Governor denies clemency for ex-gang leader

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by The Tower

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.

Originally Posted by The Tower

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.

Originally Posted by The Tower

Then put them in prison and don’t let them out.

Because society has deemed this an inadequate punishment.

Originally Posted by The Tower

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.

Originally Posted by The Tower

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.

Originally Posted by The Tower

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.

Originally Posted by The Tower

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.

Originally Posted by The Tower

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.

Originally Posted by The Tower

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?

Originally Posted by The Tower

Again, who defines mental illness?

Well, we could start with the APA.

Originally Posted by The Tower

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?

Originally Posted by The Tower

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]

Originally Posted by The Tower

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.

Originally Posted by The Tower

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.

Originally Posted by The Tower

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, 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."

Originally Posted by The Tower

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.

Originally Posted by The Tower

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]

Originally Posted by Lux

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.

Originally Posted by Lux

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.

Originally Posted by Lux

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.

Originally Posted by Lux

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.

Originally Posted by Lux

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]

Originally Posted by Lux

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.

Originally Posted by Lux

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.

Originally Posted by Lux

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.

Originally Posted by Lux

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.

Originally Posted by Lux

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]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

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]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

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]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

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]

Originally Posted by Lux

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.

Originally Posted by Lux

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.

Originally Posted by Lux

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.

Originally Posted by Lux

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.

Originally Posted by Lux

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

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]

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

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]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

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]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

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

ZZZZZZZZZING!!!!!!!