Governor denies clemency for ex-gang leader

[Jyqm]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

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

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]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

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]

Originally Posted by paleshadow

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]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

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.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by BombaySapphire3

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]

Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511

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]

Originally Posted by Lux

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.

Originally Posted by Lux

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.

Originally Posted by Lux

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.

Originally Posted by Lux

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 b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment e : capable of right and wrong action
2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL
3 : having the effects of such on the mind, confidence, or will

Originally Posted by Lux

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.

Originally Posted by Lux

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 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.

Originally Posted by Lux

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).

Originally Posted by Lux

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]

Originally Posted by SteveMacD

He he murdered four people

This is no laughing matter, Steve.

[SteveMacD]

Originally Posted by Jyqm

This is no laughing matter, Steve.

Smart ass.

[paleshadow]

Originally Posted by amber

Sorry, this wording threw me off:


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

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]

Originally Posted by jannieC

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]

Originally Posted by dissention

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.