I'll admit some of us foreigners from Old World countries have a different view of capital punishment than the New World. My dad always freaks me out with his ideas on capital punishment. He thinks the death penalty should be tying an ox or horse to each limb of the convicted and then yelling "giddy up". Would that deter someone from committing a crime? ------------------ "Light travels faster than sound, so some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak." -- Brian Williams (now Bison Dele) commenting on Isiah Thomas.
he won't be watching the simpsons anymore! rH ------------------ visit: The Psychedelic Groove House of Rockets Basketball Love! visit: groovehouse.org
Rich, I wasn't speaking of McVeigh in particular...just about what I have read and seen in documentaries (I saw this thing that was about a family in Texas who went to see a guy exectued who had killed one of their family members. It was not pro or con, just chronicled their story). Anyway, they went through the process and even the family members, who had been dreaming about the day they would see him executed said they were shocked that it was so violent. In general to everyone, Why is McVeigh such a demon? Is it not true that he felt he was doing the right thing? He was not killing because he wanted to, he was killing because he thought the Gov. was a devilish-type entity. Beto, do you not say the 2nd Ammendment is there to allow citizens to fight tyranny? That is what McVeigh thought he was doing. I know innocents were killed, but they are killed in wars also, without anyone getting charged for murder. Hell, we "accidentally" bomb all sorts of civilian buildings even with non-enemy countires. Would you think that a Chinese man who bombed a Chinese government building should be killed and should go to hell (this is for anyone)? McVeigh himself did show remorse, he said he wished they did not have to die, but it was the nature of the beast. Is he evil or misguided? Where do we draw the line? ------------------ I have just realized that the stakes are myself I have no other ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over the roulette table, I recoup what I can nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move as we slither over this go board, stepping always (we hope) between the lines [This message has been edited by rimbaud (edited June 11, 2001).]
he ain't going nowhere except 6' under or cremated, whatever they do with him. rH ------------------ visit: The Psychedelic Groove House of Rockets Basketball Love! visit: groovehouse.org [This message has been edited by rockHEAD (edited June 11, 2001).]
I was going to say something along the lines Rimmy said, but I figured I would be accused of supporting the guy. RichRocket, as you said, he seems to intelligent. I personally think he could have done more damage and gotten away with this if he wanted to. I think there is more behind the story than what is told or we ever will know. At least the guy was man enough to take his punishment and not draw this out for years to come. And as Rimmy said, at least he had a cause that was somewhat understandable. Why are we throwing a bigger deal over a single guy as opposed to companies putting out defective products, polluting our air, killing many many more than he ever will...not to mention they do it for greed. And all the attention we give McVeigh is exactly what he wants! ------------------ "Bada Bing!"
Rich, Can you not be intelligent and still misguided? In other threads you have made claims about liberalism in regards to youth and academia. Do you consider all of these people (speaking of liberal academics especially) to be stupid or misguided? My guess is that you, as a conservative, would say misguided. I would certainly hope you would not consider someone with a PhD from say Oxford or Johns Hopkins to be stupid. Just because he is looney does not mean he is unintelligent or evil. I am not surprised by Space Ghost's response, as he has been one to insist that arms are neccessary to prevent tyrranical government. I am not so vain to assume that I "know where he is going" upon death, either. ------------------ I have just realized that the stakes are myself I have no other ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over the roulette table, I recoup what I can nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move as we slither over this go board, stepping always (we hope) between the lines
But rimbaud if we go by that logic then what if a man came into your house and blew away your family because he thought they were "demons" or they were agents of the government. Would you say he was just misguided, or would you call him a monster or would you tell him to go to hell? It's easy to think people are overreacting when you're in the outside looking in, but I don't care what he thought. He killed 168 people. The guy is a monster period. ------------------ "I'm not here to protect my reputation, I'm here to make my reputation! Mama Barkley didn't raise no chumps!" - Charles Barkley [This message has been edited by RocksMillenium (edited June 11, 2001).]
Beto: I'm glad we agree on something even if it is for differing reasons. My concern with the death penalty as a practice of law isn't really the moral implications. I, personally, am opposed to it for my own reasons, but that isn't my concern as it is applied in law. My concern is that it is heavily biased against those who cannot afford good representation. Because so many people are tried with representation that is not up to the task, we have no way of knowing for sure that we aren't and have not been putting innocent people to death. To assume that we haven't is foolish. To assume that we won't again is irresponsible. As a practice of law, it is applied far to arbitrarily and without assurance to be considered fair and just. ------------------ The internet is about the free exchange and sale of other people's ideas. - Futurama
RocksMill, Good response, but I would have to say he was either misguided or mentally ill. In his mind, he would have been right, that does not make him evil. ------------------ I have just realized that the stakes are myself I have no other ransom money, nothing to break or barter but my life my spirit measured out, in bits, spread over the roulette table, I recoup what I can nothing else to shove under the nose of the maître de jeu nothing to thrust out the window, no white flag this flesh all I have to offer, to make the play with this immediate head, what it comes up with, my move as we slither over this go board, stepping always (we hope) between the lines
Beto-- As a conservative, I imagine you revere some of the some men I do....Jefferson, Adams, Washington, etc. I'll let them know you think their views are inconsistent, as well...as all supported the death penalty in Virginia. Government has some basic duties to carry out...keeping us safe from both domestic and foreign enemies is one of them. While I agree with the Founders that you have to have some protections in place for the accused from an overbearing govt (like the 4th, 5th & 6th Amendments), you may still punish the convicted. Here in Texas, the people have spoken..they want the death penalty. This is not the govt overreaching...they were given permission by the citizens here. I draw a sharp distinction between an overbearing govt and one that opts to put to death those that a jury convict of murder. I too would like to see more conservatives embrace the notion of smaller govt in criminal prosecution...but I find that to be in search & seizure laws and rules regarding criminal procedure...not once the man has been convicted by a jury of his peers. ------------------
Jeff: That's a good argument, and I believe it. However, the Supreme Court has already dismissed it, arguing that bias and injustice must be the single determinant factor in an INDIVIDUAL case, or htat the defense must prove that the system PRECLUDES justice for a certain type of people. Proving that bias is evident in the system at large is not enough to even guarantee a new trial, much less eliminate the death penalty. Obviously, this burden is impossible to meet. Here's the case citation. I found the case on lexis law finder. After, is another case that I find HORRIFYING! GREGG v. GEORGIA No. 74-6257 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 428 U.S. 153; 96 S. Ct. 2909; 49 L. Ed. 2d 859; 1976 U.S. LEXIS 82 Argued March 31, 1976 July 2, 1976. Here's another recent death penalty case, in which the Supreme Court concluded that even ACTUAL innocence does not merit a new trial, if there isn't a provision in the state constitution. LEONEL TORRES HERRERA, PETITIONER v. JAMES A. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION No. 91-7328 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 506 U.S. 390; 113 S. Ct. 853; 122 L. Ed. 2d 203; 1993 U.S. LEXIS 1017; 61 U.S.L.W. 4108; 93 Cal. Daily Op. Service 512; 93 Daily Journal DAR 1024; 6 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 882 October 7, 1992, Argued January 25, 1993, Decided To me, the latter in particular is very problematic. ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment... [This message has been edited by haven (edited June 11, 2001).]
Beto-- As a conservative, I imagine you revere some of the some men I do....Jefferson, Adams, Washington, etc. I'll let them know you think their views are inconsistent, as well...as all supported the death penalty in Virginia. What's your point here? Those men also all supported slavery. Do you also now support slavery since they did? If not, then you realize people can admire people without agreeing with every single thing they believe in. Those men above disagreed on many issues themselves. Pointing out the views of people who lived in a different world 200+ years ago really doesn't do you any good. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
Uh oh... prepare for the deluge, Shanna. Last time I said something like that I got flamed by Beto (Jim165 at the time) and his cronies. "How dare you claim that our forefathers wisdom isn't sacrosanct! And how dare you bring up slavery! You're playing the race card!"... I'd like to ask the conservatives a question: whenever there's a racial issue, why do you *always* accuse liberals of "playing the race card?" Isn't it really a valid consideration in some cases? If someone was racist, weren't they wrong in that respect? Doesn't that prove their fallibility? The point is this: they were wrong on one subject, they could be wrong on others. What's illegitimate about that argument? ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment...
Hmmmmm....could this be an example of a general principle in the American Justice System- that the concerns and rights of individuals are all that matters? Perhaps judging groups is impossible, because people can only be judged, and their rights can only be considered, as individuals?? Can we apply this same principle to other areas of discussion on this board? Hmmmm.... ------------------ I hate rice and beans!
Max, as a libertarian (classical liberal), I am often in disagreement with today's conservative Republicans. I think if we have a death penalty, we will execute innocent people. That fact is unacceptable to me. Ideas such as this never seems salient until it is one of your friends, or your family members, that gets victimized. Frankly, I would rather see 10 O.J. Simpsons walking the street, than see one innocent man executed. ------------------ I hate rice and beans!
Beto: I'm actually in agreement with you there, generally. I do think people can only place values on the individual level. However, racism and class bias is something that *effects* every case, but is almost impossible to prove as the determinant factor. The statistics (found in the first case I listed) show that there is injustice taking place. But you can only find evidence of it at the macrolevel, not the individual level. We know it's there, it's just that invisible x-factor. Poor people and minorities are more likely to receive the death penalty is cases which are basically identical to cases in which whites are given life in prison. Yet, the sentence isn't always vastly inappropriate; it's just that discretion allows for minorities to be executed more. Bottom line, it's not fair, and it's statistically evident. And the standards that Scalia is requiring are impossible to meet. He says: prove it, and you'll receive justice! It aws proved. So he says: Aha! We know this injustice takes place often, but you can't prove WHERE precisely it's taking place. I know that's a bit of a characterization, but that's the debate that Stevens and Scalia had, in a nutshell. ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment...
Jefferson, Adams and Washington were men who all inherited slavery... I'm not certain that Adams even owned slaves. Jefferson brought forth numerous pieces of legislation to try to outlaw the practice of slavery in Virginia. He was shot down every time early on in his career, and his reputation was tarnished for some time for even bringing it up. His memoirs indicate that he was greatly troubled by the practice and it didn't survive through the next generation of his family. Washington recongized the inherit inconsistency of fighting for liberty and still owning slaves. His slaves were all freed despite the cost to his family in crop production and income...even after he nearly broke himself financially be personally supporting his troops. These were not evil men who relished in the role of slavemaster...they were born into a well established practice...a practice that for them and their heirs was changed forever due to their actions and words concerning it. I never claim that they're infallible. I'm simply making the point that when it comes time to secure individual liberties, I take what the Framers of the Constitution which we have lived under since the late eighteenth century have to say with a great deal of weight. Just as any lawyer would interpret any law through a legislative history. ------------------
No, though many times the race card does get played in such arguments. If I say I'm against affirmative action, I'm likely to be branded a racist by some. That gets old really quick. But because those tactics are often used to attempt to tear down the opposition argument, we can be a little sensitive about it whenever such things are brought up. Think about it this way, some would take shanna's comments as attacking all the views of Washington or whoever by painting them as racists. I know that is not what shanna is doing, but it wouldn't be hard to be suspicious when those things are brought up. And while I may admire a Jefferson or a Washington or whoever, I do realize that many things they did that were considered the norm of the time were not right when viewed through my 20th-21st Century eyes. All men are flawed, even great ones. To accept that those flaws exist doesn't make a Jefferson or a Washington or whoever any less great. Going back to the original argument about the death penalty. My thoughts have been that of all the people who potentially deserve the death penalty, Tim McVeigh is the guy. But as the execution drew closer and more and more stories came out, I realized that I didn't agree with the execution of Tim McVeigh. He truly was a monster (and crappy militarist. His target was Jeff Jamar, the FBI and the ATF and he didn't manage to kill a single FBI agent or ATF agent. And he didn't even bomb the right city to get at Jeff Jamar. Even in his own stupid definition of a successful mission, he failed. He missed the targets he was after), but I can't bring myself to consider it right to kill him. I don't know what it is because I've usually been a pretty staunch defender of the death penalty for such mass killers (I didn't have any problem seeing Kenneth McDuff go). I wish I could explain it because I'd like to know what the difference is, but I can't. ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com
mrpaige: I agree that liberals do sometimes "play the race card." But sometimes it is a valid consideration. I agree with you about Washington, Jefferson, etc... and I don't think they were even unethical for owning slaves. Morality, for me, is a historical progression. Mankind coming into greater understanding of itself, etc. Just out of curiosity, were you uncomfortable with the execution more out of a "maybe he was insane" standpoint, or more from the belief that he was fighting for his beliefs, even if they were incredibly misguided, and that as such, he shouldn't be executed? I've heard that argument for terrorists, and think it's a decent one. Of course, terrorists are the only people I think *should* be executed... but that's another matter . ------------------ Lacking inspiration at the moment...
I believe many of them had slaves, but felt it was wrong. I wonder what we do now that our great great grandchilden would wonder why we ever did such things. ------------------ "Bada Bing!"
