|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
Date: 7/21/2004 4:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
Life in prison isn't any better either. I hate both but unfortunatly the death penalty is the way to go. If a person murders someone cold bloodedly with intent and shows no remorse what is the point of keeping them around. Are they going to reform,no. THeir should be terminated to deter other people.  |
Date: 7/21/2004 4:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
It's suppose to be a deterrant to crime, that's it's purpose. Most countries that have harsher sentences for crimes have lower crime rates.  |
Date: 7/21/2004 5:01:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Meant to be a deterant or not, it doesn't work in this country. It has been proven time and again that the death pennalty does not act as a deterant. In many states the homicide rate has actually increased after the institution of the death penalty.  |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:03:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
So you stoop to the same level as that evil doh? |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:03:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
"If a person murders someone cold bloodedly with intent and shows no remorse" doesn't this description fit the executioner? |
Date: 7/21/2004 5:03:00 PM
From Authorid: 59876
i see it very simply. people that have killed without remorse don't seem to have a conscience. they aren't going to suddenly grow one, and they are extremely dangerous. they have hurt people on such a profound level, that many never recover. families fall apart, people kill themselves, are unable to cope with daily life. the path of that kind of destruction is evil. there is no point in harboring evil.  |
Date: 7/21/2004 5:05:00 PM
From Authorid: 62424
We are humans...we feel as though when someone has power over us we have to re-claim that power...what way to prove authority than to take human life. We; now days are so quick about jugement,justice and revenge so much we dont care if we sink down to the accused persons level  |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
um not really. I could not imagine having that job and I don't think there would be many who would enjoy. I'm sure they wished they hadn't done it or that there was anyother way. Perhaps you can tell me what is a more effective way to handle these criminals? |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:06:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
I will give you an example. A man kills at least four people twenty years ago. He has not killed since. He was then shot to death by his wife who killed him for insurance money, in cold blood. Is she less guilty than him? After all, the man was guilty of a crime. Is she innocent? |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 59876
in the interst of keeping the majority from that kind of evil? absolutely. i'm not going to feel badly about it either. many of those that have killed are treated with alot more humanbity than their victims ever were. |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:08:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
So you don't think that those that pull the switch feel like Doheney here? "i'm not going to feel badly about it either." And Doheney, wouldn't incarceration keep them away from the majority of the public? |
Date: 7/21/2004 5:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 1799
the only reason i can think of is in really henious crimes, they have NO chance of getting back on the street. many times, even if someone gets life in jail with no chance of parol, eventually, the courts get tired and give them parol.. and the affect on the families of the victim is horrible.  |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 59876
i'll get back to this later, i have to go fix dinner. |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 59876
i know someone that was murdered, do you? her family was ruined. they beat the girl to death and left her body in a field in a barrel. |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:09:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
I can see what you're saying, if we kill them without remorse then we're no better than they are. Cost wise executions and all their appeals are extremely costly, in the million dollar and up range usually so it's not even saving money, just space. The homicide rate has increased but there are also other factors to consider and you can't know for certain that the homicide rate would not have been even higher than it has been if the death penatly was not in place. |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:10:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
My wifes family suffered a quadruple homicide. Her grandparents, her great uncle, and her 5 year old uncle that his parents had late in life. The were tied, executed, and set on fire. So the answer to your question is yes. |
Date: 7/21/2004 5:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 24003
I'm not for the death penalty..but for a different reason than other people. I wont get into that, thats a whole new debate. I do however believe that life in prison with no parole is better. That is more punishment to the criminal. Death seems like the easy way out for them.  |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
You still haven't told me an effective way of controlling murders!!! I know what to do with rapists and peaodophiles (sic). Put them into gaol cells with drug traffikers and such who have all got wives, girlfriends and children. |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
Not necessarily Adrienne, for the fw that show remorse that is true. But for those who have done it and enjoyed it it is more time to relive their moment of glory. |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:13:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
No Base, I cannot see an alternate reality to do a comparison, but we can say that if the death penalty WERE working as a deterent, then an inevitable increase would have been of a massive scale. It also would be a great coincidence that this happened at almost every instant. It would be an even bigger coincidence that states without instituting the death pennalty did not see a similar increase during that period. |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:14:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Kurt, the death pennalty is not an effective control of murder. It does not prevent murder any more than lifetime incarceration would. |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 60992
There are worse things then death I've said SOo many times. I mean so you do peacefully in a comfy chair. Well you died for killing another person who you probably hacked to death.. They don't get what they deserve they didn't suffer for what they did. hey died a peaceful death. How nice. Doesn't pay back for what they did. Too me it's just going as low as the person who is dying. Say he killed a person. So he killed a person so for that he's gonna be killed. Doesn't anyone see anything wrong with that? Your going just as low as the murder... I agree 100% With you Base.. I jsut read over the replies now.. I'm glad Canada doesn't have the death penalty. but my opinion still wouldn't change. *canuck Hugs* -des  |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:15:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Kurt, from the way you are talking "But for those who have done it and enjoyed it it is more time to relive their moment of glory." it seems to be more about revenge than prventative measures. |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 59876
yes, incarceration keeps them away from the public for the most part and at great expense. not only that, as emi said, sometimes those that never were supposed to get parolled, eventually do. and then we have those that would theoretically never in their lives, but they end up getting out earlier than expected and even after all that time, and are not any less a menace to society than they were on day one. now i really do have to go. nad why would those that pull the switch necessarily feel as i do? it's a job. sanitation workers do not necessarily like garbage. |
Date: 7/21/2004 5:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 27583
if they would carry out the sentence right away as they do in other countrys then it would be a deturant.  |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:17:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
The fact is you are saying to purposly take a life is wrong, so how do you solve this problem? By commiting the same offense. In what way does that make sense. |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
When New York reinstated the death penalty within a year their violent crime rate decreased dramatically. There's studies that say it is a deterrent and studies that say it isn't. |
Date: 7/21/2004 5:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 62367
I do not believe in the death penalty. It was a very dark day when the death penalty was reinstated. I do believe in life in prison-without-parole. I find arguements that say executing the guilty is more important than sparing the few innocent victims of a miscarriage of justice, appalling. As for cutting back or eliminating the appeals process, would any of you want your rights cut back? I did'nt think so.  |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:18:00 PM
From Authorid: 59876
let me clarify something for you. just because i don't feel bad that it is being done, does not mean i am not sorry it is necessary. i do think it is necessary. now, going lol. |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
I was saying that just because it hasn't worked in the states doesn't mean that it is not an effective way of punishment. You can not argue against something unless you have an effctive solution to replace it. |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 59876
it works at least to a degree, it works for me. i would never dream of doing something that would cause me to spend the rest of my life or even one day in jail and there are many non violent temptations out there. |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:20:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
HOW has it been effective Kurt? It has not been shown to prevent anything any better than life incarceration would. |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:21:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Base, NY was the exception, not the rule. We can test that now that the death pennalty is now soon to be lifted in NY (I believe.) |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:22:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
And I can argue against something that is inneffective, or no more effective than the alternative if I believe that the cost of the system is worse on one side or another. |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
there are many communities such as indonesia and Egypt that have forms of capital punishment for violent crimes and it has worked very well. These same countries have lower crime rates than many western societies. It depends on the society we live in. People in America just don't fear death as much as others that's all. |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
I can't see how an argument can be effective without putting forward a plausible solution. |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:25:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Ok, so then why should we have it if it does not work Kurt? |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:26:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
A plausable solution would be to STOP KILLING PEOPLE Kurt. WHat is so hard to understand about that? I am not offering anything less effective, that does not creat the cost of becoming as bad as the criminal. |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:27:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Where Kurt?! |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:27:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
By who's standards does it not work though? It is an issue that has to be resolved state by state. If it doesn't work for your state then fine abolish it but there are many areas where it does work. |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:28:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
And where can they do it with out killing more innocent people? |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:31:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
OKay then we could stop capital punishment all together. You know what happens next. 30 years down the track people start talking about how life imprisonment is too cruel. They start to get all pansy on them. This is the same thing that is happening to a lesser extent to parents with the children. Some places have outlawed spanking a child because they see it as abuse. It is a form of capital punishment and is highly effective. We are now seeing the results of parents who don't believe in spanking, we have people who just don't care and were never shown any form of discipline. THere has to be a clear and concise form of trying to stop these people. I hate murderers, they are life thiefs and they should not be able to enjoy the air that they have stolen from their victims. |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:33:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
Innocent people????? How long does a person have to wait while they are on death row for their day of execution? Most people are not wrongly executed because appeals have turned into a pardon after the mistake was found. |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:34:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
I think you mean corporal punishment, and where is spanking illegal now? |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:35:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Most people? So you are willing to execute innocent people for reasons of revenge? Yes, I saw the places you said that work, and you also said it does not work here. Since we are talking about HERE, what do those other countries have to do with anything? |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:35:00 PM
From Authorid: 59876
one more thought, i came back lol. i firmly believe that people that premeditate and commit murders will kill again given the opprotunity. it has happened before. it may not be the largest thing going, but it happens, and it shouldn't. and i'm so sorry your wife's family suffered so. it should never happen, but it does. i hope theyt found strength and recovery through family and friends. |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
Some parts of the states, I can't remember the state names, but I remember reading about it, I know it is illegal in Iceland and I think it is illegal in parts of Asia from recollection. |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:36:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Since everyone seemed to miss my example, I will give it again... A man kills at least four people twenty years ago. He has not killed since. He was then shot to death by his wife who killed him for insurance money, in cold blood. Is she less guilty than him? After all, the man was guilty of a crime. Is she innocent? |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:37:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Again, aren't we talking about the United States Kurt? |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
Umm because they are EXAMPLES of a working capital punishment. And by the way corporal and papital punishment or so closely related I use the terms interchangably it is only the scale that separates them. |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:38:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
I would appreciate you telling me where here if you don't mind. |
Date: 7/21/2004 5:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 22992
There are so many things worse than death in this world...  |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
Again I say that these are examples. I hate to break it to the many americans who think on the contrary but the United States is not the centre of the world and it is not much different from any other country. |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
You would have to give me some time to look at my education notebook because I have all that information in a lecture we had on behaviour management. |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:40:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
No, it is not the center of the world, but I am talking about the United states, as I am not responsible for the actions of any other nation, nor am I in any way a participant of their legal structure, or do I live under their laws. SO, like you said, Americans are different (you said it yourself.) |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
Certains areas of America are different. But as a whole they still react the same way to most wetern civilisations. In that sense they are very similar. |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:43:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Ok, but still, this is a debate of the American legal system. |
Date: 7/21/2004 5:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 16845
always have always will fight against the death penalty. Done so many papers on it through the years for classes it isn't funny. Thought I would answer one of Kurts questions though. The average lifespan on death row is roughly 10 years....of course there are exceptions though...  |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:48:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
Well maybe you should put that in your description. It only says this country. I don't know what "this country" means that is very vague so I assume every country. |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 5:49:00 PM
From Authorid: 45630
Thanks Becky! |
Date: 7/21/2004 6:18:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
I do not believe there is any other country in "western civilisation" that has the death penalty (please someone correct me if i am wrong) If the death penalty is truly necessary as a deterrant then there is something seriously wrong if other countries in the west can get by without it and enjoy lower crime rates. as far as the cost goes, one cannot claim life in prison to be more costly than an execution until one has the figure for both, so that doesnt work as an argument, even if putting price tags on peoples lives was somehting you are comfortable with. Anyone remember history's most famous victim of the death penalty? some guy from Bethlehem or something like that i think.  |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 6:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
ok, i got some information from amnesty internationals website. according to it, 75 countries have completely abolished the death penalty. here is a list of all the countries in the world that still retain it in full: AFGHANISTAN, ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, BAHAMAS, BAHRAIN, BANGLADESH, BARBADOS, BELARUS, BELIZE, BOTSWANA, BURUNDI, CAMEROON, CHAD, CHINA, COMOROS, CONGO (Democratic Republic), CUBA, DOMINICA, EGYPT, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, ERITREA, ETHIOPIA, GABON, GHANA, GUATEMALA, GUINEA, GUYANA, INDIA, INDONESIA, IRAN, IRAQ, JAMAICA, JAPAN, JORDAN, KAZAKSTAN, KOREA (North), KOREA (South), KUWAIT, KYRGYZSTAN, LAOS, LEBANON, LESOTHO, LIBERIA, LIBYA, MALAWI, MALAYSIA, MONGOLIA, MOROCCO, MYANMAR, NIGERIA, OMAN, PAKISTAN, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, PHILIPPINES, QATAR, RWANDA, SAINT CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS, SAINT LUCIA, SAINT VINCENT & GRENADINES, SAUDI ARABIA, SIERRA LEONE, SINGAPORE, SOMALIA, SUDAN, SWAZILAND, SYRIA, TAIWAN, TAJIKISTAN, TANZANIA, THAILAND, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, UGANDA, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UZBEKISTAN, VIET NAM, YEMEN, ZAMBIA, ZIMBABWE |
Date: 7/21/2004 6:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
I'm proud to say, no european countries  |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 6:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 59876
no, the wife isn't any less guilty. the difference between the death penalty and murder as i see it is motivation. one is protecting society from menace, the other is motivated by greed, hate, selfishness, etc. |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 7:02:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
Are you talking about wanting a constitutional amendment banning the death penalty? Not all states have the death penalty but as of right now it is up to each individual state to decide for themself. |
Date: 7/21/2004 8:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 53360
Why the death penatly?? I am for it because I would rather my tax dollars be spent on executing a criminal so he cant parole some day and commit more crimes, than to have my tax dollars go to a criminal, who might possibly be paroled but will more than likely sit in prison untill their death anyway, meanwhile, taxpayers are paying for all of his/her meals, housing, utilities, clothing, medical expenses, schooling in some cases and so on....  |
Date: 7/21/2004 8:27:00 PM
From Authorid: 53157
The way i see it is if you kill somebody...you should be killed too. What gives you the right to kill somebody and not expect no punishment.  |
Date: 7/21/2004 8:30:00 PM
From Authorid: 39949
yes ITS ABOUT TIME SOMEone spoke up.....if we want to stop the killing we have to stop killing ourself.........great post  |
Date: 7/21/2004 8:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 53054
Over here in Australia if a shark kills a human then the shark can be hunted and killed by the human....  |
Date: 7/21/2004 9:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 19460
An eye for an eye, my dear. Unless you have been involved in a situation where the death penalty was used, you have no idea. In my situation, I didnt even want to think that my tax money would go to feed and clothe the man that murdered my friend. She was just 15 and hadnt had a chance to enjoy life...so why should he? He had done other things and been turned back out on the streets and even after attempting to kill his cell mate, they turned him back out in the streets...just a few months later he killed Christi. People know that if they kill someone they will get the death penalty. It isnt like they are clueless to it all, ya know? You would think they'd have enough sense than kill someone and expect to be allowed to live free of charge on the victims family's dime.  |
Date: 7/21/2004 10:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 25828
i'm for the death penalty, but personally i wouldn't care if they abolished it or not, as long as the family members of the murder victims payed to have him killed in prison. i suppose the argument could be done several ways...if you're a christian then god does say 'an eye for an eye'..if you're not, then the fact is that they took a life, and thus should not be allowed to live out the rest of theirs no matter how awful the prison conditions may be. it is called justice, though it could also be termed 'revenge'. either will work. i would much prefer families got to handle the executions, but thankfully, with the way prisons are these days, it's fairly easy to pay someone to kill an inmate in whatever manner you see fit.  |
|
Date: 7/21/2004 10:28:00 PM
From Authorid: 25828
in your example phydeux the wife would indeed be guilty and should be punished, though my question would be what would someone that murdered 4 people be doing out of jail or not put to death after a mere 20 years? |
Date: 7/21/2004 11:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
I believe the US should have the death penalty for the following reasons: 1) Some crimes are so horrible that the perpetrators should not be allowed to live. 2) It is a deterrent; not one criminal that has been executed has ever returned to the streets to commit another crime. 3) The victims should not be punished twice--first by the loss of their loved one(s), then by having their hard-earned tax dollars provide support in prison for the very cause of their grief. 4) The threat of the death penalty will not deter sociopaths and psychopaths, but, as the ultimate punishment, it may cause someone to pause before committing a crime. Regarding your example: the woman is guilty because it the function of government to administer the death penalty. We don't need vigilantes. Good post!  |
Date: 7/21/2004 11:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 34487
Well, all I can say is that people like Dahmer deserve it. I do believe in "an eye for an eye" and I also believe we must "turn the other cheek" in CERTAIN situation but when I hear that some scumbag raped and killed child...I want to rip their face off. Yes, I'm for the death penalty for the most severe offenses. On a minor note...I also don't take ANY pleasure in hearing how these monsters are working toward their masters degrees (thanks to us tax-payers) and writing novels while sitting in prison. The death-penalty shouldn't be handed out to just anyone but for some, it's just plain JUSTICE served.  |
|
Date: 7/22/2004 12:05:00 AM
From Authorid: 36704
Here's some information on the death penalty in the US from wikipedia. "Thirty-eight of the fifty states allow the death penalty but each state using it has different laws regarding its methods, age limits, and crimes which qualify. Between 1973 and 2002, 7254 death sentences were issued. These had led to 820 executions, 3557 prisoners on death row—all for murder, 268 who died while incarcerated of natural causes, suicide or murder, 176 whose sentences were commuted by governors or state pardon boards, 2403 who were released, retried or resentenced by the courts. (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cp02.pdf) There were 65 executions in 2003. Most notably, 67% of capital convictions are eventually overturned, mainly on procedural grounds although some were exonerated. The most comprehensive source (the Espy file) lists fewer than 15,000 people executed in United States or its predecessors between 1608 and 1991. China executed more than this number just in the 1990s. 4661 executions occurred in the U.S. in the period 1930–2002 with about 2/3 of the executions occurring in the first twenty years. Crimes subject to the death penalty vary by jurisdiction. All jurisdictions which use capital punishment have murder as a crime which is subject to capital punishment although many jurisdiction require additional aggravating circumstances. In practice, however, no one has been executed for a crime other than murder or conspiracy to murder since 1964. All death row inmates in 2002 were convicted of murder. |
|
Date: 7/22/2004 12:33:00 AM
From Authorid: 34487
Great info and link Base. |
Date: 7/22/2004 4:46:00 AM
From Authorid: 28190
I believe in the death penalty for murder. I think it is a deterrent. Why should someone who murders someone in cold blood be able live another day when they have caused so much pain for their own selfish deeds. Im not talking about those that do it in self defense, and the instances that someone could be unjustly convicted. It makes me angry to think about the man who murdered my mother's best friend, being able to sit and enjoy life, while being able to get a free education and even cable tv... Some things that are hard to come by for honest people. The justice system is seriously flawed sometimes though, cause he pre-meditated the murder, and killed her in cold blood, but only recieved a sentence of 10 years.. I guess it may just be Alabama there, but I see no justice for that. People like him should be punished the same way they killed their victims, thats just my take on it. It's sad to think that just in 5 years he will be let back on the streets and since he has no remorse, I fear that he will do it yet again. And thats why I think in some cases the death penalty applies. Just think it can also save lives too.  |
Date: 7/22/2004 7:10:00 AM
From Authorid: 160
The other alternative is to keep them in prison, the government pays for their upkeep, the medical and dental bills, their food and shelter. I don't know but when you take the life of another I believe that you need to be away from society forever. That also goes for pedofiles! Maybe if there were programs that inmates could go through in a progresive way that would actually reform them and give them a purpose in life they may have a chance. But for people that murder, sorry but unless they have doen so in self defense they need to pay the ultimate price.  |
Date: 7/22/2004 8:33:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
I see the death penalty as simply removing the thrash from the earth, permanently putting a stop to their behavior.  |
|
Date: 7/22/2004 9:19:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
the way i see it, the main arguments for the death penalty are as follows. 1: it is a deterrent. as far as this goes, i have yet to see anyone provide proof of it being so, and as i have said before, if the death penalty is absoloutly necessary as a deterrent in america, then there is a much mroe serious problem thta needs addressing as every other westrern country can get by with relativly low crime rates without resorting to the detah penalty. 2, the death penalty is less expensive. to go with this argument you have to first know exactly how much it costs both to execute a prisoner (with all the procedures and legal expenses that entails) and how much it costs to retain a prisoner. Those who believe in the eye for an eye philosophy clearly ignore the turn the other cheek philosophy espoused by Jesus in the new testament, and it is surely dangerous to pick and choose between these whenever it is convienient. there is a difference between justice, and revenge. that is why we do not let the families of victims pass sentence on guilty people. When it all comes down to it, it really depends on how much one values the right to life. convictred prisoners can be kept away from society. If someone hurts you is it right to hurt them back when you dont have to? that is the question. |
Date: 7/22/2004 10:12:00 AM
From Authorid: 13119
Death penalty as a deterrant does work, the reason it isn't working for the states is because they have so many appeal processes in place that it really isn't death. If they would have one appeal and then be executed within 1 - 1 1/2 yrs then it would be more effective. As it stands there are people on death row for dozens of years. It is free room and board and access to comforts that they may not have had on the outside.  |
Date: 7/22/2004 10:37:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
I do not advocate the death penalty. I believe dying is too easy a way out for murderers. But, I certainly feel that we are in need of rethinking our incarceration policies. I don't believe that prisoners should sit day in and day out (some earning college degrees or realizing other SELF benefitting activities) without doing something productive for society. They have been sentenced to prison, and unfortunately, there are people out there who live a lot better off in prison than they did out in society. If prison is to be a punishment, then make it punishing. Put these inmates to work, in some sort of restraints, out cleaning up trash, picking weeds, separating recycables, etc. If society is paying to "keep" them, have them earn their keep. Finally, the fact pattern you have described, Phydeaux, is a bit remiss in details for me to comment on. God Bless.  |
|
Date: 7/22/2004 11:02:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
Magoo, what is wrong with America then that it needs the death penalty as a deterrent? take a look at the list of countries i supplied above. Afghanistan, Iraq, China,Cuba, North Korea etc. not exactly inspiring company is it? |
|
Date: 7/22/2004 11:14:00 AM
From Authorid: 59876
"The figures, compiled from the Federal Bureau of Prisons and state correctional agencies, also show the amount of time served by criminals given life sentences increased from an average of 21 years to 29 years between 1991 and 1997." |
|
Date: 7/22/2004 11:14:00 AM
From Authorid: 59876
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/11/life.sentences.ap/ |
|
Date: 7/22/2004 11:19:00 AM
From Authorid: 59876
here is the adress for the federal bureau of prisons http://www.bop.gov/ |
|
Date: 7/22/2004 11:19:00 AM
From Authorid: 13119
I have read the list, are you trying to say that your country is better than the rest of them. I also read Japan on the list and Bahamas and UAE. I find nothing wrong with these places and find the inference that the USA is better than them wrong. |
|
Date: 7/22/2004 11:43:00 AM
From Authorid: 59876
the cnn article indicates that there are different requirements from state to state on mandatory time served on life sentances but i can't figure out how to get those stats. it also indicates that because of the three strikes laws, a large percentage of lifers are are nonviolent drug offenders. it also indicates that as of 1997, 90 percent of those serving life sentences were in prison for a violent offense, including 69 percent for murder. i hope to find more current stats. |
|
Date: 7/22/2004 11:47:00 AM
From Authorid: 25828
dark phoenix i totally agree..one cannot pick and choose between the old and new testament, and they contradict in so many places..we should just forget about the bible. if you can't pick and choose then there is nothing left. amen 8-) |
Date: 7/22/2004 12:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 4144
it serves a purpose. it takes the murders out of the prisons and puts them where they belong. personally, i don't think we use it enough. there are too many people in prison for life just because they made a deal and that stinks. why should i be able to go out and kill somebody and then get to sit in prison for the rest of my life while other peoples taxes feed and clothe me?  |
Date: 7/22/2004 2:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
If a person takes someones life from them and leaves them with no hope of life, then why would it be so wrong as to expect the one who took a life to give up his own life? Anything a person owns can be replaced, but not a life. If there were stricter laws which were enforced without plea bargaining, etc, then anyone would think twice before they break a law. The way it is now, there are many loopholes in our legal system that criminals can slip through and are barely touched for the crimes they commit. If a murderer would know for certain that he will lose his life if he kills someone, he would more likely think twice before pulling that trigger. If a rapist was to know for certain that the price he will pay would be losing part of his anatomy, then he would most likely think again before he commits the act. If a robber knew for certain that he would have to become a slave and to work until the debt is paid twice again, then I am sure he would think about it before he took what does not belong to him. If a mother/father abuses a child, they would never be permitted to have another child and they both would have to support the child/children they already have. I believe these are the kind of laws we need and they need to be strictly enforced.  |
Date: 7/22/2004 3:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 12084
I had family members that were murderers. They needed to be killed themselves. When the trials were in the making they did not wish to stand trial in Texas, for Texas had the death penalty for their horrible crimes. Many other states wanted to try them first for murders they committed in their state. The murderers did not want Texas to try them first, because they knew they would be fried. They got their wish and only recieved life insted of the death penalty they so deserved. If ALL STATES gave the death penalty, then just mabie they would have thought twice about their murdering of innocent people.  |
|
Date: 7/22/2004 3:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
I have a question for those who support the death penalty. why do you believe some people are against it? |
Date: 7/22/2004 3:32:00 PM
From Authorid: 62220
The penalty ensures that the person who committed that heinous crime will never live to do it again! Too many criminals are getting out of jail/prison for good behavior! Some may not have learned their lesson. It's not like prison is an awful place to go, you can have a job, they feed you...there's no . If a person k1lled your parents or your child, would you not want to hunt them down and give them what they deserve? Jail/prison isn't cutting it anymore! They need to die! Yes, the person who is pulling the lever is not either. But in the Bible we see that sinners have have also thrown the stones to k1ll criminals. All of us are sinners, but it is the extravangance of the sin that matters. I am definitely for the penalty. Those k1llers need to get what they deserve! Even if I am not sinless, I haven't k1lled anyone.  |
|
Date: 7/22/2004 3:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 34487
DarkPhoenix....what you said sounds like hearts and flowers but in the REAL WORLD and when it comes to REAL LIVES being taken in vicious and sadistic manners, people want JUSTICE. As for "picking and choosing" between "an eye for and eye" and "turn the other cheek" there are different situation in doing so even in the Bible where these verses are provided. The Bible is interpretive in many ways, I've always known that but I think a Christian or person in general, needs to use common sense also to understand. I still feel that ANYONE who has enough evil in them to rape or kill a child...deserves to die. Am I a bad Christian or even person for thinking this way? Maybe, as far as some are concerned and so be it. Let them judge me but maybe they should be focused on judging the ACTIONS of those that are guilty of these horrific crimes. |
|
Date: 7/22/2004 3:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 34487
Haeema and Rusure made some excellent points. |
|
Date: 7/22/2004 4:09:00 PM
From Authorid: 12084
You choose, These kinfolk were the worst of the worst. Everything Rusure mentioned the did. 22 victims suffered under their hands, and they still were not put to death! If all states would have had the death penalty then they would have been killed for their horrific crimes. But no, because of other states who's punishment was of a far lesser sense, they only got life. The only bad part about Texas law was, that you couldn't kill them as many times as an eye for an eye requires. Kill em. Kill all those who purposely Murder the innocents. |
Date: 7/22/2004 9:15:00 PM
From Authorid: 3836
I'm not a deep thinker. I never even thought of the death penalty like that. Thanks for broadening my horizons.  |
|
Date: 7/23/2004 5:16:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
ok, i understand your points You Choose, but im still waiting for someone from the pro death penalty camp to explain why they think people are against it. |
|
Date: 7/23/2004 7:33:00 AM
From Authorid: 13119
I believe that some people are against the death penalty because they feel that it puts them on the same level as the killer, they want life to be clean, sweet and sane, they don't realise that by allowing the unclean, unsweet insane killers live they are making our world are dirtier, meaner place to live. They think that it is inhumane to kill someone even if that person has murdered tons of little children or some other type of victim. to me murderers are like rabid dogs and deserve to be put down, you wouldn't allow a rabid dog or vicious dog to continue to live and kill why a human. |
Date: 7/23/2004 7:44:00 AM
From Authorid: 18155
It really doesn't prevent crime, according to most recent FBI reports, and it costs more to go through with an execution, appeals, etc., than it merits.But we have always been a "blood thirsty" group, so executions will continue, we might just come up with more creative ways of doing it.  |
Date: 7/23/2004 7:45:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
Is it a deterent? Well it certainly deters the excecuted person from killing again. And who can accurately judge that it isn't a detering factor? Some criminal sentencing is about rehabilitation, some is purely punishment. What is the correct punishment for someone who has committed the ultimate crime? What possible benifit is served by keeping these people incarcerated for life, supported by tax payer money?  |
|
Date: 7/23/2004 11:04:00 AM
From Authorid: 4144
as always magoo's reply sounds like poetry! |
Date: 7/23/2004 12:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 13119
umm thanks Moma Bug!  P |
Date: 7/23/2004 2:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 22080
whats the point in not? i personally think we should bring back stoning or crucify people, i mean honestly, have a big large burly man with nothing going for him except being a nuisance to society have his way with your mother against your will then kill her, would you want him to enjoy three hots, a roof over his head, clothes on his back and cable tv at the expense of you? i mean if im wasting my tax dollars it should be on something worth while  |
|
Date: 7/23/2004 2:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 22080
p.s. look at the murder rates of countries where stealing alone is enough to get your hand removed |
|
Date: 7/23/2004 4:18:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
Jestr, I believe that stoning and crucifying people were done in the past because people didn't have more humane ways available to execute offenders. I believe executions carried out in that way would be barbaric. I also believe that if we had stricter, enforced laws and anyone who is found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt will know exactly where they stand and what their sentence will be, then others would be less likely to commit crimes. The way it is today, a murderer may get off scot free while a person who stoled money out of desperation may get life. It also depends on who committed a crime. Money can buy freedom for a criminal in some cases. |
Date: 7/23/2004 8:30:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
Bcar said it well enough for me.  |
|
Date: 7/24/2004 3:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 22080
again, rusure, what if the way they killed your family member was barbaric? would you want them to just be put to sleep like a cat or dog? |
Date: 7/24/2004 11:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 57225
hmm i'm not sure that i agree with it, because killing that person doesn't turn back time and change whatever crime they committed.. it serves no real purpose..  |
|
Date: 7/25/2004 2:29:00 AM
From Authorid: 3125
Jestr, I see where you are coming from but to stone someone to death or to crucify them would seem to be a matter of revenge rather than a matter of justice, though I don't think I would object to a law of "what you put out is what you get in return" law. |
|
Date: 7/26/2004 7:41:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Sorry I haven't been able to respond, I have had other things come up, I will try to get a response in soon. |
|
Date: 7/26/2004 8:25:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
I tried to address everyone here, if I missed you it is because I replied to your comments by replkying to someone else who said something similar. So Rozzmick, you say we should execute them for financial reasons? Doheney, regardless of her motivation, she protected society by getting rid of a murderer. Maybe the guy pulling the switch at the prison is sadistic, maybe he wanted that job so he could kill these people, does his motivation make him less innocent? Lita, why does it have to be all or nothing, either you are executed, or you are not punished? That doesn't sound too realistic. So why doesn't the executioner deserve to die, didn't he/she kill someone on purpose, with intent? So froggy, part of the problem is the fact taht the justice system allows murderers parole? Why not change that? And yes, I have been involved in just such a situation, so you can unsaddle that horse. Heather, as for what he was doing out of jail in the first place, he never went (yes, this is a true example.) Alfrowl :"1) Some crimes are so horrible that the perpetrators should not be allowed to live." That is very much a matter of opinion, as Deb said, it is very easy to look at killing them as giving them the easy way out. "2) It is a deterrent; not one criminal that has been executed has ever returned to the streets to commit another crime." Um, look up the term deterant It does not deter them, it prevents them, and there is no evidence it deters anyone else. Of course, locking them away for the rest of their lives in a max security prison would have the same effect. "3) The victims should not be punished twice--first by the loss of their loved one(s), then by having their hard-earned tax dollars provide support in prison for the very cause of their grief." any way to be sure their exact dollars went to the prison? And how much of your individual check goes to prisons? In discussing this topic people all of the sudden act as if the taxes they pay are majoritivly go to prisons. Umm... not so. "4) The threat of the death penalty will not deter sociopaths and psychopaths, but, as the ultimate punishment, it may cause someone to pause before committing a crime." So we are killing people, and dragging ourselves down to the same level as murderers on the off chance that maybe, somewhere, a person may not kill someone? Is that worth executing innocent people? Well Base, glad to hear we executed less people than China. Now, do any of these numbers change the fact that we are killing people that have been convicted by an imperfect system that allows emmotion, and human error to dictate the taking of human life, justifying a crime by sactioning the very action the state says to condemn? Korn gurl, with such a short sentence, it doesn't sound like the death penalty ever would have come into play anyway in the case you mentioned. As for the rest of your comments, sounds like it is about revenge. As for the tax dollar issue, according to Base, we are keeping very few people on death row, and I am sure taht we are spending FAR more to incarcerate people and house them for far lesser offenses. So if this is a financial issue, why are you guys not upset about that. I am fairly sure, with the number of people in prison for possesion of marijuana ALONE, we are spending more to house them than death row inmates. Why aren't people outraged at that fact if financial issues of tax dollars and prisons are so important. RodTod, by immitating their behavior? "If a person takes someones life from them and leaves them with no hope of life, then why would it be so wrong as to expect the one who took a life to give up his own life?" There is a large difference, the criminal does not give his life, it is taken against his will, is that not the problem in the first place? "unsweet insane killers live they are making our world are dirtier, meaner place to live." To assume we don't understand is not exactly fair. I know exactly what it does, but it only make the prison worse places, but isn't that what prisons are for? "Well it certainly deters the excecuted person from killing again." No BCAR, it prevents them, there is a difference. "What possible benifit is served by keeping these people incarcerated for life, supported by tax payer money?" Not becoming murderers ourselves. People keep bringing up tax dollars, but what if I don't want my tax dollars paying for murder? Jest, is pumping the family members full of bullets, including making a five year old watch his family be slaughtered, then setting them all on fire barbaric? If so, I already have the what if on my tack record. Rusure, it is revenge anyway as it is now, so what is the difference? |
|
Date: 7/27/2004 12:58:00 AM
From Authorid: 37900
Thanks for your response, Phydeux. Do you think the death penalty is an easy way out? Are you proposing we keep people alive to make their life harder? I accept your distinction between "deters" and "prevents." The result is the same. That the death penalty does not seem to deter others may be more closely related to the likelihood of being caught, prosecuted, sentenced and subjected to time-consuming appeals. I suggest that if the probabilities of any of these factors increased, the death penalty would become more of a deterrent. It could be argued that, since any state program costs the individual relatively little, we should happily fund any expense that government imposes on us. Keeping a serial killer alive in a maximum-security facility at taxpayer expense serves no useful purpose. The innocent people that have been executed in the last century are not referendums on the death penalty, any more than incest is a guide for evaluating family relationships. Our justice system is designed to benefit the accused; if we adhere to the principles of justice, the innocent will no longer die. By administering justice, we are not sinking to the level of murderers. Doctors are not inhumane if they amputate a gangrenous leg. |
|
Date: 7/27/2004 5:45:00 AM
From Authorid: 160
ok, so lock them in a room with the following: A VCR with Titanic playing over and over. Pictures of their mothers (that is if they had them in the first place and if not pictures of their grandmothers will do) A steady diet of rice, beans and water. NO Air conditioning and minimal heat in the winter. Books that would educate and attempt to reach the heart. A BIBLE, and books on how to do everything from building a house, electrical, plumbing, carpentry and roofing. Books on relationships and while your at it throw Dr. Phil in there 12 hours a day. Now, if that doesn't work then ship them off to a remote island with others like them, force them to fend for themselves. They would grow their own food, build their own shelters and learn how to knit their own blankets. Helllooo! Does anyone see how helpless this situation really is? Nothing else works but to keep them from society where they can kill and rape and destroy lives. And for everyone you put to death there are three more out there breeding to take their places. |
|
Date: 7/27/2004 5:53:00 AM
From Authorid: 160
P.S. I've been accused of being dramatic so you don't have to remind me. It's just that nothing seems to work, they are a financial drain on society, and the facts are that if they are paroled they go out and commit the crimes again and again until caught, and the cycle continues. Stop the world, I want off! I have a brother in prison in Ohio. He had a rough life raised totally different then me. My Ftaher didn't want him and he is a career criminal. Has been in prison since he barely cut his teeth. He is in his 40's now and back in there for 6 years, once released he will find his way back because I think that he fels safe there, he doesn't have to be concerned about having to support himself. I am afraid to bring him here because I have young children and wont subject them to him. So he becomes a shadow figure, someone to be afraid of and one that we can't reach out to emotionally. What do we do? |
|
Date: 7/27/2004 6:27:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
Ok, enough of people claiming these prisoners are taking up large sums of taxpayer money. I want to see some figures. I want to know how much it costs on average to keep a prisoner locked up. |
|
Date: 7/27/2004 6:31:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
ok, no point asking for other people to do the work for me i suppose, so i thought id get some figures myself. this is all from www.deathpenaltyingo.org. this first part pertains to Kansas i believe: " The investigation costs for death-sentence cases were about 3 times greater than for non-death cases. The trial costs for death cases were about 16 times greater than for non-death cases ($508,000 for death case; $32,000 for non-death case). The appeal costs for death cases were 21 times greater. The costs of carrying out an execution (including death row incarceration) were about half the costs of carrying out a non-death sentence in a comparable case. Trials involving a death sentence averaged 34 days, including jury selection; non-death trials averaged about 9 days." more from other states: "Total cost of Indiana's death penalty is 38% greater than the total cost of life without parole sentences" "North Carolina spends more per execution than on a non-death penalty murder case" " Texas death penalty cases cost more than non-capital cases -That is about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years. (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992) " |
|
Date: 7/27/2004 6:34:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
besides, to base your descision on whether or not the death penalty is right based on financial reasons is kinda sick if you ask me. |
|
Date: 7/27/2004 7:25:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
I have agree, of course financial arguements on both sides are a moot point. "What if I don't want my tax dollars to be used for killing someone". Good point, but maybe I don't want my tax dollars going toward welfare, or birth control, or more cops, or border patrol etc. Our elected representatives make those choices. deterent, prevention? An excecuted murderer is prevented, a would be murderer is detered, and how do we know if someone is or isn't detered? It's not like they are going to step up and admit it. Cold blooded murder is the ultimate crime, against the established laws and against humanity. In my opinion the ultimate punishment, loss of one's life, should apply. Obviously the majority of voters and law makers agree. Back to my first example, our democracy reflects the will of the people. |
|
Date: 7/27/2004 12:29:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Thanks for the replies, things have managed to stay civil, and on topic, I appreciate that. Now, Al, I will start with your last statement, as it seems to be where your statements lead to. "Doctors are not inhumane if they amputate a gangrenous leg." Still, you ARE talking about a society that makes suicide a crime, and locked up Dr. Kevorkian (SP). No, a doctor is not inhumane for taking a leg when medicly neccesary to save the life of the patient. Still, a doctor will do all they can to save the leg first, before removal, and they will not kill the patient. The largest part of the medical oath is to do no harm. Still, they violate this with lethal injection, as they are administered by a physician. As faras our legal system not being a deturent, I believe you are correct in my opinion. But, if we had a more strict, and swift justice system, we would not require the death pennalty, as life imprisonment would work also to suit the need of the community by removing the threat of a murderer. Still, the system works as it does for a reason. To protect the innocent, not only from criminals, but from wrongfull incarceration. "Keeping a serial killer alive in a maximum-security facility at taxpayer expense serves no useful purpose." I thought the whole idea was to remove the threat from the community. Life imprisonment (true life imprisonment) serves this purpose. BCAR, you said "Good point, but maybe I don't want my tax dollars going toward welfare, or birth control, or more cops, or border patrol etc." The difference is that you are comparing social programs created to bennefit the less fortunate (while it is imperfect, and offten abused) to using tax dollars to commit the very thing you called the ultimate crime. You defined this as not only a crime in legal terms, but also in terms of humanity. What you are describing is two wrongs making a right. The criminal commits an act that we define as wrong, and yet we commit thew same act against that person, as if we are any more justified in deciding who lives and dies. |
|
Date: 7/27/2004 12:30:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 13974
Our society does not allow for someone to take their own life, and yet it decides to take the lives of others against their will. |
|
Date: 7/27/2004 1:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 3125
Phydeux, If not the death penalty, then perhaps murderers should be shipped to a remote part of the earth and left there to fend for themselves?? This would take a lot of the burden of supporting such criminals from the taxpayer and it would most likely cut down on such crimes. If 'would be' murderers, etc, knew that they would be sent far away from home and they would have to work to eat, etc, then many would think twice before they commit a crime. To do this would make it harder on those who were sent there and they wouldn't have it as easy as they do while in prison. This would also be a way of rehabilitating those who could be rehabilitated. |
Date: 7/28/2004 2:06:00 AM
From Authorid: 51070
I have very mixed feelings about this. On one hand, I say people should get what they deserve, but on the other hand, I'm wondering, how many people on death row are innocent?  |
|
Date: 7/28/2004 9:06:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
Murder is the ultimate crime, Excecution as a punishment for that crime is not deemed a crime. Our society currently aproves and condones the death penalty, and I support that. Perhaps some day people such as yourself will influence enough voters to change that situation, and the rest of us will abide by it. I have no moral objection either way. |
|
Date: 7/28/2004 11:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 37900
Thank you for your response, Phydeux. As I see it, some crimes are so heinous that they deserve the death penalty. The dozens of murders that Ted Bundy and Timothy McVeigh committed are a horrible blight on society. Child molesters that also murder their victims are cancers that should be cut out. I don't think life imprisonment is a suitable punishment for these actions, mainly because convicted murderers should not have the privilege of life when they removed life from their innocent victims. If the punishment for the crime is not judged by the criminal to be severe enough, there is no motivation for them to avoid the crime. I agree that the justice system should work faster and more efficiently; the death penalty should be part of it. |
| Date: 8/5/2004 6:51:00 PM From Authorid: 62838 I understand that families and friends of people who have been hurt by criminals feel terrible pain because of what the person has caused them, but at the same time I feel it is wrong to kill another person. I have occaisionally felt like a bit of a fence-sitter on this subject, but I would have to say my gut-feeling is that the death penalty should not be practiced. The time or method of death for any human being should not be something that is decided upon by somebody else. - Kokoro |
|
Date: 8/6/2004 5:50:00 AM
From Authorid: 25828
we could do without the death penalty as long as their is a family member that knows who did it, and where we are. then the govt. wouldn't have to take the blame for it when they meet their end. it would be taken care of by the family. |
Date: 8/16/2004 4:08:00 PM
From Authorid: 62753
I dont think that the death penalty is the right answer! Sorry! Lizard-1  |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
