NationStates Jolt Archive

With all the talk of Tookie Williams Execution, it brings up an interesting subject, should the death penalty be allowed, and how should it be administered?

The state shouldn't be granted the power to murder unless it's in self-defense.

... like anyone else.

The state shouldn't be granted the power to murder unless it's in self-defense.

Those protesters are attacking the state's rights! FIRE!
Oh, the guy reaching into his bag actually just had to get another sign. Who knew?

Firing squad all the way. Who needs fancy poison when we have too many bullets anyway?

Yes: Injection Fire them at the Burning Gas Chair

... like anyone else.
Agreed - to the extent that;

A) People Must and Do have the right to use lethal force to defend themselves from force (as it is occuring).

B) A recidivist violent offender is a societal cancer that must be excised to defend the "life" of the society.

I'm all for taking 3rd-time adjudicated violent offenders out back and dropping them into a mulcher. If I had my way I would make it retroactive and clear out a goodly portion of our prison population too. :eek:

Yes: Injection Fire them at the Burning Gas Chair
The hanging burning gas chair with bullets flying at them too

I have no problem with execution, as a concept. I have a lot of trouble with how it's meted out. The justice system is simply not sufficiently accurate and impartial in the 'who and why' of applying the death penalty. Better a hundered guilty men walk free, than one be wrongly executed.

That said, I find life imprisonment to be simply an inhumane coward's answer to execution - Death by very damn slow torture, locked in a cage, with no hope of escape, just the same miniscule and inhuman precincts, day in, day out, with out any change, chance, or options...World without end, until the end.

Nope - Much more humane to put them down, cleanly, and spare them the decades of dehumanizing torture. Provided, that is, that it's guaranteed, 100% certain that the prisoner actually commited the crime of which they've been found guilty, and that the penalties are applied quickly, cleanly, and without favor or prejudice. Until such conditions obtain, I'm against the death penalty as it is currently practiced.

the death penalty is a bad idea

and it should be done by lethal injection. no sense being macabre or endangering the lives of those who have to perform the execution.

that works good, till they choose you because some crooked politician managed to get a handkerchief from you and blames you for it.

Many who live deserve death, and many who die deserve life, can you be the judge of that, many wise men are often wrong, can you be so sure of that decision?
Gandalf is a wise man, the Death penalty doesnt stop offenders, the threat of death to many who do this is not as fearsome as the prospect of life locked away. Jefferey dalmer wanted to die..after he was caught not before, he killed himself, we should simply put nasty murderers away and throw away the key let them rot.

Burning at the stake- that brings back memories.

Eichen


Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: n/a

How does anyone get the "Posts n/a" to show up!?? Anyone know? Please let me know?

Thanks *Votes in poll*

Agreed - to the extent that;

A) People Must and Do have the right to use lethal force to defend themselves from force (as it is occuring).

B) A recidivist violent offender is a societal cancer that must be excised to defend the "life" of the society.

I'm all for taking 3rd-time adjudicated violent offenders out back and dropping them into a mulcher. If I had my way I would make it retroactive and clear out a goodly portion of our prison population too. :eek:
Agreed, save for #2. They shouldn't be murdered by the all-powerful state.
They should have to reside in real prisons, seperate from non-violent offenders.
By real, I mean dirtholes with bread and water.
By bread and water, I mean bugs they scavenge and rainwater they collect.
The state shouldn't have financial obligations beyond making sure they don't escape. Just my opinion, though.

Eichen


Location: Tampa, Florida
Posts: n/a

How does anyone get the "Posts n/a" to show up!?? Anyone know? Please let me know?

Thanks *Votes in poll*

How does anyone get the "Posts n/a" to show up!?? Anyone know? Please let me know?

Thanks *Votes in poll*
You wait for JOLT to fuck up.

Never.

Too many times have there been mistakes made. People have been wrongly convicted for crimes, or managed to escape justice.

And what use is it anyway? Alive, anyone can be good for society, even if their contribution is making the pages of psychological textbooks. Dead, all they do is make the place stinky.

It even fails to deter crime. Otherwise why do places with the death penalty still have as much crime as those without?

Cruelest for of death penalty: Life imprisonment with no parole.

Imagine it. No freedoms. No hope. No liberty. Just walls and bars until the day you die.

Now, with a chance of parole; a chance for rehabilitation is one thing. But I think that Life without Parole is a death sentence. A fairly horrible one.

the death penalty is a bad idea

and it should be done by lethal injection. no sense being macabre or endangering the lives of those who have to perform the execution.

Agree on the first point, but the second? I beg to differ.

Strapped down in a chair, tilted back, looking up and out with limited vision, usually no one else in the room, often able to see the witnesses looking at you behind the glass, nothing to hear but your own breathing... trying not to look at the syringe pumping you full of poison, feeling and looking anyway... pretty hellish.

If you're going to kill someone (and I vehemently disagree that the state should be able to do this to prisoners), afford them a little dignity. Outside, led up to a wall, fresh air, look your killers in the eye or ask for a blindfold as you please, get shot. No, it's not clean, yes it involves people actively killing the prisoner. Good. Have the courage of your convictions, if you think it's fine to kill people for justice you damn well do it with your own hands, get blood on them.

Cruelest for of death penalty: Life imprisonment with no parole.

Imagine it. No freedoms. No hope. No liberty. Just walls and bars until the day you die.

Now, with a chance of parole; a chance for rehabilitation is one thing. But I think that Life without Parole is a death sentence. A fairly horrible one.

Aye, that's true enough.

The only people who could possibly deserve such punishment are mentally unstable, and hence are sent to specialist prisons where it isn't as bad as regular prison. Or so I'm guessing.

Imagine it. No freedoms. No hope. No liberty. Just walls and bars until the day you die.My point, exactly.

Kinder to kill them. More humane on those us not in prison, too.

Elgesh']Have the courage of your convictions, if you think it's fine to kill people for justice you damn well do it with your own hands, get blood on them.

In other words, get whoever signed the appropriate papers allowing the execution to pull the trigger?

In other words, get whoever signed the appropriate papers allowing the execution to pull the trigger?

Interesting point. But I think they'd have to be trained marksmen, really - be a real coincidence if the Governer, say, happened to be.

Maybe the President should do it. Make the politicians get their hands dirty, see what it's like, feel the consequences of signing their signatures. Not a bad idea, but for the fact they might not be good shots.

You wait for JOLT to fuck up.
Seriously? It's a glitch, then? :confused:

In other words, get whoever signed the appropriate papers allowing the execution to pull the trigger?
Even better, at least allow the individuals who were victemized (by relation or personally) have the option to do the killing.
At least that would put the power/justice into the right hands.

I am in favor of the Death Penalty. I think my home State of Iowa needs to bring back her last method of execution: Death by Hanging.

~ Romandeos.

Provided, that is, that it's guaranteed, 100% certain that the prisoner actually commited the crime of which they've been found guilty,Which is why I say Third-Time-Guilty = Burying Time.

Remember, "my" plan would require 3 convictions

Conviction #1 - Anyone can fuck-up once (or be framed) and "rehabilitate".
Conviction #2 - Either you are a genuine Threat needing serious Time/Labor or somebody really hates you - and is good at frames.
Conviction #3 - You are either too Violent, or too Stupid (i.e. you didn't get the fuck out of Dodge after two Frame-ups) to Live.

Pretty simple IMO.

Elgesh']...yes it involves people actively killing the prisoner.Duh. What do you think all current forms of execution have in common..? A human being on the both ends of whatever means of execution is being used - That's what.

The problem with firing squads is not that they're messy, but rather, that they are hard to do well. The littany of botched executions by firing squad is lengthy indeed... In some cases, it's simply crappy marksmanship, in other cases, malice. In still further cases, it was simply a case of bad luck. Now, firing squad 'machines' have been used, and they work extremely well, but there are currently very few executions done this way any more.

The means of execution is far less important than how that execution is carried out. It should be done quickly, cleanly (I' don't mean without a mess, bnut rather without undue pain or distress on the part of the executed), and without cruelty.

Whilst they were still hanging people, the Brits had execution down to a very humane science. The moment of hanging wasn't telegraphed to the condemned until the very last instant, and he didn't even see the noose until less than a minute before his death. Very clean, very humane, very fast.

im going to go out on a limb and say NO to prisons in general.......

the violent can be handled without prisons, i.e. through therapy, banishment, or old fashioned vigilante justice.

i just dont think that we can define what is truely what is right and wrong for everyone. that very idea is one reason i think that many americans are silopistic pricks who think all should bend to their will.

Elgesh']Interesting point. But I think they'd have to be trained marksmen, really - be a real coincidence if the Governer, say, happened to be.

Maybe the President should do it. Make the politicians get their hands dirty, see what it's like, feel the consequences of signing their signatures. Not a bad idea, but for the fact they might not be good shots.

I feel odd, considering I'm against the death penalty, that someone said I had a good idea for execution.

By the way, instead of bullets use explosives. Harder to miss with those...

Even better, at least allow the individuals who were victemized (by relation or personally) have the option to do the killing.
At least that would put the power/justice into the right hands.

But who would decide who gets to do it?

And what if the criminal was later found to be innocent? Then the "executioner" has to live with that forever.

No hands are the right hands. Under any circumstance.

Remember, "my" plan would require 3 convictions

Conviction #1 - Anyone can fuck-up once (or be framed) and "rehabilitate".
Conviction #2 - Either you are a genuine Threat needing serious Time/Labor or somebody really hates you - and is good at frames.
Conviction #3 - You are either too Violent, or too Stupid (i.e. you didn't get the fuck out of Dodge after two Frame-ups) to Live.

Pretty simple IMO.
Waste of fucking money, IMHO. Once is enough.

But who would decide who gets to do it?

And what if the criminal was later found to be innocent? Then the "executioner" has to live with that forever.

No hands are the right hands. Under any circumstance.
I was only offering a better (crappy) solution to a bigger problem. I've already stated my honest opinion on the death penalty.

The moment of hanging wasn't telegraphed to the condemned until the very last instant, and he didn't even see the noose until less than a minute before his death. Very clean, very humane, very fast.

This doesn't sit right with me;

'This man deserves to die'

'We're going to kill him'

'Ooo, but _humanely'

Why do you care? You're going to kill him. And you're worried about his _welfare_? You're going to _kill_ him!!

It's a sop to the conscience of some death penalty supporters (though yes, I do realise other supporters rather _enjoy_ the prospect of inflicting pain and suffering on a condemned man), it's not a genuine concern for the prisoner's welfare. The only situation where I can see this attitude making sense is where someone in the justice system wants to end capital punishment and so has concerns for the prisoner's welfare. Anything else... well, it's to cover shame and unarticulated guilt over killing.

im going to go out on a limb and say NO to prisons in general.......

the violent can be handled without prisons, i.e. through therapy, banishment, or old fashioned vigilante justice.

i just dont think that we can define what is truely what is right and wrong for everyone. that very idea is one reason i think that many americans are silopistic pricks who think all should bend to their will.

I agree that the violent can be handled without prisons...but so many bullets wasted on the scum of the world...it'd be a waste of good cash.

~ Romandeos.

Waste of fucking money, IMHO. Once is enough.

Considering in most cases the cost of the death penalty is higher than the cost of life imprisonment, how can you talk about a "waste of fucking money"?

Considering in most cases the cost of the death penalty is higher than the cost of life imprisonment, how can you talk about a "waste of fucking money"?
Are you reading my posts? I guarantee that my idea of prison is far cheaper than the current option. I'm, of course, trying to correct your typo.
I'm against the death penalty, remember? Like, second post here I made that clear.
Could you clarify what you're debating with me about, again?

Considering in most cases the cost of the death penalty is higher than the cost of life imprisonment, how can you talk about a "waste of fucking money"?

It costs so much because they want to be so nice and sophisticated about it, killing them one by one, and making sure they're all nice and comfortable before they die. I say just haul them outside in groups, rain or shine, line 'em in front of a wall, and get on with it.

~ Romandeos.

It costs so much because they want to be so nice and sophisticated about it, killing them one by one, and making sure they're all nice and comfortable before they die. I say just haul them outside in groups, rain or shine, line 'em in front of a wall, and get on with it.

~ Romandeos.

This reinforces my point in post #32, just above - better the wolf than the fox, I'm afraid.

Are you reading my posts? I guarantee that my idea of prison is far cheaper than the current option. I'm, of course, trying to correct your typo.
I'm against the death penalty, remember? Like, second post here I made that clear.
Could you clarify what you're debating with me about, again?

Sorry, mate. I seem to be mistaking you for Elgesh.

I'm tired. I think I'll go to bed.

Elgesh']Why do you care? You're going to kill him. And you're worried about his _welfare_? You're going to _kill_ him!!It's not so much for the condemned, but for the people who live. Needless cruelty scars one's soul. For the same reason you kill a rabid dog cleanly, you execute the condemned cleanly: Because it ill-suits anyone to torture needlessly.

Likewise, those who care about the condemned can take comfort in the lack of suffering. As for the familty of the condemned's victinms? It'll have to be enough that the condemned is dead. In my ideal world, execution is not about vengance, but about cleaning up after society's messes.

Sorry, mate. I seem to be mistaking you for Elgesh.

I'm tired. I think I'll go to bed.

As you go, I'll say that I'm against the death penalty too - I'm arguing that a society that has it, but insists on 'prisoner welfare' for the condemned is just trying to conceal the dreadful nature of capital punishment so it won't feel so bad about killing people - trying to have its cake and eat it.

Oh - 'night, btw! :)

It costs so much because they want to be so nice and sophisticated about it...Well, that, and all the various legal tactics to ensure that it is as difficult as possible to execute anyone. Those tactics, whether frivolous attempts to cost the state time, money and resources by death-penalty foes, or by civil libertarians trying to ensure that only the truely guilty are executed, artificially drive up the costs.

It's not so much for the condemned, but for the people who live. Needless cruelty scars one's soul. For the same reason you kill a rabid dog cleanly, you execute the condemned cleanly: Because it ill-suits anyone to torture needlessly.

Likewise, those who care about the condemned can take comfort in the lack of suffering. As for the familty of the condemned's victinms? It'll have to be enough that the condemned is dead. In my ideal world, execution is not about vengance, but about cleaning up after society's messes.

'Needless cruelty'... well, you're halfway there, I suppose! And thank you, I really do recognise the thought you've put into this post, but I still have to disagree with the underling philosophy, as I've said - softening the impact of a killing is always dangerous to my mind, as it makes the act of killing people seem much more palatable - acceptable, even. Thin end of the wedge inserted into society... not a good thing!

I note you're taking a societal view on this as well - are you a student of sociology? I'm not trying to make a point, just interested!

Sorry, mate. I seem to be mistaking you for Elgesh.

I'm tired. I think I'll go to bed.
No problem, dude. The names are similar. Just wanted you to know we're on the same side.

or by civil libertarians trying to ensure that only the truely guilty are executed, artificially drive up the costs.
OMFG, are you really against that principle?

The state shouldn't be granted the power to murder unless it's in self-defense.
I agree 100%.

My stand on the death penalty is this:
OK so this guy murders someone. Murder is against the law. SO we being the great people we are decide to kill him. Now the problem with this is that this man killed someone and it was against the law. Now the government wants to kill him and it's justifiable? JUST because they're the government dosn't mean they are above the law, and until we figure that out our country will be stuck in this perpetual problem of not going anywhere. until we decide that all Races are ok and we arn't racist against anyone anymore. Untill then we'll have the problems that plaugue us today.

So in conclusion my stand is if we consider the government's homocide justifiable then the death penalty will remain an untouched topic. Untill we decide that our government is not above the law we will countiue running around killing people.

Oh and the idea that this guy found god and should be let go is ludicrous, absolute ludicrous. My idea on this is so we made a law saying we have the ability legally to kill you for killing someone else but then if you find god you get exempt fromd eath because you found god. Since god died for you you don't have to die? C'mon people, am i alone in my thoughts that this is assinine?

It costs so much because they want to be so nice and sophisticated about it, killing them one by one, and making sure they're all nice and comfortable before they die. I say just haul them outside in groups, rain or shine, line 'em in front of a wall, and get on with it.

~ Romandeos.

Imagine that, we spend so much because we want to be sure that we get the right guy *does not apply in certain states*...

Elgesh']'Needless cruelty'... well, you're halfway there, I suppose! And thank you, I really do recognise the thought you've put into this post, but I still have to disagree with the underling philosophy, as I've said - softening the impact of a killing is always dangerous to my mind, as it makes the act of killing people seem much more palatable - acceptable, even. Thin end of the wedge inserted into society... not a good thing!I have no problem with your view, either, and we are probably closer in opinon than most 'opponents' are, on this subject. Sometimes, cruelty is needful. Sometimes it is unavoidable (ask any parent - What is punishment, but a moment of instructive cruelty?). However, we are not trying to correct the condmened - We've given up on them entirely. So then, what purpose cruelty? To instruct society? Society already knows that the condemned's crimes are beyond the pale - That's why they're up on the block in the first place. It's not the executioner that needs instruction, but rather those who oversee society as a whole, and in general, they are not in any way directly involved in the execution process. To rein-in those people does not need the punishment of having to inflict needless cruelty, but rather, 'merely' close and thoughtful observation and supervision by an educated public.

I note you're taking a societal view on this as well - are you a student of sociology? I'm not trying to make a point, just interested!Not so much, per se, but rather a student of life. I get around, have been around, and I've done, seen a lot in my relatively short life (if 41 can be considered 'short'). Experience helps me take a more dispassionate view on some subjects. Or, maybe, a more compassionate view, consistent with 'what works in the real world.'

It's not the executioner that needs instruction, but rather those who oversee society as a whole, and in general, they are not in any way directly involved in the execution process. To rein-in those people does not need the punishment of having to inflict needless cruelty, but rather, 'merely' close and thoughtful observation and supervision by an educated public...

Not so much, per se, but rather a student of life. I get around, have been around, and I've done, seen a lot in my relatively short life (if 41 can be considered 'short'). Experience helps me take a more dispassionate view on some subjects. Or, maybe, a more compassionate view, consistent with 'what works in the real world.'

I think you give considerable credit to those who oversee society - not sure it's justified! :p Oh well - I'll bow to the wisdom of your 41 busy-by-the-sound-of-it years! Being 26 and a psychology student, I'm looking at this more at the individual level rather than the needs of society; perhaps I'll change in future with experience, and perhaps you'll change in future with reflection :) However, those potential changes probably aren't imminent, and this seems a natural point for me to knock off and go to bed before we start going round in circles!

pleasure talking with you and venting my spleen - see you anon!

The death Penalty doesn't work and they are damn well right, why you ask? because It isn't public,mandatory to be viewed, and it isn't harsh enough. These people are scum and deserve to be wiped off the map, heres how we do it. Tie them up then tie up anyone whom is convicted of perjury for them and finnaly light them on fire with something other than gas, then we take their home{wether they are married or not} and their assets and give half to the victim/victims family the rest is taken as tax purposes and the family is denied welfare money so that means watch who you marry!

The death Penalty doesn't work and they are damn well right, why you ask? because It isn't public,mandatory to be viewed, and it isn't harsh enough. These people are scum and deserve to be wiped off the map, heres how we do it. Tie them up then tie up anyone whom is convicted of perjury for them and finnaly light them on fire with something other than gas, then we take their home{wether they are married or not} and their assets and give half to the victim/victims family the rest is taken as tax purposes and the family is denied welfare money so that means watch who you marry!

Prick. Even as a joke that goes too far.

actually I'm dam well serious. People need to be responsible and this will show'em

eye for a eye

Elgesh']I think you give considerable credit to those who oversee society - not sure it's justified! That, my educated friend, is because the public, who are responsible for keeping them in check, are, by-and-large, not educated, nor thoughtful, nor do they attend closely to their civic duties. :p :(


pleasure talking with you and venting my spleen - see you anon!Likewise. Ta!
:)

The death Penalty doesn't work and they are damn well right, why you ask? because It isn't public,mandatory to be viewed, and it isn't harsh enough. These people are scum and deserve to be wiped off the map, heres how we do it. Tie them up then tie up anyone whom is convicted of perjury for them and finnaly light them on fire with something other than gas, then we take their home{wether they are married or not} and their assets and give half to the victim/victims family the rest is taken as tax purposes and the family is denied welfare money so that means watch who you marry!

wow, i read another post of yours and told you were psychotic but i was hoping it was a fluke. This post right here proves your idiocy and your lack of the ability to see violence is not the answer. Think of something other than killing someone somewhere somehow. You are the most idiotic person i have ever met in my life yet. not to say i may not meet a bigger idiot you right now at this moment are by far the most idiotic. i understand now, you are the reason we have death penalty and if you follow the vein you are right now and we havn't abolished the death penalty you will have the death penalty enacted on you. Thank you for proving your idiocy for it wasn't clear to me for a short period of time.

Punishment that fits the crime, in the British Virgin Islands if you kill someone, someone will kill you slowly,
if you shoot someone to death, someone will shoot you to death, ok not slowly on that one,
If you strangle someone to death, someone will strangle you to death,
if you stab someone to death, someone will stab you to death,
if you rape someone, intresting question?

In arab nations if you steal you can loose an arm or hand.

pro death penalty outnumbers no death penalty :p i voted for firing squad. The last person to die by that was in the 70s am i correct?

Until I heard about this case about 5 years ago, I was all for the death penalty in many circumstances. I had read about killers like Dahmer, Henry Lee Lucas, Myra Hindley and Ian Brady, Bundy, Kemper, Heidnik etc etc.

Then I heard about Tookie, and I did some research into the death penalty. I no longer support the death penalty. It is racist, and vindictive, and cruel beyond belief.

On a side note, are you all aware that the Hillside Stranglers, got life sentences, one in Washington, the other in California. Angelo Buono along with his cousin, raped, tortured and murdered 14 women aged between 12-28. You tell me how these men get to live, because of a jury decision, but a man like Tookie, who has tried to do good, dies? You tell me how Tookie dies before Richard Ramirez, the Night Stalker?

How about All of The Above?!?!?!

Then I heard about Tookie, and I did some research into the death penalty. I no longer support the death penalty. It is racist, and vindictive, and cruel beyond belief.

WTF are you on about? The Death Penalty is racist? How so? We've executed 12 people in this god damned state of Cali since it was reinstituted in 1978!

12!

And how many of them were white?!?!

8!

That's 2/3s if you can't figure that out for yourself. Which is probably true, since your logic train must already be kind of missing since you think the Death Penalty is racist. Maybe up until the 1960s. But no more.

Racist...? What will these morons subject us to next? Is Bush now racist towards black people because Condi is his Secretary of State? WHAT?

WTF are you on about? The Death Penalty is racist? How so? We've executed 12 people in this god damned state of Cali since it was reinstituted in 1978!

12!

And how many of them were white?!?!

8!

That's 2/3s if you can't figure that out for yourself. Since your logic train must already be kind of missing since you think the Death Penalty is racist. Maybe up until the 1960s. But no more.

Racist...? What will these morons subject us to next? Is Bush now racist towards black people because Condi is his Secretary of State? WHAT?
Empyria is teh smart.

Empyria is teh smart.

I don't know if that was sarcastic or not but yeah, that my post was a little bit off-cuff...

I can have a complete and thoughtful argument with people like The_Cat_Tribe, because I know people like him think. Giving someone like Cat that kind of shit-ass post should and is offensive to everyone.

But retardation just pisses me the hell off.

exactly, they attack people's intelect on line purely because they are far too scared of being shot in florida..god I love that state. But honestly all of youy lefties I live in a place where the left has reigned for years and guess what everything has gone to hell and probabely will stay that course for years to come. Business is business we have nothing against the man but guess what he got due process and got what was given to him and leave it at that, if you don't like it call Ted kennedy, I'm sure he needs some political ammo right now because after all this crap about the government he and the others still can't touch the second most incompetent leader in U.S. history{the other being lincoln for starting a war that had no means to progress} oh and before I forget, That whole I'll recieve the death penalty some day guess what if I have to die for something I beleive in than so be it, no wonder the left wingers like things such as abortion without cause they fear commitment and a sense of self from declaring ones position and willing to do anything in there power no matter what the cost to further it for the good of others even if it means lossing things they care about.

But honestly all of youy lefties I live in a place where the left has reigned for years and guess what everything has gone to hell and probabely will stay that course for years to come.

Do you live in California?

I don't know if that was sarcastic or not but yeah, that my post was a little bit off-cuff...

I can have a complete and thoughtful argument with people like The_Cat_Tribe, because I know people like him think. Giving someone like Cat that kind of shit-ass post should and is offensive to everyone.

But retardation just pisses me the hell off.
No i wasnt being sarcastic. I also enjoy arguing with people like Cat Tribe.

You know, as much as I hate people bringing up the Nazis for every single little arguement, I cant help but think of anything else when I hear about using gas chambers as a death penalty.

I am for the death penalty though, by way of lethal injection.

Do you live in California?


worse...Canada

Hahahhaa what part?

Thankfully the southern so a) not so cold b) lots of liberals to argue with c)close to states so yeah that summarizes as Toronto. City life is fun, but walking up a hill in wintertime everymorning when you have lived in Florida where it is mostly flat for 3 or so years isn't that great.

WTF are you on about? The Death Penalty is racist? How so? We've executed 12 people in this god damned state of Cali since it was reinstituted in 1978!

12!

And how many of them were white?!?!

8!

That's 2/3s if you can't figure that out for yourself. Which is probably true, since your logic train must already be kind of missing since you think the Death Penalty is racist. Maybe up until the 1960s. But no more.

Racist...? What will these morons subject us to next? Is Bush now racist towards black people because Condi is his Secretary of State? WHAT?

No, it is racist in it's application because blacks and Hispanics who commit murder are more likely to get sentenced to death than whites. Murderers of black or Hispanic victims are far less likely to get death than those who murder a white victim. California, to my knowledge is only one of many states in the US that applies the death penalty to crimes. Overall, the number of black and Hispanic inmates on death row is about 6% higher than whites. And don't give me the crap about how blacks and Hispanics commit more crimes than white people. Because they don't. Blacks and Hispanics are more likely to get charged with the harsher offence than whites. Its the same the world over.

Thankfully the southern so a) not so cold b) lots of liberals to argue with c)close to states so yeah that summarizes as Toronto. City life is fun, but walking up a hill in wintertime everymorning when you have lived in Florida where it is mostly flat for 3 or so years isn't that great.
You sound like my kind of Canadian, you conservative, blue jay watching, son of a gun.

ok, the whole hispanics and blacks commit more crime thing has nothing to do with their race in most respects, it just happens that the majority of poor people are made up of blacks and hispanics in a good portion of the U.S. so what happens from there well poverty leads to a whole bunch of crap including crime so the answer being that poverty is the problem and there are only two ways and neither is acceptable to the un and the left a) ship'em to africa with the other poverty strick places so they can try and build a life b)remove them by killing or my personaly choice sterilization, they will still lead a life but will be unable to produce children to raise the amount of those below the pverty line because guess what the possibilities of digging yourself out of debt are sliming and unless we all want to be poor then too bad nothing can happen to change things without people suffering for a whil or dying along the way so crime will be around for a while...that and there are also the sociopaths and psychopaths to add in.

No, it is racist in it's application because blacks and Hispanics who commit murder are more likely to get sentenced to death than whites.

Yes. You didn't read a word I said, did you?

12, divided by 8, is 2/3. That means that MORE PEOPLE WHO ARE WHITE die in the state of California. Not blacks, nor hispanics.

Unlike you, I actually kept reading what you wrote. African Americans make up 42% of death row inmates. So, what about the other god-damned 58%? Also whites are in fact twice as likely as African Americans to receive the death penalty, and are also executed more quickly after sentencing.

With all the talk of Tookie Williams Execution, it brings up an interesting subject, should the death penalty be allowed, and how should it be administered?

In the case of Tookie Williams if a man repents for his sins and actively works to prevent such a thing from occuring, the death penalty should not be used. Now if its Osama..........Well we let the Koran figure it out.....life in jail is a enternity for these killers.....death only spares them the pain

it just happens that the majority of poor people are made up of blacks and hispanics in a good portion of the U.S.

Empiriala, you're a cool guy, and you live in Canada, so I'm going to let that comment slide.

The majority of people in the United States are white. The majority of people in the United States are white. Blacks make up 12% of the population and Hispanics, the largest minority group, make up a whopping 12.5% of the population of the United States while Asians make up 3.7% of the population and Native Americans .9%.

So, that means the majority of the people in the U.S. are white, ie 70.9% of them. So, if Blacks and Hispanics are, lets just say, the entire amount of poor in this country, 24.5% of this country. America's poverty, ie poor, population is currently at 12.4%...

So... you're telling me, that somehow, 70.9% of the population just magically stays above the poverty line? While I will agree that the African American population has the lowest median income, there is no way, just even based on logical reasoning, that the majority of the poor in this country are made up of blacks and hispanics.

Ever heard of hill-billy and redneck states? Yeah. Poor people live there too. :eek:

(This is not direct at you Empiriala, just at those who would support the idea that blacks and hispanics are the majority of this countries's poor.)

on this issue there is no one answer, though I said burn them at the stake that was for the general murder or rapist. If one repents then they should get a lesser form for their efforts but as long as they were given due process then nothing can be helped, see if Mr. Williams had not repented then hanging or firing squad would have been a suitable punishment.

If one repents then they should get a lesser form for their efforts

The problem is you have to admit your crimes before you repent.

No admittance of crime = no repentance.

Yes. You didn't read a word I said, did you?

12, divided by 8, is 2/3. That means that MORE PEOPLE WHO ARE WHITE die in the state of California. Not blacks, nor hispanics.

Unlike you, I actually kept reading what you wrote. African Americans make up 42% of death row inmates. So, what about the other god-damned 58%? Also whites are in fact twice as likely as African Americans to receive the death penalty, and are also executed more quickly after sentencing.

That's right, in California. I did state that I was looking at the US more generally. Blacks and Hispanics combined, as I stated, make up over 50% of the inmates on death row.

Let me put it like this:

A young black man with no prior convictions who kills someone is more likely to be sentenced to death than a white man in the same position. Especially if he is unfortunate enough to kill a white man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime

This is all I have at the moment, I have to find the links to my other resources from a literature review I did on the subject while at uni, comparing the prison situation in the US to the prison population in Australia.

A young black man with no prior convictions who kills someone is more likely to be sentenced to death than a white man in the same position. Especially if he is unfortunate enough to kill a white man.

Right, I won't dispute that Blacks make up the majority or a least a polarity of the prison population. But, where did you find from the website that the majority of blacks and hispanics make up the majority of death row inmates?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_United_States#Distribution_of_sentences

My source.

And how does it make any sense that the system is racist even if a majority of blacks and hispanics are given the death penalty?

I can understand your point if 150,000 Blacks and Hispanics are executed each year and only 1 white guy. But the numbers fit the crimes they commit.

In no way did I mean that there are not alot of poor whites, but then again one must count the ilegal immigrants which make up a fair amount of the give or take aspect and proabely more, so primarily my meaning being that the two groups combined most likely outweigh the amount of poor whites and finnaly on this issue is that when I mean poor I mean don't mean just below the poverty line I mean people who need to steal to live, so the people who had a few too many kids for their budget are not placed in this one but overall I think this to be a slight miscomunication which in a vocal conversation might not have happened.


Now for a glimpse at the deathrow part, Saint Jade you realise that most will probabely win an appeal to get the sentence reduced if not removed so to point out a large number of people before the dust has begun to settle would be quite foolhardy and a plan in need of revision. Now, didn't Empryia say that there have been 12 deaths in California since they put the death penalty back in so that means what 5 inmates you base this off of and if not like I said people have adequate time to prove their innocence if it exists. Lastly I would like to point out courts try guilt not innocence, so they see if you are responsible for the act not the one who did it.