NationStates Jolt Archive

At the risk of losing my 'Conservative Club' membership card --which entitles me to discounts at the Fox News shop, the Republican Party restaurant, and the Australian Liberal Party refugee-stoning society-- I am going to stand forward and say that I really dislike capital punishment. It brutalises the people who carry it out, it removes potentially innocent people permanently from the workforce, and it makes us all have to spend years listening to the useless bastards at Amnesty International (whinging about nothing since before you were born) and in America, the ACLU (celebrating another year of political bastardism).

So why is Capital Punishment still popular amongst politicians and the broad mass of Americans (face it, commies, it's true)?

Because there aren't any alternatives which would get criminals permanently off the streets like it. Well, I did some thinking and I came up with a couple, that should appeal to conservatives to because they are also based in past precedent. So, let's look at two possible punitive measures to be taken against the criminals instead of a merciful death:

1. Making life-sentencing last at least a mandatory 80 years, with parole only available after 40. If parole is failed that one time, allow no further attempts. At the end of the 80 years, consider if you want to release them into a society that's unknown to them. Then lock them back up and throw away the key.

This has two benefits and should have large deterrence aspects. Firstly, have any of you ever heard of an 80 year old murderer who wasn't a political leader of some kind? Secondly, no one wants to spend 40-80 years in prison. It sends a clear message to criminals: break the law, your arse is ours.

Some might be worried about the effects this might have on the innocent. But safeguards are more easily put in place in a life-imprisonment context then they are in a situation where you shot the bastard that morning. When new evidence turns up that might release the man, then a new trial can be run with a new jury. Or, even better, these cases can remain open the entire 40 years before parole, so that if new evidence appears and they're proved innocent they can be released and compensated by the state.

2. Labour camp for a period of time in a part of the country far from any real chance of escape.

There is a theory that imprisoning criminals means removing any contributions to society that they might make. While this obviously wouldn't apply to terrorists, rapists, traitors and Enron Executives --we can do without their contributions-- murderers and thieves can, in the beautiful surrounds of nature, be brutally reminded of how horrible they really are, taught a trade, and released, all without being taken away from society's desperate need for manual labour.

I accept nothing less than a public stoning.

I've already lost my Liberal Club Membership Card. It was blue too...I like blue.

I'll offer a less drastic version of the Life Sentence thing. Make the sentence a standard length - say, thirty years - and then release them, /not/ if they've been a Good Little Prisoner, but if you're utterly convinced that they've repented. If you are not ('you' being the government or some representative), lock them back up for another five, and then repeat.

The /other/ alternative is to decide that life means life, and only let them out if they're proven innocent, or in a box.

Well, I see nothing wrong with forced labor. I mean if we can force those prisoners into working hard enough to be self-sufficient or something. I simply do not like the fact that they live and do not do anything that helps society like the people that live outside the prison have to.

Rapist-Murderers, Child-Molesters, should go bye-bye, why ever, ever, risk letting free to do it again? The second victim should be able to sue the government for letting these people free in society again.

The United States already has life without the possibility of parole options.

How about a mixture of forced labour (to make up for costs of imprisonment) and (attempted) teaching of right and wrong - after serving their time, prisoners would have to "graduate" to be released.

1. why should the taxpayers foot the bill for this long of a sentence?

2. if they go on strike, are you going to give them time-out in the corner?


The 3 problems with capital punishment in the US that bother me:
1. it's not carried out promptly after conviction (I could live with -- har har-- a one year expedited appeal process);
2. it's too easy -- the only people who should be allowed ot die in their sleep are octogenarians; and,
3. it's not public.

"Hang them at High Noon in the Town Square" would be the motto.

And, no, I'm not fundamentally bothered by the "fact" that ocassionally an innocent person gets wrongfully convicted and might get executed. I haven't figured out what error rate is acceptable to me (as one not on death row), but 1:1000 seems fine. I'd rather Kill 999 guilty ones and 1 innocent one than to not have capital punishment.

I support Capital Punishment for one reason: People like Karla Homolka do not deserve life.

lifetime imprisonment in a basic cell, with basic rations, and spending your time building and maintaining public infrastructure (road, rail links etc) for the government


they get to live their life in prison (actually getting a punishment), and they provide a service.

That would actually be a good idea Marmite Toast. After all the purpose of justice in my mind is to teach. Why else do parents spank their children? Anyway it is stupid to put these people away and not do anything with them. They should help society and hopefully become part of society.

1. why should the taxpayers foot the bill for this long of a sentence?

2. if they go on strike, are you going to give them time-out in the corner?


The 3 problems with capital punishment in the US that bother me:
1. it's not carried out promptly after conviction (I could live with -- har har-- a one year expedited appeal process);
2. it's too easy -- the only people who should be allowed ot die in their sleep are octogenarians; and,
3. it's not public.

"Hang them at High Noon in the Town Square" would be the motto.

And, no, I'm not fundamentally bothered by the "fact" that ocassionally an innocent person gets wrongfully convicted and might get executed. I haven't figured out what error rate is acceptable to me (as one not on death row), but 1:1000 seems fine. I'd rather Kill 999 guilty ones and 1 innocent one than to not have capital punishment.

Really. If it was your son or daughter who was innocent and executed in your 'one year expidited process' , would you feel the same way?

You're not even worth calling a human being. When it's 'okay' to execute an innocent person just because you think it's a waste of money, justice is truly dead.

A nation shouldn't make policy decisions based on familial emotions or the public polls of the day.

I didn't imply that a person who was "known" to be innocent should be executed.

Life isn't perfect, and you'll never have a perfect criminal justice system. The trade-off isn't the death of an innocent person vs. the money to warehouse that inocent person. I don't want to spent billions of dollars to warehouse all the guilty SOB's -- that's not justice.

i favor the punishments of life with the possibility of parole and life without the possibility of parole

its more humane for everyone involved. its not good for people to lust for the excution of the person who murdered their loved one.

This is all far too namby-pamby liberal. Why not:

1) All murderers, convicted or just suspected, should be hung by their elbows in their town centre, allowing the local population to stone them. After 2 days, they should be hanged by the neck until almost dead, removed from the noose, revived and forced to watch 'The Wit & Wisdom of George W Bush'. After that, the then gibbering scumbag should be dragged by a pick-up truck through the town until almost unconscious, then in front of his or her parents / children / wife or husband / sisters and or brothers, drawn and quartered. So as not to waste the body, it should then be force-fed to the parasite homeless.

2) All thieves, convicted or suspected, should have their hands chopped off, sans anesthetic and forced to do work in the community, with special emphasis on; sweeping the streets, helping old ladies carry their shopping, and tree pruning.

You fairy liberals have no idea of the heart-ache these villains cause us decent, god-fearing folks.

This is all far too namby-pamby liberal. Why not:

1) All murderers, convicted or just suspected, should be hung by their elbows in their town centre, allowing the local population to stone them. After 2 days, they should be hanged by the neck until almost dead, removed from the noose, revived and forced to watch 'The Wit & Wisdom of George W Bush'. After that, the then gibbering scumbag should be dragged by a pick-up truck through the town until almost unconscious, then in front of his or her parents / children / wife or husband / sisters and or brothers, drawn and quartered. So as not to waste the body, it should then be force-fed to the parasite homeless.

2) All thieves, convicted or suspected, should have their hands chopped off, sans anesthetic and forced to do work in the community, with special emphasis on; sweeping the streets, helping old ladies carry their shopping, and tree pruning.

You fairy liberals have no idea of the heart-ache these villains cause us decent, god-fearing folks.
Ever heard of the phrase "wrongful conviction" ?

A nation shouldn't make policy decisions based on familial emotions or the public polls of the day.

I didn't imply that a person who was "known" to be innocent should be executed.

Life isn't perfect, and you'll never have a perfect criminal justice system. The trade-off isn't the death of an innocent person vs. the money to warehouse that inocent person. I don't want to spent billions of dollars to warehouse all the guilty SOB's -- that's not justice.

Who is 'known' to be innocent? Hell, there have been cases railroaded through where the police faked up evidence to get some guy convicted and the truth came out. Not all of them were minorities either.

No, I will never accept as a Christian that the right thing to do is just kill people to satisfy some arbitrary concept of justice. Work camps, rehabilitation, whatever -- but a single human life is worth more than pieces of paper called money. And if you don't believe that, then I sincerely hope you don't call yourself Christian.

I support Capital Punishment for one reason: People like Karla Homolka do not deserve life.
Who are you to decide though?
I say life without parole, with sex offenders maybe sterilisation.
I'm not a medical expert, but shouldn't that eliminate the drive to do such things...

Well, I see nothing wrong with forced labor.

I do.

Ultimately, any power granted to the state can be expected not only to be used, but to be abused. Make forced labor camps the norm, and it won't be long before some enterprising politician turns it into a cash cow, and then we're putting people into prison simply because we need workers (and the benefits that accrue to the state from them).

Something similar is already happening in our phony war on drugs, with the seizure power that has been granted to law enforcement agencies.

I say life without parole, with sex offenders maybe sterilisation.
I'm not a medical expert, but shouldn't that eliminate the drive to do such things...

"Chemical castration" is already in use in a few states, if that's what you mean by "sterilisation."

However, I can tell you from personal experience that a vasectomy does nothing to stop sexual urges. ;)

Rapist-Murderers, Child-Molesters, should go bye-bye, why ever, ever, risk letting free to do it again? The second victim should be able to sue the government for letting these people free in society again.
As much as I detest these vermin, I don't think mandatory executions are in our best interest. I think that would encourage the automatic killing of the victim to eliminate the witness.

Who is 'known' to be innocent? Hell, there have been cases railroaded through where the police faked up evidence to get some guy convicted and the truth came out. Not all of them were minorities either.

No, I will never accept as a Christian that the right thing to do is just kill people to satisfy some arbitrary concept of justice. Work camps, rehabilitation, whatever -- but a single human life is worth more than pieces of paper called money. And if you don't believe that, then I sincerely hope you don't call yourself Christian.



The issue never was "just money".. The issue is spending billions of dollars to warehouse tens of thousands of murderers, child rapists, etc rather than executing them -- THAT is injustice.

Your continued personal attacks against me are unacceptable.

spending billions of dollars = just money

Accused of crime != guilty

speaking to you = waste of time

I'm sorry, I can't have reasonable conversation with you.

You're not even worth calling a human being.
Knock off the personal attacks, Serene Chaos. Attack the argument, not the poster. Got it?

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Alternatives to capital punishment... well there's the US option: a bed to sleep in, a roof over your head, adequate meals each day, TV.... all at the taxpayer's expense! while meanwhile, if you're homeless and NOT in prison, you freeze and starve to death.

Crazy world.

If you murder more than 2 people, you should be executed. If you are child rapist, murderer, etc. life without parole. Assult, armed robbery, 60 years with possibility of porale at 20 years. Rapist 60 years, no parole. anything under, to be determined by the largeness of crime. ( Example: steal $200 2 years. steal 200,000 dollars get 20 years.) Parole to be determined by Judge

Ever heard of the phrase "wrongful conviction" ?


Ever heard of the word 'sarcasm'?

It's been stated again and again that "tens of billions of dollars" are spent keeping prisoners in containment facillaties. However, on numerous occasions I've read that the cost of capital punishment is actually larger than that of imprisonement.

The cost of the apparatus and maintenance of the procedures attending the death penalty, including death row and the endless appeals and legal machinery, far outweighs the expense of maintaining in prison the tiny fraction of criminals who would otherwise be slain.
That's a quote from Thomas Draper, author of the book entitled, well, "Capital Punishment."

"Life isn't perfect, and you'll never have a perfect criminal justice system. The trade-off isn't the death of an innocent person vs. the money to warehouse that inocent person. I don't want to spent billions of dollars to warehouse all the guilty SOB's -- that's not justice."

Actually, at least in the US, it costs a lot more to kill someone than to put them in jail, even for life. What with all of the appeals and legal costs, a single execution costs tax payers well over 500 thousand dollars just to prosecute.

Look, the prison system is meant to be either rehabilitation or a place to get rid of people. It has to do those things. If we do not seek to rehabilitate our prisoners with psychological aid and help to get a better life than all we truly want is to get rid of these people. If we seek to get rid of these people then I say we make sure that we do so in the cheapest manner. These people are not free from the societal duties of supporting that society, the only people who are are the dead. Truthfully however people will corrupt everything they can get their hands on. But my position is clear.

Anyone remember the movie No Escape (http://imdb.com/title/tt0110678/)?

I think that was the best idea yet. Take all the violent criminals, child molesters, rapists, murders and the rest of the lot -- put them on a remote island in shark infested waters -- and leave them to fend for themselves. The only thing the taxpayers would pay for is transportation to the island and the occasional Navy patrol ship with shoot to kill orders for any escapees.

I think that would be a much better deterrent than anything our current system offers.

you've obviously discovered the perfect criminal justice system then - one thats not faulty by letting innoncent people slip into the net.

please explain how you'd ensure all those people you'd leave to die werent innocent? and if one was later found to be innocent would the judge who sent him there then be guilty of murder and have to move house to the island too?

You cant delete this one mick ;)

"Life isn't perfect, and you'll never have a perfect criminal justice system. The trade-off isn't the death of an innocent person vs. the money to warehouse that inocent person. I don't want to spent billions of dollars to warehouse all the guilty SOB's -- that's not justice."

Actually, at least in the US, it costs a lot more to kill someone than to put them in jail, even for life. What with all of the appeals and legal costs, a single execution costs tax payers well over 500 thousand dollars just to prosecute.


This is almost going to start sounding like that show "Name that Tune"

I totally agree that we're not doing it in a cost-efficient manner!

I recommended a 1 year appeal time and hanging in the public square. What I didn't mention is that we should not use a new rope for each hanging -- if the old one breaks, only then use a new one.

I wouldn't have a system that cost more to execute a condemned capital crime felon at the 1 year point than it cost to imprison him for 2 years.

I think that was the best idea yet. Take all the violent criminals, child molesters, rapists, murders and the rest of the lot -- put them on a remote island in shark infested waters -- and leave them to fend for themselves. The only thing the taxpayers would pay for is transportation to the island and the occasional Navy patrol ship with shoot to kill orders for any escapees.

I think that would be a much better deterrent than anything our current system offers.

Let's televise it; that will make money which would eliminate the need for taxpayer support!

you've obviously discovered the perfect criminal justice system then - one thats not faulty by letting innoncent people slip into the net.

please explain how you'd ensure all those people you'd leave to die werent innocent? and if one was later found to be innocent would the judge who sent him there then be guilty of murder and have to move house to the island too?

You cant delete this one mick ;)


I think you've hit upon "the" issue: is a society required to ensure that no innocent person gets convicted for a capital crime?

I think that standard is too high. That's where I apparently differ with you. At what point, if at all, would you say the risk was worth capital punishment? An error rate of 1:1 million, 1:100K, 1:1,000?

you've obviously discovered the perfect criminal justice system then - one thats not faulty by letting innoncent people slip into the net.

please explain how you'd ensure all those people you'd leave to die werent innocent? and if one was later found to be innocent would the judge who sent him there then be guilty of murder and have to move house to the island too?
You're assuming there is such a thing as a perfect system of justice. There is not and never has been...and I don't think there ever will be.

I'm more concerned with deterring criminals and saving taxpayers as much money as possible. If we can deter crime from happening in the first place, then the chance of convicting and imprisoning innocents goes down, does it not?

Also, if you hold criminal justices accountable for every sentence they hand down, you might as well just dismantle the justice system and let anarchy reign. You would have judges handing down overly lenient sentences en masse for fear of going to prison themselves.

Try again, cormac. ;)

I say only people who have commited treason, crimes against humanity, and terrorism should recieve Capital Punishment. The others can get life.

I say only people who have commited treason, crimes against humanity, and terrorism should recieve Capital Punishment. The others can get life.

But it should be very unpleasant. None of this cable TV/Internet insanity or other stuff. Hard labor and spartan conditions for lifers, since many of their crimes are so detestable.

mick - in a nutshell im assuming that your answer is far far too basic and unworkable. if that is striving for a bar too high then we shouldnt complain when other countries lower their standards and say, attack another with no provication just because they believe they had a right to. if it swings one way, it has to swing the other. thats the problem with killing criminals (guilty or otherwise) off.

Plus theres the moral aspect (well obviously that depends on your spiritual outlook) as in the murderer had no right to kill, just as we as a society dont have the right to kill them.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion and I respect that though what i find confusing is how people can sit on both sides of the fence - support moral justice but back the death penalty even though a few innocents might get topped in the process. Backing the dealth penalty under such circuamstances is technically in itself morally wrong to humans.

Imagine your closest loved one is accused of murder. Imagine that you know he or she didn't commit the crime but was found guilty on the evidence of another criminal. Imagine your loved one is executed. Imagine how grateful you'd be when he or she is discovered to be innocent and the government says it's sorry but it's better to kill the innocent as well as the guilty rather than let some guilty murderers just get life.

Imagine your closest loved one is accused of murder. Imagine that you know he or she didn't commit the crime but was found guilty on the evidence of another criminal. Imagine your loved one is executed. Imagine how grateful you'd be when he or she is discovered to be innocent and the government says it's sorry but it's better to kill the innocent as well as the guilty rather than let some guilty murderers just get life.

Well, in my system it would be brutal enough to make the prisoner wish for death. I feel that they should not be killed and given life instead, but their prison sentence should be very unpleasant at the very least.

mick - in a nutshell im assuming that your answer is far far too basic and unworkable. if that is striving for a bar too high then we shouldnt complain when other countries lower their standards and say, attack another with no provication just because they believe they had a right to. if it swings one way, it has to swing the other. thats the problem with killing criminals (guilty or otherwise) off.

Plus theres the moral aspect (well obviously that depends on your spiritual outlook) as in the murderer had no right to kill, just as we as a society dont have the right to kill them.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion and I respect that though what i find confusing is how people can sit on both sides of the fence - support moral justice but back the death penalty even though a few innocents might get topped in the process. Backing the dealth penalty under such circuamstances is technically in itself morally wrong to humans.
First, I never said anything about the death penalty. My solution is basically exile from society and civilization. They are put on an island with the absolute basic tools to survive (I'm talking natural tools: edible plants, trees, caves, etc) and no way off the island. I'd even forego the Navy patrols and keep an eye on the island with a spy satellite, but set the island up to where exiles could NOT escape.

In the case of murders, they'd have more of a chance for survival than they gave their victims.

First, I never said anything about the death penalty. My solution is basically exile from society and civilization. They are put on an island with the absolute basic tools to survive (I'm talking natural tools: edible plants, trees, caves, etc) and no way off the island. I'd even forego the Navy patrols and keep an eye on the island with a spy satellite, but set the island up to where exiles could NOT escape.

In the case of murders, they'd have more of a chance for survival than they gave their victims.

I couldn't agree more. They should not be supported or rewarded with luxuries any more than is necessary to survive, which would truly punish them for their crimes more than a fast death ever could.

ah man. so take the risk of landing iinnocent people over to an island in shark invested waters and let them fend for themselves and that makes it OK? That may as well be a death sentence.

And morally it is wrong to take lives, wither deserved or not.

I couldn't agree more. They should not be supported or rewarded with luxuries any more than is necessary to survive, which would truly punish them for their crimes more than a fast death ever could.

and what would you do if you found yourself in the position Globes R Us outlined a few posts up? Would you still agree?

heheh .. oops i see you already answered that

ah man. so take the risk of landing iinnocent people over to an island in shark invested waters and let them fend for themselves and that makes it OK? That may as well be a death sentence.

And morally it is wrong to take lives, wither deserved or not.

The probability of an innocent person being imprisoned falls considerably with each advance in forensics and DNA analysis. The criminals should be punished, not just kept in a farly comfortable prison with various facilities for the rest of their lives.


That is not true. There are times where it is morally acceptable to kill, but only when it is justified beyond all doubt.

The probability of an innocent person being imprisoned falls considerably with each advance in forensics and DNA analysis. The criminals should be punished, not just kept in a farly comfortable prison with various facilities for the rest of their lives.


That is not true. There are times where it is morally acceptable to kill, but only when it is justified beyond all doubt.

you have far far far too much faith in technology, plus I daresay what you assume just doesnt hold water in reality. also it is never morally acceptable to kill - there just isnt two ways about that.

ah man. so take the risk of landing iinnocent people over to an island in shark invested waters and let them fend for themselves and that makes it OK? That may as well be a death sentence.

And morally it is wrong to take lives, wither deserved or not.
It's not a death sentence.. it's exile and a chance to survive...but without the conveniences of the civilization and society that they have committed crimes against.

Also, like I said, there is NO WAY POSSIBLE that you can keep innocents from slipping through the cracks. It's impossible. As I stated before, this "exile" solution would be a greater deterrent than anything we have currently...and, assuming the deterrent works, crime would go down and the chance of convicting innocents goes down as well.

It's not perfect...but it's better than ANY country has at the moment.

mick - so you can be certain that if an innocent was found to be innocent that they'd still be alive and sane on your island where they have to fend for themselves? thats barbaric.

Any society that demands that its citizens do not commit murder should not then take unto itself that same form of punishment. And why do so may of you focus on only punishment? Rehabilitation is important. If proper methods are used on most criminals, they can see the enormity of their crime and can make amends as best as possible. No, we can't handle people like that with kid gloves but an enlightened society should be able punish and rehabilitate. No innocent person should run the risk of execution. We are better than that, we really are.................or should be.

"Also, like I said, there is NO WAY POSSIBLE that you can keep innocents from slipping through the cracks. It's impossible."

If the human race stopped dead at every problem claiming it NO WAY POSSIBLE to find away around it then we'd be in even a worse mess than we are now. You;ll never find a solution with that line of thought.

mick - so you can be certain that if an innocent was found to be innocent that they'd still be alive and sane on your island where they have to fend for themselves? thats barbaric.
You're still arguing for a "perfect" system of justic and punishment, which has never and probably will never exist. You're arguing idealsim -- I'm arguing pragmatism.

In my system, we wouldn't execute a person whi we had determined to be innocent some time after the conviction but before the execution.

So, is there any error rate that is satisfactory? If so, then we simply are negotiating.

If not, then it's my opinion that you've placed a burden on society that simply is too high.

Do I relish the idea of an "innocent" person getting executed? No.

Do I want to warehouse everyone until they die of a natural death just to ensure that the possibilty of an innocent person getting executed is avoided? No.

[QUOTE=Vetalia]. There are times where it is morally acceptable to kill.

Never. There are times when it is the only option but even then it is not moral.

you have far far far too much faith in technology, plus I daresay what you assume just doesnt hold water in reality. also it is never morally acceptable to kill - there just isnt two ways about that.

DNA analysis is never less than 99.9% accurate and often has 100% accuracy. It is the only means a criminal can be identified beyond doubt without other proof.

It is morally acceptable to kill in certain cases. If we hadn't fought WWII, millions, or even hundreds of millions of innocent people would have suffered and died under cruel tyrants. The same goes with other dictators. It is wrong to murder, but not wrong to kill when justified.

In my system, we wouldn't execute a person whi we had determined to be innocent some time after the conviction but before the execution.

So, is there any error rate that is satisfactory? If so, then we simply are negotiating.

If not, then it's my opinion that you've placed a burden on society that simply is too high.

Do I relish the idea of an "innocent" person getting executed? No.

Do I want to warehouse everyone until they die of a natural death just to ensure that the possibilty of an innocent person getting executed is avoided? No.

if for example, you had the likes of the birminghan 6 on your jail books then that 'some time' would have to be about 16 years. there are far too many miscarraiges of justice to date to say that the current notion of execution. Its about time society starting positively thinking of new ways rather than concentrating on the old failed ways of the dark ages. Capital punishment has been around for centuries and we still have crime, so its obviously not working.

"Also, like I said, there is NO WAY POSSIBLE that you can keep innocents from slipping through the cracks. It's impossible."

If the human race stopped dead at every problem claiming it NO WAY POSSIBLE to find away around it then we'd be in even a worse mess than we are now. You;ll never find a solution with that line of thought.
Okay then... I'll now propose a system that would fit your criteria.

No death penalty. Life imprisonment, instead. In order to ensure that prisoners stay alive as long as possible so that IF they are innocent, they have the greatest possibility to be alive IF they are found innocent, I would propose that every single prisoner is put into solitary containment with their own small "yard" to exercise in. No contact whatsoever with other prisoners, so no chance that they'd get "shanked" and die before they had a chance to be proven innocent. That would be the ONLY way possible to not kill them and make sure they didn't get killed (by another prisoner) IF they are truly innocent.

Of course, the chances of loss of sanity would greatly increase in such conditions, so it STILL doesn't fit the impossible criteria you have presented.

If you're so wise, then YOU come up with the perfect system of justice.

[QUOTE=Underemployed Pirates]

' it's my opinion that you've placed a burden on society that simply is too high.'
The burden on society is too high if we risk the lives of the innocent. You're talking about mere money, not the best way to run a justice system.

'Do I relish the idea of an "innocent" person getting executed? No'
That's nice of you. Some of us don't just not 'relish' it, we won't risk it..

'Do I want to warehouse everyone until they die of a natural death just to ensure that the possibilty of an innocent person getting executed is avoided? No.'
Warehouse? You seem to forget we're talking about human beings. You sacrifice the innocents if you want, I won't.

Never. There are times when it is the only option but even then it is not moral.

You are correct to a degree. There are times where people have to be killed, as in war, (which should be avoided unless necessary) but the key is whether or not the action is justified. Killing is wrong when it is not justified, in which case it would be murder.

Okay then... I'll now propose a system that would fit your criteria.

No death penalty. Life imprisonment, instead. In order to ensure that prisoners stay alive as long as possible so that IF they are innocent, they have the greatest possibility to be alive IF they are found innocent, I would propose that every single prisoner is put into solitary containment with their own small "yard" to exercise in. No contact whatsoever with other prisoners, so no chance that they'd get "shanked" and die before they had a chance to be proven innocent. That would be the ONLY way possible to not kill them and make sure they didn't get killed (by another prisoner) IF they are truly innocent.

Of course, the chances of loss of sanity would greatly increase in such conditions, so it STILL doesn't fit the impossible criteria you have presented.

If you're so wise, then YOU come up with the perfect system of justice.

and if I cant then that means that executing is a good idea? I dont like that logic.

one option is rehabilitation and education. so what if it costs money. money is paper stuff, innocent lives are worth much more than that - plus theres always enough money, especially if governments decided to manage money properly

The issue isn't "just money" (where have I heard that before?)

The issue is "justice".

To me, it is not justice to warehouse capital felons (food, clothing, entertainment, recreation, medical care, etc.) until they die of old age.

To me, it is a legitimate function of government to punish capital felons by executing them rather than to attempt to rehabilitate them or to imprison them for life.

It is my opinion that one of the reasons that the criminal justice system in the US doesn't deter capital crimes well is that we do not effectively and efficiently punish capital felons.

It is not moral for person to be able to kidnap a child, sexually assault the child, then kill the child, and then have society even attempt rehabilitation or long-term imprisonment. The capital felon has forfeited his "right" to life.

and if I cant then that means that executing is a good idea? I dont like that logic.

one option is rehabilitation and education. so what if it costs money. money is paper stuff, innocent lives are worth much more than that - plus theres always enough money, especially if governments decided to manage money properly
HAHAH! C'mon man. Let's get real here. You're STILL basing your argument on the impossible ideal of a "perfect" system...and now you're including government. How many governments have there ever been in the history of the world that have managed money properly? NONE.

I'm trying to propose ideas that change the system in pragmatic ways to deal with society as it currently is.

So far, all you've done is try to deconstruct my ideas based on some unrealistic criteria that you have come up with. You have not presented a single ideas as to how you would do things.

Now, I'm officially asking: following your own criteria, propose a system that would be effective punish criminals, deter crime (as much as possible), be equitable to the posibility of someone innocent being incarcerated unfairly and not raise taxes to punitive levels for non-criminal taxpayers.

I'll be waiting. :)

*snip*
I'll be waiting. :)


You're going to have a long wait.

michael my dear man - i am not here to propose any kind of system (education and rehabilitation .. use your imagination) you have paid government officials to do that. Im just stating that capital punishment doesnt work. the idea that it does an so what innoncent people die just doesnt make any sense, unless of course you apply that to everything - which you dont. the system isnt perfect so its alright for that guy there to die even though hes innocent but we'll kill that fella cus he killed someone else .. yeah right. the answer is dont execure until you have found the perfect system, ergo the balls in your court if you disagree.

You're going to have a long wait.

yeah. considering the kind of questions he putting forward im not surprised.

Cortinaz..

You'd never ever never never ever under any conceivable circumstances think that capital punishment was appropriate?

no - as humans we have to work out how to rise above that. thats why they say on star trek NGN

So far, all you've done is try to deconstruct my ideas based on some unrealistic criteria that you have come up with. You have not presented a single ideas as to how you would do things.

have you been skipping my posts or something. Rehabilitation has a wide scope which to date hasnt really been properly looked into. thats about the third time ive mentioned that as an alternative to execution.

michael my dear man - i am not here to propose any kind of system (education and rehabilitation .. use your imagination) you have paid government officials to do that. Im just stating that capital punishment doesnt work.
And you are also patently ignoring the fact that I NEVER (in this thread) ADVOCATED CAPITAL PUNISHMENT/DEATH PENALTY. I proposed EXILE.

i just think its dangerous to believe that murder isnt murder when its sanctioned by the state or any other colecltive body. muder is murder, end of story - the rule applies to us all.

And you are also patently ignoring the fact that I NEVER (in this thread) ADVOCATED CAPITAL PUNISHMENT/DEATH PENALTY. I proposed EXILE.

Exile that would result in almost certain death michael, though you were a tad sketchy on the details

Capt Janeway killed plenty of bad guys.

jean luc always looked for the non lethal way out though

i just think its dangerous to believe that murder isnt murder when its sanctioned by the state or any other colecltive body. muder is murder, end of story - the rule applies to us all.


What you really are saying is:
"government sponsored capital punishment" = murder

That is not the law in the US or in the International Court. If you're basing your idea on "morals", what is the source of the moral framework? Is it Bilbical? Your proffered rule is even expressed in any fashion in the Bible.

So, just where is that rule written? Who wrote it?

heheh .. that " (in this thread)" bit caused a chuckle or two

i did say earlier that it depended on your spiritual outlook.

Logically, if not morally, it doesnt make sense to condemn one person for something that society itself condones.

What you really are saying is:
"government sponsored capital punishment" = murder

That is not the law in the US or in the International Court. If you're basing your idea on "morals", what is the source of the moral framework? Is it Bilbical? Your proffered rule is even expressed in any fashion in the Bible.

So, just where is that rule written? Who wrote it?

civilisation wrote that rule.

1. why should the taxpayers foot the bill for this long of a sentence?


You are assuming it costs more to keep someone in jail for life than it does to execute them. That is false.

2. if they go on strike, are you going to give them time-out in the corner?

Two words: Solitary Confinement. It's the 'timeout' from hell.

Exile that would result in almost certain death michael, though you were a tad sketchy on the details
Like I said, you're arguing untennable idealism and I'm arguing pragmatism. We are at an impasse. If you can't follow the definitions in a debate, then debate is useless. You can't just change the definitions to suit yourself, which is what you're trying to do.

By my definition of "exile" (which you said would be an "almost certain death sentence"), you would argue that our primitive ancestors (and many primitive tribes alive this very day) would be living under an "almost certain death sentence". I'm sorry, but that's absolutely ridiculous.

My solution would be to exile them from society and civilization and revert them to a primitive lifestyle of survival, with no posibility of escape. There would still be the posibility of survival. We would not be actively killing them. They would be living the same life as some Amazon tribes do nowdays. The only difference is that they would be stuck on an island with no means of escape.

To me, that's a perfectly equitable solution.

Society criminalizes the unjustified taking of innocent life.

Look, to the fiscal conservatives out there - it costs more to put a man on death row and actually carry out the sentence than simply putting them in jail for life. As strange as that sounds, it's true. Look it up. The cost to the government in appeals and other court shit is massive, many times that of simple living costs. So shut up about how it's cheaper to kill them - it's not.

This is the fact that finally convinced me the death penalty is a bad idea. It's morally wrong, inefficient, and outdated. Personally, I think spending life locked up in a rape-me-in-the-ass prison facility is worse than a quick, painless death. MUCH worse.

I mean, seriously, the rest of the world has abolished it. Get with the program, America.

civilisation wrote that rule.


Well, I think you're going to have an impossible task finding the primary source documents supporting that proposition.

*snip* So shut up...*


Really? Shut up?

The threads from some of us who support capital punishment don't at all support it by claiming that it's cost effective. To the contrary, I've agreed that the way it's done in the US is not cost effective.

I've argued that it is not justice to warehouse the capital felon for life. I've argues that punishment with no attempt at rehabilitation is a legitimate function of government in capital cases. I've argued that the way we warehouse captial felons in the US is no deterrent to capital crimes.

true but you'll find it hard to find documentation to say its untrue ;)

to be honest, take the idea of morality out of the question and what do you have? we all have moral values, as in you wouldnt shit in your shoes then wear them etc, and not killin gpeople should be one of those values, so in essence we ourselves have made the moral assumption that its bad to kill anyone. well, except for those who havent .. they end up being murderers

i just think its dangerous to believe that murder isnt murder when its sanctioned by the state or any other colecltive body. muder is murder, end of story - the rule applies to us all.

Murder by definition is the unlawful killing of another person. That is why, for example, you usually won't be accused of murder if you kill a person in self defense...because the crime of murder entails killing without acceptable justification. If the state kills a person it is an official termination and is not murder because it is legal.

Like I said, you're arguing untennable idealism and I'm arguing pragmatism. We are at an impasse. If you can't follow the definitions in a debate, then debate is useless. You can't just change the definitions to suit yourself, which is what you're trying to do.

By my definition of "exile" (which you said would be an "almost certain death sentence"), you would argue that our primitive ancestors (and many primitive tribes alive this very day) would be living under an "almost certain death sentence". I'm sorry, but that's absolutely ridiculous.

My solution would be to exile them from society and civilization and revert them to a primitive lifestyle of survival, with no posibility of escape. There would still be the posibility of survival. We would not be actively killing them. They would be living the same life as some Amazon tribes do nowdays. The only difference is that they would be stuck on an island with no means of escape.

To me, that's a perfectly equitable solution.

Youve changed your solution I see. what about the island and the sharks and leaving them there to fend for themseves? (btw, modern man wouldnt survive quite like an indigenous tribesman would .. thats just not being realistic)

take you latest version, throw in some education and some form of rehabiliting and studying how these criminal minds think so society can work out more effective ways to stop them and you have education and rehabilitation - which is what Ive been gibbering about.

you havent changed sides mid argument have you Mick?

What you really are saying is:
"government sponsored capital punishment" = murder

That is not the law in the US or in the International Court. If you're basing your idea on "morals", what is the source of the moral framework? Is it Bilbical? Your proffered rule isn't even expressed in any fashion in the Bible.

So, just where is that rule written? Who wrote it?

I believe it's Moses' Sixth Commandment, which goes something like: "Thou shalt not kill"

That's just an educated guess though :rolleyes:

The lack of documentation saying it's not a law of civilzation?

The opposite position (that capital punishment is acceptable by civilation) is supported by formalized international and national laws that have existed for millenia (? millenium?).

I believe it's Moses' Sixth Commandment, which goes something like: "Thou shalt not kill"

That's just an educated guess though :rolleyes:
Wrong. The original version says "Thou shalt not MURDER." "Kill" is a mistranslation.

Murder by definition is the unlawful killing of another person. That is why, for example, you usually won't be accused of murder if you kill a person in self defense...because the crime of murder entails killing without acceptable justification. If the state kills a person it is an official termination and is not murder because it is legal.

ok, so murder isnt murder in self defense, as in you didnt go out just to kill that person - thay attacked you and you were defending yourself - I can understand that.

A state though isnt acting in self defense when it executes someone, as its premeditated. therefore its not murder then if its legal ... like if CHina decided it was legal to kill everyon ein the world with ginger hair (lets say) then technically that woldnt be murder?

I dont think the state sponsored murder isnt murder idea holds much water if you (again) where to apply that rule to everywhere

I believe it's Moses' Sixth Commandment, which goes something like: "Thou shalt not kill"

That's just an educated guess though :rolleyes:


1. Moses didn't author the commandment.
2. what exactly does the commandment condemn? killing plants when you pull them from the ground? killing sacrificial lambs? killing Philistines? killing the first-born of Egypt?

Clearly, the commandment condemns the intentional killing of innocent human beings.

I've never argued that society should intentionally kill innocent human beings.

Wrong. The original version says "Thou shalt not MURDER." "Kill" is a mistranslation.

Then why is kill in the older versions and murder in the modern ones, hmmmm?

Trust me, murder is only the latest translation (or mistranslation depending on PoV). And it occurred only to distinguish the killing of animals from the killing of humans.

The lack of documentation saying it's not a law of civilzation?

The opposite position (that capital punishment is acceptable by civilation) is supported by formalized international and national laws that have existed for millenia (? millenium?).

capital punishment is banned in most civilised countries so it doesnt have much support internationally.

1. Moses didn't author the commandment.
2. what exactly does the commandment condemn? killing plants when you pull them from the ground? killing sacrificial lambs? killing Philistines? killing the first-born of Egypt?

Clearly, the commandment condemns the intentional killing of innocent human beings.

I've never argued that society should intentionally kill innocent human beings.

the problem lies in knowing if someone is innocent or not. i dont think we can say any justice system is that good, and until we do executing isnt a good idea as you run the risk of killing innocent human beings. to me thats what the whoel thing boils down to.

*snip*
A state though isnt acting in self defense when it executes someone, as its premeditated. *snip*

I disagree completely. I think that's precisely what society is doing -- it is defending itself against this murderer and those who would not be deterred if we did not have effective captial punishment.

Youve changed your solution I see. what about the island and the sharks and leaving them there to fend for themseves? (btw, modern man wouldnt survive quite like an indigenous tribesman would .. thats just not being realistic)

take you latest version, throw in some education and some form of rehabiliting and studying how these criminal minds think so society can work out more effective ways to stop them and you have education and rehabilitation - which is what Ive been gibbering about.

you havent changed sides mid argument have you Mick?
No, I haven't. If you'd not been selectively reading my posts, you'd know that.

If you look back, you'll see that, yes, I advocate putting them on the island with no means of escape (shark infested waters, dangerous reefs surrounding the island, etc) and leaving them to fend for themselves, but the island would have the basics for survival (edible plants, trees, caves, fish/crabs, etc).

Also, the vast majority of violent criminals cannot be rehabilitated. The VAST majority of offenders, when released back into society, commit violet crimes again. This has been PROVEN. So, why waste tax dollar trying to rehabilitate them? (And if you do a little studying and googling, you'll see that rehabilitation HAS been tried in places in the US. The vast majority of the time, it doesn't work.)

Lastly, your argument that "modern man wouldnt survive quite like an indigenous tribesman would" is pointless and moot. Violet criminals have proven them to not be civilized and cannot live peacefully in society. If they can't abide by society's and civilization's rules, then I propose removing them from society and civilization.

I disagree completely. I think that's precisely what society is doing -- it is defending itself against this murderer and those who would not be deterred if we did not have effective captial punishment.
and where does that leave you when society gets it wrong and executes an innocent person? Can you state that doesnt happen?

Then why is kill in the older versions and murder in the modern ones, hmmmm?

Trust me, murder is only the latest translation (or mistranslation depending on PoV). And it occurred only to distinguish the killing of animals from the killing of humans.
Ah, so by your argument, modern theories of evolution are moot because they're just modern interpretations and not the original theories?

capital punishment is banned in most civilised countries so it doesnt have much support internationally.


If you had an Excel spreadsheet listing all those "civilized" countries and whether they banned capital punishment and when they banned it, do you think the spreadsheet would reflect that the ban is sufficiently universal and long-standing to constitute a "rule of civilizaton" vs. a trend de jour?

For the heck of it, I'll stipulate that most nations in the UN ban capital punishment; heck -- I'll even stipulate that most western hemisphere nations (ok, throw in Australia and the European nations east of Greenwich). They're all wrong, I'm right....build the gallows!

and where does that leave you when society gets it wrong and executes an innocent person? Can you state that doesnt happen?


Oops?

--------
"Also, the vast majority of violent criminals cannot be rehabilitated."


and you know this for a fact? how?
-------------

"The VAST majority of offenders, when released back into society, commit violet crimes again. This has been PROVEN.

Again, vast? a percentage obviously, but what if you tried to properly address the reasons for their crimes? ever hear of sociology? really?

---------
"So, why waste tax dollar trying to rehabilitate them?

wasnt that cost thing covered earlier?

--------
(And if you do a little studying and googling, you'll see that rehabilitation HAS been tried in places in the US. The vast majority of the time, it doesn't work.)

Its been tried in other places (like the nordic regions for example) and it works better than the death penalty.
--------
Lastly, your argument that "modern man wouldnt survive quite like an indigenous tribesman would" is pointless and moot. Violet criminals have proven them to not be civilized and cannot live peacefully in society.

Get with the times, thats sooo victorian. the english used to say that about the irish. purple criminals eh!

--------
"If they can't abide by society's and civilization's rules, then I propose removing them from society and civilization."

Just make sure you get the right ones. bit like the pound of flesh in the merchant of venice""

I've enjoyed the discussion, but I'm crashing...been a 65 hour work week for me, and I'm a geezer.

I appreciate your position and your rational and polite discussion.

If you had an Excel spreadsheet listing all those "civilized" countries and whether they banned capital punishment and when they banned it, do you think the spreadsheet would reflect that the ban is sufficiently universal and long-standing to constitute a "rule of civilizaton" vs. a trend de jour?

For the heck of it, I'll stipulate that most nations in the UN ban capital punishment; heck -- I'll even stipulate that most western hemisphere nations (ok, throw in Australia and the European nations east of Greenwich). They're all wrong, I'm right....build the gallows!

are you basically asking if they banned the death penalty as their people demanded it, or was it just a trendy thing to do?

seriously? is that the choice because it strike me as a weird question. To answer it, obviously because their people wanted it.

America has it gallows. someday it might cop on and realise the rest of the world isnt that mad. You have to admit though, a percentage of americans dont really care what the rest of the world thinks or does so theres not much of a chance of learning from the mistakees of other nations.

Its been tried in other places (like the nordic regions for example) and it works better than the death penalty.
I am NOT arguing for the death penalty, yet you keep arguing against it like I AM arguing for it.

Can you find it somewhere inside your cranium to even TRY to debate correctly?

its 5am here .. way past my bedtime. opinions are like arsehole - we all have them so I dont see the harm in not getting wound up in such discussions ;)

I am NOT arguing for the death penalty, yet you keep arguing against it like I AM arguing for it.

Can you find it somewhere inside your cranium to even TRY to debate correctly?

ok, ok. exile in humane conditions with education and rehabilitation - theres yer answer ;)

1. Moses didn't author the commandment.


Riiiiight. I forgot, God was the true author.

2. what exactly does the commandment condemn? killing plants when you pull them from the ground? killing sacrificial lambs? killing Philistines? killing the first-born of Egypt?

Clearly, the commandment condemns the intentional killing of innocent human beings.

I've never argued that society should intentionally kill innocent human beings.

I feel we should reach some sort of mutual understanding on this before debating any further. You see, when I read a passage such as "Thou shall not kill" I interpret it literally, simply because any other interpretation would be purely speculative, and if everybody speculated on everything then there would be no agreement on anything.

If people cannot agree on a simply four-word passage such as "Thou shall not kill" then what can we realistically see eye to eye on? I would look at the sky and say it's blue, and you could turn that into a debate on the meaning of blue, making our discourse utterly pointless. That's why we have mutually understandable definitions for things.

So please, explain to me why you think "Thou shall not kill" should apply only to the killing of people 'free of sin' (the defintion of innocent).

problem is though, to do that you'll need to hosue them in some form of shelter so you end up with just more prisons - all in their own islands. cost a fortune to run that would.

are you basically asking if they banned the death penalty as their people demanded it, or was it just a trendy thing to do?

seriously? is that the choice because it strike me as a weird question. To answer it, obviously because their people wanted it.

America has it gallows. someday it might cop on and realise the rest of the world isnt that mad. You have to admit though, a percentage of americans dont really care what the rest of the world thinks or does so theres not much of a chance of learning from the mistakees of other nations.


I think my sister-in-law is crackers, but she doesn't agree.

good night from Houston.

ok, ok. exile in humane conditions with education and rehabilitation - theres yer answer ;)
I still propose that "basic survival" is humane.

Then we can agree to disagree here. ;)

You see, when I read a passage such as "Thou shall not kill" I interpret it literally, simply because any other interpretation would be purely speculative, and if everybody speculated on everything then there would be no agreement on anything.

The interpretation should be based on a thorough study. If an interpretation of one scripture appears to conflict with the interpretation of another, then more study is due, ensuring that the translation expresses ideas as close to the meaning of the ancient manuscripts as possible.

I have studied the commandment, and it is my opinion that the idea relates to the unjustified killing of another person (ie: murder).

I'll root around for the materials and send it to you.

problem is though, to do that you'll need to hosue them in some form of shelter so you end up with just more prisons - all in their own islands. cost a fortune to run that would.
No. It would cost less. Mainly due to the fact that there would be no prison guards, administrators or property to maintain. Try again. ;)

Ah, so by your argument, modern theories of evolution are moot because they're just modern interpretations and not the original theories?

:headbang:
No.

For me to believe that, I'd have to believe that Darwin was a religious prophet. I'm not saying some people don't worship scientists, but I personally classify evolution as a theory based on evidence, not a religion.

good discussion all, but my bride of 34 years is frowning and turning lights off.

good night.

:headbang:
No.

For me to believe that, I'd have to believe that Darwin was a religious prophet. I'm not saying some people don't worship scientists, but I personally classify evolution as a theory based on evidence, not a religion.
And you completely missed my point.

The King James Version of the Bible says "kill" because of a mistranslation of the original texts, which were recently retranslated and found to say "murder" and not "kill". This new translation is due to a better understanding of the outdated and ancient dialects used in the original manuscripts, not due to some twisted reinterpretation in order to justify killing people. That sounds like some psycho conspiracy theory.

Don't tell me that you're a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, too? :headbang:

No. It would cost less. Mainly due to the fact that there would be no prison guards, administrators or property to maintain. Try again. ;)

oh right, back to your death sentence disguised as exile again. bit of a merry-roud-round debating things with you mick ;)