You said this... 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. and this... Did I say they should get beaten and raped? Did I say this is a necessary part of their sentence? Am I choosing who gets raped and beaten? and this... Why does he deserve any pity from anyone? He made a choice and should accept whatever consequences come with that choice. You "interpret" that while I have a laugh.
haven, The second quote that you posted of mine clearly said that I meant government given rights (as in the Constitution). How did that confuse you? And if you read some of my other posts, you would have found out that I admitted that I don't have a plan for any of it. This is not the only problem in prisons. I think the whole prison system needs reform, but I don't know how to do it. I'm not an expert on prisons and I don't claim to be one. Others on the board also think it needs reform and they don't have answers either so it's not just me, as you would like to think.
You don't have to keep telling me what I said. I know what I said. You're the one who keeps questioning it. And the questions I asked that you just quoted, you still have not answered them.
Oh sorry, I thought those were rhetorical questions but I'll answer them. You did not say that inmates should be beaten and raped, you did not say that it was a necessary part of their sentence, and you did not choose who gets raped and who doesn't, however you did say that people who don't want to get beaten and raped should not commit a crime until prisons are free of beatings and rapes. You also said that inmates should accept the consequences of their choice which presumably involves beatings and rapes which you've acknowledged occur. Ya see how you did that? You denied it should happen, denied it was necessary, denied justification and then claimed they should accept it as a consequence of their choices, hence justifying and allowing it.
Well, thank you for answering my questions and getting to the main point of yours. Justification to me means that it is right, not that it happens or is accepted. Slavery was justified (just as this is) but that does not make it right. Wow, I actually feel like we're getting somewhere now instead of going in circles.
Do we have any rights, other than ones acknowledged by government? Answer: No. A natural rights paradigm was rejected by Chief Justice Marshall a couple centuries ago. Therefore, if they forfeit all their rights... then they also forfeit their rights to avoid nasty incidents such as beatings and rapes. Of course, rights are limited. They're restrained. But to claim they forfeit all of them... is garbage. Thank you for playing, try again...
<B>Justification to me means that it is right</B> ... <B>Slavery was justified but that didn't make it right.</B> huh?
Me. Of course its a deterrent. You don't have to look far to see the impact. In 1981, Houston had the highest number of capital crimes ever with 701. The next year the State of Texas resumed the death penalty. Since then, Houston has executed more murderers that any other STATE (not counting Texas) and has subsequently seen its numbers of murders drop 65% (to 261 in 1996) In addition (and more importantly, perhaps) the death penalty is a deterrent to commiting murders to those who are currently in prison, those that have escaped from prison, or those that have committed a LWOP crime and have yet to be captured. What exactly will be the deterrent for these people if they had "nothing to lose"? What would they do then, give him ANOTHER life sentance? This one is debatable, as far as cost goes. What exactly are we speaking of when talking about the relative cost of an execution vs. life in prison? I assume we are referring to the cost of prosecution, and not other costs. If this is the case, then I agree. These types of trials are inherently more expensive due to the cost of counsel and the lengthy appeals process (which is designed to minimize the chance of executing innocent people). Take out the cost of prosecution, and the cost of a life in prison sentance if much more that a death penalty sentance. But in my opinion, this "cost" debate is a non-issue; I never understood why people bring this argument into a death penalty debate. Ask somebody who has been killed by a repeat offender or current-prisoner if they really care what the monetary cost is... Trust me, there's enough of these guys to go around... Then how can a death sentance be "cruel and unusual"? Why should a person convicted of purposly taking the lives of others be allowed to live? There's also the possiblity that those that committed the crimes end up with a better lifestyle than they had previously. I.E. access to medical care, research/leisure facilities, nutritional diets--not to mention any programs available...all at absolutely no cost to them. I agree with the first sentance, which is why I am for the death penalty to capital crimes offenders. How exactly can somebody who purposely takes another's life redeem themselves? I can't think of any way, honestly. I think you are exaggerating here, Haven. The chance for error exists, of course. I don't think that perfect systems exist in reality. An extremely small percentage of people who were executed wrongly exists, but I dare say that there are a larger number of people have been killed or had crimes committed against them by those who weren't convicted, weren't caught, escaped, or were released early. Could you please explain why there is "too great of a chance for error"? Are you stating this as opinion or fact? Although I will agree that historically, a larger number of minorities and poor people have been given the death penalty, can it be fairly construed from this alone that the system is inherently racist? Is there more to your argument, or are you simply going by the numbers? x34
<B>Of course its a deterrent. You don't have to look far to see the impact. In 1981, Houston had the highest number of capital crimes ever with 701. The next year the State of Texas resumed the death penalty. Since then, Houston has executed more murderers that any other STATE (not counting Texas) and has subsequently seen its numbers of murders drop 65% (to 261 in 1996) </B> Except crime EVERYWHERE dropped by about the same rates, did they not? I've read before that crime drops really haven't shown any correlation with the death penalty. Whereas it may have dropped in Texas, it might have risen in other states. That indicates maybe something else caused it -- for example, economic booms tend to reduce crime rates and the period you refer to (1981) was the end of a massive recession. <B>But in my opinion, this "cost" debate is a non-issue; I never understood why people bring this argument into a death penalty debate. </B> It's primarily brought up initially by pro-death-penalty people arguing that life-in-prison is a waste of money and people should be killed to save money. That simply isn't true. <B>Then how can a death sentance be "cruel and unusual"?</B> Personally, I don't believe the death penalty is particularly cruel and unusual. I just think its excessive and has no real benefits and some serious drawbacks. <B>Why should a person convicted of purposly taking the lives of others be allowed to live?</B> Why shouldn't they? We don't subscribe to the "eye for an eye" philosophy. <B>There's also the possiblity that those that committed the crimes end up with a better lifestyle than they had previously. I.E. access to medical care, research/leisure facilities, nutritional diets--not to mention any programs available...all at absolutely no cost to them.</b> How is any of this relevent? This is available to both Life-in-Prison and Death Penalty criminals. <B>An extremely small percentage of people who were executed wrongly exists,</B> It's said about 11% of death row inmates may be there incorrectly, based on recent DNA evidence. An 11% error rate is not a small percentage when talking about executing people. <B>but I dare say that there are a larger number of people have been killed or had crimes committed against them by those who weren't convicted, weren't caught</B> Again, how is this relevent? <B>escaped, or were released early. </B> These can be dealt with in the current system. They are not a justification for the death penalty.
I might not feel strongly about many things, but I am all for the death penalty. I dont struggle with my feelings. I am completely in support of the death penalty. My reasoning is simple. If you dont want to be killed, dont kill anyone else. If you do, the hell with you. Whoever kills, I hope they get killed in the same way and go to hell for an eternity. I believe if you kill someone by torturing them, they should be killed in the same freakin way. I know many of you wont agree with me on my extreme stand, but......
Major-I corrected my statement. It all made sense in my head. Timing thinks I'm trying to justify the rapes and beatings in prisons. I am not trying to justify them because to me, justifcation means that what you are doing is correct. People tried to justify slavery but that was not right. Slavery happened and had reasons behind it but that did not make it correct. These events in prison happen but that doesn't make it right. Does that clear it up any? I agree with most of what x34 said, so I won't go into detail again. As for the 11% estimated error on the death penalty...First, it's not exact and it probably never will be. Usually in murders, there are only 2 people who know what happened and one of them ends up dead. All the science in the world will never be able to prevent errors (unless we resort to Big Brother practices). 11% of death row inmates is a very small number of actual people and an even smaller amount of the population. What percentages of the population died in the Revolution or the Civil War? These people died so that we can enjoy the freedoms and liberties of this country. The innocent people who are killed die unjustly, but they allow for justice to continue. I know I'm overglorifying the situation and that's it is very terrible. But think of the number of innocent people in other countries who are killed by their government or by terrorists supported by governments. We do in a way practice "eye for an eye." The punishment fits the crime at least. I am interested to hear what you think the drawbacks are. I think there are some, but I still support the death penalty.
ROFL Try again... the third time might make sense. If you're not justifying beatings and rapings then you can't claim that inmates should accept them as an additional consequence to their sentence.
Wow! Skip a few days and the CC.net world passes you by. I'm way late on this thread but here's my two cents. In Canada in the last about 15 years we've had at least 5 cases where a murder conviction has been overturned years later because of new evidence. One, David Milgaard, spent 23 years in jail before being cleared. Obviously that sucks pretty bad, but he's alive and out and vindicated now. He also got a $10 million settlement. One important part of his being kept alive, and the settlement to a lesser degree, is that this puts more pressure on the police to get it right. His execution would have covered the police errors, as his mother wouldn't likely have pursued this for all those years if he were dead. Incidentally, we haven't had the death penalty in Canada officially since the mid 70's and haven't had an execution since the early 60's, IIRC. http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/canadian_tragedy/ I live in a city of about 1 million and last year we had about 10 murders, as I recall. There is no death penalty here and the maximum sentence for a single murder is 25 years.
How exactly is it excessive (with regards to the crime)? What are the serious drawbacks (other than the small possibility of convicting an innocent person--we've already covered that one...) No, we don't subscribe to that belief, which is why we don't stab, shoot, drown, or chop-up our muderers, rape our rapists, or cut off the hands of thieves. We do subscribe to the notion that the punishment should fit the crime, however, which is what the death penalty represents. Maybe you can list some reasons why they SHOULD be allowed to live? I stated that a very small percentage were EXECUTED, not convicted or wrongly accused. It might "be said" that up to 11% "may be" falsely accused, but if recent DNA evidence proves otherwise, then its highly unlikely that they will suffer the same fate. This is the whole purpose of the lengthy and expensive part of the death penalty- to minimize the chance of a wrongly-accused person actually being put to death. There has been a dramatic increase in forensic technology and more of this evidence is being called on nowadays in the courtrooms. Most of the wrongfully accused that were actually killed were convicted before the advent of such technologies (or before they were effectively demonstrated to be admissable in court). In addition, there will always be pro-bono lawyers, students, and media investigative reporters working for many of those who "may be" wrongfully accused in an attempt to uncover any evidence which might change the outcome of these people. The number one argument I hear against the death penalty is that "innocent lives are lost". However, this has been a very small number with regards to the number of people convicted. My point was that a larger number of "innocent lives" are lost at the hands of convicted offenders that are allowed to repeat this crime again. That is the primary advantage for the death penalty: to stop those people from committing crimes like these in the future. How exactly would these be dealt with in the current system? And how would they be dealt with in a system with no death penalty? Thoughout this thread, the majority of arguments I have read have been those who disagree with the death penalty and why it shouldn't be (in other words, the negatives of the death penalty)...but I have yet to read a logical arguement from that side explaining the advantages of a life without parole sentance for capital crimes. What are they? Why exactly is life in prison the better alternative? (I'm looking for pro-life in prison points here, not more disadvantages to capital punishment) x34
I didn't really want to weigh in on this one, but another thread got me thinking a bit... What about child molesters? One of the primary qualifications for conviction in a capital crime is propensity to repeat the crime. It has been well documented that child molesters are incapable of controling themselves, and tend to repeat their crimes - sometimes (often) with rape-murder of a child as the end result. Those guilty of such rape-murders often have criminal child-molestation backgrounds... Is someone who has been convicted of rape-murder of a child not worthy of the death penalty? Studies have shown time and again that they are incapable of changing their behavior... Does any crime warrant the death penalty? If child rape-murder won't do it for you, then I suspect nothing will... Couple asides: Major: Don't forget about the oil bust in Houston during the early '80s. An national economic comeback is not a good argument to make as a reason for the drop in crime stats where Houston is concerned, as the economy stagnated for several more years here. x34's argument is valid. Cruel and unusual punishment... Life in prison is cruel and unusual. Historically speaking, there is nothing unusual about the death penalty; it has been the norm for serious crimes throughout known history, and across all cultures. Cruel... Give most inmates a choice between life in prison and death, and they will choose death. I guarantee it. You do not want to spend a single day in prison longer than you have to.
BTW, Timing: Any fool who doesn't understand that getting beaten and possibly raped in prison hasn't been paying attention. It's part of the risk you take when you commit the crime. It's part of the system. The guards let it happen for a reason - and they do let it happen even where they could stop it, I know that from personal experience (I have a family member who is a prison guard; she's got lotsa wild stories... I was not raped in prison ). Prison is not supposed to be a nice experience.
I think prisoners should be locked in their cells when they are convicted and sentenced, and let out of their cells at the end of their sentence. No television, no basketball court, no weightroom, no physical contact with other prisoners or guards. Books can be delivered to the cell, as can food and other neccessities. Riots would not be a problem because the prisoners could not get out of their cells. Any exercise can take place in the cell. I think that this system would accomplish three things. First, no one would be killed by another inmate in prison, a big advantage for the guy serving six months. Second, fewer guards would be required, this would save a lot of money. Third, major deterrence, no one wants to be locked in a little cage for twenty-five years. I don't know how well this would work on the rehabilitation side, but the punishment/deterrence angle seems well covered.
Hydra: There's an ultra-max security prison in Cali that does exactly what you described (except no books delivered). It's reserved only for those who repeatedly murder/rape other inmates, or those who make repeated atttempts to break out. It is very expensive, and wouldn't work for the general prison population... In general though, it's usually a good idea to occupy the prisoners with TV, radio, books, etc. A distracted population is a less-violent population. It costs far more in per capita terms to supply the security an isolated prisoner needs than it does to provide the distraction. It's worth it. And some of them actually do rehab...
