Death Penalty: Yea or Nay?

[calguard66]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Diamond:
Think about what you just said:

and will never live beyond prison walls again</font>

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.

[This message has been edited by Diamond (edited 08-24-2001).]

Again, that cost is imposed by the system that implements the punishment. It is not a cost of the punishment itself.

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

[Dan Gurden]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by REG:
<font color="orange">No, but who cares? If you're going to kill them anyway, why not keep them alive and make them suffer?</font>

Because as you or someone else said, there are those who may have been wrongfully convicted.

</font>

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.

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 ) 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

[Dan Gurden]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">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.</font>

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

[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.

------------------
Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...

[mactavish]

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).]

[Dan Gurden]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">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. </font>

Sorry REG, but you walked right into this one.

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

[REG]

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.

------------------
Anyhoo, just some random thoughts...

[This message has been edited by REG (edited 08-25-2001).]

[LCM]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">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.</font>

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.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I didn't say that I wouldn't want retribution, only that I would not want that person to die.</font>

On this matter, I stand corrected.


[This message has been edited by LCM (edited 08-25-2001).]

[mactavish]

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).]

[calguard66]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">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.


</font>

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.

For 95% of convicts, a death sentence is merely life without parole.



------------------
"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees..."
Shania Twain

[Dan Gurden]

Wrong again Calguard.

If they are sitting on Death Row they ARE waiting to die. Whether they got matters tied up in legal proceedings long enough to die of old age or otherwise.

Otherwise means that they are sitting in a box room, for 23 hours out of everyday (In most cases) knowing that one day they could receive notification of their execution date.

So heres the situation. You live each day knowing that one of these days, maybe today, maybe tomorrow, maybe another day, you will be notified that you are going to die. In most cases you dont have notice of the date of your execution during your trial, theres no standardised delay of X number of dyas/years from conviction to execution...

A situation that borders very closely on breaking the Geneva Convention on the grounds of Cruelk and Unusual punishment.

So once again, you are arguing from an incorrect point of view.

------------------
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

[calguard66]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Dan Gurden:
Wrong again Calguard.

If they are sitting on Death Row they ARE waiting to die. Whether they got matters tied up in legal proceedings long enough to die of old age or otherwise.

Otherwise means that they are sitting in a box room, for 23 hours out of everyday (In most cases) knowing that one day they could receive notification of their execution date.

So heres the situation. You live each day knowing that one of these days, maybe today, maybe tomorrow, maybe another day, you will be notified that you are going to die. In most cases you dont have notice of the date of your execution during your trial, theres no standardised delay of X number of dyas/years from conviction to execution...

A situation that borders very closely on breaking the Geneva Convention on the grounds of Cruelk and Unusual punishment.

So once again, you are arguing from an incorrect point of view.

</font>

Not really. The convict know when he still has appeals left, and he knows several weeks in advance that they have run out and that an execution date has been set. The only nail biting is over whether the govenor will call at the last minute, but usually that isn't even a possibility.

In fact, since it's usually 10-15 years since he was convicted before he reached this point I can't imagine why he would regret the extra years of life he was granted by the US's inefficient legal system.

In the US an appeal is not supposed to consider guilt or innocence. It is only to determine if there was an error in the trial. Why that should take more than a month or so I can't figure out.



------------------
"I'd rather die standing than live on my knees..."
Shania Twain

[Cochrane]

What ever happened to closing a thread after two pages and starting a new one?

------------------
Games... The... Final Product. These... are the books... of the Star... Trek RPG. Their five... year license. To explore... strange... new roles. To breathe... new... life into get... togethers. To bold... ly play what no... fan... has played... be... fore!

[Diamond]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Again, that cost is imposed by the system that implements the punishment. It is not a cost of the punishment itself.</font>

You're splitting an invisible hair by making that argument. The cost of the system is inherently part of the cost of the punishment. The alternative is executing them without the system... "yeah, I wander the prison halls with a gun and shoot who I feel like. It only costs 10 cents for the bullet that way."

Sure, our legal and justice system can be made improved. But anyone can argue in favor of "I'm in favor of a cheap legal system that instantly and infallably determines who is guilty or not." But making that happen is the hard part. Most of us have to live in reality. Reality is that it costs more to kill 'em.

So arguments of "well, it SHOULDN'T cost more to kill 'em - that's just the inefficencies of the current system!" are bogus. Those "ineffiencies" are almost entirely measures to prevent the innocent from being killed. The most efficient system in terms of cold hard cash is the judge - no, the arresting officer killing those they feel deserve it on the spot.

That's the way things used to be a long time ago. But there were concrete social costs. So its emotionally satisfying to say "kill 'em," But it's harkening back to a primitive and terrible way to live. It hurts our society in several concrete, pragmatic ways. You can say, "in a perfect world, it SHOULDN'T hurt society." Ha. In a perfect world, there would be no injustices committed at all. The facts are, in our current setup, having the death penalty hurts YOU (if you are in the USA) in specific, pragmatic ways.

I want to improve my countries morality AND help it out practically. Your feeling on which is more moral can be legitimately different. But the "save money by killing 'em off" argument is just plain ignoring reality.

[redwood973]

I will probably get all kinds of grief over this but: YES! Oh for the days of the death penalty was common! Hang them or electric chair, either works for me.

I don't care about costs. I don't care about it being a deturent. I care about what is right. And allowing someone to spend the reset of their life in prision (i.e., two-star hotels) enjoying the easy life is wrong. If they have taken a life some punishment must be given. . .one that has meaning.

I am all for the death penalty. I am for being as sure as one can about the guilt of the condemed before execution. I am all for execution appeals to be limited/restricted so the criminal can't play the system out.

>red-neck mode off<

[This message has been edited by redwood973 (edited 08-29-2001).]