it used to be 15 and under was exempt now 17 and under. interesting.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7051296/

no big deal...I'm sure some conservatives are all pissed off cause they cant send a teeny bopper to be executed but I'm not loosing and sweat over it

no big deal...I'm sure some conservatives are all pissed off cause they cant send a teeny bopper to be executed but I'm not loosing and sweat over it

...I'm sure the families of the victims of the aforementioned teeny boppers are pissed too.

Oh god not this again.

I think if you commit a crime heinous enough to warrant the death penalty, age should not play much of a role in whether or not you "deserve" it. Crimes worthy of the death penalty are typically thing people more or less instinctively know are wrong (except in special cases including mental issues and other similar problems) and children are typically incapable of carrying out such acts, so I'm not really sure why the age restriction (especially being as high as it is) is necessary. When was the last time you saw a 6 year old go on a murderous rampage?

Oh god not this again.

alittle different though because the other thread dealt with the moral implications of the death penalty and whether it had any validity in society this new decision deals with the age of the perpetrator. if it's too redundant my apologies.

no no, its and interesting topic, just one of those topics people will never see eye to eye about. For instance I cannot see how killing someone would make you feel any better about your loss.

no no, its and interesting topic, just one of those topics people will never see eye to eye about. For instance I cannot see how killing someone would make you feel any better about your loss.

well most topics people don't see eye to eye on especially in the lounge. we can't even come to a consensus about that wedding gown in the wedding gown thread. ;)

This does not effect a large number of cases. This story is not that big a deal.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=27&did=882

The death penalty doesn't work, never has and never will. It's more expensive to put someone on deathrow then it is to send them to prison for the rest of their life, it's also become rather clear that it is in no way a deterent. So I guess it's a good thing that less people will be put to death, even if it's a very small amount fewer.

If anything, they should expand the use of sentancing the death penalty and make the execution of the sentances substantially quicker.

If anything, they should expand the use of sentancing the death penalty and make the execution of the sentances substantially quicker. The people on death row that have been exonerated might not agree.



http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412&scid=6#inn-yr-rc
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110

Corporal punishment is cheap too. :D

So a few extra people die to increase the quality of life for the rest of society.

MOST of the people on death row deserved to be there. They shouldn't be allowed to live for 30+ years on death row, using our resources and clogging up our legal system with thier appeals.


If we spent less money on our penal system WHILE reducing the number of useless members of society then maybe we can spend more money on education and reduce the number of children that later become part of the problem.

It's not about deterring, or revenge. Just get rid of the element, and you can use resources elsewhere. Why treat a cancer via a means that is destructive to the whole if that cancer can be removed, and attention can be placed elsewhere.

The people on death row that have been exonerated might not agree.



http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412&scid=6#inn-yr-rc
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110

The appeals are only because they are on death row. If we didn't plan on executing them, there would be way fewer appeals. I don't think it is fair for you to sacrifice the life of innocent people either

Innocent people die all the time. However, MORE people need to die. Every year more people live longer. The death rates in the US are decreasing as the population is increasing. Eventually this will become a severe problem.

"The declines in death rates per 100,000 people among whites were 2.1 percent for men and 1.2 percent for women; among blacks were 2.5 percent for men and 2.4 percent for women; and among Hispanics were 4.2 percent for men and 1.8 percent for women. "

http://newsfromrussia.com/science/2005/03/01/58475.html

BTW, prisoners file law suits from prison all the time. Not just when they are on death row.

The appeals are only because they are on death row. If we didn't plan on executing them, there would be way fewer appeals. I don't think it is fair for you to sacrifice the life of innocent people either

The death penalty doesn't work, never has and never will.


I suppose you have data to back that up eh? From a reliable, independant source?

;)



[QUOTE] It's more expensive to put someone on deathrow then it is to send them to prison for the rest of their life, it's also become rather clear that it is in no way a deterent. So I guess it's a good thing that less people will be put to death, even if it's a very small amount fewer.

What's more important? Justice or Finances?

Innocent people die all the time. However, MORE people need to die. Every year more people live longer. The death rates in the US are decreasing as the population is increasing. Eventually this will become a severe problem.

"The declines in death rates per 100,000 people among whites were 2.1 percent for men and 1.2 percent for women; among blacks were 2.5 percent for men and 2.4 percent for women; and among Hispanics were 4.2 percent for men and 1.8 percent for women. "

http://newsfromrussia.com/science/2005/03/01/58475.html

BTW, prisoners file law suits from prison all the time. Not just when they are on death row.

yep by 2050 the world population will nearly double from 5 billion to 9 billion people mostly in developing countries.

yep by 2050 the world population will nearly double from 5 billion to 9 billion people mostly in developing countries.
Which is why we need to build a moonbase. :p

Round up all the death row inmates and stick them in a russian rocket bound for the moon. They can be the new colonists =D

Which is why we need to build a moonbase. :p

However, MORE people need to die. Every year more people live longer. The death rates in the US are decreasing as the population is increasing. Eventually this will become a severe problem.


Must be a fan of this film

http://www.sendersnj.com/rx8/mike/rx8club/soylent-green.jpg

At least they wouldn't be dead, and they'd be forging a new path for the human race and alleviating overpopulation at the same time. :D

As an alternative method, we could buiild 2 rockets. All inmates get a choice between the two. One goes to the moon, the other goes to the sun. They have to get on 1 rocket ship today. :D

Must be a fan of this film

http://208.224.136.14/mike/rx8club/soylent-green.jpg
It's delicious!

_I_ didn't say anything about constructing a moon base? :D

At least they wouldn't be dead, and they'd be forging a new path for the human race and alleviating overpopulation at the same time. :D

As an alternative method, we could buiild 2 rockets. All inmates get a choice between the two. One goes to the moon, the other goes to the sun. They have to get on 1 rocket ship today. :D

I like that film and Logan's run. I don't think we need to be THAT drastic.. yet

Must be a fan of this film

http://208.224.136.14/mike/rx8club/soylent-green.jpg

I like that film and Logan's run. I don't think we need to be THAT drastic.. yet
Maybe with a little bit of sauce, we could be. :D

BTw, the original Novel that Soylent green is based on was written by Harry Harrison. He also wrote the West of Eden trilogy which was one of the first Series of novels i'd ever read. So, I'm a big fan of his although, i believe that is not his real name.

What's more important? Justice or Finances?

I don't see how putting someone to death is and more justice than putting someone in prison for the rest of their life, so in the end the cheaper way is the better way if you ask me. The eye for an eye nonsense is archaic.

As for the death penalty not working... just look at the murder rates, they aren't exactly declining. There are also multiple studies showing that is does not work, but it not working is simply my opinion. There is really no way to determine for sure if it works or if it doesn't, but personally I'd rather be put to death than spend the rest of my life in prison.

See? Death is more humane. BTW, the death sentance is only more expensive because of the way it is currently handled in this country.. it COULD be much more efficient.

There is really no way to determine for sure if it works or if it doesn't, but personally I'd rather be put to death than spend the rest of my life in prison.

I wonder if you were to ask murderers if the murder they were convicted of was their first crime you would find for most of them it wasn’t. Point being if they were given tough sentences for their earlier crimes maybe they would not have progressed to murder??

I wonder if you were to ask murderers if the murder they were convicted of was their first crime you would find for most of them it wasn’t. Point being if they were given tough sentences for their earlier crimes maybe they would not have progressed to murder??

good question and one that will probably be never answered. if by tough you mean longer sentences then they have less chance of murdering at least outside of prison anyway but once they get back on the street if they're gonna do it they're gonna do it regardless of how much longer they were kept behind bars especially sociopaths or psychopaths.

typically, prisons breed more crime than prisoners they rehabilitate.

I wonder if you were to ask murderers if the murder they were convicted of was their first crime you would find for most of them it wasn’t. Point being if they were given tough sentences for their earlier crimes maybe they would not have progressed to murder??

kill 'em all

kill 'em all I liked that one also :D

http://www.sendersnj.com/rx8/mike/rx8club/killall.jpg

So a few extra people die to increase the quality of life for the rest of society.

MOST of the people on death row deserved to be there. They shouldn't be allowed to live for 30+ years on death row, using our resources and clogging up our legal system with thier appeals.


If we spent less money on our penal system WHILE reducing the number of useless members of society then maybe we can spend more money on education and reduce the number of children that later become part of the problem.

It's not about deterring, or revenge. Just get rid of the element, and you can use resources elsewhere. Why treat a cancer via a means that is destructive to the whole if that cancer can be removed, and attention can be placed elsewhere.
Thanks, Adolph. Didn't know you were on this forum. Oh, that's right, you were the one blaming women when their husbands abandoned their families. Well, at least you're consistent.

So a few extra people die to increase the quality of life for the rest of society.

I doubt that you'd be so enthusiastic if, by some misfortune of justice, YOU were one of the "few extra people." :rolleyes:

The death penalty doesn't work, never has and never will. Isuppose you have data to back that up eh? From a reliable, independant source?Sorry, bud. An argument in favor of the death penalty on the grounds of deterrence simply doesn't work. States with the death penalty have higher murder rates than those that don't. States that have enacted the death penalty have had no greater decline in capital crimes than states without the death penalty. This isn't really a debatable point and the data are from the a wide variety of sources including the uniform crime statistics collected by the FBI.

If you REALLY doubt such evidence, I suggest you do a quick google search. Alternatively, you could present data from any source whatsoever that supports the deterrence argument.

You might be on firmer ground to argue a justification for the death penalty on the grounds of justice; that's a separate issue. But on grounds of deterrence, the death penalty is simply not effective.



It's more expensive to put someone on deathrow then it is to send them to prison for the rest of their life, it's also become rather clear that it is in no way a deterent. So I guess it's a good thing that less people will be put to death, even if it's a very small amount fewer. What's more important? Justice or Finances?As noted, this may be a stronger argument for your viewpoint. However, if you're going to make the argument on the basis of justice, you have to deal with the fact that application of the death penalty is more or less a case of Russian Roulette. Virtually identical cases result in imprisonment in one case and the death penalty in another. Minorities and the poor are far more likely to be sentenced to death than the white and the wealthy. Minorities who commit capital crimes against whites are far more likely to be sentenced to death than those who commit virtually the same crime against another member of a minority group. And whites convicted of capital crimes against a member of a minority are the least likely of all to be sentenced to death.

Ironically, the SC decision today only adds to the arbitrary nature of the death penalty by declaring that identical crimes committed by a 17 year old and an 18 year old cannot be treated identically.

Finally, the justice argument must deal with the fact that the death penalty is imposed on innocent people in a significant number of cases. As recently as two years ago, 1/3 of those on death row in Illinois were released because DNA evidence cleared them. If you're going to hang your argument on justice you really must deal with such injustice and explain how executing an innocent person does not violate the value you're basing your argument on.

Now you may argue that it's impossible to eliminate such arbitrariness and assure that innocent people are not convicted. But I suspect you'd agree that if the penalty is death, the state has an even greater obligation than in other criminal cases to do so. In other words, it's inherently more unjust to sentence someone to death because of their race than to imprison them and more unjust to kill an innocent person than to imprison them.

So, if you can figure out a way to eliminate the arbitrary nature of the death penalty and assure that innocent people are not executed, you may be able to use the justice argument, even if the deterrence argument doesn't work. Good luck, however. All efforts to do so up to now have failed.

Just to add some more on the deterrence issue. Based on murder rate per 100,000 states without the death penalty has a lower rate. That does not factor in States that have the death penalty but have never used it since 1976 like New Jersey and New York; they would only help prove the point that the death penalty does not deter murder. The only argument for it is the “justice” one, but since money and social status play a major role in how justice is administered you can’t really bring that up.



http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=168

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=169#MRord

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167

no big deal...I'm sure some conservatives are all pissed off cause they cant send a teeny bopper to be executed but I'm not loosing and sweat over it


Columbine killers... teenyboppers... whatever...

One was 17 and one was 18. I see no reason why they should treated differently.

no no, its and interesting topic, just one of those topics people will never see eye to eye about. For instance I cannot see how killing someone would make you feel any better about your loss.
He!! I rather the little pecker sit in prison the rest of his life. Why be a coward and take a little needle in the butt and fall asleep. Tax dollars are going to that anyway. Let him sit for 45 years

Sorry, bud. An argument in favor of the death penalty on the grounds of deterrence simply doesn't work. States with the death penalty have higher murder rates than those that don't.

Yeah, but it's not that cut and dry. I could just as easily say that because we're too cowardly to impose the death penalty more frequently, we've watered down its deterrent effect. In that case, it's not the fault of the penal system but of the people who seek not to impose it. If hypothetically we executed everyone who was guilty of a homicide crime, I believe homicide rates would drop. Not that I condone that strict an application of capital punishment.

Yeah, but it's not that cut and dry. I could just as easily say that because we're too cowardly to impose the death penalty more frequently, we've watered down its deterrent effect. In that case, it's not the fault of the penal system but of the people who seek not to impose it. If hypothetically we executed everyone who was guilty of a homicide crime, I believe homicide rates would drop. Not that I condone that strict an application of capital punishment.

In ancient times thiefs were oftenhung publicly, usually shortly after being caught for the crime. It was quite the event and it was also frequented by pickpockets because of all the people gathered around...

Yeah, but it's not that cut and dry. I could just as easily say that because we're too cowardly to impose the death penalty more frequently, we've watered down its deterrent effect. In that case, it's not the fault of the penal system but of the people who seek not to impose it. If hypothetically we executed everyone who was guilty of a homicide crime, I believe homicide rates would drop. Not that I condone that strict an application of capital punishment.Why not just execute everyone who commits any crime? That might lower the crime rate, and then you won't have people arguing about why an involuntary homicide is a capital crime and a rape isn't. :rolleyes:

And, yes, it is that cut and dried, as others have noted on this and other, similar threads. There is absolutely no evidence that the use of the death penalty aggressively (do I hear "Texas?") or at all has any effect on the rate of commission of capital crimes. The death penalty is a great way for the Ashcrofts of this world to rally their constituency (including, ironically, fundamentalist Christians and so-called right-to-lifers in disproportionate numbers), but it does nothing other than running up public expenses and making people who confuse "revenge" with "justice" feel good. No, check that, it also shows the rest of the world what a bloodthirsty country we are, unfortunately.

If i were to be so unlucky, then so be it. I can die easily tommorrow, stepping outside my apartmet. Atleast I wouldn't need to wait 30 years. I've nearly died a couple times. It's not that big a deal.

I doubt that you'd be so enthusiastic if, by some misfortune of justice, YOU were one of the "few extra people." :rolleyes:

_I_ didn't blame women when husbands abandon thier family, you put those words into my mouth. HOWEVER, anytime something like that happens there is blame to be shared by both parties. Non-action is just as harmful or beneficial as action.

Thanks, Adolph. Didn't know you were on this forum. Oh, that's right, you were the one blaming women when their husbands abandoned their families. Well, at least you're consistent.

_I_ didn't blame women when husbands abandon thier family, you put those words into my mouth. HOWEVER, anytime something like that happens there is blame to be shared by both parties. Non-action is just as harmful or beneficial as action.
Well, how about putting your own words in your mouth....


"That still doesn't change the fact that her actions led to her being abandoned with 4 children."

Interesting statistic about the 11 local death row "teenyboppers" spared from execution by this unfortunate ruling....they were all at least 17 1/2 years old when they committed capital murder. One of them, in fact, was 6 days from his 18th birthday. Not exactly what I would consider pediatric.

I think it should be a state's issue to decide, and I hope that the ruling is somehow overturned. In Texas, when you gang rape two ACTUAL teenyboppers (http://www.murdervictims.com/Voices/jeneliz.html) (14 and 16 year old girls) before strangling them and ending their innocent lives by stomping on their faces and necks, you forfeit your right to life. And being 17 1/2 years old should not give you immunity from the law. My bet is that one way or another, their true sentences will be carried out in prison anyway.

Lee Boyd Malvo, the Washington "sniper" terrorist, will also be spared the death penalty. Too bad, yet another Clinton legacy.

Interesting statistic about the 11 local death row "teenyboppers" spared from execution by this unfortunate ruling....they were all at least 17 1/2 years old when they committed capital murder. One of them, in fact, was 6 days from his 18th birthday. Not exactly what I would consider pediatric.

I think it should be a state's issue to decide, and I hope that the ruling is somehow overturned. In Texas, when you gang rape two ACTUAL teenyboppers (http://www.murdervictims.com/Voices/jeneliz.html) (14 and 16 year old girls) before strangling them and ending their innocent lives by stomping on their faces and necks, you forfeit your right to life. And being 17 1/2 years old should not give you immunity from the law. My bet is that one way or another, their true sentences will be carried out in prison anyway.

Lee Boyd Malvo, the Washington "sniper" terrorist, will also be spared the death penalty. Too bad, yet another Clinton legacy.One of the amazing things about you bloodthirsty types is the way you act as if not executing a prisoner is the same as letting them go. These people will spend the rest of their lives in a maximum security prison, hardly a pleasant thing. I know that you're disappointed that the amount of killing by the state will drop a tiny bit, but you still will have lots of state-sponsored killings to cheer about.

In Texas, life in prison = 40 years. Not forever, when you are 17 to start with.

They won't last that long.

In Texas, life in prison = 40 years. Not forever, when you are 17 to start with.I imagine that all commuted death sentences will become life without chance of parole; really life.

They won't last that long.It's amusing the way you and your ilk decry the slight dropoff in state-sponsored killings this ruling will mean, but now you acknowledge just how brutal prison really is. What is it about people being killed that brings your types so much gratification, while a lifetime of hell just doesn't pack the same kind of pleasure for you?

We don't have the option of life without parole in Texas, although hopefully they will give each of the killers of the two girls consecutive 40 year sentences to make it more of a true life sentence.

That option is not available unfortunately, for the convicted cop-killer Michael Lopez, who was 17 years and 5 months when he killed officer Michael Eakin.

In a strident show of pique, a teen sentenced to death for murdering a Harris County lawman lashed out at his attorneys Tuesday and demanded another trial. Lopez

"They didn't want me to testify," Michael Anthony Lopez Jr. said as he was being sentenced. "They just ignored me and did what they wanted to do . . . They told me to shut up. They didn't want to work with me. They didn't want to help me."

With his angry and tearful family members spilling out of the courtroom and into the hallway, Lopez , 18, rambled on almost incoherently for several minutes before state District Judge Ted Poe cut him off.

"It's your responsibility, and I don't think it's dawned on you yet that you are totally responsible for your conduct," said Poe, who told Lopez that he was nothing more than a "street terrorist . . . hellbent on destroying America, piece by piece and neighborhood by neighborhood."

The decision of the jury of six men and six women was announced just before 6 p.m., and Poe then gave Lopez a chance to address the court. Lopez contended he had not gotten a fair trial, repeatedly saying that the shooting of Harris County Precinct 1 Deputy Constable Micheal Eakin was an accident.

"Only me and only God and only Jesus know what happened," Lopez said. "I didn't mean to kill him. I didn't shoot to kill."

The panel deliberated about six hours before deciding that Lopez , a gang member with an extensive violent past, was a future threat to society and that there were no mitigating circumstances that called for life in prison - the two issues jurors must address before a judge can sentence someone to death in Texas.

The same jury convicted Lopez last week for the Sept. 29 capital murder of Eakin , 25.

Lopez and five others were in a car Eakin stopped for speeding on the Hardy Toll Road. After being ordered out of the vehicle, Lopez , who was high on paint thinner, fled. He said later he was afraid of going to jail for violating his probation.

Eakin caught him and the two fought. As Eakin was about to handcuff him, Lopez pulled a gun and fired over his shoulder, hitting Eakin in the head. As the officer lay on his back, Lopez shot him in the throat, then fled. He was caught the next day.

Defense attorneys Ricardo Rodriguez and Jerry Guerinot argued strenuously for a life sentence, which would have meant 40 years in prison before Lopez could have been paroled.

Prosecutors pointed out that Lopez started his criminal career at age 12 and had became progressively brazen and violent. "(Lopez ) is a capital murder that's been waiting to happen for a long time," said prosecutor Kelly Siegler.

The defense argued that Lopez deserved life because he came from a tough neighborhood, was raised by elderly grandparents who couldn't control him and all but ignored by parents who were constantly in and out of jail.

"He has no moral compass. Why? Why?" Guerinot said. "Because he's got a father who is an ex-convict and a mother who just didn't give a damn about him."

When the punishment was announced, Lopez 's family and friends sobbed and ran out of the courtroom. They caused a scene when confronted by lawmen and news cameras in the hall. They complained Lopez had not gotten a fair trial or a good defense.

Guerinot told reporters afterward that he and Rodriguez had fought for Lopez "every inch of the way."

"We did everything for this kid we could possibly do," Guerinot said. He added that ultimately it was Lopez 's decision not to testify and that he would have faced a rough time on the stand because of his conflicting versions of how Eakin died.

"I feel for him," Guerinot said. "He's done a terrible thing."

Echoing Poe and her earlier arguments, Siegler said Lopez still didn't get it, continuing to blame others and denying responsibility for his actions even while being sentenced to death.

Eakin 's family, friends and dozens of lawmen were composed as the decision was read. With Lopez 's kin yelling outside, Bill Green, Eakin 's adoptive father, addressed the court after the verdict.

"For Micheal, always remember that he lost his life protecting our community," Green said.

He thanked Poe and the jurors and added the last time he saw Eakin alive, he had kissed him on his forehead and told him that he loved him. He urged everyone in court to do the same with their children when they got home.

After cutting Lopez off, Poe reminded him that Eakin , too, had come from a hard background, but had decided to do something constructive with his life. Poe said Eakin had become a lawman to help "save America," while Lopez chose to become a predator.




http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory/3063120

We don't have the option of life without parole in Texas, although hopefully they will give each of the killers of the two girls consecutive 40 year sentences to make it more of a true life sentence.

That option is not available unfortunately, for the convicted cop-killer Michael Lopez, who was 17 years and 5 months when he killed officer Michael Eakin.Yet another odd thing about the Lone Star State's criminal justice system. Maybe if Texas spent a bit more of their legislators' time on proper sentencing rules, rather than just sweeping it all under the rug with capital punishment, that wouldn't be the case.

For some reason when doc types there never seems to be any aggresion in his text. I concour with his views on this matter.

I didn't say it was her fault in this statement. I said her actions led her to be there, and they did. Everyone's actions lead them to be in the situation they are in. She married/got with the guy, had a child (or all 4) with him.. If she had never gotten with him, he wouldn't be able to leave her. However, this is not an assignment of blame.

Well, how about putting your own words in your mouth....


"That still doesn't change the fact that her actions led to her being abandoned with 4 children."

My ex roomate is looking at life +30 years in prison in Louisiana. He didn't kill anyone, but he deserves the death sentance.

We don't have the option of life without parole in Texas, although hopefully they will give each of the killers of the two girls consecutive 40 year sentences to make it more of a true life sentence.

That option is not available unfortunately, for the convicted cop-killer Michael Lopez, who was 17 years and 5 months when he killed officer Michael Eakin.






http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory/3063120

Why not just execute everyone who commits any crime? That might lower the crime rate
But then I wont have a job :p

But then I wont have a job :p

sure you would. there just wouldn't be any repeat offenders. break that tazer in yet? :D

it's also become rather clear that it is in no way a deterent.

"It deters one person."

- Charlton Heston, debating Dennis Miller

In other words, a cold-blooded murderer put in prison for life can kill inmates with impunity (whatcha gonna do, give him another life sentence?). There are prisoners who would have potentially paid their debt and rejoined society, but were slain by heartless murderers.

I respect the position that we as a society should never kill - I really do - but can we really allow the example above to go on, all in the name of the rights of the killer?

"It deters one person."

- Charlton Heston, debating Dennis Miller

In other words, a cold-blooded murderer put in prison for life can kill inmates with impunity (whatcha gonna do, give him another life sentence?). There are prisoners who would have potentially paid their debt and rejoined society, but were slain by heartless murderers.

I respect the position that we as a society should never kill - I really do - but can we really allow the example above to go on, all in the name of the rights of the killer?
Excellent post.

As I have said, I worked in the Texas prison hospital, where all inmate were sent for care. The viciousness and ingenuity of the "lifers" was renowned, and we don't even have the possibility of "life without parole."

Life without parole inmates are extremely difficult if not impossible to manage humanely. You can only take away so much freedom without it becoming torture.

If an inmate is already on 23.5 hour lockdown, eating the "food cake," his only ounce of freedom being to shower alone, and he throws feces on a guard, or headbutts them, how do you punish him further?

I could give the liberals answers to that question, but they wouldn't like them any more than they would the death penalty.

Life without parole inmates are extremely difficult if not impossible to manage humanely. You can only take away so much freedom without it becoming torture.



You make a very good point here - I've heard proposed alternative penalties for murder (Bill O'Reilly has suggested 6x10 hard labor in the Alaska wilderness), but I believe that this, or anything equally inhospitable, would be quickly struck down as cruel and unusual. So we're back to the weight room and three squares a day for good behavior.

The death penalty always brings emotional responses to counter the logical reason for abolishing it. First of all, doesn't deter crime, in fact if it does anything, it does the opposite. Second, the way it is applied is flawed and always will be flawed. We are human, we make mistakes, which means at one point an innocent person gets executed. Third, it costs millions of dollars more than putting someone in maximum security solitary for the rest of their life.


As far as prison murders are concerned, I can't see how it is material to bring them up. Prison murders are normally gang related and most often due to guard negligence. The death penalty does nothing to deter prison murders.


But the fact is, it doesn't matter how of these things you bring up. People have an emotional tie to the death penalty, they don't want to see it go. They don't care how much it costs, how poorly it works, how many innocents are killed, or how fatally flawed is the notion of a death penalty, none of that will dissuade them. For them it is all about an emotional "justice." This eye for an eye idea that the punishment fits the crime.


I'm always surprised when someone attacks the weight room or prison athletics as somehow coddling prisoners. Look at the Texas prisoner powerlifting teams you had thirty years ago. They were all model prisoners. Sports are great tools, they get prisoners energy funneled into something positive. And you get people like Don Blue pulling records.

First of all, doesn't deter crime, in fact if it does anything, it does the opposite.


Please don't misunderstand. I was merely pointing out that it deters a single person who has shown a will and ability to kill, and that individual is unable to do it again.


As far as prison murders are concerned, I can't see how it is material to bring them up. Prison murders are normally gang related and most often due to guard negligence. The death penalty does nothing to deter prison murders.

I was just saying that if we are concerned with a killer's right to life, that we ought to also consider the right to life of those we lock him up with. A proven killer with nothing to lose might kill again.

Please don't misunderstand. I was merely pointing out that it deters a single person who has shown a will and ability to kill, and that individual is unable to do it again.


I was just saying that if we are concerned with a killer's right to life, that we ought to also consider the right to life of those we lock him up with. A proven killer with nothing to lose might kill again.


Life in prison does just as good of a job of detering a single person who has shown a will and an ability to kill, and it costs millions less per person.


As far as your hypothetical about prison murders, that speaks of a misunderstanding of prison murders. You're dwelling in Newt territory, where you present something that seems to make sense, but in reality isn't true. I'd be surprised if you can find one case of someone being commuted to life in prison rather then death and then killing someone in prison. Prison murders occur because of two problems.: lack of oversight and gangs.


If anything, eliminating the death penalty would free up more money that could be spent on greater oversight, which could reducing prison murders...Or we could use it to pay for another war.

Nobody gives a shit if they kill each other. We just don't want them killing the staff. Duh.

And yes, it happens, especially when they have nothing to lose.

Guess you never heard of the Texas 7 (http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/seven/1.html).

I have heard of the Texas 7, which wasn't a prison murder, and could have been prevented if Keith had done his job. Back to the point, the death penalty would have done nothing to prevent it as Rivas had not committed a death penalty worthy crime, even in texas.

I have heard of the Texas 7, which wasn't a prison murder, and could have been prevented if Keith had done his job. Back to the point, the death penalty would have done nothing to prevent it as Rivas had not committed a death penalty worthy crime, even in texas.The ringleader Rivas was serving a 99 year sentence. Because he was in the general population, he was given trustee status and thus was able to be less closely watched, mingle with the population, and plan his escape. The guard he initially took hostage certainly would have been killed had he not cooperated. After the escape, the police officer who was killed was a symbol of the desperation of men with long-term sentences. If Rivas had been a death penalty inmate, his security would have been much different than it was.

Admittedly, this is not a perfect example, but one that illustrates the danger posed by men with life sentences.

sure you would. there just wouldn't be any repeat offenders. break that tazer in yet? :D
SO I guess that would also be population control. :) No taser for me yet. Damn politics.

As far as your hypothetical about prison murders, that speaks of a misunderstanding of prison murders. You're dwelling in Newt territory, where you present something that seems to make sense, but in reality isn't true. I'd be surprised if you can find one case of someone being commuted to life in prison rather then death and then killing someone in prison. Prison murders occur because of two problems.: lack of oversight and gangs.


So, I am to feel no concern about the possibility that a proven killer with nothing to lose will kill someone he's locked up with? I can't do that. Maybe you can.

So, I am to feel no concern about the possibility that a proven killer with nothing to lose will kill someone he's locked up with? I can't do that. Maybe you can.
Known killers usually don't associate with anyone else. Depending on what prison they go to.

So, I am to feel no concern about the possibility that a proven killer with nothing to lose will kill someone he's locked up with? I can't do that. Maybe you can.So what's your solution? Use the death penalty every time a prisoner otherwise would have received a sentence longer than, say, ten years? :rolleyes:

We are a bloodthirsty lot....

No need to be so harsh..

How about just anytime someone would have recieved a life sentance. With execution to take place no longer than 10 years away (MAX). And if they would have been sentanced with multiple life sentances of 3 or more than execution is to occur within the year, or as scheduling allows, with the maximum time of 3 years if there's a backlog.

So what's your solution? Use the death penalty every time a prisoner otherwise would have received a sentence longer than, say, ten years? :rolleyes:

We are a bloodthirsty lot....

No need to be so harsh..

How about just anytime someone would have recieved a life sentance. With execution to take place no longer than 10 years away (MAX). And if they would have been sentanced with multiple life sentances of 3 or more than execution is to occur within the year, or as scheduling allows, with the maximum time of 3 years if there's a backlog.Ah, the irony is rich; he rejects my sarcastic suggestion with "No need to be so harsh," and then advocates that the death penalty replace every life sentence; I guess that's not "so harsh." And he then goes on to advocate doing away with all those bothersome appeals, presumably because anybody convicted of capital crime shouldn't have any rights, should he, since we never convict an innocent person. :rolleyes:

We are a bloodthirsty country, aren't we?

"Since 1973, number of people who have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence: 103"

http://www.westernprisonproject.org/PrisonIndex/Section_1/DeathPenalty.html

So, in 32 years, 103 people would have possibly been put to death wrongly. That's not really a big deal.

More people died of West Nile over the last few years.

Ah, the irony is rich; he rejects my sarcastic suggestion with "No need to be so harsh," and then advocates that the death penalty replace every life sentence; I guess that's not "so harsh." And he then goes on to advocate doing away with all those bothersome appeals, presumably because anybody convicted of capital crime shouldn't have any rights, should he, since we never convict an innocent person. :rolleyes:

We are a bloodthirsty country, aren't we?

"Since 1973, number of people who have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence: 103"

http://www.westernprisonproject.org/PrisonIndex/Section_1/DeathPenalty.html

So, in 32 years, 103 people would have possibly been put to death wrongly. That's not really a big deal.

More people died of West Nile over the last few years.It just keeps getting better! Now we're coming up with a number of 103, from somewhere, as the number of those who were discovered to have been wrongly put on death row. And we are deciding, since it's not us who were wrongly sentenced to death, that that's "not really a big deal." We of course ignore the untold number who were executed despite not having committed the crime, because we failed to discover that they didn't do it. But I suppose that, as long as that's not us, that's not a "big deal" either. I'm only guessing here, but I strongly suspect that it is a "big deal" to those wrongly convicted. Oh, but I forgot, to the right wing, since they're all pretty sure that that won't happen to them, it really isn't a "big deal."

I know that right-wingers are much more concerned with revenge than actual justice, but this is remarkable even by that lowered standard.

We are a blooldthirsty lot, aren't we?

I've already stated that if it happened to be me who was executed, and I was innocent, then It still wouldn't be a big deal.. I can die at any time, and have been close to death a few times already.

If 103, or even 1003 people die in 31 years "wrongly" accused it would still help society as a whole by changing the current penal system in place that tends to breed more criminals. By changing these cycles of crime and possibly poverty, then society as a whole would benefit, and maybe less "innocents" would die via violent crimes. Furthermore, funding used to upkeep the penal system, defend the state against apeals, etc and be rerouted and use towards education.

I say cut the cancer.

It just keeps getting better! Now we're coming up with a number of 103, from somewhere, as the number of those who were discovered to have been wrongly put on death row. And we are deciding, since it's not us who were wrongly sentenced to death, that that's "not really a big deal." We of course ignore the untold number who were executed despite not having committed the crime, because we failed to discover that they didn't do it. But I suppose that, as long as that's not us, that's not a "big deal" either. I'm only guessing here, but I strongly suspect that it is a "big deal" to those wrongly convicted. Oh, but I forgot, to the right wing, since they're all pretty sure that that won't happen to them, it really isn't a "big deal."

I know that right-wingers are much more concerned with revenge than actual justice, but this is remarkable even by that lowered standard.

We are a blooldthirsty lot, aren't we?

I've already stated that if it happened to be me who was executed, and I was innocent, then It still wouldn't be a big deal.. I can die at any time, and have been close to death a few times already.

If 103, or even 1003 people die in 31 years "wrongly" accused it would still help society as a whole by changing the current penal system in place that tends to breed more criminals. By changing these cycles of crime and possibly poverty, then society as a whole would benefit, and maybe less "innocents" would die via violent crimes. Furthermore, funding used to upkeep the penal system, defend the state against apeals, etc and be rerouted and use towards education.

I say cut the cancer.Well, at least I'll give you "credit" for admitting that real justice is not important to you. Your model is utterly frightening to me, and to anyone who actually values justice, but at least you admit that you are not one who values real justice.

We are a bloodthirsty lot, aren't we?

I've already stated that if it happened to be me who was executed, and I was innocent, then It still wouldn't be a big deal.. I can die at any time, and have been close to death a few times already.

If 103, or even 1003 people die in 31 years "wrongly" accused it would still help society as a whole by changing the current penal system in place that tends to breed more criminals. By changing these cycles of crime and possibly poverty, then society as a whole would benefit, and maybe less "innocents" would die via violent crimes.

I say cut the cancer.
You are more conservative than me, aren't you? :D

Funny how liberals get so upset about a few potential wrongful deaths of folks who were likely criminals anyway, but don't anybody dare suggest restricting the thousands of abortions each year.

We are a bloodthirsty lot, aren't we? :rolleyes:

Funny how liberals get so upset about a few potential wrongful deaths of folks who were likely criminals anyway The 118 people on this list were ALL found not guilty of the murder they were sent to death for LINK (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110)

Criteria for inclusion in the innocence list:

DPIC uses the traditional objective criteria that have determined innocence since the founding of this country. In order to be included on the list, defendants must have been convicted and sentenced to death, and subsequently either a) their conviction was overturned and they were acquitted at a re-trial, or all charges were dismissed; or b) they were given an absolute pardon by the governor based on new evidence of innocence. The list includes cases in which the release occurred in 1973 or later.

I don't believe justice is the issue. Our current legal/judicial/penal system surely isn't just. Justice would be to allow a convicted rapist to be castrated and made to injest the "extra" bits.

Doc,

You know deep down you feel the same as me! ;)


Well, at least I'll give you "credit" for admitting that real justice is not important to you. Your model is utterly frightening to me, and to anyone who actually values justice, but at least you admit that you are not one who values real justice.

We are a bloodthirsty lot, aren't we?

You are more conservative than me, aren't you? :D That's "than I," Doc, but I guess that's confusing threads (no wonder you're happy with your schools).

Funny how liberals get so upset about a few potential wrongful deaths of folks who were likely criminals anyway, but don't anybody dare suggest restricting the thousands of abortions each year.Once again, Doc, you outdo yourself. "Potential?" Do you actually doubt that they were innocent? Based on what? "Likely criminals anyway" certainly is a good enough reason to execute them. I'm just waiting for one of you bloodthirsty types to suggest that, since most people arrested are guilty, and certainly :rolleyes: almost everybody who is arrested is a "likely a criminal" anyway, why don't we just do away with trials?

We are a bloodthirsty lot, aren't we? :rolleyes:Sure are; do you actually deny it, as you condone the execution of innocent people, and advocate executing lots more people?

The 118 people on this list were ALL found not guilty of the murder they were sent to death for LINK (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110)

Criteria for inclusion in the innocence list:

DPIC uses the traditional objective criteria that have determined innocence since the founding of this country. In order to be included on the list, defendants must have been convicted and sentenced to death, and subsequently either a) their conviction was overturned and they were acquitted at a re-trial, or all charges were dismissed; or b) they were given an absolute pardon by the governor based on new evidence of innocence. The list includes cases in which the release occurred in 1973 or later. Umm, yeah, and how many of them were executed? ZERO.

How many abortions occur each year? 1.3 million.

Most of those charges were dismissed. It does not say for what reason. HOWEVER, out of that list onl 13 were released on specific DNA evidence.

Just because a sentance wasn't excecuted does not mean that person was nessecarily "innocent" either.

Still, it's an insignificant figure.

The 118 people on this list were ALL found not guilty of the murder they were sent to death for LINK (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=110)

Criteria for inclusion in the innocence list:

DPIC uses the traditional objective criteria that have determined innocence since the founding of this country. In order to be included on the list, defendants must have been convicted and sentenced to death, and subsequently either a) their conviction was overturned and they were acquitted at a re-trial, or all charges were dismissed; or b) they were given an absolute pardon by the governor based on new evidence of innocence. The list includes cases in which the release occurred in 1973 or later.

I don't believe justice is the issue. Our current legal/judicial/penal system surely isn't just. Justice would be to allow a convicted rapist to be castrated and made to injest the "extra" bits.That may be "revenge" if he actually did the crime, but nobody who actually understands what "justice" means thinks that that is "justice."

You are a bloodthirsty lot, aren't you?

How many abortions occur each year? 1.3 million. If this thread gets hijacked on the Abortion issue it is sure to get shut down. It’s best to leave that subject to another board.

Justice is basically equity (hence the scales). You're correct. Maybe I went overboard with my example. THat would be considered revenge.

Justice would be allowing said rapist to be raped himself. A killer to be killed, etc.

That may be "revenge" if he actually did the crime, but nobody who actually understands what "justice" means thinks that that is "justice."

You are a bloodthirsty lot, aren't you?

If this thread gets hijacked on the Abortion issue it is sure to get shut down. It’s best to leave that subject to another board.
Who cares if it gets shut down? Abortion isn't a taboo topic anyway.

But God doesn't like abortions. There, maybe that will help.

LOL


BTW, doc.. don't feel bad. I don't consider myself conservative either.
Who cares if it gets shut down? Abortion isn't a taboo topic anyway.

But God doesn't like abortions. There, maybe that will help.

Who cares if it gets shut down? Abortion isn't a taboo topic anyway.

But God doesn't like abortions. There, maybe that will help.

i care if it gets shut down. i like a good debate and you guys are doing a great job of debating bith sides of this issue. i suck at debating so i just read what others have to say.

You should aregue the third side!

i care if it gets shut down. i like a good debate and you guys are doing a great job of debating bith sides of this issue. i suck at debating so i just read what others have to say.

i care if it gets shut down. i like a good debate and you guys are doing a great job of debating bith sides of this issue. i suck at debating so i just read what others have to say.
Sorry, I didn't realize it was your thread until after I posted that. :o

Sorry, I didn't realize it was your thread until after I posted that. :o

i didn't care if it was my thread or not i like interesting debates. :)

People are debating whether or not the Star Trek Universe is a "Liberal Soapbox" over in the aisle adjacent to mine.

People are debating whether or not the Star Trek Universe is a "Liberal Soapbox" over in the aisle adjacent to mine.

i have to draw the line somewhere. :rolleyes:

I thought you would open a new thread to ask this question here :p

i have to draw the line somewhere. :rolleyes:

Doc, we're discussed this before. Once someone is executed the case is closed. So it is very difficult to tell who was innocent and who was guilty. But Bedeau and Radelet found 23 people they feel were innocent that were executed before the reinstatement in the 70s.


It is difficult to prove an ironclad innocence, especially after someone has been put to death. But you can prove people who did not receive a fair trial, or at the very least had reasonable doubt as to their guilt. Five good cases from Texas would probably be Odell Barnes Jr., Robert Nelson Drew, Gary Graham, Richard Wayne Jones, Frank Basil McFarland. At the very least you can prove many people who were not given a fair trial who were then put to death. Like when the attorney the state provided them literally slept through the proceedings.


Guy, I could see your point about the deaths being worth it if you could point to a single benefit of the death penalty. If it were true it did anything to limit crime maybe you would have a point. But I have yet to see a single benefit beyond the "eye for an eye" bloodlust that spider keeps bringing up.


Eye for an eye is not justice, it is barbarism. And while we are on the subject of justice. The death penalty is not justice, justice is blind. The death penalty is not.

I'm not looking for justice, or eye for an eye.. Let me state very clearly that I do not feel capital punishment as practiced in the US today is effective.

I cannot give you the benefits of our current capital punishment system as I do not believe there are any. The one immediate benefit that would come of a more aggressive system is the millions of dollars saved on appeals, and housing long term criminals. This money SHOULD be used to improve the education system of this country, and hopefully reduce poverty and crime.

It's just death. Sometimes it is a practical means to and end.



Guy, I could see your point about the deaths being worth it if you could point to a single benefit of the death penalty. If it were true it did anything to limit crime maybe you would have a point. But I have yet to see a single benefit beyond the "eye for an eye" bloodlust that spider keeps bringing up.


Eye for an eye is not justice, it is barbarism. And while we are on the subject of justice. The death penalty is not justice, justice is blind. The death penalty is not.

Or you could get the best of both worlds, be sure that you aren't putting any innocents to death, save millions of dollars, and save the governors lots of time by getting rid of the death penalty all together.

Our current prison system is still overcrowded.

Being more aggressive is the way to go always.

Or you could get the best of both worlds, be sure that you aren't putting any innocents to death, save millions of dollars, and save the governors lots of time by getting rid of the death penalty all together.

Prison overcrowding is a separate problem that even an extremely aggressive death penalty would not solve. Prison overcrowding is a side effect of the drug war.