; it comes with the territory. Drug addicts and alcoholics are among the best con artists in the world. They have had long practice in saying things that people want to hear. They can read a room, because often the room is what's standing between them and their drug of choice. If a jailhouse witness can get time off for testifying in a certain case, of course he will. He might coincidentally be telling the truth, but I wouldn't lend him money on the basis of what he said -- and I sure wouldn't kill another man on his word.

And, sadly, most of the people who testify against criminals are themselves criminals. It's a flawed system. We now know, because of advances in DNA evidence, that innocent men have been executed. I have no idea whether those executions weigh heavily on the prosecutors and police officers who built the case, but they weigh on other people. The governor of Illinois suspended all executions because of the possibility of killing an innocent man. It seems like a good idea for all the states.

At this writing, the fate of Stanley Williams is unknown. Whatever happens to him, it's time to look forward to the next case and all the cases that follow, and bear witness."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/12/12/DDGQIF5KV91.DTL&hw=jon+carroll&sn=001&sc=1000

When I read your post about all the good things he has done since he has been incarcerated, it reminded me of the story "A Good Man is Hard to Find" by Flannery O'Connor. There is a quote at the end of the story by the misfit after he has killed the grandmother. He says of her, "She would of been a good woman if it had been somebody there to shoot her every minute of her life". Wouldn't we all?

[Richard B]

Like if the meat were used to feed people or something. :eek:
Soylent Green.

[SteveMacD]

Ah, yes. Leave it to you to infer such a thing.
:xoxo:

Point being that if you kill MORE than three, you should fry like chicken at KFC, eggs at Waffle House, and Freedom Fries at the Congressional cafeteria.

[amber]

When I read your post about all the good things he has done since he has been incarcerated, it reminded me of the story "A Good Man is Hard to Find" by Flannery O'Connor. There is a quote at the end of the story by the misfit after he has killed the grandmother. He says of her, "She would of been a good woman if it had been somebody there to shoot her every minute of her life". Wouldn't we all?
That's not what that article is about. :confused:
That is a good quote from the story, though. :)

[gldstwmn]

Sometimes, you just gotta thin the heard out a bit.

It's "herd". :o

[Richard B]

That is an untrue myth. The Crips were founded in the late 60’s. Williams joined in 1971. While Williams liked to claim and brag that he was a co-founder of the gang, it was not true.
Cribs/Crips established itself first in 1969, but wasn't until 1972 were they truly became established. Tookie was 13 when he joined. If it were true thatTookie just claims to have founded the Crips, wow he's even weirder than I thought. Who in their right mind would want that noriety? Here's a good history of gangs:
Crips and Blood (http://www.nagia.org/Crips_and_Bloods.htm)


Are we, as human beings, sophisticated enough to actually understand and correct these kind of behavioral problems? Do we understand the brain well enough to actually be able to do change or hinder murderers and other violent criminals? No. At least not now or in the near future.
And killing people is the solution to this dilemma?
Not at all. Go ahead and nurture young people and teach. Frankly, I think there are people who are simply predisposed to violent behavior that we don't understand well enough to actually resolve. Everyone knows killing is wrong, we're told this at a very early age unless you live in a cave...but then why do people still do it? Why is there still such disregard for human life? Look at the case of the Mendez brothers. Born with a silver spoon in their mouths...but I guess they wanted diamonds instead and murdered their parents in cold blood. They knew better. So again, why?

Then there is this other awful thing called War. We justify the killings now, don't we? Not a great message to send out to society. Double standard in the worst way. No to killing...unless...blah, blah, blah.


So you want to spend money on keeping this murderer locked up for the rest of his life, in a decent facility and fed three times a day?
I’d rather have my tax dollars imprison criminals than have them contribute to the killing of one innocent person. No one is omniscient. I certainly don’t trust the justice system to be absolutely certain of everyone’s guilt. While prison sentences can be ended, death cannot.

True. I don't trust the justice system either, it's really flawed. OJ won't agree, but that's another story. The prison system in the US is overloaded. Their freedom to walk streets is gone but everything else continues. They study, write, draw, watch TV, listen to music, socialize with inmates and visitors (if they have any). Not such a bad punishment, especially if you're a murderer with nothing else in your life.


Frankly, Tookie is afraid to die. If I were in his shoes, I'd rather die than waste away my life in a prison cell. And you know what...anyone can write a book.
And your point is?
He was afraid to die. It's over now. He went peacefully, unlike his victims. But that's okay.


I also was unfortunate enough to see the crime scene photographs from his truly brutal killings. Not pleasant.
Unfortunately, a large portion of life is not pleasant. Nothing justifies killing.

Except war? Like you said life is not pleasant...it involves killing.


Killing him changes nothing. The victims are still dead, they will not come back, the memory of them dying will not be erased. The only thing the execution did was show the weakness of American society.

Keeping him alive changes nothing either.


Our country has a lot of work and reform to do. Reading all these posts and thoughts has been deeply interesting. I hope we evolve righteously with time and rise above this mess. I hope to see some significant changes in my lifetime.

[SteveMacD]

It's "herd". :o
Whatever. Sometimes it needs to be thinned out. (I've NEVER claimed to be a good speller.)

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Browneye, you have no point, you're someone back at the beginning of last century thinking they really have a point about why women should not be allowed to vote. You don't realise that you sound like a slimey 12 year old trying to have a conversation with adults. We're having to argue why women are people too and you're laughing at the concept because your mind doesn't grant you the facilities to understand that of course this is true.

Calling nurse Ratched....

one has escaped!

[Brwn_eyes0511]

**** you're good, I feel so stupid. You're right after all, the death penalty is humane and brings civilised order to society.

Lux, seriously I am done discussing this. Obviously we are going to disagree on this, and I don't think either of us are the type who can easily be persuaded to change our opinions.

[SteveMacD]

"death" is unfair. simple. fairness is not the feeling or state to describe the ending of human lives. it is good that there are people, and it is not good and not fair that they die. people are better off being alive, that is their fair state of being.
The fallacy of this is that it neglects the obvious. Not only is death fair, it is inevitable. We ALL die eventually.

My personal feeling is that one does not have the right under normal circumstances to randomly take a life. Sometimes, people commit crimes that are so heinous that they warrant death. Not to bring a sense of closure or completion to the victims they leave behind, but because there are evil people in this world, and not having them in this world only serves to benefit mankind. If a person gets to the point where they lose all sense of humanity, well, then they cease to be human, and forfeit all of the rights and benefits that come with it, at least as far as I'm concerned.

While I personally have no moral objections to the death penalty, I do think that it hasn't been, nor will ever be, applied fairly. I DO believe that racial minorities, the poor, and the mentally ill are FAR more apt to be imprisoned and/or sentenced to death than a middle-to-upper class white individual. And, since we're about equality here, I think it's safe to say that men are disproportionately put to death.

That having been said, there are times when there is no doubt that people should die. Dahmer comes to mind the quickest. He wasn't assigned death, but only lasted a year or so in the pokey before he was brutally murdered in prison. Are you people telling me that he would not have been better off with lethal injection, instead of the fatal ass beating he got? Where's YOUR humanity?

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Go f*ck yourself.

So, Hil.

Is that the only time you post now...to take up for Lux?!?

Come on now...you used to have your own opinions.

Lux is a big girl. I may not agree with anything she says but she is one clever girl and needs NO ONE to take up for her.

[Jyqm]

Lux, seriously I am done discussing this.

When did you ever start discussing it?

[Brwn_eyes0511]

I post when there is something extremely compelling. Otherwise, I am disgusted by much of this board and it makes me ashamed of myself merely to post.



Well I wouldn't say I was "disgusted" with this board...or "ashamed" of myself for posting...but it has gotten rather...hmmm..."dry" around here. blah.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

When did you ever start discussing it?

good...never started don't plan on it.

[SteveMacD]

I post when there is something extremely compelling. Otherwise, I am disgusted by much of this board and it makes me ashamed of myself merely to post.Well I wouldn't say I was "disgusted" with this board...or "ashamed" of myself for posting...but it has gotten rather...hmmm..."dry" around here. blah.
FWIW, I'm disgusted and ashamed that I find it so compelling to watch my dog dry hump his pillow. I say dry hump because not only is the pillow lacking a hole, but my dog is lacking testicles. And, man, that's ONE mess I'm glad I don't have to clean up...

[dissention]

good...never started don't plan on it.

Of course you never started discussing it, you simply piggybacked on someone else's stance and then proceeded to chide other's when they put forth quality responses on the topic at hand. Your involvement in this thread could not be more childish if you tried, but you seem to revel in that for some strangely masochistic reason. The fact that you referred to Lux as an escaped crazy in need of capturing is especially hilarious when the source is considered.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Of course you never started discussing it, you simply piggybacked on someone else's stance and then proceeded to chide other's when they put forth quality responses on the topic at hand. Your involvement in this thread could not be more childish if you tried, but you seem to revel in that for some strangely masochistic reason. The fact that you referred to Lux as an escaped crazy in need of capturing is especially hilarious when the source is considered.

I dunno, perhaps I should post more on the topic. Hell, why don't I just get super political again and go CRAZY! Maybe then things will not seem so boring around here...

But...no. I'm not giving anyone the pleasure.


This is the **** starter, Brandon "Brown eyes" Vaughn...signing off!

[HomerMcvie]

FWIW, I'm disgusted and ashamed that I find it so compelling to watch my dog dry hump his pillow. I say dry hump because not only is the pillow lacking a hole, but my dog is lacking testicles. And, man, that's ONE mess I'm glad I don't have to clean up...
Please Steve, post an MPEG of the dog and pillow. It has to be infinitely more interesting, than all of us beating our heads against this brick wall.
Clearly, most of us are decidedly on one side of the issue, and I don't see anyone here changing their stance. Maybe we should let it go......how about a new subject?
Abortion, anyone?:rolleyes: :shrug: :lol:

[dissention]

Hell, why don't I just get super political again and go CRAZY!

You already are.

But...no. I'm not giving anyone the pleasure.

Being stricken with a severe case of blue balls is infinitely more pleasurable than anything you could offer.

This is the **** starter, Brandon "Brown eyes" Vaughn...signing off!

Hey, whatever blows the sunshine up your skirt. I'll be more than happy if you leave this thread, you'll save yourself further embarrassment and the comments you've already left can speak loudly for the compassionate & conservative Christian you truly are.

[paleshadow]

That's not what that article is about. :confused:
That is a good quote from the story, though. :)

:confused: I never said what I thought the article was about. A large part of the article did talk about the good he has done from within prison, and that's what made me think of the quote. Like the quote, it made me consider, is "good" really "good" if we take away the ability to do bad or threaten bodily harm?

[Jyqm]

I dunno, perhaps I should post more on the topic. Hell, why don't I just get super political again and go CRAZY! Maybe then things will not seem so boring around here...

Well for f***'s sake, **** or get off the pot already. Either say what you want to say or shut up, but give us a break from the oh-so-suspenseful "Will I or won't I?" one-liners.

But...no. I'm not giving anyone the pleasure.

Yes, of course, everyone else just sits around salivating, waiting for the day when you'll post a bunch of political nonsense. It's such a pleasurable experience.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Well for f***'s sake, **** or get off the pot already. Either say what you want to say or shut up, but give us a break from the oh-so-suspenseful "Will I or won't I?" one-liners.

won't I.

I'm not falling for ledgie bait anymore! So last month.



Yes, of course, everyone else just sits around salivating, waiting for the day when you'll post a bunch of political nonsense. It's such a pleasurable experience.


See I'm thinking so. Cause without someone like me or Homer (and a few others) showing a different opinion, these threads become nothing but one big agreeing fest...and the threads die...FAST! It becomes one big "let's pat each other on the back because we are all such deserving and caring individuals". God forbid anyone disagrees or they are nutso! :rolleyes: How about the few conservatives around here just decide not to give a **** anymore...

[Jyqm]

won't I.

I'm not falling for ledgie bait anymore! So last month.

No one's baiting you, Brown Eyes. Nobody cares.

See I'm thinking so. Cause without someone like me or Homer (and a few others) showing a different opinion, these threads become nothing but one big agreeing fest...and the threads die...FAST! It becomes one big "let's pat each other on the back because we are all such deserving and caring individuals". God forbid anyone disagrees or they are nutso!

Don't lump yourself in with the intelligent people. Homer has posted some interesting, thoughtful comments in this thread, which in turn encouraged some interesting, thoughtful rebuttals. Ditto Steve, David and Brit.

Your contributions to this thread are as follows: I second that. Oh get off your high horse. Sounds awesome... What a DREAM world. I'm willing to be called barbaric. KILL THEM ALL! Counteract the voices of stupidity??? Uh oh!... There goes "reason" I suppose... ROCK ON WITH THE "STUPID"! It's coming out of your f*cking check buddy... not mine! OMG! You really don't know this queer... Homer, buddy... they don't even know what a point is! Except maybe on top of their heads! What makes you think that any of them care about their "actions"? Gee... that's the response... seriously... that's it!? Calling nurse Ratched... one has escaped! Lux, seriously I am done discussing this.

I know, I'm impressed with how much you contributed to the dialogue, too.

[michelle2677]

Maybe we should let it go......how about a new subject?
Abortion, anyone?:rolleyes: :shrug: :lol:


oh JEEEZ...haha. That is even WORSE!!!

btw, I wanted to add this tidbit-I have always been supportive of the death penalty, but I have never really had a serious debate or discussion about it. I am also open minded enough to see there are some very good points from the other side but I still support it for the time being. I'm just glad that I don't have to be in the position to make the laws. I wouldnt' want that much responsibility.

with that being said-has anyone seen the movie-the life of david gale. OMG...awesome imo.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

No one's baiting you, Brown Eyes. Nobody cares.

Then just stop responding to me...obviously you do care. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:



Don't lump yourself in with the intelligent people. Homer has posted some interesting, thoughtful comments in this thread, which in turn encouraged some interesting, thoughtful rebuttals. Ditto Steve, David and Brit.



Then why do most of those you just listed feel the exact same way I do about your comments and others comments. I know this because I have talked to two of them myself.

So why don't YOU stop discussing people who don't want to have ANYTHING to do with you!

[dissention]

Your contributions to this thread are as follows: I second that. Oh get off your high horse. Sounds awesome... What a DREAM world. I'm willing to be called barbaric. KILL THEM ALL! Counteract the voices of stupidity??? Uh oh!... There goes "reason" I suppose... ROCK ON WITH THE "STUPID"! It's coming out of your f*cking check buddy... not mine! OMG! You really don't know this queer... Homer, buddy... they don't even know what a point is! Except maybe on top of their heads! What makes you think that any of them care about their "actions"? Gee... that's the response... seriously... that's it!? Calling nurse Ratched... one has escaped! Lux, seriously I am done discussing this.

Someone's mommy needs to start marking the liquor bottles.

with that being said-has anyone seen the movie-the life of david gale. OMG...awesome imo.

I believe that Vicky is quite fond of that movie, too. I detest it, though. :sorry:

[dissention]

Then why do most of those you just listed feel the exact same way I do about your comments and others comments. I know this because I have talked to two of them myself.

So why don't YOU stop discussing people who don't want to have ANYTHING to do with you!

The point <-------------------

Your head <-------------------

You really don't get it. The others that were mentioned actually contributed to the discussion. It doesn't matter what their actual positions are, the point is that, unlike yourself, they took the time to partake in the discussion and make their views apparent instead of simply prodding other posters for some pointless reason.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

The point <-------------------

Your head <-------------------



You copy!

I already made that joke like 3 pages ago...:rolleyes:

You really don't get it. The others that were mentioned actually contributed to the discussion. It doesn't matter what their actual positions are, the point is that, unlike yourself, they took the time to partake in the discussion and make their views apparent instead of simply prodding other posters for some pointless reason.

you act as if this shocks you, somehow. I mean isn't that the way I usually go about things around here, at least according to you?

[michelle2677]

I believe that Vicky is quite fond of that movie, too. I detest it, though. :sorry:


it's o.k. :) I took English 102 a few years back and we had to write an essay on a movie we had seen in the theatre. My dumbass picked "chicago" while another girl wrote hers on "the life of david gale". Since then I couldnt' wait to watch it. About a year later there was nothing else at the ol' blockbuster so I talked the hubby into getting it. AGAINST his will, I made him watch it and we both loved it. It was just so interesting the discussions we had after that movie. Everything from the death penalty, abortion, what we wanted to name our next dog..(because this is at the TOP of the priority list as well!! ;) ) and everything in between.
I just find in interesting that someone so against the death penalty would not love this movie. I guess because it is such a drastic way to show that "yes....innocent people CAN get put to death" and it would be great ammunition for your side of the debate. Not being snarky at all btw..:xoxo:

hhmmmmm....also fascinating is that Vicky and I are both for the death penalty and we love this movie. :shrug: :lol:

[SteveMacD]

Then just stop...

Geez. I thought you already signed off. :rolleyes:

When you proclaim that you're going sign off, then buy a "U" and...







http://people.ambrosiasw.com/~andrew/funny/wheel-stfu.jpg

[BTFLCHLD]

as somone teasingly called me a wussy today when they asked 'for or against' via PM and my reply was 'im twisted', thought id add a comment or two
i havent read all the posts...altho those i have i couldnt quite determine which "side" they were on...if there ever was a time for a poll this would be it...anyways...i lean towards against...there really isnt anything someone could say to me that would sway me one way of the other...there are interestinig points addressed either way...thats the twist. the lean comes from being a survivor of a violent crime...did i want the person to physically die...no. did i want them to hurt...yes. that is why they are in prison. hmmm...they didnt care if i died. interesting debate.

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Geez. I thought you already signed off. :rolleyes:

When you proclaim that you're going sign off, then buy a "U" and...







http://people.ambrosiasw.com/~andrew/funny/wheel-stfu.jpg

Took you a while to find that one did it...

I already have it saved...classic!

[michelle2677]

Geez. I thought you already signed off. :rolleyes:

When you proclaim that you're going sign off, then buy a "U" and...







http://people.ambrosiasw.com/~andrew/funny/wheel-stfu.jpg


OMG!! :eek:





I'm SO saving that btw...

[HomerMcvie]

I saved it too! That pic rocks!:woohoo:

[michelle2677]

I saved it too! That pic rocks!:woohoo:

I've already sent it out thru my email!! :o

[Brwn_eyes0511]

I've already sent it out thru my email!! :o

DAMN!

You waist no time...hehe :lol:










P.S.
Homer it will come in handy in the Chris forum! weeeee

[michelle2677]

DAMN!

You waist no time...hehe :lol:


hey...I DON'T have time to waste. I have **** to do..I'm a busy girl. I have...laundry to do...and...er....dishes to wash, my dog's teeth to brush......I SO lead a glamorous life!! hahah..

[amber]

:confused: I never said what I thought the article was about. A large part of the article did talk about the good he has done from within prison, and that's what made me think of the quote. Like the quote, it made me consider, is "good" really "good" if we take away the ability to do bad or threaten bodily harm?

Sorry, this wording threw me off:

When I read your post about all the good things he has done since he has been incarcerated,
That's a good point about if "good" is really good without the opportunity to do bad.

:wavey:

[Mari]

Twentyfive nations around the world who still condone execution :( and here are the top twelve with executions per capita:

The twelve countries with the most executions in 2004:
Country Executions Executions per 100 million residents
1 Kuwait 9+ 400
2 China 3,400+ 260
3 Iran 159+ 230
4 Singapore 6+ 140
5 Saudi Arabia 33+ 130
6 Vietnam 64+ 77
7 Belarus 5+ 48
8 Yemen 6+ 30
9 United States 59 20
10 Pakistan 15+ 9
11 Egypt 6+ 8
12 Bangladesh 7+ 5

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment

Sasja

Great company, isn't it.. Iran, China, Singapore.. and the only western country.

I was wondering about the per capita numbers, thanks for posting this.

[BombaySapphire3]

Great company, isn't it.. Iran, China, Singapore.. and the only western country.

I was wondering about the per capita numbers, thanks for posting this.
We're also the only western industrialized nation that has no socialized medicine for it's citizens .Chalk another one up for the good ol' U.S. of A.!

[tommer]

We're also the only western industrialized nation that has no socialized medicine for it's citizens
i don't think that there are that many non-industrialized and none-western nations without socialized medicine.

[Jyqm]

Then just stop responding to me...obviously you do care. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Yes, obviously. I just don't know what I'd do without you, Brown Eyes.

Then why do most of those you just listed feel the exact same way I do about your comments and others comments. I know this because I have talked to two of them myself.

So why don't YOU stop discussing people who don't want to have ANYTHING to do with you!

Gasp shock horror! I really don't care how anybody else feels about how I post, Brown Eyes; that much should be obvious. I don't sit around worrying, who's in the "clique," who's not in the "clique," do Ledgies like me? I would certainly never expect everybody on a message board to like me, and if people don't, that's fine by me, and if they want to ignore me, or whisper about it to you in PMs, or anything else, that's fine by me too.

The point, however, which I doubt you actually missed, but I don't mind repeating it for you anyway, is all of those people actually contributed to the discussion. As opposed to you, who sat around tossing off your little one-liners, all the while claiming, "Oh no! I'm not getting involved this, no sir! Not me! I'm taking the high road!"

As admitted trolls go, Brown Eyes, you're a pretty half-assed one.

[Jyqm]

My personal feeling is that one does not have the right under normal circumstances to randomly take a life. Sometimes, people commit crimes that are so heinous that they warrant death. Not to bring a sense of closure or completion to the victims they leave behind, but because there are evil people in this world, and not having them in this world only serves to benefit mankind. If a person gets to the point where they lose all sense of humanity, well, then they cease to be human, and forfeit all of the rights and benefits that come with it, at least as far as I'm concerned.

This is really interesting, Steve. I think the root of the issue at this point, which would really determine where one falls in relationship to capital punishment, is where exactly a person's right to life comes from. If it comes from society - the way liberty and the pursuit of happiness do - then society can reserve the power to terminate that right if society feels it has been abused, as you mentioned. If it doesn't - if it comes from God, or from the simple fact of existence, or something else - then society has no right to interfere with it. This is where the Catholic Church stands, for example, and I think I fall in this latter category, too.

And for me, this sentence - "If a person gets to the point where they lose all sense of humanity, well, then they cease to be human, and forfeit all of the rights and benefits that come with it" - is simply not a power that I want in the hands of the state under any circumstances, no matter how discriminately it may be used. It's just a very dangerous door to leave open.

"There are evil people in this world, and not having them in this world only serves to benefit mankind," also is a little too Machiavellian/Bushian for me.

[bretonbanquet]

Every time I begin to think that capital punishment might be a good idea (we haven't had it here for 40-odd years) I remember how I felt when I saw a Polish film "Krótki film o zabijaniu" or "A Short Film About Killing". I was about 17 at the time I saw it, and I've never been able to view the debate in the same way since. Do yourselves a favour and seek it out (it comes with subtitles) and watch it if you're up to it. A bit of stark education, whichever way you view the capital punishment argument.

[cliffdweller]

:confused: I never said what I thought the article was about. A large part of the article did talk about the good he has done from within prison, and that's what made me think of the quote. Like the quote, it made me consider, is "good" really "good" if we take away the ability to do bad or threaten bodily harm?

No I getcha. That's a great story btw. Flannery O'Connor definitely had a dark vision of humanity. However, I find it a bit short-sighted only to dwell on the grotesqueness of human nature without balancing it out with some hope and optimism. But O'Connor is a fantastic writer, Wiseblood is one of my favorite novels of all-time.

[cliffdweller]

And for me, this sentence - "If a person gets to the point where they lose all sense of humanity, well, then they cease to be human, and forfeit all of the rights and benefits that come with it" - is simply not a power that I want in the hands of the state under any circumstances, no matter how discriminately it may be used. It's just a very dangerous door to leave open.

What he said.

Okay, discussion on this topic is officially over. :laugh:

[SuzeQuze]

We're also the only western industrialized nation that has no socialized medicine for it's citizens .Chalk another one up for the good ol' U.S. of A.!

Commie. Just kidding, I'm so for this. Not having it is the reason why a good friend of mine had to pay $1,000 for an EKG his doctor ordered almost on a whim. His insurance stepped down its coverage and he wasn't aware. Its so rediculous, I told him to bill his doctor. Seriously, why is all the power in the hands of insurance companies and doctors? Why have we no recourse when we feel we are being financially raped? He called regarding the bill and was told he was billed for the hospital room, the equipment, the support staff, the doctor's time, etc. which came to about $1500 for 15 minutes. Regoddamdiculous!

[SuzeQuze]

Calling nurse Ratched....

one has escaped!

Calling someone crazy might be construed as a personal attack. I thought you were done with acting like this? I'm disappointed.

[SteveMacD]

To say that person has lost all sense of humanity and ceases to be human is a religious take on morals and capabilities of humans (and therefore one not welcome in law).
I fail to see how. Nowhere in my post was there any mention of anything remotely religious, mostly because I personally am not a religious person. I think it's too easy to say that anything "moral" equates to being "religious" in nature. You can subscribe to a moral position without subscribing to religious dogma.
People do not cease to be people when they commit crimes,
I didn't say they did. I said "If a person gets to the point where they lose all sense of humanity, well, then they cease to be human, and forfeit all of the rights and benefits that come with it, at least as far as I'm concerned."

For me, it's more than being a criminal. In most cases, I could easily sympathize with a criminal. In my professional field, I cannot, nor would I, be judgemental of others' bad decisions. I've made a lot in my life, and often feel that the only difference between me and the person at the other end of the desk is that I never got caught. Still, if people get to the point where they can completely disregard the life of another, somebody whom they don't even know, then they have forfeitted any humanity that could be bestowed onto them. Society has a vested interest in protecting itself from such individuals.
the Hitlers and Stalins of this world were not monsters, they were humans and an unfortunate display of the evil we are capable of.
I'm sorry, but killing upwards of 16 million people because of their religious and political beliefs makes them monsters. When somebody can't see that they're not destroying descent, but are murdering innocent men, women, and children, then they have gone FAR beyond the bounds inhumanity, and to say anything less completely discounts the suffering these people have felt, and many continue to feel. To call what they did as being evil completely understates what they did.
Not everybody is willing to acknowledge how evil we are capable of being and lump evil in as something beyond human, the devil. Anyway, I'm just being technical but what you said there is inspired by religious teachings and not particularly relevant to law.
I beg to differ. I am not a religious person. The only time I ever go to a church is for a wedding, funeral, or to get donations for clients. I'm of the "religion is the opiate of the masses" ilk, truth be told. Again, morality and religious dogma are not one in the same.
Main Entry: 1mor·al
Pronunciation: 'mor-&l, 'mär-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin moralis, from mor-, mos custom
1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>
2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL <a moral certainty>
3 : having the effects of such on the mind, confidence, or will <a moral victory> <moral support>
This is why society does not run the country.
Say what? Of course society runs the country. In any variation of representative democracy, the leaders are chosen by society.
But the death penalty is the equivalent of the police deciding to run around like maniac yobbos setting fire to things and bashing people because they believe a crime was committed (actually sometimes they do but we won't get into corruption).
Yeah. Tookie was on death row for 24 years. He went through every appeal that was available to him. Even the Supreme Court reviewed his case, and they decided that everything looked kosher, so they decided that there was nothing left for them to hear. So, your analogy is TOTALLY apples-to-apples :rolleyes: Furthermore, the Death Penalty has broad support in American society. If Americans felt threated by it, don't you think they would elect leaders who would vow to abolish it? In any event, the USA just saw the 1000th person executed since 1976. Considering 2500 to 3000 died on 9/11 alone, that number, especially stretched out over nearly 30 years, doesn't seem so high to me.
We have courts and lawmakers because the law should never be about revenge, the law is not society, it's not the family of the victim.
The law reflects the values of a society. In the US, there have been laws that society deemed unacceptable, and thus the laws were changed to reflect the changing values. The laws and lawmakers, at least in the US, are the ones who have made the death penalty a legal option for certain crimes, because American society deemed that an acceptable punishment for the most heinous of crimes. BTW, it's not about revenge. It's about punishment. I don't care about all the revenge and deterrent crap. It's about punishment. If you kill four or five people while gangbanging, if you rape and kill a kid, if you drag a man behind your truck simply because he's black, then you deserve an appropriate punishment, and death has often been deemed appropriate. Obviously, there are exceptions (i.e. mental illness).
Deciding who is worthy of human rights and who has forfeited them is such an incredibly dangerous course to be on. Do you not see the difference between emotion of those close to the victim and the law? Should the person I spoke of be put to death because they are apparently inhumane?
Lux, the bottom line is that the application of capital punishment isn't done on some mob-like mentality, and it's only applied in situations where people have murdered. As I've said, it took 24 years from the time Tookie was sentanced to death until the day he died. There were numerous appeals at various different levels of court. He he murdered four people, and it was decided that the proper punishment for his crime, by lawyers and law makers, was death.

My main concern, as I've already stated, with the death penalty is that it's not applied equally. Until there is further studies of who has been executed or sentenced to death and who hasn't, I feel that the death penalty should be halted. I also feel that DNA tests should be mandatory in capital cases and that the mentally ill should be forbidden from being executed.

[Jyqm]

He he murdered four people

This is no laughing matter, Steve.

[SteveMacD]

This is no laughing matter, Steve.
Smart ass. :lol:

[paleshadow]

Sorry, this wording threw me off:


That's a good point about if "good" is really good without the opportunity to do bad.

:wavey:

No need to apologize, I see how it would read like that. Yeah, I definately think it's hard to judge reform based on what you do once your caught. There were many times growing up when I did something bad and got in trouble. I was sorry, but not because I understood my actions were bad, but because I was afraid of the wrath of my parents. ;)

[The Tower]

Still, if people get to the point where they can completely disregard the life of another, somebody whom they don't even know, then they have forfeitted any humanity that could be bestowed onto them.
Too subjective. I think that Dubya has no regard for human life- he only has regard for money and the people that possess it. I think that religious leaders have no regard for human life- they only have regard for their dogma and the control of their followers. In any case, I don’t think that the solution to these situations should be to kill someone.

Society has a vested interest in protecting itself from such individuals.
Then put them in prison and don’t let them out.

Furthermore, the Death Penalty has broad support in American society. If Americans felt threated by it, don't you think they would elect leaders who would vow to abolish it?
Majority support doesn’t make it right. The death penalty is part of a group of issues that subscribe to baser instincts of humanity- it goes right along with discrimination and disenfranchising certain sectors of society. I don’t think the government should have the right to kill people.

In any event, the USA just saw the 1000th person executed since 1976. Considering 2500 to 3000 died on 9/11 alone, that number, especially stretched out over nearly 30 years, doesn't seem so high to me.
Tell that to the loved ones of those 1,000 people. And how many of those 1,000 were innocent? DNA testing didn’t start coming around until the mid/late 90’s.

BTW, it's not about revenge. It's about punishment. I don't care about all the revenge and deterrent crap. It's about punishment. If you kill four or five people while gangbanging, if you rape and kill a kid, if you drag a man behind your truck simply because he's black, then you deserve an appropriate punishment, and death has often been deemed appropriate.
It absolutely is about revenge. It is about emotion ruling over wisdom. Humans are very imperfect creatures. No one has the ability to know the truth, so why approach something as final as death? Why make the absolute choice for something that isn’t certain?

Obviously, there are exceptions (i.e. mental illness).
Again, who defines mental illness? How many discoveries have been made over the years that alter our perceptions of what is or is not mental illness? Why prescribe death as the solution when we can’t be certain of the problem?

Lux, the bottom line is that the application of capital punishment isn't done on some mob-like mentality, and it's only applied in situations where people have murdered. As I've said, it took 24 years from the time Tookie was sentanced to death until the day he died. There were numerous appeals at various different levels of court. He he murdered four people, and it was decided that the proper punishment for his crime, by lawyers and law makers, was death.
It doesn’t matter whether the choice to apply the death penalty was made by brilliant scholars, esteem judges, or the unruly mob. It is still wrong and the government should not have the right to kill its citizens- for any reason.

[jannieC]

I have read this thread in it's entirety with great interest (I'm at work and Wednesdays are reaaaaally slow for me) and even though I'm jumping in late, I'd like to add my opinion.

I have always been uneasy with the death penalty, but for many years was not quite against it. Over the years I've learned and witnessed a few things that have finally pushed me to where I am now on this subject. (And obviously, this is NOT to try and convince someone who is FOR the death penalty to share my beliefs, just chiming in with my two cents.)

I once watched a special on TV about a woman whose child's murderer was on death row. She went to visit him and took him completely by surprise when she explained that she had forgiven him. Now hang on, and don't get all "Oh hell NO" before you hear me out. When I first saw this, I felt the same way. HOW could this woman forgive a man who had murdered her daughter, that's INSANE, right? Forgiveness, in my opinion, is one of the hardest acts to follow through on. She wasn't saying that she forgave him and he should be set free. She fully believed he should spend the rest of his life in prison. She just knew that in order for her to be able to heal, she needed to forgive this man. I'm not saying that everyone could do this, but it was impressive to see. I think it's much more "natural" to want revenge, but as has been pointed out already, human emotion isn't what laws are made of. I was the victim of a very violent crime when I was in my early twenties, and I was left for dead. Did I ever have dreams of my attacker being killed, tortured, etc? Of course. 15 years later, I don't feel the same way. I'm glad I had the balls to testify, and know that this man will be in prison for a long time (not long enough, but that's another story). Just because I wanted him dead, doesn't mean he *deserved* to be dead. And I'm glad that after all these years I'm not carrying around all of that anger and feelings of revenge.

On the flip side, I am VERY conservative when it comes to prison life and inmate's quality of life. I think we owe them shelter and food, and that's it. Whatever happens to them while they're in jail doesn't concern me. If they get attacked and raped by each other, whatever. Very few sexual assualters are able to be rehabilitated, anyway.

Anyway, I could go on and on about this, because it's actually one of those subjects I feel very passionate about. But I'll stop here. Thanks for reading this.

[Jyqm]

I have always been uneasy with the death penalty, but for many years was not quite against it. Over the years I've learned and witnessed a few things that have finally pushed me to where I am now on this subject. (And obviously, this is NOT to try and convince someone who is FOR the death penalty to share my beliefs, just chiming in with my two cents.)

I hope that most folks don't engage in these kinds of threads solely to try and change other people's minds over to their way of thinking. Obviously that's very rarely going to happen. It's just interesting debate these things and find out where other people are coming from and why they take the stances they do.

I once watched a special on TV about a woman whose child's murderer was on death row. She went to visit him and took him completely by surprise when she explained that she had forgiven him.

Oh hell NO!

Now hang on, and don't get all "Oh hell NO" before you hear me out.

Oh, oops... Sorry!

When I first saw this, I felt the same way. HOW could this woman forgive a man who had murdered her daughter, that's INSANE, right? Forgiveness, in my opinion, is one of the hardest acts to follow through on. She wasn't saying that she forgave him and he should be set free. She fully believed he should spend the rest of his life in prison. She just knew that in order for her to be able to heal, she needed to forgive this man. I'm not saying that everyone could do this, but it was impressive to see. I think it's much more "natural" to want revenge, but as has been pointed out already, human emotion isn't what laws are made of. I was the victim of a very violent crime when I was in my early twenties, and I was left for dead. Did I ever have dreams of my attacker being killed, tortured, etc? Of course. 15 years later, I don't feel the same way. I'm glad I had the balls to testify, and know that this man will be in prison for a long time (not long enough, but that's another story). Just because I wanted him dead, doesn't mean he *deserved* to be dead. And I'm glad that after all these years I'm not carrying around all of that anger and feelings of revenge.

I'm sorry that you were victimized, Janet! But I'm glad that you've been able make peace with what happened to you and move on with your life without holding onto that anger. I know that's an incredibly difficult thing to do.

[DavidMn]

Four.



Of course you would. It's a natural human instinct to want revenge. But justice is not about revenge.



I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say. The justice system is all about morality; it's about enforcing the moral standards of society. The term justice directly associates to the principle of moral rightness.With regards to your last point, I was just venting that it would bother me that someone would think I shouldnt have the right to want someone dead if they were to kill my parents or someone else I love especially since whichever individual expresses that opinion might not have had a loved one taken away from them violently. But I've been doing some thinking about it, and the more I think about it, I shot off my mouth there a bit. BUt I thank you for your considerate response.:nod:

[SteveMacD]

Too subjective. I think that Dubya has no regard for human life- he only has regard for money and the people that possess it.
While I don't disagree, Dubya had nothing to do with this case.
I think that religious leaders have no regard for human life- they only have regard for their dogma and the control of their followers.
Again, I don't disagree, which is why I referenced the Webster's definition of morality to show that it is not a religious concept (despite what some would have you believe). It's a concept that can be applied to the secular world, too.
Then put them in prison and don’t let them out.
Because society has deemed this an inadequate punishment.
Majority support doesn’t make it right.
I admire how quickly you are able to completely disregard the will of the people, the core of political power and legitimacy.
The death penalty is part of a group of issues that subscribe to baser instincts of humanity- it goes right along with discrimination and disenfranchising certain sectors of society.
For you, maybe. I don't see it as such. Although, I have said that I don't think it's applied fairly, which is why I feel it should be halted.
I don’t think the government should have the right to kill people.
Not in and of itself, I agree. But, this is a policy that has the support of the citizens. It is a legitimate policy. Until the people begin to feel otherwise, it will continue to be the policy.
Tell that to the loved ones of those 1,000 people.
This sounds a lot like the emotional response that people who support capital punishment have been accused of having.
It absolutely is about revenge. It is about emotion ruling over wisdom. Humans are very imperfect creatures.
I think this is a point where we'll never agree. I'm sure there is an element of revenge for some people. At it's core, it is a penalty, a punishment. Everything else just clouds the issue. And, frankly statements like "emotion ruling over wisdom" are empty statements, as neither can be measured. I don't know what somebody's emotional state is, and wisdom is set by cultural definitions. What is wise in one culture could be seen as foolish in another.
No one has the ability to know the truth, so why approach something as final as death? Why make the absolute choice for something that isn’t certain?
What about if it IS certain? What about Jeffery Dahmer? And, was he better off by not getting lethal injection? Was a fatal beating better?
Again, who defines mental illness?
Well, we could start with the APA.
How many discoveries have been made over the years that alter our perceptions of what is or is not mental illness?
Welcome to the wonderful world of life. It's dynamic, not static. I mean, how many laws in the past have changed over the years of what is or is not just?
It doesn’t matter whether the choice to apply the death penalty was made by brilliant scholars, esteem judges, or the unruly mob. It is still wrong and the government should not have the right to kill its citizens- for any reason.
Again, the government is acting with the legitimate support of its citizens. This law enjoys popular support amongst the body politic. If it didn't, then it stands to reason the law wouldn't exist. To imply that the government, in this case, is imposing its will on the people ignores the fact that it's the other way around. If society worked on what is right and what is wrong, there would be total chaos, as we individually have our own definitions of what is acceptable and what is not. So, we elect our representatives to enact laws the reflect the values of society. We are not a society of right and wrong, but a society of laws.

[The Tower]

Because society has deemed this an inadequate punishment.
Only because the majority cannot get their vengeance out of life in prison without the possibility of parole. I has to go further than that. The suffering is not enough.

I admire how quickly you are able to completely disregard the will of the people, the core of political power and legitimacy.
I admire that as well. There has been quite a lot of evil committed because of majority opinion. Dissent is a great thing.

Not in and of itself, I agree. But, this is a policy that has the support of the citizens. It is a legitimate policy. Until the people begin to feel otherwise, it will continue to be the policy.
Of course. That is the reality. Slavery was also legally sanctioned by the majority. So was denying women the right to vote. So is denying the legal right for gays to marry. On and on and on. Doesn’t make it right.

This sounds a lot like the emotional response that people who support capital punishment have been accused of having.
Nope. I was just pointing out how you were comparing the number of killings with such an icy disregard- 1,000 people dying, 3,000 people dying- they’re all just comparable numbers.

I think this is a point where we'll never agree.
I agree with you there.

What about if it IS certain? What about Jeffery Dahmer? And, was he better off by not getting lethal injection? Was a fatal beating better?
What a silly point. Killing someone because of the death penalty is an active choice. Jeffrey Dahmer being killed in prison was not an active choice of the government. They failed to protect him, but they didn’t have intentions of him being murdered while incarcerated.

Well, we could start with the APA.
That’s a nice guideline, but, hypothetically, there’s nothing out there to prevent the government from using other definitions. My point is that the definitions of who or what qualifies for the death penalty is too subjective to support the ending of one’s life.

To imply that the government, in this case, is imposing its will on the people ignores the fact that it's the other way around. If society worked on what is right and what is wrong, there would be total chaos, as we individually have our own definitions of what is acceptable and what is not. So, we elect our representatives to enact laws the reflect the values of society. We are not a society of right and wrong, but a society of laws.
If you think that the USA government is just one big servant of the people you are nuts. The laws that are enacted are rarely designed simply on the will of the people. It would be a nice utopia, but it will never happen.

[Jyqm]

If society worked on what is right and what is wrong, there would be total chaos, as we individually have our own definitions of what is acceptable and what is not. So, we elect our representatives to enact laws the reflect the values of society. We are not a society of right and wrong, but a society of laws.

However, those laws are not completely arbitrary. They're very much rooted in a system of political belief which has clear definitions of what is right and wrong, insofar as what a legitimate government can or cannot/should or should not do.

[SteveMacD]

Only because the majority cannot get their vengeance out of life in prison without the possibility of parole. I has to go further than that. The suffering is not enough.
Yeah, that's it. It's society getting vengeance. It has nothing at all to do with a punishment fitting a crime.
I admire that as well. There has been quite a lot of evil committed because of majority opinion. Dissent is a great thing.
I would agree that a lot of evil has been committed because of majority opinion. However, in principle, society didn't draw first blood. If one were to think of humanity as having this constant struggle between good and evil, then murder could be interpreted as an act of war in this struggle, and when you're at war, you take out the enemy. I say in principle only because I agree about this law being applied unfairly. Now, the ONE thing that seems to be universal in every culture is that you cannot randomly take a life, and that to do so is inherently evil. This is why I do not have a moral opposition to this law. I just oppose the way it's been applied.
Of course. That is the reality. Slavery was also legally sanctioned by the majority. So was denying women the right to vote. So is denying the legal right for gays to marry. On and on and on. Doesn’t make it right.
Hmmm, I believe I said "In the US, there have been laws that society deemed unacceptable, and thus the laws were changed to reflect the changing values." Of course, the difference here being that people cannot control their race, gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. However, they CAN control their personal actions.

BTW, an interesting fact about me, I'm a descendent of the great abolitionist Wendell Phillips (http://www.impeach-andrewjohnson.com/11BiographiesKeyIndividuals/WendellPhillips.htm), so there has been a long family history of being active in the civil rights movement. This is why I said "While I personally have no moral objections to the death penalty, I do think that it hasn't been, nor will ever be, applied fairly. I DO believe that racial minorities, the poor, and the mentally ill are FAR more apt to be imprisoned and/or sentenced to death than a middle-to-upper class white individual. And, since we're about equality here, I think it's safe to say that men are disproportionately put to death." Which is why I concluded "My main concern, as I've already stated, with the death penalty is that it's not applied equally. Until there is further studies of who has been executed or sentenced to death and who hasn't, I feel that the death penalty should be halted."
Nope. I was just pointing out how you were comparing the number of killings with such an icy disregard- 1,000 people dying, 3,000 people dying- they’re all just comparable numbers.
Here's the way I look at it. On average, 33 people are put to death each year for murder. In Cincinnati this year alone, which still has a few weeks left, there have been 76 or so murders to date. I think it's safe to conclude that more often than not, people aren't put to death. So, while I have already maintained that DNA evidence should be mandatory, I also think that the people who serve on juries are smart enough to decide the punishment somebody receives. And that's a point that hasn't been made, yet. In the US, it is a jury of citizens who decides whether or not somebody gets life or death. More often than not, they decide life.
If you think that the USA government is just one big servant of the people you are nuts. The laws that are enacted are rarely designed simply on the will of the people. It would be a nice utopia, but it will never happen.
On the other hand, THIS law is supported by the people and is probably one of the few laws that requires a jury of citizens to decide.

[SteveMacD]

To say the biological fact that Hitler was a human being is not understating what he did, it is acknowledging what humans are capable of. I would never understate that. We want to acknowledge Jesus, Gandhi, Mother Theresa as humans but we aren't so willing to include those who tarnish our reputation as humans.
Well, nobody wants the curve to be downgraded. What you're saying is akin to saying that if only two people get a "D" on a test, but everybody else got "A"s and "B"s, then everybody should get "B"s and "C"s.
We all are, Hitler, Stalin, Bush, serial killers etc all have occupied or do occupy human bodies. I don't recall Hitler having horns on his head, do you?
Well, there IS a theory out there (and I'm totally NOT making this up) that a young Hitler had his penis nipped when he tried to urinate in a goat's mouth. :shrug:
He was a human with blood pumping through his veins and a display of the extreme evil humans are capable of. To say he was not is so openly stubborn to the nature humans are capable of. We are not super-beings, we are capable of producing Mother Theresa and we are capable of producing Hitler. I'm sorry but you're just wrong and completely ignorant to humanity if you think he wasn't human, plus a little deranged, was he a feline?
Either that was a lame attempt at sarcasm, or your understanding of the figurative is nil. The point being that when the word "humanity" is thrown about, we are NOT talking about the species, we are talking about a moral code. Murdering innocent people is the ultimate crime in every culture. To have violated that moral code TWENTY SIX MILLION TIMES (Hitler and Stalin combined) defies ANY sense of common humanity.
To think otherwise would be to think he was acting under a force of the devil, which is a religious take. I didn't say you are religious, but society has religious ideas so ingrained into it that to believe these people are not human but the embodiment of a devil or evil force that is not human is a concept grounded in religion, certainly not in the science of the human mind.
Okay, your understanding of the figurative is nil. Again, humanity here isn't the biological, rather it is that which encompasses the human experience (i.e. philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc...you know, the HUMANITIES). EVERYTHING these assholes did was not only outside of the norm, it was in a different dimension from the norm. At some point, it should have dawned on them that what they were doing was f-ed up. That it didn't shows me that they lost their sense of humanity.
As for everything else you said, I fail to see how it addressed and brought any light to the case. There is no case for barbianism. The fact that Americans support it is a ridiculous argument. If the rednecks support burning blacks should we introduce that into law? You really are trying to convince me that Africans should be slaves, that women should not vote.
Nice try. The difference is that people cannot control what they are when they are born. However, they CAN control whether or not they take another's life. The laws in which you speak are immoral in their very nature in they limited how much of a person somebody was able to become based on factors that were completely out of their control.

The death penalty only applies if one has committed the act of murder, at least in theory. People have to actively commit murder. It's an action they consciously make. Nobody consciously decides to be black, female, gay, etc. People do consciously decide to murder innocent people. And, you know what? I can live without murderers. However, that it isn't fairly applied leads me to object to it.

[SteveMacD]

That would apply if you were talking about maintaining humanity, you were talking about being human.
Well, maybe if you had an understanding of the figurative, and weren't always so literal. They do cease to be human, in a figurative sense. They sever that which bonds them to the rest of humanity. They don't litterally become a different species, and to have to say that really makes me question your ability to maintain an intellectual discussion. To have to debat THAT is petty, tedious, and a waste of everybody's precious time. If you want to discuss the issues, then let's discuss the actual issues. If you just want to be a caddy b***h, then I'm out.
Are child rapists humane?
As a social worker, I'm more inclined to believe that these are extremely confused individuals, with too many extraneous factors (i.e. MR/DD, mental illness, past life trauma, etc.) to include them in this.
nor are those guilty of torture or intent to kill and so on. They are no more humane than those guilty of murder, correct?
Obviously, these people need to be dealt with severely, but there's a threshhold that they have yet to cross. They may have taken a few stabs at that thing that bonds us all together, but they haven't severed it just yet. There's something that is preventing them from completing that act. And until they do complete the act, then they are not murderers. OTOH, if I have a gun, and somebody has the means, the intention, and the immediacy to kill me (i.e. they're reaching for their gun), you bet I'm going home and they're resting in peace in a pine box.
It would be the method of death then perhaps, guns, are they humane? Knives, what about them? Strangulation surely not. What if they strangulate but leave the victim brain dead, slightly more humane then?
No. And, in the US, when the brain dead victim dies, assuming the death is related to the attack (i.e. a person is attacked at 24, but is dead at 36), the attacker is often charged with murder.
Who is deciding who is humane and who according to you ceases to be human and what set of morals determines this, which of the world's philosophies? How do I apply to be the decision maker in the humane/non-human factor?
I believe we elect people who express an ideology that agrees with our senses to make the laws, enact the laws, and review the laws based on a document (i.e. the Constitution) that serves as the principle law/guideline for a nation. If new laws are enacted that people do not agree with, then new leaders who are willing to change the laws can be elected. Gee, I would have thought you would have known this.

On a personal note, I have specifically used the word "random" throughout this discussion. James Byrd is the main reason. See, he was a black guy, by all accounts a very gentle soul, who was minding his own business, going about his day as he normally would, when two redneck thugs decided to chain him up and drag him behind their truck until he died simply because he was black. Prior to this incident, they had never any type of interaction with Mr. Byrd. They just decided that they had to kill 'em a n****r. So, there's only one punishment that I find suitable for this particular crime. When they decided to end somebody's life, they ripped apart the bonds that tied them to mankind.

[BTFLCHLD]

Calling someone crazy might be construed as a personal attack. I thought you were done with acting like this? I'm disappointed. suze, with all due respect, i'd like to ask a MOD question. what is the difference between implying someone is crazy (one word) and implying someone has no intelligence or signifigance (40 words or less)?

[Brwn_eyes0511]

Calling someone crazy might be construed as a personal attack. I thought you were done with acting like this? I'm disappointed.

aww...I'm sorry!

It was just a joke. I didn't mean it personally. (Maybe I should have used a smiley)! But she implied that I was pointless...so I implied craziness...I didn't mean it seriously though.

[Jyqm]

Well, maybe if you had an understanding of the figurative, and weren't always so literal. They do cease to be human, in a figurative sense.

Do we really want our laws to be based on "a figurative sense"?

[SteveMacD]

One might say the exact same thing about murderers.
Again, nice try. I've been saying that there are always exceptions to rules. In fact, just killing somebody does not necessarily make one guilty of committing murder. There is a legal precedence for homicide that takes those factors into account. See, I think this is where you and I differ. You see things in black and white, while I see things in shades of grey. Nothing is absolute.
The crime against some victims could be seen as no less than murder. Take someone inclined to rape and torture for extended periods, they may leave a victim disabled, physically and/or mentally, traumatised for life, and we are not entitled to take their life but we are entitled to take the life of someone who let a bullet fly and with that killed a person instantly.
**** happens.
How is one more dangerous and inhumane than the other?
In theory, they're not. In reality, one left a corpse, and the other didn't.
The trauma experienced by the victim is not necessarily less, in some cases it may be drawn out far beyond what their instant death would have been.
True, but their attacker is still not guilty of committing murder or even homicide.
In short, the crime and the impact on the victim can be equivalent to that in a case of murder when the crime is indeed not murder. The condition of death is not necessary yet it has been decided one is worthy of death, the other is ok in prison. I simply don't get your reasoning.
Because in one instance, death was the result of an action, and in the other death did not result. One must be violent to commit murder, but one does not have to commit murder during a violent crime. Just as the death penalty is the ultimate punishiment, murder is the ultimate crime. Any punishiment that is less than capital punishiment isn't capital punishment. Any crime less than murder isn't murder, including homicide.

Actually, it's a pretty simple concept.

[cliffdweller]

I have read this thread in it's entirety with great interest (I'm at work and Wednesdays are reaaaaally slow for me) and even though I'm jumping in late, I'd like to add my opinion.

I have always been uneasy with the death penalty, but for many years was not quite against it. Over the years I've learned and witnessed a few things that have finally pushed me to where I am now on this subject. (And obviously, this is NOT to try and convince someone who is FOR the death penalty to share my beliefs, just chiming in with my two cents.)

I once watched a special on TV about a woman whose child's murderer was on death row. She went to visit him and took him completely by surprise when she explained that she had forgiven him. Now hang on, and don't get all "Oh hell NO" before you hear me out. When I first saw this, I felt the same way. HOW could this woman forgive a man who had murdered her daughter, that's INSANE, right? Forgiveness, in my opinion, is one of the hardest acts to follow through on. She wasn't saying that she forgave him and he should be set free. She fully believed he should spend the rest of his life in prison. She just knew that in order for her to be able to heal, she needed to forgive this man. I'm not saying that everyone could do this, but it was impressive to see. I think it's much more "natural" to want revenge, but as has been pointed out already, human emotion isn't what laws are made of. I was the victim of a very violent crime when I was in my early twenties, and I was left for dead. Did I ever have dreams of my attacker being killed, tortured, etc? Of course. 15 years later, I don't feel the same way. I'm glad I had the balls to testify, and know that this man will be in prison for a long time (not long enough, but that's another story). Just because I wanted him dead, doesn't mean he *deserved* to be dead. And I'm glad that after all these years I'm not carrying around all of that anger and feelings of revenge.

On the flip side, I am VERY conservative when it comes to prison life and inmate's quality of life. I think we owe them shelter and food, and that's it. Whatever happens to them while they're in jail doesn't concern me. If they get attacked and raped by each other, whatever. Very few sexual assualters are able to be rehabilitated, anyway.

Anyway, I could go on and on about this, because it's actually one of those subjects I feel very passionate about. But I'll stop here. Thanks for reading this.

Jannie, thanks for posting this. I agree that "forgiving" and healing as a victim of violent crime is much harder than thoughts/acts of vengeance. You have to dig deep to find that kind of strength, and if you can do it, then you are a stronger and more enriched (sorry, couldn't think of a better word!) person for it. I'm sorry about your own experience but you sound like you are extremely well-adjusted and at peace with yourself and your situation. I'm so glad to hear it.

[SteveMacD]

Do we really want our laws to be based on "a figurative sense"?
No, but I wasn't using that for justification for the law. That was me simply expressing why I, in theory, support the law. In other words, it was my opinion. We base our laws on a moral code, typically English Common Law.

[SteveMacD]

Jannie, thanks for posting this. I agree that "forgiving" and healing as a victim of violent crime is much harder than thoughts/acts of vengeance.
What's funny, though, is that a lot of victims DO fogive the attacker, even in capital punishment cases, even when the attacker does not seek or want that forgiveness. The concept of forgiveness and the concept of punishment are two very different concepts. How is it different to forgive the attacker when he or she is going to be imprisoned for the rest of his/her life than to forgive an attacker when he/she is going to be put to death? Just because one forgives does not mean a punishment should be less harsh.

[Jyqm]

You see things in black and white, while I see things in shades of grey. Nothing is absolute.

Except capital punishment, of course. Don't get anymore absolute than that.

[The Tower]

Except capital punishment, of course. Don't get anymore absolute than that.
ZZZZZZZZZING!!!!!!!
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[SteveMacD]

Except capital punishment, of course. Don't get anymore absolute than that.
Ah, but that is still just one type of punishment. And, there are varying degrees of charges available to prosecutors. Juries have different sentences they can use in capital cases. Even the judges have the power to override that particular punishment if they felt there something was not presented properly. My point is there are a lot of checks with the punishment, and it's still extremely rare for a prisoner to be executed. It's not so black and white as to say "you killed somebody, therefore you should die" without taking a laundry list of factors into consideration.

Sorry, but I still feel those rednecks who dragged James Byrd to his death, Dahmer, and the likes of Hilter should hang. If you feel that makes me an absolutist who is wrong for his beliefs, I can live with that.

[HomerMcvie]

Steve, I LOVE the new sig!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
ODDLY, I sat at my favorite pub last night, and had a discussion with several guys, on why Al Bundy was so great. The consensus was that nearly every guy can see a little bit of himself in Al. Some, more than others!:]

[SteveMacD]

ZZZZZZZZZING!!!!!!!
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Hmmm. I was wondering when we'd get back to the classic Ledgie group think that turns what was a fairly thoughtful discussion into a love fest between all of the posters who feel holier-than-thou because they agree on an issue. Brandon's was bad, but this...this was pathetic. :distress: Gee, what next? The "you go, girl" or the "that's tellin' him?" Just when I thought it was safe to expect more from a discussion. :distress:

[SteveMacD]

Steve, I LOVE the new sig!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
ODDLY, I sat at my favorite pub last night, and had a discussion with several guys, on why Al Bundy was so great. The consensus was that nearly every guy can see a little bit of himself in Al. Some, more than others!:]
It's all part of being a guy. Men can be absolutely brilliant and completely moronic at the same time. For example, the magazine that has the highest reading level is Playboy. :rolleyes:

[Jyqm]

Sorry, but I still feel those rednecks who dragged James Byrd to his death, Dahmer, and the likes of Hilter should hang. If you feel that makes me an absolutist who is wrong for his beliefs, I can live with that.

Well, clearly you're not an absolutist. Mainly, I'm sad that you didn't reply to my post asking about where you think a person's right to life comes from. I assume you believe it is granted by society, though?

[Jyqm]

It's all part of being a guy. Men can be absolutely brilliant and completely moronic at the same time. For example, the magazine that has the highest reading level is Playboy. :rolleyes:

Playboy's gone downhill somewhat in the past few years, though, at least in the non-boobies sections. It seems like they're becoming too influenced by magazines like Maxim and Blender, that emphasize lots of graphics and blurbs over more substantial text. Doesn't seem like they get as much fiction from big hitters anymore, either, not that that's necessarily a bad thing.

There's nothing better than Playboy's interviews, though (again, boobies excepted). The last issue I read, in August, I think, featured a wonderfully in-depth conversation with Thomas Friedman.

[The Tower]

Hmmm. I was wondering when we'd get back to the classic Ledgie group think that turns what was a fairly thoughtful discussion into a love fest between all of the posters who feel holier-than-thou because they agree on an issue. Brandon's was bad, but this...this was pathetic. :distress: Gee, what next? The "you go, girl" or the "that's tellin' him?" Just when I thought it was safe to expect more from a discussion. :distress:
Oh, drop your Drama Queen behavior (speaking of pathetic). My comment had nothing to do with any kind of "classic Ledgie group" crap or any other kind of love fest. I simply thought his point was extremely concise and dead on target.

The whole point I was trying to make all this time was that the death penalty is absolute and that humans are infallible, so why go to such an extreme step instead of life in prison without parole. You were going on and on about "shades of gray" and "majority rules" and all that other stuff which no one was arguing in the first place. Everyone knows it's the fukcing law. No one is debating that. The debate is that the law is wrong because it's not right for the government to have the power to kill someone. The government (and the human race) is not capable of verifying guilt in every single case. Why this is so difficult to comprehend is beyond me.

All this time I have been part of the discussion and I make one comment on a post from someone I don't even know and now I'm being compared to the Brown Eye? Talk about pathetic......

[SteveMacD]

Oh, drop your Drama Queen behavior (speaking of pathetic). My comment had nothing to do with any kind of "classic Ledgie group" crap or any other kind of love fest. I simply thought his point was extremely concise and dead on target.

The whole point I was trying to make all this time was that the death penalty is absolute and that humans are infallible, so why go to such an extreme step instead of life in prison without parole. You were going on and on about "shades of gray" and "majority rules" and all that other stuff which no one was arguing in the first place. Everyone knows it's the fukcing law. No one is debating that. The debate is that the law is wrong because it's not right for the government to have the power to kill someone. The government (and the human race) is not capable of verifying guilt in every single case. Why this is so difficult to comprehend is beyond me.

All this time I have been part of the discussion and I make one comment on a post from someone I don't even know and now I'm being compared to the Brown Eye? Talk about pathetic......
Okay, okay, whatever...we're talking about boobies now.

[The Tower]

Okay, okay, whatever...we're talking about boobies now.
Well, carry on then, guys. I have no experience with hooters/jabos/juggs/cans/fun bags/tits/boobs. You can have them all.

[estranged4life]

...we're talking about boobies now.

meat curtains!!! Hehehehehe!!!

[jannieC]

What's funny, though, is that a lot of victims DO fogive the attacker, even in capital punishment cases, even when the attacker does not seek or want that forgiveness. The concept of forgiveness and the concept of punishment are two very different concepts. How is it different to forgive the attacker when he or she is going to be imprisoned for the rest of his/her life than to forgive an attacker when he/she is going to be put to death? Just because one forgives does not mean a punishment should be less harsh.
I realized that I didn't really *go* anywhere with my forgiveness bit and how it relates to why I'm against capital punishment. I was just kind of rambling. What made that particular woman's story turn the lightbulb on for me was that she did not believe that we, as a society, had a right to take her daughter's killer's life. She felt that by doing so, it was causing his family the same pain hers went through.

On an unemotional level, states with no death penalty show lower homicide rates (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=169#MRord) so to me, I can't even justify that enforcing the death penalty deters murder. Texas, who executed more prisoners than any other state in 2004, is in the top 15 of highest murder rates.

[SteveMacD]

Quick men...To the Boobmobile!!!












http://www.bcn.net/~limbo/images/cleavage.jpg

[SteveMacD]

That's jibberish which doesn't even debate the issue I was questioning,
Yeah, but Lux, you've already made up your mind, and are not really interested in a debate. So why should I put up the effort? All your going to do is make character assassinations against anybody who disagrees with you. That's your MO. This isn't the first discussion in which you've done it, and I'm pretty sure it won't be the last. I find it too dull, too tedious, and too much of a waste of energy, and frankly I don't really give a damn. I'd rather continue talking about boobies, truth be told.

[HomerMcvie]

That Christina Applegate, she had some nice boobies...:woohoo:

[Brwn_eyes0511]

That Christina Applegate, she had some nice boobies...:woohoo:


That Christine McVie, she had (*cough* HAS) some nice talent!....:woohoo:

[HomerMcvie]

You want to talk about "boobies"? I have a pair, they're not interesting. Why don't we talk about kneecaps aswell?
What is your kneecaps cup size? Do you know, I have a pair of knee pads? They're extra large. Quite fitting, for crawling around, on your hands and knees............underneath an old house. They're quite exciting, if crawling around underneath an old house is your thing!:blob2: :blob2: :blob2: I ONLY crawl around underneath old houses in the wintertime, cuz I'm terrified of snakes!!! Did I tell you I have my own kneepads?:]

[Brwn_eyes0511]

What is your kneecaps cup size? Do you know, I have a pair of knee pads? They're extra large. Quite fitting, for crawling around, on your hands and knees............underneath an old house. They're quite exciting, if crawling around underneath an old house is your thing!:blob2: :blob2: :blob2: I ONLY crawl around underneath old houses in the wintertime, cuz I'm terrified of snakes!!! Did I tell you I have my own kneepads?:]

<img src="http://www.carolinanature.com/herps/rbws1366.jpg">


I AM TOO!!! And I saw one of these bitches up close this past summer...:( :( :(

[tynan88]

Can you please take that photo down..I don't wanna get in this debate but just read it...scared the living sh*t out of me.

[michelle2677]

Can you please take that photo down..I don't wanna get in this debate but just read it...scared the living sh*t out of me.

I'm right there with you, my friend. I can deal with spiders. I can deal with mice. but I canNOT deal with snakes!:distress:

[SuzeQuze]

Missed the end of this thread but wanted to add my 2 "cents" ;)

<img src="http://www.photospin.com/content/photos/full/1120044.jpg" />

[BTFLCHLD]

Missed the end of this thread but wanted to add my 2 "cents" ;)
and i will bounce a quarter off that! :]