Save "Tookie"?

[Swift]

Jail is NOT comfortable, trust me. Plus, many inmates commit suicide because it's just so uncomfortable.

Besides that, what if he's innocent? People are only found "guilty" or "not guilty" which doesn't exactly determine whether or not you actually did it. Not guilty is not the same as innocent.

Aside from your precious tax dollars, why should someone die for a sin? Do two wrongs make a right? I wouldn't be calling him the hypocrite.

Jail is more comfortable then starving to death on the streets.

Two wrongs don't make a right. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't ever do anything.

 

[Plague.Ghost]

Jail is more comfortable then starving to death on the streets.

Two wrongs don't make a right. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't ever do anything.

Well instead of killing them, why not try rehab for a few years, then a few psyche evaluations, and if it's all succesfull, let them out?

Obviously, I mean in a realistic timespan, as well. Killing people for a crime sets no example at all, only vengeance. Which is quite sacrilegious, I must say.

 

[Gabkicks]

anyone seen the "hood 2 hood" dvd? Alot of our youth need help.. and suposedly executing someone costs more money than even a life sentence. so just on that i say let him live...

who are we to decide who lives and dies?

 

[Swift]

anyone seen the "hood 2 hood" dvd? Alot of our youth need help.. and suposedly executing someone costs more money than even a life sentence. so just on that i say let him live...

who are we to decide who lives and dies?

The person that murdered someone else. Look, as far as I'm concerned, when you take away someone else's rights, you LOOSE those same rights. So, everyone has the right to life until they murder someone. Now, that obviously doesn't include self defense or things like that. But this guy killed people on purpose, his life is forefit.

 

[James2097]

A pitch black, soundproofed, isolated padded cell with NO human contact - living on bread and water (or bare minimal survival food) is WORSE than death IMO. You wouldn't feel too hot thinking you HAVE to live a completely NON-life until you die... you would have a LOT of time to reflect on what you did... why do so many people kill themselves in jail? Its really not a fun environment. The most hard punishment I see is making someone feel really guilty and feel remorse BUT NOT LET THEM KILL THEMSELVES! Its also cheaper apparently than going through all the legal mumbo jumbo to get someone organised to be killed. Besides its not really a matter of resources, its a matter of morality.

This above sentence is just as bad (or worse) than death. Plus they get to go free still if new evidence is uncovered.

The immorality and finality of a death sentence is inexcusable in a modern world IMO. There is no argument to really back it up. An eye for an eye is a bit ****ing backwards eh? A bit Roman?

 

[Plague.Ghost]

A pitch black, soundproofed, isolated padded cell with NO human contact - living on bread and water (or bare minimal survival food) is WORSE than death IMO. You wouldn't feel too hot thinking you HAVE to live a completely NON-life until you die... you would have a LOT of time to reflect on what you did... why do so many people kill themselves in jail? Its really not a fun environment. The most hard punishment I see is making someone feel really guilty and feel remorse BUT NOT LET THEM KILL THEMSELVES! Its also cheaper apparently than going through all the legal mumbo jumbo to get someone organised to be killed. Besides its not really a matter of resources, its a matter of morality.

This above sentence is just as bad (or worse) than death. Plus they get to go free still if new evidence is uncovered.

The immorality and finality of a death sentence is inexcusable in a modern world IMO. There is no argument to really back it up. An eye for an eye is a bit ****ing backwards eh? A bit Roman?

Only problem is, the amount of time they'd spent in that cell would have completely mentally destroyed the person. They wouldn't know how to interact with other people. And since noone has ever done this sort of thing and analyzed the results of extremely longterm isolation, noone would know the outcome.

It stuns me so much to see people, who claim to be lovers or worshippers of God, suddenly turn around and say that for someone's sin, they must die for it. It's absolutely insane, IMO, and they should be ashamed of themselves. It's completely counterproductive to society, and it's creating an entire nation of violence. It feeds off of everything, and it completely destroys a society. Nothing can function with this sort of violence.

America is a generally, somewhat conservative country, and its' principles being founded upon Christianity, it should be a relatively loving country. But there's just so much tearing it apart, and I don't think that punishing instead of helping is the right way to go. The death penatly is totally counterproductive in almost all forms. Obviously, since someone killed, they must have a consequence, and with that comes a form of discipline. But that's what one has to be careful of: discipline. Not punishment, but discipline. Punishment is simply hurting people, and noone learns from that. Discipline makes an attempt to change the person's thinking, and help them realize the error of their ways, and then they can serve their duty to society and try to pay back as much as they have taken, and it works.

It's just totally discouraging to see so many people completely revoke a mans' only true right: life. It makes you no better than he, and it's sickening.

 

[Gabkicks]

The person that murdered someone else. Look, as far as I'm concerned, when you take away someone else's rights, you LOOSE those same rights. So, everyone has the right to life until they murder someone. Now, that obviously doesn't include self defense or things like that. But this guy killed people on purpose, his life is forefit.

are u sure without a reasonable doubt he killed those people? WHy does he have to die? Him dying wont do anything. it wont give anyone closure or save anyone any money.

 

[Plague.Ghost]

If I lost a loved one to a murderer, would I want him dead?

If you lost a loved one to a murderer, would you want him dead?

I wouldn't. I wouldn't have any security in knowing that he's paying for his sin. I wouldn't have any security in knowing that, some day, I could ask "Why?" I wouldn't have security in knowing that some day, he may be truly sorry for what he did, and that it's going to be extremely difficult for him to get his life back on track.

I think killing someone is the easy way out, and there's no honour in killing someone just because they did to.

I'll move on to the mentally disturbed next time.

 

[James2097]

Only problem is, the amount of time they'd spent in that cell would have completely mentally destroyed the person. They wouldn't know how to interact with other people. And since noone has ever done this sort of thing and analyzed the results of extremely longterm isolation, noone would know the outcome.

Yeah, I'm aware of this possibility. I assume some people would get destroyed mentally and go totally insane, some may be able to handle it. I was just trying to show a situation that would be worse than death whilst preserving the possibility of giving that person's life back if need be. Surely its still better than killing the person?

I'm assuming the kind of person that would kill someone brutally and without reason... the kind of person that would get the death penalty in the US, wouldn't be super mentally together to start with...

Of course you can alter the conditions you keep a prisoner in if need be (to maintain a grip on sanity), I was just proving you CAN make it unpleasant enough so that hardcore pro-death people would be satisfied with the level of punishment... hopefully proving the death penalty doesn't NEED to exist representing the worst sentence a person can recieve...

It stuns me so much to see people, who claim to be lovers or worshippers of God, suddenly turn around and say that for someone's sin, they must die for it.

Thats what I was thinking.
Don't worry, religion and hypocrisy are well worn bedfellows.

 

[gt_masta]

I wouldn't. I wouldn't have any security in knowing that he's paying for his sin. I wouldn't have any security in knowing that, some day, I could ask "Why?" I wouldn't have security in knowing that some day, he may be truly sorry for what he did, and that it's going to be extremely difficult for him to get his life back on track.

But would you be sure he wouldn't kill someone else and that other family would suffer? Yes.

I wouldn't feel more safe 25 years after, when he gets out of jail. Maybe he could do it again, to your family or you. He killed, he is still able to kill.

I'm not saying he would do it, but he could.

 

[Plague.Ghost]

But would you be sure he wouldn't kill someone else and that other family would suffer? Yes.

I wouldn't feel more safe 25 years after, when he gets out of jail. Maybe he could do it again, to your family or you. He killed, he is still able to kill.

I'm not saying he would do it, but he could.

A particular woman named Karla Homolka just got out of jail. She tortured and killed 2 (I think just 2) girls with a partner named Paul Bernardo.

They're media moguls here and everyone wants her behind bars still. But when a killer is released into society, there's so much spotlight on them that they have no freedom. Everywhere they go, someone is reporting on them, someone is following them taking pictures and publishing articles about what they do. They have no privacy.

Noone can ever be sure of anything. Everyone has the potential to harm anyone, and it's freedom and trust that we put into each other that you don't.
For some of these people, getting out of jail is worse than being in it.

And it should also be noted that when a killer gets out of jail, they're examined by a highly trained and experienced panel of judges to determine whether or not they're a threat to society, and if the person is mentally unstable, many precautions are taken to ensure the safety of free citizens.

You speak as though the free citizens are the only ones at risk, but you're forgetting that the penitentiaries are also filled with hundreds, sometimes thousands of other inmates who are just as at-risk of being killed by that murderer as someone on the outside (once the murderer gets released). Whereas sex-offenders are more likely to repeat an offense, this is because they have uncontrollable impulses and a mentally unstable drive towards that sort of crime. Most killings are from impulse reactions, whether it be out of fear, hate, or profit.

Of course, there's also the occult killings, which are an extremely rare exception and barely ever happen, save for the Manson killings (which were in essence mentally ill ones anyway), but those people don't get released anyway.

My point is, is that law officials take every precaution they can to ensure the safety of law abiding citizens— if they thought the person was a threat they wouldn't be let free. Almost every person who's killed out of reactionary impulse (not compulsion) learns from their mistake. It's always in the back of their mind, that if they don't be carefull about what they do, then they'll go back and never be let out again.

I liken it to homophobia. Many, many people are extremely afraid of gays comming on to them (not only men, but some women too), and it's completely irrational. You're not in harms way, and statistics have proven that heterosexual people are many times more likely to be responsible for some form of abuse, yet many people are afraid of leaving their children or being alone with gays. The same is true for one-time murderers and those convicted of man-slaughter. It sounds like a huge difference, but really, the public mentallity about the two are basically the same.

 

[Gil]

I didn't expect you to say anything different.




Anyone who is for the death penalty is a nazi. I don't even care about whether this guy did it or not, if he did it he should be in jail his entire life, he isn't a threat to society now so there is no reason to eliminate him. If he didn't do it he should've been released decades ago. The crips didn't start as a criminal gang, at the time they got really violent this guy was out of the picture for a long time already.


I don't get why they would sentence someone to death to begin with, when they still let them rot in jail for another 25 years? Why don't they execute a person right away? Makes no sense to me.

I grew up in Cali. Not far from where the Crips were founded. One of my friends in elementary school had a brother that was a Crip. That would have been about 1973 or 74.
As I recall, as a third-grader I knew that it was a bad idea to mess with any Crips or Piru's (the Crips rivals at that time).
As far as the death penalty: I have to say that it comes down to the individual case. Killing criminals may not be the answer, but it is provent to prevent recidivism.
It also give the families of the victims a sense of closure.

 

[Gabkicks]

I've heard the mother of a murdered child say that exicuting the person who killed her son wouldnt give her closure. she actually pleaded and petitioned and got her off death row. i dont remember what exactly happened since this was 3 years ago.. but i talked to the actual relative of the victim.

 

[James2097]

Closure would be knowing WHY the person committed the murder, and having them apologise and feel uber bad about it. Thats about as closed as you can get IMO. Nothing is explained if they just get killed too.

Ultimately relatives of murdered people never truly feel like they have closure (I hate the word), they're always gonna feel real bad about the murder/er forever, whether they are dead of not. Its simply such a shocking and vile thing to do.

Revenge isn't closure IMO. It would make many people feel worse morally.

 

[Joey D]

I have never heard of someone on death row apolgizing for killing someone, most of the time they just don't care or feel and thing.

 

[Gil]

Well friends, even if it doesn't give closure, though Laci Petersen's mom is glad that Scott is on Death Row, I repeat, it does cut down on recidivism.
And knowing that your particular crime is punishable by death may cut down on that sort of crime.

I surmise that in Saudi Arabia, where stealing is punishable by amputation, most people don't have to worry about their stuff getting taken.

 

[Plague.Ghost]

I surmise that in Saudi Arabia, where stealing is punishable by amputation, most people don't have to worry about their stuff getting taken.

Or they do, all the time. Why else would the punishment be so harsh?

 

[James2097]

I'm sure Saudi Arabia is the best example of how a country should be run...

 

[VIPFREAK]

What's sad is that you make post like these without any other evidence why. I explained how my thinking came about, care to explain yours? You suck at debate I must say.

I have to be like Eliseracer and say I'd rather not get into the argument but... I'm sorry Blazin... $20,000 is not enough nor any amount for what and how much my grandparents and father went though in the "internment" camps during World War II.

 

[Joey D]

I have to be like Eliseracer and say I'd rather not get into the argument but... I'm sorry Blazin... $20,000 is not enough nor any amount for what and how much my grandparents and father went though in the "internment" camps during World War II.

But look at it this way...it's better then the government doing nothing at all right? You can't go back in time.

 

[Gil]

I'm sure Saudi Arabia is the best example of how a country should be run...

I never said that. I was using one crime and punishment as an example.

I have no firm stand on the death penalty. As i said, it should depend on the nature of the crime.
I know that "Tookie" may have learned his "lesson". I've seen evidence of criminals "turning over a new leaf" while working in the prison system.
I also know a man that died in prison, of cancer. He was in for murder, and if I had been in his circumstances, I may have committed the same crime.
However, I also hold no illusion that the majority of criminals that are released from prison, leave prison with plans to return to the same lifestyle that got them put in jail in the first place.

 

[VIPFREAK]

But look at it this way...it's better then the government doing nothing at all right? You can't go back in time.

I suppose but the government will "sugar coat" it like they did the rest of u.s. history so it makes them look good/innocent.

 

[Joey D]

I suppose but the government will "sugar coat" it like they did the rest of u.s. history so it makes them look good/innocent.

I don't know, in everyone of my history classes I've been taught about it. It's history, we might not be proud of it but if you don't teach it, it will only happen again.

 

[Swift]

Thats what I was thinking.
Don't worry, religion and hypocrisy are well worn bedfellows.

The funny part about statements like this one is that the person did the crime KNOWING to potential punishment. It's like it's a five year old doing something stupid. This was a grown man killing people because he wanted to.

Those of you that say "I wouldn't want a murderer of someone I loved to be put to death" I SERIOUSLY doubt you've had to go through that situation. I had a good friend of mine killed by some moronic woman that didn't want to wait at a red light. Yeah, if I had a choice they would at LEAST be in prison for 25 years.

This man murdered people knowing if he got caught he'd be put to death.

I do realise that Jesus is all about forgiveness. And that's a mandatory part of the christian faith. But it doesn't mean that you don't have to pay for your crimes.

 

[Plague.Ghost]

Swift, would you say there's such thing as an honourable crime, or at the very least, a cowardly one? Say, if someone shot/punched/stabbed one in the face or the back, would one be looked upon with more or less cowardice?

 

[Swift]

Swift, would you say there's such thing as an honourable crime, or at the very least, a cowardly one? Say, if someone shot/punched/stabbed one in the face or the back, would one be looked upon with more or less cowardice?

I'm not sure what that has to do with what we're talking about.

 

[James2097]

Those of you that say "I wouldn't want a murderer of someone I loved to be put to death" I SERIOUSLY doubt you've had to go through that situation. I had a good friend of mine killed by some moronic woman that didn't want to wait at a red light. Yeah, if I had a choice they would at LEAST be in prison for 25 years.

Isn't it about taking constructive steps to a more humane society rather than condoning all of those emotive feelings of revenge (regardless of how just you think they are)? Understandably nearly any victim's family WOULD want the murderer dead (and I probably would if I were in that situation - but I would be being emotive and vengeful for no real help) but I don't think it would really help the family in the long run - it can't bring little Johnny back from the dead... and it doesn't help explain how or why it happened...

I just think the death penalty is unneccessary. The whole irreversible nature of the sentence is totally unjust. If the courts were totally infallible I would be less worried, but I still think murder is a callous act no matter how you dress it up. Murder itself is understood to be one of the very worst crimes against humanity and then the state turns around and kills the murderer? Yes, arguably 'just' if the court is completely bulletproof (certainly not the case) and the murderer totally and completely unremorseful, but I'd like to think governments could position themselves morally above the criminals - that there are certain acts (murder) that ANY PERSON simply should not partake in, especially those that set the example for society to follow. We should be above the eye-for-an-eye mentality.

My take is that with murder, its a totally reprehensible act and should not be condoned under any circumstance apart from super extreme cases of evil madmen Hitler/Osama - types that would never feel guilty (and would actually feel GOOD no matter what) about what they've done. I think murder can be justified under those circumstances.

I do realise that Jesus is all about forgiveness. And that's a mandatory part of the christian faith. But it doesn't mean that you don't have to pay for your crimes.

No one is saying (well I'm certainly not) that murderers should go unpunished (or get off easily and go back to erm... murdering)! My isolation cell idea is perhaps even more hardcore than actually killing them... while letting them free if new evidence is found. I'm all for hard punishment for terrible crimes like murder and rape... I just think the irreversible nature of death is too finite, I don't like the bad example it sets for society (the concept that murder can be "just"), it costs MORE to kill someone than to put them in the clink for their entire lives... (trivial but valid - its not about money), the sentence doesn't stop people from killing anyone as murder is usually a super emotive crime, and the crazies that would do it in cold blood (I'm assuming most of those) are TOO CRAZY to think (or care) about the penalty...

For instance, every other westernised country (comparable culturally to the US) has far less murders and crime in general than the US. If capital punishment is putting people off from murdering, then I don't know what you guys are doing so wrong... Its pretty safe to say it ISN'T working (just to make the rhetorical question clear)... No other westernised country has the death penalty anymore, we've all decided its sick and we ARE better off for it. I am perfectly safe walking down the street anywhere in Aus, I wouldn't even think about someone robbing or hurting me. Its just a way less violent culture. I just hate the generally archaic, barbaric and inhumane nature of the sentence. Do we line up the murderers and let the public throw stones at them until they're dead? No, because that would be barbaric and everyone would think its horrible. Killing them by any other means is pretty much the SAME, the public (via the jury) is still killing that person. We just don't see it, so its easy to say "Hey just give the bastard the chair!"

I just think murder is bad full stop. There are other, better, and more appropriate (most importantly 'just') ways to enact punishment on criminals.

 

[Swift]

James, you said some good stuff. But I guarantee that if the isolation thing that you proposed was started, liberals all over the place would say that's cruel and unusual punishment. Scary thought huh? They take someone's life and we're worried that they get a cruel punishment.

 

[Plague.Ghost]

James, you said some good stuff. But I guarantee that if the isolation thing that you proposed was started, liberals all over the place would say that's cruel and unusual punishment. Scary thought huh? They take someone's life and we're worried that they get a cruel punishment.

That's not a guarantee at all. James and I are pretty liberal, and under certain circumstances, I think a good lashing would do someone well.


I put it that way for a lack of a better term. . .

I'm not sure what that has to do with what we're talking about.

Just humour me for a minute.

 

[James2097]

Thats right Plague.Ghost, I am a total screaming liberal wacko. 👍

Welfare rights for gay whales!! Welfare rights for gay whales!! Welfare rights for gay whales!!
Welfare rights for gay whales!! Welfare rights for gay whales!! Welfare rights for gay whales!!
Welfare rights for gay whales!! Welfare rights for gay whales!! Welfare rights for gay whales!!