DC Sniper

Three quick things.

1. Successful crime reduction is a product of criminal REFORM and not PUNISHMENT systems.

2. Gandhi has something to say about eye for an eye.

3. Our judicial system makes mistakes. About 2 years ago evidence that CLEARED A MAN FOR A CRIME HE WAS EXECUTED FOR was found. But since he was dead they really couldn't release him.

To be honest, I am tired and I am going to sleep in a few minutes, that's why I didn't read your link.

People's views on CP (rofl capital punishment/child porn have the same initials) were formed before that article. I know mine were.

Maybe I came off a bit belligerent. I meant more that I was trying show you an example of misplaced punishment and of the massive flaws that erupt from human institutions. From the way you've been posting, you seem to believe in an almost infallible system where revenge is served to only those that deserve it. Yet...that's not always the case. When you put an innocent man to death, what more value can be found in this system?

In any case, if revenge was truly the point of the justice system, we'd be allowing vigilante rule and/or letting the families of victims put the convicted murderer to death. But we don't. In fact, we even have an amendment in the Constitution itself prohibiting such acts to be done. This is moot, of course, if you view general incarceration and such to fall under society's "revenge" for law-breakers, which is actually funny, considering that most prisoners are poor, minority, etc. Like they haven't been punished enough

But that's just the bleeding-heart liberal inside me talking.

Maybe I came off a bit belligerent. I meant more that I was trying show you an example of misplaced punishment and of the massive flaws that erupt from human institutions. From the way you've been posting, you seem to believe in an almost infallible system where revenge is served to only those that deserve it. Yet...that's not always the case. When you put an innocent man to death, what more value can be found in this system?

In any case, if revenge was truly the point of the justice system, we'd be allowing vigilante rule and/or letting the families of victims put the convicted murderer to death. But we don't. In fact, we even have an amendment in the Constitution itself prohibiting such acts to be done. This is moot, of course, if you view general incarceration and such to fall under society's "revenge" for law-breakers, which is actually funny, considering that most prisoners are poor, minority, etc. Like they haven't been punished enough

But that's just the bleeding-heart liberal inside me talking.

I took criminal justice classes, one taught by a very high-ranking cop, one taught by the prosecutor who convicted John Wayne Gacy. They told me that the vast majority of people accused of a crime are guilty of it. That's becuase the prosecutor's track record is based on SUCCESSES. If a prosecutor gets a case that he feels he cannot win, most of the time he will not press charges, because winning = his livelihood. If you take that into account -- the fact that they only prosecute cases which they are very likely to win -- you get the simple fact that most of those convicted are guilty. I am sorry, but when you are convicted by a jury "beyond a reasonable doubt," or when your defense attorney feels that pleading guilty is preferable to go going to trial, you probably ARE guilty. There ARE innocent people derailed by the system, but not nearly as many as the liberal media claims. Keep in mind, there are people that hold candlelight vigils for 1st degree murderers that are about to be executed, without any regard to the murder victims. Such people are liberal to a loony extent, to where they will try to make the murderer look innocent when he clearly isn;t. Look up the case of Mumia Abu Jamal, who murdered a police officer in cold blood in front of 4 witnesses, he made a mockery of his trial... and then the extreme left made him an international "victim," "journalist," and "hero." The facts all say he's guilty, but his supporters are too liberal to care.

Revenge and hatred should be considered base emotions ranking on about the same level as greed and envy. Such emotions need to be kept under the control of rational thought processes. The death penalty doesn't deter crime and murder, so what does it do? Like Frank Castle once said, "IT'S NOT REVENGE... IT'S PUNISHMENT."

Of course, society needs to protect itself from criminals. This is done by improving law-enforcement methods, correcting social conditions that contribute to crime, incarcerating those who are a danger to society, rehabilitating criminals who aren't incorrigible, and deterring people from becoming lawbreakers. The death penalty is not a solution to anything. Instead, it's a violent and hateful act that makes the world worse. Really, anyone who's pro-death penalty just wants to see someone die for what they did, or they just flat-out don't care.

Civilization exists for the sake of civilization, not for the sake of those who would destroy it. There is in each human being the conflict between his mind and his animalistic impulses. We emerged out of caves 10,000 years ago, which in terms of biological evolution is not even a moment. In the society of skyscrapers, some of the instincts that were needed 10,000 years ago just cause problems.

You do have certain societies, (Middle East comes readily to mind,) which solve their problems through violence, and you cannot speak reason to them, you must speak with your own violence, or they will destroy you. On a grand scale, if you capture someone like Hitler, how do you punish him with anything but the death penalty? The fuucker took 22 million lives, he invented a doctrine that is the mantra of psychos and murderers throughout the world, and as long as he lives -- even in a cell -- he will act as a beacon to those like him in our society. So then you narrow the scope a bit. You got a Colombian warlord that took 10,000 lives, is he any less of a monster than Hitler? Then you narrow down further... so at what point do you conclude that the guy is "just" a murderer, not like Hitler or the Colombian warlord? How many lives must a man take before society MUST conclude that death is the only proper punishment? To me, it's one. To you it may be one million. But to each person -- even the liberal person -- there exists a point where a person is beyond life in prison, and within the scope of the death penalty. Israel does not practice the death penalty even on the terrorists that it captures alive, but in the beginning of its history, Israeli commandos captured Eichmann, (one of those directly responsible in orchestrating the Holocaust,) and after a thorough trial, he was executed. To this day he remains the only person executed by the state of Israel except in combat operations.

A murderer is by definition a creature whose existence violates the rules of society. Living in a civilized society means obeying the laws of that society, and there is no crime greater than murder. The only reason not to take a murderer's life is the theory -- right or wrong -- that killing a criminal casts a taint on the civilization that he violated. It's really nothing more than that. The criminal's life is not itself precious or sacred, because a man that is depraved enough to kill another in cold blood is not himself anything but living meat. If you think that killing a criminal is improper because civilized society must exist above that, that's one thing. But please, don't tell me that a murderer is somehow equal to a civilized human being. Your actions dictate who you are, they can sanctify you or denigrate you. It seems a bit disingenuous to speak of the abstract human soul, completely ignoring what the person has DONE.

I don't like the death penalty, but at the same time I don't think this guy is worth arguing over. The magnitude of his actions makes people irrational and I can accept that even if I don't understand it.

I'm talking about Death Penalty in general, jsut because you killed someone doesn't give you the rights to take their's. He was wrong for taking someone elses life but what gives YOU the right to take his life in replacement for the lives lost? It's a lose-lose situation if you ask me.

But tell me, do you trust every prosecutor to be acting in the full interest in the law, and not for his own political purposes? Do you trust any judge, any jury to be acting in ways free of bias for an accused? Do you believe that every lawyer acting for the defendant to be fully competent for the defense, and not just telling their client to plead guilty to lessen their own workload?

You seem to take it as a fact that there are innocent people that are convicted and summarily killed by the state, but yet have no qualms about it. I find it hard to believe how anyone in this era can see the failings of the current criminal system and believe it to be an almost infallible arbiter of justice.

So please, answer my question: what value can be found in a system that puts innocent people to death?

And if you can, take 20 minutes out of your time to read the article. It's an enlightening read, regardless of personal stances on this argument.

Revenge and hatred should be considered base emotions ranking on about the same level as greed and envy. Such emotions need to be kept under the control of rational thought processes. The death penalty doesn't deter crime and murder, so what does it do? Like Frank Castle once said, "IT'S NOT REVENGE... IT'S PUNISHMENT."

Of course, society needs to protect itself from criminals. This is done by improving law-enforcement methods, correcting social conditions that contribute to crime, incarcerating those who are a danger to society, rehabilitating criminals who aren't incorrigible, and deterring people from becoming lawbreakers. The death penalty is not a solution to anything. Instead, it's a violent and hateful act that makes the world worse. Really, anyone who's pro-death penalty just wants to see someone die for what they did, or they just flat-out don't care.

[color="#cc8899"]I'm pro death penalty in cases like this because
1) Chances are, they're not going to feel remorse, meaning imprisonment has little punitive value
2) They're getting 3 meals a day, exercise time, medical, and anything else they need, and a surprising degree of what they want

You argued that it's about punishment, and I fail to see how sending someone to the equivalent of the time-out corner is adequately doing so. If both options are equally useless, go with the one that wastes less money (with the alternative being a lifetime in prison, which at even $20 a day between food, staff, supplies, repairs, etc over the course of even as short a time as 40 years (reasonable if the person is 35 or so, some may be in prison 50-60+) the costs add up to way more. [/COLOR]

So please, answer my question: what value can be found in a system that puts innocent people to death?

I already told you htat hardly any innocent people get put to death under this system. As imperfect people, we cannot have a perfect system of law. Therefore, assuming some fuuck-ups will occur, we cannot change the whole system for like the 0.001% of those in the prison population who don't deserve to be there.

i say the only downside is they can only kill him once.

Who said, eye for an eye will leave everyone blind?

I agree though, 1 less useless being on the planet is always good.

Zephyr: It was Ghandi; the same Ghandi that said that Europe should surrender to Hitler and protest him peacefully.

i say the only downside is they can only kill him once.

Brevity AND gusto, I love it.

Who said, eye for an eye will leave everyone blind?

I agree though, 1 less useless being on the planet is always good.

Gahndi, Jesus?
We have two eyes. I take yours, you take mine- ohshit, we can't see. That's called being blind.

Well, keep going and you'll lose the other one.


well, gahndi had a point there quantac, either surrender or prepare for a massive slaughter that would only lead to destruction.

History proved him wrong though... i think?

[color="#cc8899"]I'm pro death penalty in cases like this because
1) Chances are, they're not going to feel remorse, meaning imprisonment has little punitive value
2) They're getting 3 meals a day, exercise time, medical, and anything else they need, and a surprising degree of what they want

You argued that it's about punishment, and I fail to see how sending someone to the equivalent of the time-out corner is adequately doing so. If both options are equally useless, go with the one that wastes less money (with the alternative being a lifetime in prison, which at even $20 a day between food, staff, supplies, repairs, etc over the course of even as short a time as 40 years (reasonable if the person is 35 or so, some may be in prison 50-60+) the costs add up to way more. [/COLOR]

I have to agree with this, although I don't think I would ever be able to be the one who actually kills the murderer. I just don't think I have it in me to kill any other human being, unless it would save the life of a loved one, or my own.

About "being the one killing the murderer" if you aren't against it, you are also killing the murderer, your choice helped the whole thing happen, the guy pressing the death button and you are no different.

I already told you htat hardly any innocent people get put to death under this system. As imperfect people, we cannot have a perfect system of law. Therefore, assuming some fuuck-ups will occur, we cannot change the whole system for like the 0.001% of those in the prison population who don't deserve to be there.

Hardly =/= none

Aaaaaand I'm done. Thanks for playing.

Eye for an eye. No one gave him the right to take the lives of innocent people.

Sorry, but he deserved to die for killing those people. He shouldn't be allowed to live the rest of his life in a prison, where our taxes are paying for him to have food and shelter.

Just want to say something. All the costs for the death penalty (appeals, time in jail, etc.) add up to cost more than just having the person in prison their whole life. Us killing these people just costs us more tax dollars.

Also, really, what is the punishment in death? Many people kill themselves so they won't serve time in prison (Hitler, Virginia Tech shooter, etc.).

Hardly =/= none

Aaaaaand I'm done. Thanks for playing.

Infinitesmally small is not none, but it's closer to "none" than to "some."

So what's the acceptable amount of innocent citizens that we allow to be put to death?

Just want to say something. All the costs for the death penalty (appeals, time in jail, etc.) add up to cost more than just having the person in prison their whole life. Us killing these people just costs us more tax dollars.

Also, really, what is the punishment in death? Many people kill themselves so they won't serve time in prison (Hitler, Virginia Tech shooter, etc.).

If it costs even $20 to keep a person in prison each day for 40 years, it's looking to be about the same price. The only problem with expense is the legal bullshit that has to be gone through, which is an error in the judicial system, not in the death penalty itself.

Doing to someone what he did wrong to show him it was wrong=wrong.
You don't hit your kid to show him hitting people is wrong. That's the exact opposite of what you want to accomplish. Yes in prison they cost pomegranateheaps of taxpayer dollars, but how do you think (almost) every other bleeding country of the world does it? Just don't use so much pineappleing oil and stop pineappleing starting wars everywhere and poking your nose where it shouldn't be. You'd have money to spare even after not killing people but making them do community service/forced menial labor etc.

Again, proving a point by preforming the said wrong action yourself makes the whole thing rediculous.

An eye for an eye is litterally the most shortsighted reasoning anyone could have, you'd think those millions of years of evolution would have gotten us past the Dark ages. I don't like reading stuff, but pomegranate people, go read a book or two, get educated, stop reasoning like animals, we're people for god's sake.

No, I don't believe in god, just a lot of expressions have some of the trinity weaved into them. The remark of letting god handle them is bullcrap, we all know that. There is no god. That doesn't mean we can do whatever the pineapple we want, though. We made rules as people, there are human pineappleing rights. You are not allowed to steal someone else's life. Period. No exceptions.