Err.....
Printable View
Err.....
I must say that this is the longest, most relatively civil thread I've seen here covering a topic as rife with emotion as the debate over the death penalty.
I watched "The Last Days of WWII" on the History Channel and saw all the stuff regarding the Nuremburg Trials and the execution of the convicted Nazis. While I still believe that the death penalty is wrong and should be avoided at all costs, I still derived a great deal of satisfaction in knowing that those bastards did not escape justice (except for Hermann Goering, who committed suicide via a cyanide poison capsule).
Regardless, I still believe that it is barbaric, and despite the fervent arguments put forward here, I still find the idea of state-sanctioned killing deplorable, even when it is (in the opinion of many) truly deserved.
Sure, the victims had the right to leave free from crime, but killing the criminal does NOT undo the crime. Of course some believe that it provides for justice (in a Biblical sort of way), but "two wrongs do not a right make."
Criminals deserve to pay for their actions, but they (and society) would be far better served by rehabilitation rather than permanent incarceration (in MOST cases) or execution.
I cannot justify the intentional killing of an individual by another individual, organization, or government. I do support the right of the individual to end his own life in the case of prolonged illness and/or incapacitation, but only in specific circumstances.
Just because a person commits a crime so heinous that he deserves to die does not mean that he should die. That is a barbaric, outdated notion that should have been abandoned in the Dark Ages rather than still adhered to in the 21st century.
mactavish out.
Mac,
I'm not saying anyone deserves to die. I don't have the right to decide that. We do have a government, however, that does just that. What I am saying is only this... our only two choices for a certainl level of crime is to kill them or life without parole. I see no sense in locking someone away for the rest of their life and not even trying to rehabilitate them. In that case, I think death makes more sense. If there is ANY alternate sentence, I'd like to see that instead.
------------------
"You got your Star Trek Trek in my roleplaying game!"
"You got your roleplaying game in my Star Trek!"
LUGTrek, two great tastes that taste great together
Sorry for moving this thread up again, and I actually do hope that noone even reads my post. But this is a great button pusher for me. I where back to the board when this topic was only 1/3 of it's current size. But I left again until I knew that I could made a civilized post. Some weeks ago did I have a layout of a long text that really explained my point of view. But I tossed it into the bit bucket.
So here is my short version:
I believe that the death penalty is wrong in every way. I am also allergic against the "you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs" mentality.
Using deadly force in the defense of own, or others, life is perfectly fine with me. And it is the perceived threat that counts. For example; An unloaded, or fake, gun is treated as a live one. But the second the threat is gone, then the right to use that force is gone.
If anyone have a great urge to hear any longer, more detailed version of any of the two above. Just let me know.
Cpt. Lundgren
Who is far out of sync with anything even remotely connected to this board.
The Nuremburg Trials? This has always been a bit of a button pusher for me, if you are going to have a trial, have a TRIAL not some drumhead Kangaroo court. As far as I am concerned the Nuremburg Trials were a travisty of Justice. If you are going to go through all the trouble to put a court together then make it fair, most of the defendants were deprived of the simple rights a common criminal takes for granted.
A trial is not to be used as a facade of how civilized we are, a trial is to determine facts. If you are going to kill a war criminal either way, take him out back where no one can see you and put a bullet in his brain pan, don't make a farce out of the justice System, just so you can show the world "look we are nothing like these people, they will have the fair trial they deserve...Ok, guys you all have those pieces of paper with GUILTY on them will need them when the "trial" is over." There was no differnce between the Nuremburg Trials and court system under Hitler, we are just like the monsters we slay, there is no getting away from it, and I find that a frightening thought.
I should say before someone mis-reads what I have posted here. I do fully and whole heartedly believe that everyone of those Nazi bastards got what was owed them. I simply believe that the laws of the land are what separate us from the beasts of the fields, they should not be over-ridden no matter what the case.
I have my asbestos armour on, let the flamage begin. http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/wink.gif
------------------
In the Praetors Name!
Personally, I believe that anyone who is against the death penalty should surrender a portion of their income to upkeep the criminals currently serving a life sentence for multiple killings or killing babies/children. I also hope that you would pay for the upkeep of the alleged suspect Nikolai Soltys who killed his son (which was found recently), his pregnant wife, two cousins (ages under 12), and an aunt and uncle in Sacramento ... as soon as the law enforcement capture him and bring him to justice.
Yes, he is currently at large.
------------------
Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...
[This message has been edited by REG (edited 08-22-2001).]
In general, I support the death penalty but only when it is applied equally and justly without any bias other than the crime in question.
I believe that it should be limited murderers, certain sexual offenders, and traitors.
I do believe that the death should be done in as a humane way as possible and totally devoid of any sense of celebration.
It is my belief that when a person is put to death for heinous crimes that all should mourn and remember that what had lain in that person's heart also lies in our hearts also, and the only difference between us and them is that we do not act upon our lower natures, and we must be reminded that we should always be vigilant against that which lies within us all.
I don't know about sexual offenders (there are varying degrees) unless the crime does involves violence against the victim in the form of dismemberment or mutilation.
But homicide beyond the shadow of the doubt should be.
------------------
Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...
A little one-sided here, not everyone is on death row for that crime.Quote:
Originally posted by REG:
Personally, I believe that anyone who is against the death penalty should surrender a portion of their income to upkeep the criminals currently serving a life sentence for multiple killings or killing babies/children.
However, to answer your exact point.
We Do Already. They are called taxes. Yours goes towards bullets, chemicals or Electricity, mine goes towards food, medicine and the like...
Its all a matter of perspective...
------------------
DanG.
"Hi, I'm Commander Troy McClure, you might remember me from other academy training holo-simulations as, Abandon Ship, the quickest way out, and I sense danger, 101 things you dont need a Betazoid to know..."
http://www.theventure.freeserve.co.uk
I know. But let's call on a new tax that allows citizens that oppose the death penalty to pay upkeep for prisoner serving life sentences. That way I am not paying for them.
And you are right. Cases have shown that there are innocents that are serving death sentences. We need to improve the judicial system in the US. Just saying that this system is better than the other countries is no longer a good enough reason NOT to improve. But a death penalty should still be considered for the most blatant, most heinous of crimes.
------------------
Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...
[This message has been edited by REG (edited 08-23-2001).]
That was the point. I wouldn't want my money paying for the method of execution. So (were I living in the states) its a simple matter of justification to self.Quote:
Originally posted by REG:
I know. But let's call on a new tax that allows citizens that oppose the death penalty to pay upkeep for prisoner serving life sentences. That way I am not paying for them.
You dont want yours paying for the prisons, I dont want to pay for the execution. Therefore we can Define the cost that you pay for one and I (or someone like me) the other...
Of course thats not the way it works and I know it. But its what makes you sleep at night.
Just remember that (like it or not) part of your execution cost does include long-term incarceration and legal costs. After all you want to be sure your killing the right man. Right?
------------------
DanG.
"Hi, I'm Commander Troy McClure, you might remember me from other academy training holo-simulations as, Abandon Ship, the quickest way out, and I sense danger, 101 things you dont need a Betazoid to know..."
http://www.theventure.freeserve.co.uk
[This message has been edited by Dan Gurden (edited 08-23-2001).]
Well, sort of I do. The taxes here is quite high. I could easily get a higher salary, and lower taxes, by moving my but over to the states. We do have our share of murderers here as well.Quote:
Originally posted by REG:
Personally, I believe that anyone who is against the death penalty should surrender a portion of their income to upkeep the criminals currently serving a life sentence for multiple killings or killing babies/children.
There is an debate, quite interesting, which punishment that is the most cost effective. But for me, economy is never an issue if a human life should be taken or not.
Noone here can make me change my mind, and I don't want to try changing anyone else mind (at least not here at the board). I have however found this thread interesting.
Cpt. Lundgren
He he, that much for trying to write a post at work, in a thread like this. 5 new post while I was writing mine.
[This message has been edited by Cpt. Lundgren (edited 08-23-2001).]
Just remember that (like it or not) part of your execution cost does include long-term incarceration and legal costs. After all you want to be sure your killing the right man. Right?
Of course. Our legal system must adhere to the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" (yes, I know it currently needed improvement).
And just because I'm in support of the death penalty does not mean I'm against keeping the life sentence. Those two should be available as options. That's all I ask. And once again, it should be for the most blatant, most heinous of crimes, like the assassination of a member of the royal family visiting the US. Or would you prefer that we prevent the extradition of the alleged assassin because you have a death penalty for killing a member of the royal family? (Correct me if I'm wrong since I am not well versed in the laws of your country and the judicial punishments.)
------------------
Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...
[This message has been edited by REG (edited 08-23-2001).]
Well, no one here can change your mind. Only you can do so voluntarily.
And you're right, economy is not the issue. The issue is the victim or victims whose lives suddenly cut short by the perpetrator. The issue is the victims' surviving family members and close friends who have to deal with such a senseless loss of life.
------------------
Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...
And what a terrible world it would be if this was not true.Quote:
Originally posted by REG:
Well, no one here can change your mind. Only you can do so voluntarily..
I am glad that you agree with me about the economical part.Quote:
And you're right, economy is not the issue..
I do agree with you that this is one of the issues. But it is only a part (although an emotional heavy weighter) of the whole. Most, but not all of it, has already been mentioned on this thread earlier.Quote:
The issue is the victim or victims whose lives suddenly cut short by the perpetrator. The issue is the victims' surviving family members and close friends who have to deal with such a senseless loss of life.
/Lundgren
Actually under the current system when all is said and done it is more expensive to execute someone in the US than it is to keep them in proison for life.Quote:
Originally posted by REG:
I know. But let's call on a new tax that allows citizens that oppose the death penalty to pay upkeep for prisoner serving life sentences. That way I am not paying for them.
And you are right. Cases have shown that there are innocents that are serving death sentences. We need to improve the judicial system in the US. Just saying that this system is better than the other countries is no longer a good enough reason NOT to improve. But a death penalty should still be considered for the most blatant, most heinous of crimes.
Again that's an argument against they system that imposes the penalty, not the penalty itself.
------------------
"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees..."
Shania Twain
Except for one thing. It is CHEAPER to have them serve a life sentance than to go through the legal fees of killing them. Perhaps you death-penalty believers would like to surrender a portion of YOUR income to pay for the extra legal fees?Quote:
Personally, I believe that anyone who is against the death penalty should surrender a portion of their income to upkeep the criminals currently serving a life sentence
I can anticiapte the next posts now: "well, we can fix that by reducing the legal hoops you have to jump through to execute someone." Of course, those legal hoops are attempts to reduce the number of innocent wrongly executed. Eliminating them would definetly increase the number wrongly executed. What else? You have to pay lawyers and judges.
There's no easy answer if you want to execute people. Save your money AND avoid being complicit in state-sponsored killings of both the innocent and the guilty by being against the death penalty.
I've done some reading in the Nuremberg Trials, including two books by US judges who sat on the tibunals, one a US Supreme Court judge.Quote:
Originally posted by Phantom:
I should say before someone mis-reads what I have posted here. I do fully and whole heartedly believe that everyone of those Nazi bastards got what was owed them. I simply believe that the laws of the land are what separate us from the beasts of the fields, they should not be over-ridden no matter what the case.
I have my asbestos armour on, let the flamage begin. http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/wink.gif
While not perfect, the trials actually were remarkably fair all things considered.
Remember that they were carried out under the laws of Germany, not the US, so some rights and procedures were different from what Americans are used to.
------------------
"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees..."
Shania Twain
Okay, for those of you that support the death penalty, what is the primary reason for that support? Do you support it for economic reasons (i.e. cheaper to kill than imprison for life), vengence (i.e. "an eye for an eye"), or some other reason?
If you are supportive for economic reasons, consider this: both Mexico and Turkey have offered to house American criminals for a mere $5/day apiece. Considering that the cost of such imprisonment would be about $2000 annually. Would that be more viable to you monetarily?
If you're in it for vengence, wouldn't you prefer something heinous for the execution? Like feeding them feet first into a meat grinder or letting them be eaten alive by starving animals? If the point is to reap vengence for their victims, why not do something equally debased and cruel?
The whole money argument, while a valid point, doesn't wash with me. It is not about money. If that's the concern, sentence them to hard labor and force them to clothe and feed themselves via 16-18 hours of gruelling, backbreaking labor every day.
If you're in it for vengence, the Mexican/Turkish imprisonment should satiate you. Believe me, death is preferable to a Turkish prison. Besides which, the only way to truly acquire absolute vengence is to murder the criminal in the same way he (in this instance) murdered his victims. Otherwise you're not getting revenge, you're just killing somebody for commiting an equally despicable act.
We should not kill convicted criminals - regardless of their crimes - because it is a base, twisted, unenlightened act. It supports all who claim that mankind is merely a bunch of animals instead of an enlightened, civilized species. I would certainly grieve and suffer unimaginably if a friend or family member was raped, murdered, or otherwise defiled, but I would not desire mortal retribution. That smacks too much of religious indignation as opposed to justice under the laws of man, and I'll have no part of it.
Truly it is completely incomprehensible that a person could take the life of an innocent; I cannot imagine anything worse than such a crime (like rape, murder, etc.). Nevertheless, execution - state-sanctioned murder - is not the answer.
mactavish out.
You are, in the above statement, assuming you can predict with reliability how you would react in such an extreme situation. I challenge that. How do you know you wouldn't be filled with a murderous rage and desire for vengeance? While I can acknowledge and endorse your desire not to react in such a fashion, and admire your commitment to the ideals of civilization and enlightenment, to say you wouldn't desire mortal retribution is clearly presumptuous until, God forbid, you experience such a situation.Quote:
Originally posted by mactavish:
I would certainly grieve and suffer unimaginably if a friend or family member was raped, murdered, or otherwise defiled, but I would not desire mortal retribution.
Of course, if you have faced this terrible happenstance, then your statement is a far more valid one.
[This message has been edited by LCM (edited 08-23-2001).]
Regardless of whether I have suffered such a travesty in my life - it's not your business so I'm not telling - is not relevant to the situation.
I cannot honestly imagine a set of circumstances that would cause me to endorse the state-sanctioned murder of another human. I didn't say that I wouldn't want retribution, only that I would not want that person to die. I'd much rather see a criminal incarcerated and, in a perfect world, rehabilitatedto the degree that they could eventually reenter society.
There are programs that actually work for this sort of criminal. California has had great success in many of their penal facilities in rehabilitating domestically-abusive men, rapists, and even murderers. And the recitivism rate is less than 10%.
There are some that cannot be rehabilitated, and it is my belief that these individuals should be locked away in either a supermax prison or kept under near-permanent sedation at a mental health care facility. Some things are broken too badly for meaningful repair.
When a body has a cancer, you remove it from the otherwise healthy body. Some may use this analogy to suggest that capital punishment is the "cutting out" of a cancerous individual from an otherwise healthy society. I see it as the suggestion that the root of the criminal behavior can be determined and excised via psychological testing and therapy.
While it's true that some are animals that will never be rehabilitated, it is also a documented fact that the majority of American executions take place on poor, under-educated individuals from bad environments, often with a history of behavioral or mental problems. Therapy and rehabilitation would certainly prove more humane and beneficial to society in the long run, as opposed to killing the convicted.
If there is even a glimmer of hope regarding rehabilitation, shouldn't that be the goal?
mactavish out.
Okay, for those of you that support the death penalty, what is the primary reason for that support? Do you support it for economic reasons (i.e. cheaper to kill than imprison for life), vengence (i.e. "an eye for an eye"), or some other reason?
-----------
Some other reason.
Specifically, I find it highly dubious that we shoudl warehouse criminals. By warehousing, I refer to people who are in for Life Without Parole (heretofore referred to as "Lifers"). It's not just about cost, it's about practicality. We have no intention of ever letting these people back into soceity, so rehabilitation is a moot point.
Instead, we pack them away in a prison, and then that prison fills up, and we build more prisons, and those fill up... At this rate, we should co-opt one of our less populous states (Alaska would do nicely), fence the whole damn thing off and make it a prison. Or maybe in that regard I watch too much John Carpenter. =)
Is execution an ideal punishment? No no NO! But, given the means of rehabilitation we have now, it makes far more sense than just packing them away.
China's politics aren't the best int he world, but even faulty governments usually do -something- right. In this case, it's that China, when it executes people, harvests them for organs. That to me makes a hell of as lot of sense. They tok from soceity, let them give back. Add to that the severe shortage of donated organs in this country...
------------------
"You got your Star Trek Trek in my roleplaying game!"
"You got your roleplaying game in my Star Trek!"
LUGTrek, two great tastes that taste great together
If you are supportive for economic reasons, consider this: both Mexico and Turkey have offered to house American criminals for a mere $5/day apiece. Considering that the cost of such imprisonment would be about $2000 annually. Would that be more viable to you monetarily?
But can they be accorded the same basic civil rights as a US citizen in a prison in another country with its own set of laws, despite the fact that he is a convicted criminal? (Funny, how I still support both the death penalty and the basic civil rights of a criminal.) Just because you give the criminal a life sentence in another country's prison does not mean it's better than a death sentence, especially when they may treat criminals inhumanely.
Granted, Hawaii have sent criminals to privately-owned prisons in the mainland to alleviating the overcrowding here, but there have been cases of discriminations against them being outsiders.
------------------
Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...
Even the rehabilitation program has to be improved.
Here's a twist. Should we spend our taxpayer's money on rehabilitating "lifers." They have no possibility for parole, and therefore will not be introduced back into society. Shouldn't they concentrate their effort to rehabilitate those who have that possibility of parole?
------------------
Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...
Except for one thing. It is CHEAPER to have them serve a life sentance than to go through the legal fees of killing them. Perhaps you death-penalty believers would like to surrender a portion of YOUR income to pay for the extra legal fees?
Why? Since they got a life sentence they don't need to further challenge the court? They're still alive, right? They still can see their family members who visits them, even gain conjugal visits (whether he is already someone's "wife" or not inside the prison).
And what of the survivors of the deceased victim?
If I have to pay extra tax to ensure that criminal charged with a blatant crime and have more than sufficient evidence (non circumstial) beyond the reasonable doubt to convict him, then by all means, I would. The criminal have as much right to appeal whether the punishment for him carries a death penalty or a life sentence.
But once all legal matters have exhausted and criminal gets a life sentence instead, then my tax money should stop there.
------------------
Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...
No, Reg. People facing life in prison DO have as much right to appeal as those facing the death penalty. But for some reason those facing the death penalty keep on fighting the legal battle as if their life depended on it. Can't imagine why.
The hard fact is, as much as you obfuscate, with our current (USA) system it simply is more expensive to kill them off. Costs more money. By your argument, you should pay more.
Now, in response to Mactavish, the economic reason is not the reason I personally am against it. But it makes it hard for me to understand the arguments of those who are for it. If for the sake of argument it was cheaper to kill criminals (and occasional innocents) off, I would still disagree with the practice but I could *understand* their arguement. Or alternatively if it worked as a deterrent (instead of states having the death penalty having higher crime rates as is actually the case [although granted it is not clear if that fact is causative or correlative]) then I could understand their argument even if I had moral reasons for disagreeing.
But as it is, it seems killing criminals is more a matter of faith than conclusion. It hurts our society in materiel, pragmatic ways. You might disagree on the philosophy, but saying we have to do it to protect society or save money is just ignoring the uncomfortable facts.
Destroying individuals who take, take, take from soceity without giving back, have no chance at redemption, and will never live beyond prison walls again hurts our soceity? No offense, but how, praytell?
------------------
"You got your Star Trek Trek in my roleplaying game!"
"You got your roleplaying game in my Star Trek!"
LUGTrek, two great tastes that taste great together
Think about what you just said:
If they're in prison, they don't harm society any more. It costs more money to kill them. That's a cost to society. I think there's also a moral cost, but not everyone agrees and I understand that part.Quote:
and will never live beyond prison walls again
That's not even counting the cost that innocents are also killed. Of course no one is in favor of killing innocent people. It is impossible to ONLY "Destroy[]individuals who take, take, take from soceity without giving back". Because of inevitable human fallability, we can only "destroy individuals who take, take, take from society and ALSO destroy a few people who give, give, give to society." That too is a cost to society.
[This message has been edited by Diamond (edited 08-24-2001).]
No, but who cares? If you're going to kill them anyway, why not keep them alive and make them suffer?
Because as you or someone else said, there are those who may have been wrongfully convicted. http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/biggrin.gif
As for imprisoning criminals in another area, I don't mind but what island prison are we going to find that is infested with deep water and sharks?
And again, there is the prisoner's civil rights as well as the civil rights of his loved ones that want to visit him.
------------------
Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...
There are only two attitudes to take.
1. Even though we realize that some who are convicted are actually innocent, we are going to punish everyone as their conviction deserves.
2. Because we realize that some who are convicted are actually innocent, we are not going to punish anyone as their conviction deserves.
The second position is the one currently taken by US society, and many of the posters on this board.
As individuals we can agonize over the individual cases, however the state must view the system as a whole. It must attempt to convict as many guilty, and exhonorate as many innocent, as it can within reasonable cost.
In the US because of our beliefs we bias our system so that more guilty get away than innocent are convicted. However, any human system is inherantly imperfect... some innocent will always be convicted, no matter how much effort is expended... unless we don't convict anyone at all.
------------------
"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees..."
Shania Twain
Again, that cost is imposed by the system that implements the punishment. It is not a cost of the punishment itself.Quote:
Originally posted by Diamond:
Think about what you just said:
If they're in prison, they don't harm society any more. It costs more money to kill them. That's a cost to society. I think there's also a moral cost, but not everyone agrees and I understand that part.Quote:
and will never live beyond prison walls again
[This message has been edited by Diamond (edited 08-24-2001).]
The only cogent argument against the death penalty is to say that the state does not have the right to take human life to protect itself or it's citizens. This seems patently absurd as states order the death of individuals every day who's only crime is to serve another state to the best of their ability, and the individuals threatening the state are often perfectly willing to take human life themselves.
The fact that the US system is poorly thought out and implemented is irrelevant to the punishment itself. The system we have for imposing prison is also poorly implemented and thought out... but no one makes the argument that we shouldn't imprison people.
------------------
"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees..."
Shania Twain
Yes, but has been previously noted... This is true whether they are send to live in squalour for $5 a day or are executed for the crime they didn't commit.Quote:
Originally posted by REG:
No, but who cares? If you're going to kill them anyway, why not keep them alive and make them suffer?
Because as you or someone else said, there are those who may have been wrongfully convicted. http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/biggrin.gif
So what your saying here, and please correct me if I am wrong.
In case the felon is innocent, it is a breach of their civil liberties to send then to Mexico or Turkey, who for $5 a day (As an aside, that makes them multi-millionaries in Turkish Lira BTW http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/tongue.gif ) cannot possibly hope to maintain the prisoners civil liberties.
So far so good.
BUT, as I understand it, you feel that this excact same sample of criminals would be fairly treated suffering the death penalty that this whole thread is talking about?
How does that best serve civil liberties? In my mind Death tends to remove all civil rights from an individual?
Damn, dropped this tread for several weeks, and got drawn back in...
------------------
DanG.
"Hi, I'm Commander Troy McClure, you might remember me from other academy training holo-simulations as, Abandon Ship, the quickest way out, and I sense danger, 101 things you dont need a Betazoid to know..."
http://www.theventure.freeserve.co.uk
Quote:
Originally posted by calguard66:
2. Because we realize that some who are convicted are actually innocent, we are not going to punish anyone as their conviction deserves.
The second position is the one currently taken by US society, and many of the posters on this board.
No it isn't. If your statement about US Society was the case then no State in the US would have the death penalty...
As it stands this particular statement is just plain wrong. Otherwise there would be noone on death row in the US.
------------------
DanG.
"Hi, I'm Commander Troy McClure, you might remember me from other academy training holo-simulations as, Abandon Ship, the quickest way out, and I sense danger, 101 things you dont need a Betazoid to know..."
http://www.theventure.freeserve.co.uk
In the case the felon is innocent and sent to Turkey where he loses his civil liberties...
He should sue the US government for no less than $10 million dollar. Multiply that by many felons that are wrongfully convicted. http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/biggrin.gif
------------------
Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...
REG said: "But can they be accorded the same basic civil rights as a US citizen in a prison in another country with its own set of laws, despite the fact that he is a convicted criminal?"
No, but who cares? If you're going to kill them anyway, why not keep them alive and make them suffer?
I am a fan of imprisoning criminals, rehabilitating those that can be rehabilitated, and forcing the rest to perform hard labor for the remainder of their lives. As I mentioned earlier, I'd also make them produce their own food: fruits, vegetables, fungi, nuts, and grains. I'd supplement that with a very limited amount of meat (brought in from the outside) and vitamins.
In this manner, they are not placing an undue burden on society, they are performing a civil service (i.e. the hard labor could be put towards community-based construction and/or maintenance projects ala the chain gang), and they are not commiting crimes in the general populace (though gang rape in a prison shower is not good, at least they aren't raping your wife or daughter).
Is this a violation of their civil rights? Maybe. But it's justice. Oh, and I think that the money earned through a convict's labors should be split between the facility that houses them and the victims (kind of a compensation for the harm they inflicted).
No cable television, no gymnasium, no conjugal visits... but they do receive counselling and classes in anger management. Plus I'd provide the equivalent of a high school education (mandatory for all non-high school graduates) or at least the basics of reading, writing, and mathematics.
These are the criminals that will never get out... life without possibility of parole. Those that will eventually be released must complete a full program of rehabilitation in addition to serving their sentence; failure to do so would serve to add supplemental prison time to the sentence until the convict completed the requirements... and they'd be extremely hefty requirements (i.e. complete psychological profiling and other related measures, daily group therapy, etc.).
Oh, and I'd implant a tracking/identification device in their skull to track escapees and keep tabs on released criminals. I know this violates their civil rights, but that kind of thing needs to be implemented.
If a society can be best judged by its prisons, what does it say of the United States that we warehouse them, herd them like cattle, and/or murder them? Hmm...
mactavish out.
[This message has been edited by mactavish (edited 08-24-2001).]
Sorry REG, but you walked right into this one. http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/tongue.gifQuote:
Originally posted by REG:
In the case the felon is innocent and sent to Turkey where he loses his civil liberties...
He should sue the US government for no less than $10 million dollar. Multiply that by many felons that are wrongfully convicted. http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/biggrin.gif
How much should the wrongfully executed sue the government for?
------------------
DanG.
"Hi, I'm Commander Troy McClure, you might remember me from other academy training holo-simulations as, Abandon Ship, the quickest way out, and I sense danger, 101 things you dont need a Betazoid to know..."
http://www.theventure.freeserve.co.uk
Actually they can't. But the wrongfully convicted (sentenced to die) should exhaust every legal means they have to get the conviction overturned. They're called appeals.
But at least the death row inmate can enjoy their last few days on earth with what civil liberties they have inside a US prison, instead of dying in a foreign country.
Cruel irony, to keep death row inmate here but send lifers somewhere else. http://www.trekrpg.net/Board/ubb/tongue.gif
------------------
Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...
[This message has been edited by REG (edited 08-25-2001).]
We'll agree to disagree. I find it very much relevant (and could explain why I do), but will discontinue since I've upset you, and such is not the goal here. My apologies. If you grant me permission to make my point, I shall do so. Otherwise, I'll contentedly let it go.Quote:
Originally posted by mactavish:
Regardless of whether I have suffered such a travesty in my life--it's not your business so I'm not telling--is not relevant to the situation.
On this matter, I stand corrected.Quote:
I didn't say that I wouldn't want retribution, only that I would not want that person to die.
[This message has been edited by LCM (edited 08-25-2001).]
LCM, you didn't upset me. You can say whatever you want, this being a free forum and all.
Suffice to say that someone very close to me was the victim of an exceptionally brutal crime several years ago and, despite my unending hatred for the individual in question (who was convicted and sentenced to 15-25 years in a maximum security detention facility), I do not feel morally justified in the execution of that individual, regardless of what that person did.
Now, I would say that the circumstances do justify my position as I have experienced circumstances that forced me to consider such things. While I abhor what happened and felt the personal need to see justice done, I did not at any time desire the death of the criminal at the hands of the state. I can't say that I would have wept at all had that individual been hit by a falling meteor, but I would not wish a planned death on anyone, criminal or innocent, regardless the circumstances.
Now that I've said my piece, I think I'll leave this topic alone for a bit. Please continue the discussion, however, as I feel that this is both informative and cathartic to many readers and posters.
mactavish out.
[This message has been edited by mactavish (edited 08-25-2001).]
We have a death row but, aside from Texas, take a look at how many people are on death row compared to how many are executed.Quote:
Originally posted by Dan Gurden:
No it isn't. If your statement about US Society was the case then no State in the US would have the death penalty...
As it stands this particular statement is just plain wrong. Otherwise there would be noone on death row in the US.
For 95% of convicts, a death sentence is merely life without parole.
------------------
"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees..."
Shania Twain