NationStates Jolt Archive

If you have caught a serial killer are you just going to put him in prison for the rest of his life? Most victims families would highly disagree with the anti-death penalty people. I will admit that there are a minority who say that they don't want to see more people die, but most still believe in an eye for an eye.

what is wrong is the flawed justice system. were it possible to prove guilt with 100% certainty, i would support the death penalty for all sex offenders, murderers, and chronic domestic abusers. however, we cannot prove guilt with that level of certainty, and therefore i cannot support executions because of the risk of killing innocent men and women.

It's not right to give the state the power to murder its own citizens. Simple as that.

I think criminals in America are treated too humanely.
I say execute all criminals; from blue collar to petty theft to murderers.
There used to be a time when you commit a crime you lose your civilian rights.
Criminals don't deserve the same rights as people who do not commit crimes.

Um ... perhaps because it's so final?

can you show me an exact statistic that states there are that many wrongful executions. Nothing was perfect, but the DNA tests and other new processes we have come as near close to it as anything. Has there ever really been an epidemic of wrongful convictions since the introduction of DNA testing?

I think criminals in America are treated too humanely.
I say execute all criminals; from blue collar to petty theft to murderers.
There used to be a time when you commit a crime you lose your civilian rights.
Criminals don't deserve the same rights as people who do not commit crimes.

I really wonder if people like you actually exist or whether you're just using the internet as an outlet. Either way, you scare me. In different ways of course.

It's a liberal cop-out to say there may be innocent peiople behind bars. Out of the millions America has locked up there's probably one person in there thats innocent. Those are pretty good odds to me. Burn all of them at the stake.

i'm not saying kill everyone for petty crimes like laundering or fraud. I'm just saying we need the death penalty for the big three: Murder, Rape, Man slaughter.

I really wonder if people like you actually exist or whether you're just using the internet as an outlet. Either way, you scare me. In different ways of course.

You be the victim of a serious crime and then talk to me.

The problem is that crime depends on your morality.
The judicial system is here to cure the illness of society, not to kill its members.
Whether you like it or not, society includes everybody, even those who are ill.

i'm not saying kill everyone for petty crimes like laundering or fraud. I'm just saying we need the death penalty for the big three: Murder, Rape, Man slaughter.I don't agree with rape being the same crime level as murder.
Perhaps it is because americans are so puritan about sex that they consider rape the worse crime ever.
In the dark age they executed people because they had a different faith.

but most still believe in an eye for an eye.

Nice way to make statements without backing it up with any sort of solid evidence.
Your post is dismissed.

You be the victim of a serious crime and then talk to me.

Oh come on. Is petty theft a serious crime? Is drug use a serious crime? Should these be punished by execution? Don't be ridiculous.

i'm not saying kill everyone for petty crimes like laundering or fraud. I'm just saying we need the death penalty for the big three: Murder, Rape, Man slaughter.

Death penalty for Manslaughter?

And tell me, what do you do to the person who pushes the button? Does he have to be killed as well?

I know it's costly, but, executing someone sometimes isn't the best deterrent. There are serial murderers and criminals out there who do this kind of thing and do it hoping to get the death penalty as a consequence for their actions. Leaving them to rot in a dank cell for life would be better. Sure, it would cost the state more, but to be in such a tiny confined space for so long would be better. Think of the psychiatric consequences. They would slowly go insane, and get no help. They would be forever tormented with their crime until they either died naturally or committed suicide.

Cure the illness? Somebody robs you at gunpoint and you think they just need medication. Stupid fuckin liberal response.

I know it's costly, but, executing someone sometimes isn't the best deterrent. There are serial murderers and criminals out there who do this kind of thing and do it hoping to get the death penalty as a consequence for their actions. Leaving them to rot in a dank cell for life would be better. Sure, it would cost the state more, but to be in such a tiny confined space for so long would be better. Think of the psychiatric consequences. They would slowly go insane, and get no help. They would be forever tormented with their crime until they either died naturally or committed suicide.

I think that's also the wrong way to go about it. You have to look into what causes people to commit crimes and fight it there rather than just punishing people who do commit them without tackling the underlying problems.

Of course, i'm not saying people shouldn't be punished, but the root causes must also be looked at.

Cure the illness? Somebody robs you at gunpoint and you think they just need medication. Stupid fuckin liberal response.

Ask yourself why they would want to rob you.

If you have caught a serial killer are you just going to put him in prison for the rest of his life? Most victims families would highly disagree with the anti-death penalty people. I will admit that there are a minority who say that they don't want to see more people die, but most still believe in an eye for an eye.

Agreed. Why spend all that money keeping 'em holed up in prison for so many years, when you could just put a bullet in their head and save everyone a lot of time, money, and grief? :confused:

I don't agree with rape being the same crime level as murder.
Perhaps it is because americans are so puritan about sex that they consider rape the worse crime ever.

Interesting - you pick out rape as the odd one out, and I pick out manslaughter. Rape is a horrific crime which stays with the victim for the rest of their life - so it is arguable that it is worse than murder (but I think as bad, in a different way).

PS No, I don't think any of these should be punishable by death. If we can't show respect for people's lives, no matter how dispicable, how are we supposed expect other people to do the same?

I know it's costly, but, executing someone sometimes isn't the best deterrent. There are serial murderers and criminals out there who do this kind of thing and do it hoping to get the death penalty as a consequence for their actions. Leaving them to rot in a dank cell for life would be better. Sure, it would cost the state more, but to be in such a tiny confined space for so long would be better. Think of the psychiatric consequences. They would slowly go insane, and get no help. They would be forever tormented with their crime until they either died naturally or committed suicide.

You live in a country that offers 3 strikes for criminals just to keep penitentiaries from being over crowded. There must be a deterrent that keeps someone from commiting crimes. When you harm a person you must be punished with equal force.

Cure the illness? Somebody robs you at gunpoint and you think they just need medication. Stupid fuckin liberal response.
yes they need cure.

Interesting - you pick out rape as the odd one out, and I pick out manslaughter. Rape is a horrific crime which stays with the victim for the rest of their life - so it is arguable that it is worse than murder (but I think as bad, in a different way).

PS No, I don't think any of these should be punishable by death. If we can't show respect for people's lives, no matter how dispicable, how are we supposed expect other people to do the same?Well if murder was worse than rape, the victim could as well commit suicide no?
BTW I didn't pick manslaughter because I don't know what it is (I'm not english native speacker).

You live in a country that offers 3 strikes for criminals just to keep penitentiaries from being over crowded. There must be a deterrent that keeps someone from commiting crimes. When you harm a person you must be punished with equal force.
The rule of the jungle.
But we are in a civilized society, not in a jungle. We can not afford to kill each other. We need to work together in order to make it work.
It is not about punishing murder and all, it is about trying to prevent it and about understanding. Why are murderers doing the crime? Why is there more crime in the US than anywhere else in the west? I think you need a cultural change and to get out of the jungle you live in.

What do you prefer? To murder the criminal or to make him suffer with life imprisonment, knowing that he will never again have a free life. I am against death penalty because it is too quick..:)

The rule of the jungle.
But we are in a civilized society, not in a jungle. We can not afford to kill each other. We need to work together in order to make it work.
It is not about punishing murder and all, it is about trying to prevent it and about understanding. Why are murderers doing the crime? Why is there more crime in the US than anywhere else in the west? I think you need a cultural change and to get out of the jungle you live in.

Good on you Psylos. You've got the right idea...

i'm not saying kill everyone for petty crimes like laundering or fraud. I'm just saying we need the death penalty for the big three: Murder, Rape, Man slaughter.
Just murder in my opinion. Maybe Rape.

I know it's costly, but, executing someone sometimes isn't the best deterrent. There are serial murderers and criminals out there who do this kind of thing and do it hoping to get the death penalty as a consequence for their actions. Leaving them to rot in a dank cell for life would be better. Sure, it would cost the state more, but to be in such a tiny confined space for so long would be better. Think of the psychiatric consequences. They would slowly go insane, and get no help. They would be forever tormented with their crime until they either died naturally or committed suicide.

Actually, I seem to recall reading that it's actually cheaper to keep them in prison than it is to execute them.

In any event. I'll quote a few other people whose opinions sum up mine relatively well, and who can speak much more eloquently.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
- Mahatma Gandhi

You must be the change you wish to see in the world.
- Mahatma Gandhi

And while I don't know the person who said it (nor the exact wording, sadly):

Fighting fire with fire burns your house down faster.

So prison does not work.Kill them all.I have thought long and hard about this.

Man slaughter??
Soldier are murders! (Trotsky if I´m not wrong) We should kill them all. Iraq invasion civilians died, yeep kill all responsible.

And even the chances are one in one million to kill a innocent, no way that it possible to justify! On the other hand I think the prison system in most European countries is completely a joke. Obligatory community work should be a most!! And much worse conditions, and I don´t mean to treat them like animals, but TV in the rooms and things like that…? Sorry I think I have stayed in worse hotels then some prison in Germany.

Ah and about this rape thing, many victims suicide afterwards! I also think it is as bad as murder....

:headbang:

You live in a country that offers 3 strikes for criminals just to keep penitentiaries from being over crowded. There must be a deterrent that keeps someone from commiting crimes. When you harm a person you must be punished with equal force.
The 3 strike law CAUSES prisons to be overcrowded, because after the third offence (third strike), the criminal faces life imprisonment. They're sentenced for the first two crimes as well. What the hell are you talking about? Is there some other law you're referring to?
Deterrent: that's what the 3 strikes is, and clearly it's no working because, hey, there are overcrowded prisons. Now, if the death penalty is such a great deterrent, than why do States in the US that have the death penalty have a MUCH higher crime rate than countries (such as Canada) that don't have the death penalty? And why is there no statistical evidence that states that had the death penalty and then stopped using it had an increase in violent crime? OR that states that adopted the death penalty had a decrease in violent crime? Or even that following an execution there is a temporary reduction in violent crime rates? If you've got it, let's see it.

It's not right to give the state the power to murder its own citizens. Simple as that.


No. It's much better to murder the citizens of other countries.

Most victims families would highly disagree with the anti-death penalty people.
Well, sure, but they're interested in revenge, not justice. If you ask the victim of a crime what the punishment should be, do you really expect a fair and unbiased judgement? That's bullshit logic. Hey, I can point to one group of people who think that because of what the government of Israel has been doing for the past few years, it's alright to get onto a crowded bus and blow themselves up. Are they a reliable source too? They ARE the victims of Israel's "Crimes" as far as they're concerned.

There are three points and one infered point that people inevitably bring up whenever talking about the death penalty, those being that it exists as a deterant, that it's cheaper and easier than a life sentance, and that it provided moral closure to those that have suffered by the actions of an individual. The final, infered point, is that the Death Penalty is moraly right and Just. I will take a look at each of these four points with added emphasis *and source information* on the first three.

It should be noted that there are sociological studies that have been done and statistican analasis that shows that Death penalty states, on adverage, have higher murder rates than non-death penatlty states. Further more, America has a higher murder rate than nations that have outlawed the Death Penalty. The most interesting of data is collected when you look at Death penalty states near non-death penalty states, and find that once again, murder rates in states without death penatly legislation is lower than in states with it. The only logical inferance that can be made is that the death penalty has failed as a deterant in these states and in our nation, and thus, this point is invalid.

Link (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167)

Secondly, study after study has effectivly proven that the Death Penatly is far more expencive, far less efficinent, and overall, far more resource heavy than a life sentance. Why should this be? because with a solution as final as the death penatly, guilt should be (though unforutnaly not always is) proven beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt. DNA sampling is often required, the accused is given time and time again the oppurtunty to fill out and request clemancy, an option not given to life sentance inmates. It is this attempt to assure that no evidence will turn up later to exhonorate the accused (for logical reason, a man who has been in prison for a few years gets a lot more out of being exhonorated of all charges than a man who has been executed) that makes Death penalty trials, not to mention the expences in keeping and maintinaning death row inmates, costly. The argument for Death Penatly as easier and cheaper is thus invalid.

link (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7)

Finaly, there is the question of the death penatly providing closure. I had the opurtunity in a class on Death and Dying in college last year, to speak with a renowned and respected doctor on the subject. The gentleman, Dr. Doo from Oak Ridge Tennessee, lost his son when gang members pulled up to his car and shot him as part of a gang initiation ceramony. As part of therapy for his loss, he spoke with many other parents who had children murdered, and the overwelming feeling was that, though at the time they sought vengance against thier children's killers, the death penalty failed to do what they wanted most. . . bring back thier children. Dr. Doo took this to heart, and his child's murderers are currently serving a life sentance in Georgia. He feels that the closure he has from the legal system's handeling and not presenting a death penalty, is the same closure he would receive from a death penalty. . . that while it will not make the situation better, it has made the situation less bad. This is not an isolated incident, and many victims agree that the death penatly does not offer closure any more than a life sentance will. The argument for closure and victim retribution is thus invalidated as well.

link (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=573&scid=62)

Finaly, the ephmerial possition of the death penatly as moral and just. There is no evidence on either side, so I leave you with a few questions about your moral and just system. Has our society truely advanced and become more civilized if we continue to follow the barbaric and primitive mindsets of those we accuse as being "uncultured"? Is justice truely served if victims are left without closure, taxpayers foot a larger bill than nessisary, and All expences are not taken to every singled death row inmate? Death is retribution, but for whom? Do we cause retribution for a victim who may have wanted clemancy, or for the survivors who greive? If it is for the former then it is a breach of justice to kill in anouthers name without consulting them, if it is the latter then Justice would best be served by executing a loved one of the accused, yet that too is breach of justice for those hurt. Punishment must be served, but do we forget that our death penatly causes the loved ones of the accused, who have done no crime, to be bereaved themselves, to hurt, and to mourn as the survivors of the victims have. Is it just to perpetuate pain and anguish upon innocents, or would justice best be served by methodical lock down and removal of freedom, though not life? Is it possible that in face of all of these statistical points against the death penalty, that the death penatly in and of itself is immoral, inefficient, ineffective, and as such, should be ruled invalid? However, that is simply my $.02, far be it for statistical fact to change anyone's oppinion.

Where to start? I have one ideological problem with the death penalty. A simple one. Yet it is a big one. I see every human as equal and i see every human as having equal rights. I also base myself on a simple Kantian ethic: "that what i don't want to be done to another, i don't want to be done againsty myself."

I don't want to be murdered; therefore, why should i murder? When one has murdered another, why should we lower ourselves to an eye for an eye? What do we do with this person who murders the murderer? He murders too. But in the name of the law. That's simply not right, especially not if you're such a pro-life Christian who gives forgiveness to humans as taught by the Bibble.

You live in a country that offers 3 strikes for criminals just to keep penitentiaries from being over crowded. There must be a deterrent that keeps someone from commiting crimes. When you harm a person you must be punished with equal force.
Yes, I agree, but, killing a killer doesn't exactly give the state any credibility as a protector of life. It could almost be considered 'legal' murder. I know it's permissable by some states, but, there are no two ways about it; whether legal or not, it is still murder. It's just taking on the guise of justice. That's part of the reason why I feel capital punishment isn't the best way to deal out justice for the victims.

I'm against the death penalty, but it's for the reason of too many people being exectuted for crimes who didn't commit. To those who don't give a shit: would you be so enthusiastic about the death penalty if you were facing death for a crime you didn't commit. That said, I don't buy into the whole "they don't deserve it" argument. I believe that people like murderers, rapists, paedophiles ect. all deserve death. It's just that there are so many miscarriages of justice that it's too unreliable.

Many of the proplems woth the people in prison are becaure of thing that happened throught there life espillay the way they were brought up and that dictates the way they will turn out later in life meaning that most peopl can be rehabilated throught counceling amognst other things but there some cases where the people are too far gone for help and must be inprisoned for life or executed.

I oppose the death penalty because I oppose a punitive system for dealing with individuals who act in ways that make the community uncomfortable (ie by murder, rape, theft, speeding). I think sometimes the community may demand from individuals who have abused specific privileges in the community or the privilege of being in their community that they lose such privileges either temporarily or permenately or that the community demand reconciliation between it and the individual (ie doing service to repay the community for using its time to deal with interpersonal dramas that are so severe that it can't be solved between only the individuals involved). I don't think that a community can say that an individual has no right to walk free or live at all.

Many of the proplems woth the people in prison are becaure of thing that happened throught there life espillay the way they were brought up and that dictates the way they will turn out later in life meaning that most peopl can be rehabilated throught counceling amognst other things but there some cases where the people are too far gone for help and must be inprisoned for life or executed.Indeed some cases are uncurable. Those cases need to be put in a place where they can't harm.
Killing them is like killing mentally ill people. Revenge has no purpose and it send the message to the other members of society that killing can be right.

It is the duty of a government to protect its citizens and all those who may be dependent upon it, even if this means execution; however, the death penalty can only be used as an option of last resort. In the United States and other technologically and economically advanced nations, the death penalty is not necessary and therefore inappropriate and potentially morally wrong.

No. It's much better to murder the citizens of other countries.

I never said that. Whats your problem?

What is so wrong about the death penalty?

Killing is wrong.

Why is that so damn hard for people to accept?

Yes, some people may kill others, but killing them is just as bad.

Have none of you ever heard that "two wrongs don't make a right"?

Fuckola.

Does anyone honestly think the death penalty deters murderers any more than life in prison without possibility of parole?

Cure the illness? Somebody robs you at gunpoint and you think they just need medication. Stupid fuckin liberal response.
Um, I'm not sure what law book you use but robbery isn't a executional charge. You can't get death penalty by robbing someone so your words don't seem to fit argument.
Also labeling people without fiving reasons/proof for that labeling is foolish.

The death penalty is a useful tool for removing threats from society. Sadly, it cannot prevent rape or murder. This does not make it any less useful, nor does any moral argument leveled against it. What is needed is a societal change. All people must be taught the same set of common morals, as well as virtues such as self-control.

Rape is just as evil, if not more so, than murder. I would sooner have someone end my life, even in a gruesome and painful way, than be violated so thoroughly. Death is a permanent condition, but rape stays with the living for all their lives. I have known many people who have never fully recovered from rape, but all the dead people I knew are lying quite peacefully in their graves.

I also do not agree with the suggestion that a heinous criminal should "suffer" a life in prison. Even were the criminal to actually suffer, as opposed to being bored, it would be cruel to subject a human, even a rapist or muderer, to such torment. Death should be quick, as painless as possible, and done without fanfare.

Sorry Mike, but I have to disagree. I believe that the Death Penalty should be as cruel and unusual as possible. I say so because what the convict did to deserve execution warrants such. I also say rape is worse than murder. Muurder may have a number of reasons, but rape's only reason is pure lust which I deem as a deadly sin. Just my 2 cents worth.

Oh, and Mike, don't forget Combo 2 for Monday.

Cure the illness? Somebody robs you at gunpoint and you think they just need medication. Stupid fuckin liberal response.

Stupid ignorant conservative response. Most liberals believe that rehabilitation is the medication, and will support programs that take as long as they need to work.

The death penalty is:

Barbaric
Dangerous
Uncivilized


Nevertheless I think it is necessary, but that we administer it to the wrong people.

Only corrupt politicians should get the death penalty. And politicans who mislead the county.

Only corrupt politicians should get the death penalty. And politicans who mislead the county.
Well then, John Kerry is first on the list. He's corrupt and is misleading the country.

Lord help us if he becomes President. I might not join the Marines if he becomes the CiC, and that's saying a LOT as my friends will tell you.

Well then, John Kerry is first on the list. He's corrupt and is misleading the country.

Lord help us if he becomes President. I might not join the Marines if he becomes the CiC, and that's saying a LOT as my friends will tell you.



Lets make a deal, if bush wins i'll move to england, if kerry wins you have to leave.

Stupid ignorant conservative response. Most liberals believe that rehabilitation is the medication, and will support programs that take as long as they need to work.

1) For some people, rehab doesn't work. That's where a good deterrent comes in
2) We don't have "As long as it takes", we only have a few years
3) Watch your mouth. You think people are "Stupid" and "ignorant" because they don't agree with you? That's what my Country (America the Great) is about. I don't know what nanny-state you live in, but you don't know reality.

Lets make a deal, if bush wins i'll move to england, if kerry wins you have to leave.

How's this: Bush wins, you leave; Kerry wins, you leave. I ain't movin from the greatest country God gave man.

can you show me an exact statistic that states there are that many wrongful executions. Nothing was perfect, but the DNA tests and other new processes we have come as near close to it as anything. Has there ever really been an epidemic of wrongful convictions since the introduction of DNA testing?


just one innocent person executed is reason enough, and what gives man the power to judge his fellow man :mp5: :sniper:

I really wonder if people like you actually exist or whether you're just using the internet as an outlet. Either way, you scare me. In different ways of course.

so in his own words he should be executed for that peice of candy he took as a child without asking :headbang:

The death penalty is a useful tool for removing threats from society.

EXACTLY as useful as life in prison without possibility of parole.

Sadly, it cannot prevent rape or murder. This does not make it any less useful, nor does any moral argument leveled against it. What is needed is a societal change. All people must be taught the same set of common morals, as well as virtues such as self-control.

As if that's going to do anything. There will always be people who rob and murder out of necessity.

Rape is just as evil, if not more so, than murder. I would sooner have someone end my life, even in a gruesome and painful way, than be violated so thoroughly. Death is a permanent condition, but rape stays with the living for all their lives. I have known many people who have never fully recovered from rape, but all the dead people I knew are lying quite peacefully in their graves.

Well...there are plenty of raped people who don't commit suicide...and I personally believe there is nothing worse than taking a life. Hence my opposition to capital punishment.

I also do not agree with the suggestion that a heinous criminal should "suffer" a life in prison. Even were the criminal to actually suffer, as opposed to being bored, it would be cruel to subject a human, even a rapist or muderer, to such torment. Death should be quick, as painless as possible, and done without fanfare.

Well, you ask the convict if they think it's more cruel to be locked up for life, or be murdered by the state. I'm not gonna be the one to judge. I'm not gonna play "daddy knows best" and say jail is too cruel for them, that we should just kill them. And the fanfare...well, you're killing someone! Fanfare is better than just "putting them down" like animals in the quiet of the night!

How's this: Bush wins, you leave; Kerry wins, you leave. I ain't movin from the greatest country God gave man.

isnt Iran the greatest country that 'god gave man' ??

or is it afghanistan? (saudi arabia maybe??)



Weeeeeellll, if bush wins and you *do* join the marines, you *will* be leaving.

So i suppose it isnt fair to expect you to trap yourself into going away.

Sorry Mike, but I have to disagree. I believe that the Death Penalty should be as cruel and unusual as possible. I say so because what the convict did to deserve execution warrants such. I also say rape is worse than murder. Muurder may have a number of reasons, but rape's only reason is pure lust which I deem as a deadly sin. Just my 2 cents worth.

Oh, and Mike, don't forget Combo 2 for Monday.

rape isnt as bad as murder i say rapest should be castrated by the victim if desired and the same for murder murderers be executed by surviving relatives or friends and family after being found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt!

Why not forced labour instead of the death penalty? Makes them useful at least.
And if we're 100% he's guilty of murder or something, there's always scientific experiments.

EXACTLY as useful as life in prison without possibility of parole.



As if that's going to do anything. There will always be people who rob and murder out of necessity.



Well...there are plenty of raped people who don't commit suicide...and I personally believe there is nothing worse than taking a life. Hence my opposition to capital punishment.



Well, you ask the convict if they think it's more cruel to be locked up for life, or be murdered by the state. I'm not gonna be the one to judge. I'm not gonna play "daddy knows best" and say jail is too cruel for them, that we should just kill them. And the fanfare...well, you're killing someone! Fanfare is better than just "putting them down" like animals in the quiet of the night!


rehab , life incarerated and execution why not have all three they all can work and in that order and finally why not have fanfare why not gladiator pits? i would watch

rehab , life incarerated and execution why not have all three they all can work and in that order and finally why not have fanfare why not gladiator pits? i would watch

For the same reason slavery is outlawed:

Because enough people in america ary trying to make our country *civilized*

rape isnt as bad as murder i say rapest should be castrated by the victim if desired and the same for murder murderers be executed by surviving relatives or friends and family after being found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt!

What is it with you people and your fascination with castration?! :confused:

What is it with you people and your fascination with castration?! :confused:


They are barbarians like the saudis and the iranians and the russians and the hutus.


They are so base as to embrace the "eye for an eye" idea of justice.

Aren't jails in the US mostly independent, not government owned? They make money, it's business. The more prisoners you get the more money you make. And several prisoners work for (almost) free for companies like IBM.
If the law says killing is wrong how it's not wrong for the law to kill people? You know, you shall not kill, referres to everyone.
If you haven't seen Errol Morris' Thin Blue Line, watch it. It's a bit old, but I don't know if there are any more recent ones.

Do you also think that executing people for crimes they have committed before they were 18, is alright? As US is leading the statistics. Only 8 other countries have executed underaged prisoners since 1990. 39 prisoners all together, 19 of them in the US.

i'm not saying kill everyone for petty crimes like laundering or fraud. I'm just saying we need the death penalty for the big three: Murder, Rape, Man slaughter.

Manslaughter is if you are responsible for someone's death, whether you meant to kill them or not. You could be flying a model aircraft, it could go out of control, and you could take some kid's head off with it. If you were negligent in any way (perhaps you didn't spot the fuel leak that got to the radio gear and stopped it functioning) you would be open to manslaughter charges. And it wouldn't matter if that fuel leak wasn't present when you took off - if you have no proof, and the prosecution manages to make it stick, you'll hang. At least under the suggestion we kill people for manslaughter.

Personally, and I've already said this in another thread, the only death penalty I'd support is one dished out by the would-be victim to the would-be killer at the time of the would-be crime. There are a lot more that one innocent person in America's prison system. Or any prison system, come to think of it.

Do you also think that executing people for crimes they have committed before they were 18, is alright? As US is leading the statistics. Only 8 other countries have executed underaged prisoners since 1990. 39 prisoners all together, 19 of them in the US.

The U.S. Supreme Court just decided to hear a case of this, executing people on crimes committed as minors. Some time ago, they decided 6-3 to ban execution of mentally retarded criminals. This time, it's gonna come closer. The three most conservative justices (Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist) have already made their veiws clear. It's gonna be a close one, whether or not they can pick up the two moderate justices.

For the same reason slavery is outlawed:

Because enough people in america ary trying to make our country *civilized*

i rather die for my actions than my skin color, but enslaving cons is a good idea too

They are barbarians like the saudis and the iranians and the russians and the hutus.



...You're joking, right? I might understand what you mean with hutus (war in rwanda), saudis (9/11), iranians (because their culture is different than yours?)...Russians? eh. Because they have nukes? because they have terrorists? Jukos? don't like Putin?

Why not forced labour instead of the death penalty? Makes them useful at least.
And if we're 100% he's guilty of murder or something, there's always scientific experiments.

thats got my full support, make it an issue for all nations

thats got my full support, make it an issue for all nations

Hmm...funny how hard it is for some people to realize criminals are STILL PEOPLE!

fucksake, I'm not even gonna try to argue with you. Just try, as hard as you can, to put yourself in the shoes of a convict. Just try to do that.

They are barbarians like the saudis and the iranians and the russians and the hutus.


They are so base as to embrace the "eye for an eye" idea of justice.
barbaric, yes but also faster andmore efficient than anything you have come up with

...You're joking, right? I might understand what you mean with hutus (war in rwanda), saudis (9/11), iranians (because their culture is different than yours?)...Russians? eh. Because they have nukes? because they have terrorists? Jukos? don't like Putin?

Actually I just remembered that Iran is going to execute an Afghan kid aged 16 for dealing drugs. They executed a girl in august, can't remember why, but my guess would be for some sort of sexual behaviour. So Iran seems to "win" this years stats for executing minors.

Hmm...funny how hard it is for some people to realize criminals are STILL PEOPLE!

fucksake, I'm not even gonna try to argue with you. Just try, as hard as you can, to put yourself in the shoes of a convict. Just try to do that.

DUDE, he stated the 100% guilty of the worst crimes and the victims were people too, think of that?

DUDE, he stated the 100% guilty of the worst crimes and the victims were people too, think of that?

Well yeah the victims are people...

What does that have to do with what we do with criminals, even "100% sure" criminals?

We can't run the justice system based on revenge. It's foolish, cruel, and pointless.

Let's say you accidentally kill a man, out of negligence. Would you want that man's angry relatives' clammoring for your execution to have ANY bearing on your punishment?

No, you would want your punishment to be based on how much of a threat to society you are, and what is reasonable to deter other people from letting it happen, etc.

As for the worst crimes...like intentionally murdering someone...I don't think killing that person deters ANY future would-be murderers more than life in jail. Do you think people in Europe (where death penalty is outlawed) say, "I'll just rot in jail for life, not executed, it will be worth it!"

why not just leave it up to the victims/their familys to decide the fate of the criminal?

i beleive this will make people think twice about comminiting the crime.

The way I see it, death penalty is a cop-out. Let people live their lives inprisoned and then they will get their punnishment. I don't think someone like Saddam Hussein should be put to death, because after it he won't feel it anymore! If he lives his last years being bored out of his skull, without any social contact with other people, that would be hell.

But otherwise, a lot should change in prison systems. Away with the carpets and cable TV. Make them do boring assembly work or things that actually benefit the society which they tried to disturb. Make criminals pay back the harm they inflicted. If they need recreation so badly, they can have a conversation with their cellmates. Lock them up in groups of about 10 to 15 to safe a little space, instead giving them their individual five-by-three meter cells. That way, they can also keep eachother in check a bit. Hard justice? Nah, I'm still very nice compared to Russia.

why not just leave it up to the victims/their familys to decide the fate of the criminal?

i beleive this will make people think twice about comminiting the crime.

Ok, if some asshole robs my family's store again, he gets the chair.

Helpful?

Didn't think so.

I have just one question/comment to make/ask.

"What more in the name of love?"

I suggest this case to study:

Let say there is a scientist. This man is completely sick and mad. His morality is completely weird also. He thinks he has the right to kill people in order to advance science.
Not let say this man goes totally mad and start taking children, making experiments on them and killing them. With his experiments, he nearly finds a cure to AIDS. But he still need some research (but he doesn't need any more experiment).
He then get caught by the police who find the dead bodies.

What would you do with him?

A/ execute the bastard.
B/ Allow him to finish his study in prison and find a cure to AIDS (knowing he can't kill anymore while in prison).

This case is the extreme, because the murderer is very barbaric but also a very productive member of society, but it is the same thing for every member of society. How do you know you didn't executed someone who would have painted mona lisa or wrote a best seller book?

What about the pyramids? the Pharao were sick people, they were taking slaves and they forced them to build pyramids. This is bad, but should the pyramids be destroyed because they have been built in a non-moraly acceptable way? Or should we keep the pyramids and ensure that nobody is enslaved anymore? I think a human being has even more value than a pyramid, even a murderer.

What’s wrong with the death penalty? Lots of things.

First only extreme cases are considered capitol offences. For most of these they should just let the convict fester away in some out of the way corner of the prison.

Second to make the death penalty more of a deterrent they should change it so that the number of capitol offences is increased.

Third, they refuse to buy my design for the most humane form of execution. They told me that it was too messy and wouldn’t be fair to the people who had to clean it up.

Why would some people have the right to commit murder (death sentence) when others don't have that right? Although I suppose that if and when the planet becomes too over-populated murder won't be a crime anymore. That would make the death penalty ok too.

I suggest this case to study:

Let say there is a scientist. This man is completely sick and mad. His morality is completely weird also. He thinks he has the right to kill people in order to advance science.
Not let say this man goes totally mad and start taking children, making experiments on them and killing them. With his experiments, he nearly finds a cure to AIDS. But he still need some research (but he doesn't need any more experiment).
He then get caught by the police who find the dead bodies.

What would you do with him?

A/ execute the bastard.
B/ Allow him to finish his study in prison and find a cure to AIDS (knowing he can't kill anymore while in prison).

This case is the extreme, because the murderer is very barbaric but also a very productive member of society, but it is the same thing for every member of society. How do you know you didn't executed someone who would have painted mona lisa or wrote a best seller book?

What about the pyramids? the Pharao were sick people, they were taking slaves and they forced them to build pyramids. This is bad, but should the pyramids be destroyed because they have been built in a non-moraly acceptable way? Or should we keep the pyramids and ensure that nobody is enslaved anymore? I think a human being has even more value than a pyramid, even a murderer.

if the crazy scientist was using solid science in his work, then there are plenty of other people (thousands of researchers, in fact) who can continue the research 100 times better than he could while in prison.

if a condemned criminal is a brilliant artist then give him paints until he's killed; his work will increase in value after his death, and the proceeds can be given to the family of his victim.

also, the Pyramids thing has nothing to do with this discussion. nobody is suggesting that we destroy everything a criminal has made in their life. nobody is trying to knock down the house a murderer built simply because he built it. we keep the house, and punish the murderer for his crime. pretty simple, really.

if you value human life more than the Pyramids, as you claim, then how can you even suggest we keep a murderer alive so that he can produce artwork? you are then saying that the life (or lives) of his victims are less important than the artwork he produces, or that their murderer deserves to be punished less harshly because his paintings help outweigh the suffering of his victims. the victims of unskilled murderers receive justice because their killer is punished according to his crime, but skilled murderers get off lighter because they can produce material things that we happen to think are pretty?

and who is going to judge the worth of the things the condemned produces? what if he paints, but he is really really bad at it? who will decide which killers get an exemption because of their other skills? do you think there is any chance at all that this won't become a blatantly racist system, in which undereducated minorities always get the chair, while educated whites prove that they can write decent poetry and get reduced sentences?

why not just leave it up to the victims/their familys to decide the fate of the criminal?

i beleive this will make people think twice about comminiting the crime.
then what about cases where the family of the victim is also the family of the killer? what if the family cannot agree? what if some of the family wishes him to die, and others wish him to go totally free...do you compromise, put him in jail, and thereby not honor any of their wishes?

if the crazy scientist was using solid science in his work, then there are plenty of other people (thousands of researchers, in fact) who can continue the research 100 times better than he could while in prison.

if a condemned criminal is a brilliant artist then give him paints until he's killed; his work will increase in value after his death, and the proceeds can be given to the family of his victim.

also, the Pyramids thing has nothing to do with this discussion. nobody is suggesting that we destroy everything a criminal has made in their life. nobody is trying to knock down the house a murderer built simply because he built it. we keep the house, and punish the murderer for his crime. pretty simple, really.
But the crazy scientist may as well be a brillant one and be the only one able to find a solution to AIDS.

No but you are suggesting to destroy what he may produce after his death (well you know what I mean).

I think the error you make is to think any criminal has zero value when in fact some of them have unlimited value.

But the crazy scientist may as well be a brillant one and be the only one able to find a solution to AIDS.

impossible. you clearly know absolutely nothing about medical research. i would really suggest you not try to use this line of reasoning, because the scenario you suggest is simply not possible in the modern scientific world.


No but you are suggesting to destroy what he may produce after his death (well you know what I mean).

so? what he may or may not have produced after his death will not in any way change the crime he has committed. i believing in judging people based on what they have done, not based on what they might potentially do sometime in the future.


I think the error you make is to think any criminal has zero value.
i think your error is thinking that i believe criminals have zero value. you shouldn't assume that, because you are 100% wrong.

[QUOTE=LuSiD]Where to start? I have one ideological problem with the death penalty. A simple one. Yet it is a big one. I see every human as equal and i see every human as having equal rights. I also base myself on a simple Kantian ethic: "that what i don't want to be done to another, i don't want to be done againsty myself."[QUOTE]

I believe that humans are equal when they are born. Actions they take afterwards are thier fault, and they should pay proper consequences. An eye for an eye is a perfect system. If a person robs someone and are caught, they give back the money and have an equal amount of money taken from them. That way, the risk outweighs the benefit. THAT is what would deter criminals.

impossible. you clearly know absolutely nothing about medical research. i would really suggest you not try to use this line of reasoning, because the scenario you suggest is simply not possible in the modern scientific world.All right, you are true I know nothing about medical research. I was using an example. Let's take someone I know more about. Let's say Einstein was a murderer. You would have deprieved humanity of some interesting thought if you had killed him before he found the relativity concept.

so? what he may or may not have produced after his death will not in any way change the crime he has committed. i believing in judging people based on what they have done, not based on what they might potentially do sometime in the future.
But that is about your morality. Your morality is of no interest to me. What I'm arguing is what is best for society : killing the man or letting him live somewhere he can not harm?

i think your error is thinking that i believe criminals have zero value. you shouldn't assume that, because you are 100% wrong.
All apologies then. I stand corrected.

Most of you are very naive. I know people in prison, I have friends that have gone to prison - they like it there.

You think they commit crimes because they must be mentally ill... that's ridiculous... it's usually because these criminals are to fuckin stupid to read write or comprehend civility.

Others commit crimes because they enjoy doing it, and probably the smallest percentage are mentally ill.

The courts use professionals to determine if a criminal is mentally unstable and the majority of them aren't.

Drug dealers and drug users are no different. You can't cure an addictive personality, so they are drug addicts for the rest of their lives. I've also had the misfortune of growing up around drug addicts, I want to see all of them fuckin hanging by a rope because they deserve it.

Actually I just remembered that Iran is going to execute an Afghan kid aged 16 for dealing drugs. They executed a girl in august, can't remember why, but my guess would be for some sort of sexual behaviour. So Iran seems to "win" this years stats for executing minors.
An dthe fact that the Iranians are being ruled by a dictatorship of fundamentalistic priests mean nothing? You really are biased and ignorant. If Hutues are barabrians then Germans are as well. Saudis are also ruled through a dictatorship. What is really barbaric is to be the richest and most developed country of the world and still execute children and only recently forbidding execution of mentally retarded.

Well yeah the victims are people...

What does that have to do with what we do with criminals, even "100% sure" criminals?

We can't run the justice system based on revenge. It's foolish, cruel, and pointless.

Let's say you accidentally kill a man, out of negligence. Would you want that man's angry relatives' clammoring for your execution to have ANY bearing on your punishment?

No, you would want your punishment to be based on how much of a threat to society you are, and what is reasonable to deter other people from letting it happen, etc.
Couldn't agree more...

As for the worst crimes...like intentionally murdering someone...I don't think killing that person deters ANY future would-be murderers more than life in jail. Do you think people in Europe (where death penalty is outlawed) say, "I'll just rot in jail for life, not executed, it will be worth it!"
I couldn't agree more.

Most of you are very naive. I know people in prison, I have friends that have gone to prison - they like it there.

You think they commit crimes because they must be mentally ill... that's ridiculous... it's usually because these criminals are to fuckin stupid to read write or comprehend civility.

Others commit crimes because they enjoy doing it, and probably the smallest percentage are mentally ill.

The courts use professionals to determine if a criminal is mentally unstable and the majority of them aren't.

Drug dealers and drug users are no different. You can't cure an addictive personality, so they are drug addicts for the rest of their lives. I've also had the misfortune of growing up around drug addicts, I want to see all of them fuckin hanging by a rope because they deserve it.I still don't see people rushing to go to jail. And if life is so good in jail, why don't you pretend you commited a crime and ask to be sent there?

Mental illness ranges from nevrose to psycopathy. Yes a criminal is a mentally ill by definition.

Most of you are very naive. I know people in prison, I have friends that have gone to prison - they like it there.

You think they commit crimes because they must be mentally ill... that's ridiculous... it's usually because these criminals are to fuckin stupid to read write or comprehend civility.

Others commit crimes because they enjoy doing it, and probably the smallest percentage are mentally ill.

The courts use professionals to determine if a criminal is mentally unstable and the majority of them aren't.

Drug dealers and drug users are no different. You can't cure an addictive personality, so they are drug addicts for the rest of their lives. I've also had the misfortune of growing up around drug addicts, I want to see all of them fuckin hanging by a rope because they deserve it.
If they like it there then fine, no person goes to prison without a need of help.
I don't know people in jail, but I am surprised that there are people who can't read in US, but if you say so.
There is a difference between being mentally ill and needing help you know.
I am sad that you have grown up around addicts, but you can cure addicts. Is such help free in US? Because if it isn't I think I know what the solution might be...

So all of you non death penalty people would rather imprison timothy mcveight rather than let him die? i think t is more of an insult to let him live than to kill him.(Yes i know he is already dead)

Rape and Manslaughter are more of a gray subject to me. I say that if the rape is serious enough like the man commits a great amount then he should deserve to die. If it was only say one, then i can see him getting life.

If you don't know what manslaughter is here is the definition-the unlawful killing of a human being without express or implied malice

an example of manslaughter would be like vehicular manslaughter(i.e hitting someone with your car.)

All criminals are not mentally ill. Car thieves are not mentally ill they are just greedy scum bags. You people are so naive. Do you actually believe people here want to go to prison? No, it's just that they don't care if they do because they still have their connections to the outside. I think drug dealers should be killed. i mean what happens if they do get caught? They serve what 2 years on a 10 year sentence and they are right back out on the street. I live in the ghetto I know these things. My house has been broken into 3 times. My car just got stolen 2 days ago, SWEAR TO GOD. The criminal justice system is so screwed up with all of you touchy people considering all criminals mentally ill. Haven't you ever considered that they steal crap just because they want money? The ONLY and I mean ONLY way I will not consider the death penalty for a murder charge is if it was in self defense.

All criminals are not mentally ill. Car thieves are not mentally ill they are just greedy scum bags. You people are so naive. Do you actually believe people here want to go to prison? No, it's just that they don't care if they do because they still have their connections to the outside. I think drug dealers should be killed. i mean what happens if they do get caught? They serve what 2 years on a 10 year sentence and they are right back out on the street. I live in the ghetto I know these things. My house has been broken into 3 times. My car just got stolen 2 days ago, SWEAR TO GOD. The criminal justice system is so screwed up with all of you touchy people considering all criminals mentally ill. Haven't you ever considered that they steal crap just because they want money? The ONLY and I mean ONLY way I will not consider the death penalty for a murder charge is if it was in self defense.

Drug dealers and thugs are two different things. You can have a drug dealer who is a thug, and you can have a thug who is a drug dealer. However you can also have someone who has a job, family and kids.. but deals a bit of pot on the side, or grows it for profit. Most of the drug dealers I've known have fitted into that category - and the thugs are now either in prison, reformed people, or on their last legs through self-neglect.

Yet all drug dealers "should be killed".. why?

Imprison someone for theft. Imprison someone for burglary, robbery, assault and battery.. if someone pulls a knife on you and you have a gun, by all means pull the trigger. But to me it seems that many people here just want to switch the TV on and get to see someone being killed. Blood lust. Like the ancient Romans in the crowd watching the lions tuck into their latest victims - or perhaps the millions who would lie and say they haven't downloaded the latest video of some guy's head being sawn off. Would you feel so happy being on the recieving end?

To all of these people: join the army, if they'll have you. Go over to Iraq or some other godforsaken hell-hole. Enjoy yourselves, and stay the hell out of my way, you freaks.

All right, you are true I know nothing about medical research. I was using an example. Let's take someone I know more about. Let's say Einstein was a murderer. You would have deprieved humanity of some interesting thought if you had killed him before he found the relativity concept.

wrong, i would have deprived humanity of EINSTEIN finding relativity. there were several other minds hot on his heals with that one, and historical records suggest that the theory would have been established within a few years at the longest. i would not allow Einstein to receive a different punishment for a crime simply because of his brilliance, because i don't think brilliance gives you the right to flout the law.

this is really a bad line of argument for you to take. what you are essentially arguing is that "special" people should be given different legal rights than "non-special" people. you propose no standard of determining how "special" a person is, you simply think that certain really cool people shouldn't have to face the same penalties as other human beings. that's a pretty disgusting line of reasoning, in my opinion, and i honestly can't see why you are trying to justify it. i don't care how smart or talented or special a person is, the laws are applied equally to ALL CITIZENS.


But that is about your morality. Your morality is of no interest to me. What I'm arguing is what is best for society : killing the man or letting him live somewhere he can not harm?

so you think that sentences should be passed based not on what somebody has done (i.e. the crime that has been committed) but based on what they MIGHT do in the future if they aren't punished as severely?! you aren't serious, are you?

what about a brilliant and amazing teacher who kills his wife...should we not imprison that teacher, because if they are allowed to keep teaching in public they will be able to change the lives of hundreds of children? should a really brilliant painter who rapes and murders be allowed special privaledges in prision, like having his own easel and paints and other prohibited items, so that he can keep painting? do you honestly think that we should treat a criminal differently based on his skills, thus effectively giving harsher sentences for identical crimes to men and women who don't have some special talent that you like?

i cannot believe anybody would propose such a blatantly unjust and elitest system. my mind boggles.

All apologies then. I stand corrected.
accepted.

Most of you are very naive. I know people in prison, I have friends that have gone to prison - they like it there.

lol, if you believe that then you're the naive one. it's called 'prison bravado,' my friend, and i have experienced it firsthand. until you have gone to prison yourself, don't propose to call anybody else naive. especially if you are taking the word of cons :).


You think they commit crimes because they must be mentally ill... that's ridiculous... it's usually because these criminals are to fuckin stupid to read write or comprehend civility.

Others commit crimes because they enjoy doing it,


wow, so you are saying that your convict friends are either stupid, sociopathic, or just plain nuts, huh? you're a great friend.


and probably the smallest percentage are mentally ill.

according to the USDJ:

-Nearly two million new jail admissions are of people with mental illnesses—35,000 individuals a week.

-At the end of 2000, nearly one million individuals with mental illnesses were in the criminal justice system.

-More than 16% of jail inmates have a mental illness, according to the United States Department of Justice.

-Seventy percent of jail inmates with mental illnesses are there for nonviolent offenses.

whether or not those are the "smallest percentages," i think it makes you look like a chump to say that mental illness isn't a serious presence in prison populations.

The courts use professionals to determine if a criminal is mentally unstable and the majority of them aren't.

there's your naivety again. have you ever worked in the court system? i have, and i can tell you that screening for mental illness only happens in the most serious or dramatic of cases. 99% of the criminals that pass through the system are NEVER evaluated for mental competancy.

Drug dealers and drug users are no different. You can't cure an addictive personality, so they are drug addicts for the rest of their lives. I've also had the misfortune of growing up around drug addicts, I want to see all of them fuckin hanging by a rope because they deserve it.
and yet more naivety. actually, more than 80% of the individuals in America who become addicted to drugs will recover and go on to lead productive lives, drug-free. i can tell you from personal experience that drug addicts can and do recover, and often end up contributing far more to the world than people with your breed of ignorance...read an intro neuro textbook before you shoot your mouth off about chemical addiction, okay?

"I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent. And I have not seen any research that would substantiate that point"

— United States Attorney General Janet Reno
Reuters, 1-20-2000

There is no evidence that a death penalty reduces the murder rate. In fact, it's completely the opposite.

The USA - the only Western country still using the death penalty - has the highest murder rate in the entire Western world. The murder rate of the US is 3 times higher than any European country - all of which have banned executions. (Source: British Home Office)

In the US itself, the murder rate continues to be higher in states that have the death penalty than in states that do not. For example, the 1997 murder rate per 100,000 population for death penalty states was 7.09 %, while it was 4.99 % in non-death penalty states. (Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports, as summarized by the US Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics)

"I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent. And I have not seen any research that would substantiate that point"

— United States Attorney General Janet Reno
Reuters, 1-20-2000

There is no evidence that a death penalty reduces the murder rate. In fact, it's completely the opposite.

The USA - the only Western country still using the death penalty - has the highest murder rate in the entire Western world. The murder rate of the US is 3 times higher than any European country - all of which have banned executions. (Source: British Home Office)

In the US itself, the murder rate continues to be higher in states that have the death penalty than in states that do not. For example, the 1997 murder rate per 100,000 population for death penalty states was 7.09 %, while it was 4.99 % in non-death penalty states. (Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports, as summarized by the US Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics)


That is because the death penalty is barbaric, and barbaric institutions can only encourage further barbarism.

So all of you non death penalty people would rather imprison timothy mcveight rather than let him die?

I can't speak for anyone else, but yes.

But otherwise, a lot should change in prison systems. Away with the carpets and cable TV. Make them do boring assembly work or things that actually benefit the society which they tried to disturb. Make criminals pay back the harm they inflicted. If they need recreation so badly, they can have a conversation with their cellmates. Lock them up in groups of about 10 to 15 to safe a little space, instead giving them their individual five-by-three meter cells. That way, they can also keep eachother in check a bit. Hard justice? Nah, I'm still very nice compared to Russia.

Pft. Weighed against the loss of freedom, things like carpet and TV are really going to sway someone from crime. As for making them work, what makes you think they will? What are you going to do if they don't? Kill them? Back to square one. Take away their freedoms? You already have.

As for putting 10 to 15 in a single cell, there are various reasons that's a terrible idea. For your logic of having them work, you are going to have to open a cell releasing a dozen prisoners at once. If I were a prisoner, I would use this opportunity to bum rush the guard.

I mean, really. At most they are going to be able to fit five or six guards in the immediate area of the hall around the door. We now outnumber them 3 to 1, we're pissed as all feuch, and we having nothing left to lose. Once you take down the first guard or two, you're armed.

Brilliant. Now on the other hand, I'd like to see a mere one or two prisoners overpower a group of armed guards. It simply doesn't work in the same way.

Beyond that, you're also giving them a private conference center, which - considering they are all criminals of one kind or another - seems kind of stupid to me. Keeping them separated serves more than one purpose.

But seriously, your ideas aren't "hard justice". They're just inane,

lol, if you believe that then you're the naive one. it's called 'prison bravado,' my friend, and i have experienced it firsthand. until you have gone to prison yourself, don't propose to call anybody else naive. especially if you are taking the word of cons :).

wow, so you are saying that your convict friends are either stupid, sociopathic, or just plain nuts, huh? you're a great friend.

according to the USDJ:

-Nearly two million new jail admissions are of people with mental illnesses—35,000 individuals a week.

-At the end of 2000, nearly one million individuals with mental illnesses were in the criminal justice system.

-More than 16% of jail inmates have a mental illness, according to the United States Department of Justice.

-Seventy percent of jail inmates with mental illnesses are there for nonviolent offenses.

whether or not those are the "smallest percentages," i think it makes you look like a chump to say that mental illness isn't a serious presence in prison populations.

there's your naivety again. have you ever worked in the court system? i have, and i can tell you that screening for mental illness only happens in the most serious or dramatic of cases. 99% of the criminals that pass through the system are NEVER evaluated for mental competancy.

and yet more naivety. actually, more than 80% of the individuals in America who become addicted to drugs will recover and go on to lead productive lives, drug-free. i can tell you from personal experience that drug addicts can and do recover, and often end up contributing far more to the world than people with your breed of ignorance...read an intro neuro textbook before you shoot your mouth off about chemical addiction, okay?

Wrong! You're spewing lies just to make your point. Anybody can tell you that most criminals seek the "insanity plea" so they will go to a minimum security prison. Courts determine mental illness to make that decision, and YES there are evaluations done for any prisoner that requests it.

But you go ahead and keep telling people that most convicts have mental problems, it makes you look like a fool, and its fools like you that are feeling sorry for these killers, rapists, thieves, and addicts.

Also - go read a fuckin book; there is no cure for addiction, once an addict, always an addict - just go ask someone whos been through AA, moron.

An dthe fact that the Iranians are being ruled by a dictatorship of fundamentalistic priests mean nothing? You really are biased and ignorant. If Hutues are barabrians then Germans are as well. Saudis are also ruled through a dictatorship. What is really barbaric is to be the richest and most developed country of the world and still execute children and only recently forbidding execution of mentally retarded.
Just before I mentioned these executions in Iran I said that unfortunately US is the number one of executing prisoners for crimes committed when they were minors. Maybe you didn't see that one? Alright here it comes again. Since 1990 only 9 countries have executed minors, 39 all together. 19 of them in the US. Between 2003-2004 Iran has executed 3 and US 1 minor. So Iran "wins" this year.
And now, why I'm biased and ignorant? Please spesify.

Wrong! You're spewing lies just to make your point. Anybody can tell you that most criminals seek the "insanity plea" so they will go to a minimum security prison. Courts determine mental illness to make that decision, and YES there are evaluations done for any prisoner that requests it.

But you go ahead and keep telling people that most convicts have mental problems, it makes you look like a fool, and its fools like you that are feeling sorry for these killers, rapists, thieves, and addicts.
my my my, i must have confused you, little one, if you are lashing out like this. i think you are angry because you don't understand the criminal justice system, or my personal sense of justice, so let me clarify a few things:

a person can be mentally ill, even extremely mentally ill, and they won't necessarily "get off" or "beat the rap." sentencing in America requires that they demonstrate not only that they are mentally ill, but also that the illness directly contributed to the crime and prevented them from controlling and/or understanding their actions. Ted Bundy couldn't walk on an insanity plea, and i don't think anybody will argue that Ted Bundy was anything other than crazy as hell when he committed those crimes.

second, your claim that any criminal can request evalutation is true, but it shows remarkable ignorance for you to think that this means all criminals ARE evaluated. most don't know that right, for one thing, or don't WANT to be evaluated because of stigmas against mental illness. many requests are turned down by a judge, or are performed perfunctorily by poorly trained public servants.

third, i never claimed that most prisoners are mentally ill. you made that up. if you'd rather argue with yourself than with other people then go right ahead. i'd love to watch that. but please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

finally, the belief that the insanity defense is used frequently and successfully is nothing but pure fiction. less than 20% of attempts to use an insanity plea are accepted by the court (most being immediately thrown out because they are obviously bunk), and of the ones that make it to trial less than half of one percent are successful in getting a Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity verdict... and, of course, even with the NGRI verdict the criminal is still not going to go free.

here's some numbers for you to chew on:

*It is conservatively estimated that 10 percent of all arrestees are seriously mentally ill. The percentage of county jail inmates who are seriously mentally ill has been estimated to be between 7.2 and 15 percent. Research has shown that 8 to 20 percent of state prison inmates are seriously mentally ill. (US Department of Justice)

*A 1998 report contracted by the California Department of Corrections estimated that 20 percent of male inmates and 24 percent of female inmates in California state prisons are functionally impaired in day to day prison living as a result of mental disorder. (Sacramento: California Department of Corrections, The Western Consortium for Public Health, in association with Scarlett Carp and Associates, Inc.)

*Experts agree the insanity defense works in less than 1 percent of all cases —between 1/3 and 1/12 of 1 percent, by most estimates. And because the defense and prosecution agree the defendant is insane in 90 percent of those cases, juries accept the plea in an even smaller fraction of contested cases — about 1/120 of 1 percent. Even if the defense works, and the accused is acquitted by reason of insanity, they most often end up serving a longer sentence in a lock-down mental fascility than they would have served in the prison system. (USDJ, Croneburg et al 1999, others)

*A 1999 study contacted officials in all 50 states and asked for the number of insanity acquittals statewide between the years 1970 and 1995. They received data from 36 states. The median number of insanity acquittals per state per year was 17.7. California and Florida had the highest annual averages (134 and 111, respectively); New Mexico (0.0) and South Dakota (0.1) had the lowest. Most of the acquittals were for felonies rather than misdemeanors. (Carmen Cirincione and Charles Jacobs) side comment: notice, these are statistics for a 25 year period. in 25 years, the average state let off a grand total of about 18 people for the insanity defense. TOTAL.

i'm spewing data from reports. if you think that makes me look like a fool then i am happy for the label, because i wouldn't want to be whatever qualifies as "smart" in your world.

and just so you know: i don't believe that insanity is an excuse in most cases. you assumed that since i know the accurate statistics i must be one of those folks trying to use mental illness to excuse crimes...that is your mistake, and you are quite wrong. just because i am aware of the full scope of prision mental illness doesn't necessarily mean that i think the mentally ill shouldn't be there, or that they should have been allowed to go free, or any such thing. you made that up as well, and you need to cool the hell down and start paying attention if you want to avoid looking very foolish.


Also - go read a fuckin book; there is no cure for addiction, once an addict, always an addict - just go ask someone whos been through AA, moron.
read a book? i've already written one, thanks. my senior thesis dealt with chemical addiction, and it is up for publication right now. well, okay, i shouldn't inflate it...it's not a book, just a 35 page thesis that is being submitted to accreditted scientific journal sources and is being presented for approval and binding by the thesis commission of a major research university. it would be a pretty thin book, i suppose :P.

it is true that one will always carry the addictive predisposition. but that does not mean that one will always be an active addict. as i said, very clearly, in my previous post, most addicts will get sober and go on to lead clean and productive lives. they will still be "addicts at heart," but that does not mean they will be addicts in practice.

until you have been in the criminal justice system, employed by the criminal justice system, and have been a recovered addict, i really would suggest you not try to tell me how any of those things work, since my personal experience with all of them trumps yours without question :).

can you show me an exact statistic that states there are that many wrongful executions. Nothing was perfect, but the DNA tests and other new processes we have come as near close to it as anything. Has there ever really been an epidemic of wrongful convictions since the introduction of DNA testing?

Yes, in Houston, Texas.

www.truthinjustice.org/houston-da.htm (http://www.truthinjustice.org/houston-da.htm)