Capital Punishment

For all those who think prison is not that bad . . . would you like to go there? Seriously, think of what would suck about being in prison -- even being in a NICE prison, and then ask yourself if prison is a cake-walk.

People are always talking about how prison is not that bad because inmates have TV, etc., but yet, I think that totally oversimplifies the situation. Just because you can sometimes watch TV, and go outside occasionally, doesn't mean that life is peachy.

 

<b>RM95</b>: At the base of this argument is my is the supposition that you and your friend mis-heard or mis-understood what Dr. Laura said. Therefore, your affadavits are meaningless to me in spite of your sincerity about them.

My objection is to your summation of her comments which are out of character with her traditional position on matters of child welfare.

Let's say that you are right: Dr. Laura continuously mis-spoke her traditional position with this caller for the 5 or 10 minutes that you were listening. In that case, I would apologize to you.

But I think that is unlikely. Can you prove it beyond an affadvit-- which only proves what you think you know? Write to her by email or fax, tell her what you heard and let's get her response.

At this point you seem to be convinced that your version of her comments don't jive with her traditinonal stance. Do you see why I am skeptical about what you reported?

You seem to be hung up on my not believing you. I am hung up on the fact that you are attributing to her a position which is 180 degrees opposite of what I've know her to say consistentlly for 5 years. How can I believe that you got it right?

Why is it more imporant that I believe you than that you consider that you might have misunderstood. My objection is to what you wrote not what you heard.

 

How can two people hear exactly the same thing, but, according to you, not hear it at all?

 

Hearing is not understanding. It happens all the time. Have you ever said, "What'd he say?"

Maybe you tuned in halfway through a sentence and spent more time bashing Dr. Laura than listening to her.

I dont' know; I wasn't there.

Are you still disputing that what you "heard" is out of sync with her traditional position?

How do you explain that?

 

I'm still wondering how anyone can support the death penalty when it's blatantly and grossly prejudiced against minorities and the poor . Still haven't heard any good answers...

 

I won't say it's a complete 180 degree reversal, but I'll concede that she doesn't really feel that way. However, I did listen to full calls, from hearing the women introduced to her rant to the next caller being introduced.

I did not mishear. My misrepresentations, and my friend's, of her are her fault because of what she said.

 

So, to sum up, RM95, according to giddyup is either:

a. deaf
b. stupid
c. lying

I'll let you decide.

 

subtomic-

I don't think I'm really disagreeing with anything you said.

I think we need more or better guards, but I do understand that people don't want the job. It's rough and low paid. I wouldn't want it.

I actually have only been to or through Hunstville once and haven't seen the fields. But, I live somewhat near the prison in Ft. Bend and I know they have farms out there. I think more work like that would be better than leisure time, but I understand that cannot always be done.

I have not read the paper, but I am a bit familar with it. It is very interesting, but it's not real. The people in the "prison" were not criminals and did nothing wrong. I think that would be more frustrating than actually being a criminal. And the conditions were very exaggeragted and worse than many prisons. But I do see the similarities. I still do not think it is the institution itself, rather it's human nature. The prisoners in the experiment and some in real life just asked to be treated like humans. Obviously, there's a fine line between treating someone like a prisoner and an animal.

So, prisons need to be reformed. People are still people. I do think criminals give up their rights, but those are the rights given to us by the government.

To me, it seems a lot like army boot camp. The difference is that while the army tears people down, it also works to build them up again and stronger.

It sucks that money is always such an issue. Could it ever happen that scientists work for the police or the state or for defense attorneys? And hopefully, precedent and law will allow for more science in courts so that judges can't control it all.

Rehabilitation is needed, but it also needs to be effective. So far, I don't know of any very effective programs and I wouldn't know where to begin on one.

And to Timing-

No, not on drugs. I think you just like arguing with me. I think it's wrong that rapes and beatings happen in prison. But they happen in prison and criminals go to prison. It's not justified but it happens. If you don't want to get raped and beat up in prison, then don't do anything that will get you into prison until something changes the way prisons are run.

 

Jeff,
Thanks for summing it up for me, for one. I scanned the thread and couldn't figure out what the h*ll was going on with those two.

 

I did find it funny Giddyup accused someone else of being close minded. Giddyup, you express your view well but you don’t seem to systematically re-examine your positions—you even admitted as such.

I also can see no way someone could be some vehemently against abortion in all pregnancy stages because of the possibility a fetus is a life even in the earliest stages yet be for the death penalty with an obvious possibility of an innocent person being killed by the state. I give the Pope credit for being consistent on this one, even if only recently he has been putting his political muscle more equally across these issues.

In high school I used to be for the death penalty, then the conservatives convinced me the more power government has the more likely it is to error and be abusive . (I am sort of kidding here, I was a conservative as a youngster, it was only after I saw a little bit more about the conditions of others less fortunate where more often then not their place in life had nothing to do with their will or choices that I became more liberal). I do still believe however to give the state such power is just a bad idea in a freedom loving democracy. On a pragmatic level, I think the 10-15 year drag outs of the death penalty being implemented (these appeals are needed to limit the % innocents put to death) doesn’t seem to do much good for anyone either. The murder victim’s family ends up going through wrenching testimonies and appeals for 10-15 years (instead of more immediate closure via a life in prison sentencing) in addition to the perpetrator and his/her family going through this as well. Someone kills someone they should get life in prison w/o parole and the option of killing themselves IMO.

The only really reason I can think of for having the death penalty is the truly guilty may be more likely to plead guilty and taking a life sentence to avoid a capital trial (I think the prosecutor or judge can agree to do this here in Arizona but I am not positive). But that isn't a good enough reason to me to be for it.

 

Joe Joe

That's a really good point. The racism does occur below the level of the courts. And equality is the way to fix it. But does anyone think racism can end? (I hope I don't start a debate about racism, but I really don't know when or if it will end).

 

What if the jury isn't, but the police work a little harder gathering evidence, the prosecutor is a little more aggressive and paints a grislier pisture, the judge has a certain intonation..etc. etc.

They all can play a role in the problem; the jury takes its cues from all these other parties.

I used to be strongly for the DP. Now, I am not so sure.

 

Reading through this thread, it seems there are a ton of people who changed from pro-death-penalty to not-so-much or completely against it (me included). Is there anyone who's gone the other way -- being against it in the past but now supporting it?

 

They haven't aged enough yet apparantly.

 

I used to think it was bad when I was little and very ignorant (like before I was old enough to really understand it). But I've hardened as I've grown up.

I am not as for it as I was a few years ago. I'm not sure why though or what changed.

 

I used to be for capital punishment when I was younger.

I was also stupid.

Now I'm older, I cannot support capital punishment for the reasons that have been explained more eloquently than I could in this thread.

 

This is unusually mean for the BBS's Prince of Peace!

I am working the problem backwards. From what he reported on the BBS, he (even by his own admission) has gotten her current position wrong.

That means she either changed her position or she mis-spoke her position through an entire call. The former is unlikely as, at the time, I had been listening to Dr. Laura almost daily for some 4 years, so it is, based on my l-o-n-g listening record, very unlikely that she changed her position.

Common sense would dictate that she could not/would not mis-speak her position for an entire 10-minute segment. Our only offer of proof is an affadavit from RM95 testifying as to what he heard. That only proves what he thought he heard.

That leaves the possibility that RM95 is lying. I never said that; Jeff did.

Another possibility is that RM95 is stupid. I never said that; Jeff did.

Another possibility is that RM95 is deaf. I never said that; Jeff did.

All I said is that he must have misunderstood.

Jeff, please don't put words in my mouth. I eagerly await YOUR apology.

If this was simply meant to be funny... please indicate with a smiley.

 

What you can't get through your closed mind (soon to be open in 9 short years) is that she apparantly did misspeak.

 

I believe all I said is that I was more open-minded than RM95. That's not the same as calling him closed-minded. I base this on his statement to me in an earlier thread that he would always be a liberal and that nothing could change that.

I am currently a conservative but make no pronouncements about the future.

I'm not sure which position I need to re-examine. If you are citing an inconsistency about being pro-life and pro-death penalty, I have no problem with that.

An unborn child is absolutely innocent beyond question. A man or woman convicted of a capital offense that is sentenced to Death has had (presumably) a fair and complete trial and has been convicted by a jury of his or her peers.

If mistakes are made, it is surely tragic. All we can do is endeavor to not make mistakes. The system should not be allowed to be manipulated to favor the rich, but that is a different problem which needs to be addressed in legal reform not in sentencing issues.