The Death Penalty

[andresG]

I belong to the Amnesty International chapter in my highschool and tomorrow a coordinator from an organization called New Yorkers Against the Death Penalty will be coming to speak to us. This got me thinking and wondering:
How do leftists feel about the death penalty?

Are you for or against the death penalty and why?

Are your views different for a communist society?


P.S.
Any links to a reliable website or information on the disproportionate amount of hispanics and blacks incarcerated in the US prison system would be very much appreciated.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

I am against the death penalty. For practical reasons, supporting the death penalty in this society means supporting the execution of innocent people. I cannot condone that.

Also, I oppose the death penalty, in theory, for ethical reasons. I think it is ridiculous to kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong.

I am also associated with a local chapter of Amnesty International.

[Solace]

I believe in the rehabilitation of criminals, but as far as serious and repeated crimes go… I am in favour of death penalty. These people are dangerous and they showed their inability to be a member of society. We just reduce risks.

I really don’t see how life sentences are better than death penalty. Prisons are far more “cruel” that death penalty. After they get out, most life-prisoners cannot live in society anymore. They passed too much time on the other side of the wall. Most of them will end up killing themselves.

Might as well say that life sentence post-poned death penalty.

Then what’s the use?

They also require too much resources from society to keep them functional.

A bit off topic, but I am also concerned about the staff in the prisons. As we know them, prisons are far from simple “reclusive houses”. The austerity of the place has very negative consequences on the prisoners and the staff. Have you seen “Das Experiment”? I think it's about it.

And I am also associated with a local chapter of Amnesty International.

[Hampton]

Death Penalty Info (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/)

Death Penalty Focus (http://www.deathpenalty.org/)

Sentencing Project (http://www.sentencingproject.org/)

Drop the Rock (http://www.droptherock.org/)

I'm against it. From what I've read it does not deter crime and it is really expensive to try a capital case than a regualr one. In Cali it cost $1,898,323 to try a Capital case while it costs $627,322 to try a regular case. The average cost of a capital trial in Texas is $2.3 million--three times the cost to incarcerate an individual for 40 years. While the average cost of a capital trial in Florida is $3.2 million.

In New York, I'm sure you know, the Rock Drug laws lock up 93% of Blacks and Latinos for drug charges under the guise of the war on drugs. Drug laws are pretty ridiclious, you get more time for selling 5 grams of crack than you do for selling 340 grams of cocaine. Why is this? Becuase crack is in the inner city and those who live in the inner city, blacks and latinos, are more likely to sell crack. And crack is just cocaine with some baking powder, where do these ridiclious laws come from. This is why 90% of crack defendants are black.

I read that defendants charged with killing white victims received the death penalty eleven times more oftten than defendants charged with killing black victims. Black defendants charged with killing a white victim receive the death penalty 22% of the time, while when it's the other way around the death penalty is only received 3% of the time. This is becuase juries are still mostly white and will sympathize with a white victim. The reason why juryies are still white is probally a whole diffrent issue I suppose, though linked.

Good Fact Sheet (http://www.rac.org/issues/issuedp.html)

[redstar2000]

I'm in favor of the death penalty for serious violent crimes.

Long prison sentences are demanding in resources, dehumanizing to both inmate and jailer alike, and without useful purpose--what does it mean to "rehabilitate" a killer or rapist?

If we create humane prisons, people will object that we are "rewarding criminals for their anti-social behavior". If we keep the hell-holes we have now, what does that turn us into?

And of course there are still some who want to "bring back" the labor camps of the USSR, China, etc. -- making us into literal slave drivers. No thanks!

A quick and humane death will be a mercy both to the criminal and to society--dragging the matter out for years the way it's done now is just additional and unnecessary cruelty.

But what if we kill "the wrong guy"? It will happen, there's no question about that.

When it does, I expect that the people directly involved in the case will suffer wide-spread public condemnation...no decent person will want to have anything to do with them. No collective will have them as members; their families will abandon them, etc. Certainly no one will trust them in matters of criminal investigation ever again.

So I think "killing the wrong guy" will be very rare.

:redstar2000:

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[The Children of the Revolution]

The average cost of a capital trial in Texas is $2.3 million--three times the cost to incarcerate an individual for 40 years. While the average cost of a capital trial in Florida is $3.2 million.


This is preposterous. You (not a personal attack) cannot condone OR disapprove of the death penalty ON THE BASIS OF COST!! You are effectively putting a value on human life!!

I am against the death penalty for umpteen reasons.

> Morally it is wrong. "I think it is ridiculous to kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong." (MiN)

> In practice, it is wrong. "For practical reasons, supporting the death penalty in this society means supporting the execution of innocent people." (MiN again, spot on)

> Also, I am against it for religious reasons. I believe in the sanctity of human life.

> There is much predudice in the courts; this applies to the death penalty too. "I read that defendants charged with killing white victims received the death penalty eleven times more oftten than defendants charged with killing black victims." (Hampton - correct)

> One final consideration - criminals recieveing the death penalty are often no longer a threat to society.



These people are dangerous and they showed their inability to be a member of society.


In the case of serial killers perhaps. But mostly, murderers are one-off offenders. The murder was a provoked response, and was nothing more than an extreme reaction.

Peace, man!!

[andresG]

Thanks for the links Hampton, they were very informative.


Redstar:

I agree with your stance on the prison system. But how can you be in favor of soemthing that is just soaked in racial (and economic) injustice? For example, the following:

"Over half of those on death row are people of color, through they represent only 20% of the country’s population. Black men make up nearly 40% of all U.S. death row prisoners, though they account for only 6% of people living in the U.S. Nationwide, cases involving a white victim and a defendant of color are most likely to result in the death sentence. A white-victim case is over four times more likely to result in a death sentence than was a comparable black-victim case; over 84% of the victims in death penalty case are white, while only 50% of murder victims are white. "

[Guest1]

Redstar, it happens as is, alot, and there isn't much outrage about it.

Sorry, if you wanna say people shouldn't kill, why should our leaders be able to?

[Hampton]

Killing the wrong guy has already happened and will happen again becuase the system isn't set up to protect the rights of those that it puts on death row. Take the case of George McFarland, who sits on Death Row since 1991. The only reason he was arrested was because a single witness, who changed her testimony FOUR times, said he fitted the description of the perpetrator. There was no physical evidence against him, no finger prints or anything else.

The trial lasted less than three days and his lawyer was asleep for most of it. When he took it to court the trial judge accepted that there was a constitutional right to a lawyer, but stated that "the Constitution doesn't say the lawyer has to be awake." The Court of Appeals rejected McFarland's claim for ineffective assistance.

Since 1973, 112 people in 25 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence, it wouldn't be inconceivable that the state has execuded innocent men and women without the system being overturned and the problem being fixed. The problem is, no one is going to make sure the dead man didn't do it unless some comes through and says that they did it.


This is preposterous. You (not a personal attack) cannot condone OR disapprove of the death penalty ON THE BASIS OF COST!! You are effectively putting a value on human life!!

Yes I can, and I think I just did. You can save money when you don't put innocent people on death row and not going through the capital case process. People like George McFarland should not be on death row and I'm sure there is more like him who get stuck with shitty lawyers and get pushed through the system. I am putting a value on human life, I would like to save human life when it is possible.

[Solace]

I think Redstar's talking in terms of the communist society.

In communism, they won't be any need for a court justice, as we know it. The community will judge these criminals. It reduces the risk of a partial decision by judges or small juries. Sickening as it can be, the more condemnations a judge pronounce, the more he’ll keep his job.

[LSD]

The problem is that no matter how good one's system is, no matter how honest and vigilant the judge and investigators, mistakes will happen. Perfect justice ain't possible kids....so society will end up killing innocent people.

And not only is this morally reprehensible, but when it happens there is absolutely nothing that can be done. Making sure that "no decent person will want to have anything to do with" the people responsible is nice (assuming there is even anyone responsible) but it hardly rectifies the situation.

An imprisoned man can be set free, a dead man can't.
Society should not impose irrepairable penalties.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I say the purpose of prisons should be to rehabilitate. The way it is, people come out worse then they are going in. I say make them all into mental health clinics, and as in any other clinic, you shouldn't murder your patients. Don't get me wrong, we won't be REWARDING criminals. I hardly think asylems are the place that anyone would want to be. However, in the case of a murderer or someone for whom rehabilitation may not be feasable, I feel that we should try and give them a happy, if not productive, existance in an enviroment in which they pose can pose no threat to anyone. I feel that the answer to crime is not through intimidation, but through compassion.

[redstar2000]

Of course I was speaking of communist society when I expressed my support for the death penalty.

Under capitalism, it is a crap shoot: would you personally rather be wrongfully executed or spend 10 or 20 or 30 years in as vile a shithole as can be imagined this side of the Third Reich?


Society should not impose irreparable penalties.

I would argue that imprisonment for more than two or three years is an irreparable penalty. It dehumanizes you--mainly by way of systematic humiliation--to the point where you are no longer able to visualize a non-Hobbesean existence.

You emerge either utterly broken...or a vicious predator.


I say make them all into mental health clinics...

If you've every read any of the anti-psychiatric literature, you'll realize that a prison is still a prison...regardless of the name they tack up over the entrance.


One final consideration - criminals receiving the death penalty are often no longer a threat to society.

It's the ones that climb out of their graves that you have to watch out for. :lol:

:redstar2000:

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[LSD]

I would argue that imprisonment for more than two or three years is an irreparable penalty. It dehumanizes you--mainly by way of systematic humiliation--to the point where you are no longer able to visualize a non-Hobbesean existence.

You emerge either utterly broken...or a vicious predator.

Imprisonment is harmfull, imprisonment is dehumanizing, but it isn't irrepairable. You can never "get back" your life, and you may never fully recover from your experiances, but there can at least be a level of correction. If one is execute there is nothing that can be done.

Something is better than nothing.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Imprisonment is harmfull, imprisonment is dehumanizing, but it isn't irrepairable. You can never "get back" your life, and you may never fully recover from your experiances, but there can at least be a level of correction. If one is execute there is nothing that can be done.

Something is better than nothing.

Yeah, torture is better than death eh?

I can't believe you'd rather reduce somebody to the level of an animal than have them
permanently removed form society...

I've heard some people would rather die than go to prison!

[Al Creed]

Originally posted by Marxist in [email protected] 5 2004, 08:45 PM
Also, I oppose the death penalty, in theory, for ethical reasons. I think it is ridiculous to kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong.
The reason why I don't support the death penalty.

Although Redstar brings up valid points, that rehabilitation of Killers and rapists may prove unsuccessful, and wasteful of resources, I do not believe in "Eye for an eye" philosophy.

I support life sentances for serious, violent crimes such as Murder and Rape. No further death or violence is used, AND it protects the rest of society.

[RedAnarchist]

I would NEVER condone death penalties. I wouldnt do it to a Nazi, i'm that agaisnt it.

It is legalized, state-sponsored murder. And it is far worse for the criminal to be locked up for life rather than have a few minutes of pain.

Also, if he or she was found innocent after the execution, it would mean someone had died for no reason.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

I don't at all like determinate sentances such as 5 years or 20 years. I think patients should recieve medication, counselling, and be taught life management skills, not just locked up, abused, and ignored. For patients viewed as untreatable, I don't think they should be placed in a prison or clinic like other prisoners, but should be able to live out their life as happily as possible, with as much independance and freedom as possible, in an enviroment where they pose no threat to anyone else.

[toastedmonkey]

Im against the death penalty, People have the right to life whatever their crimes.

[The Feral Underclass]

Im against the death penalty, People have the right to life whatever their crimes.

In 1917 Lenin arrested and detained some leading capitalists and Tzarist people. He made them sign a contract stating that they would not organize against the revolution. He realised them and of course they did.

What do you think we should do in a revolutionary situation?

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 6 2004, 01:57 PM

Im against the death penalty, People have the right to life whatever their crimes.

In 1917 Lenin arrested and detained some leading capitalists and Tzarist people. He made them sign a contract stating that they would not organize against the revolution. He realised them and of course they did.

What do you think we should do in a revolutionary situation?
Well, I think they should do more then simply sign a contract. I think they should be made to see the error of their ways, and be given a second chance at life. Should they try to backstab us, then they should be placed in an enviroment in which they can do no harm to anyone, and live out their days happilly and productively. Of course, if they are armed and/or try to physically resist, then war is war, and you do what must be done of course.

[Saint-Just]

I think the death penalty should be given to people who have committed the crimes that society regards as most repulsive. It should operate as a deterrent. I think that some criminals will not be rehabilitated. I do not think it is that important though, the prevention of crime is more important than punishing crime. Of course the redress of those who grieve is important. And the punishment of individuals helps prevent crime, but it is not the only measure needed to prevent crime.

I accept the argument that killing people is very severe and, for moral reasons, society should not do it to anyone. As such I do have doubts as to whether it is reasonable, but it is certain that some crimes are deserved of it. I think we should respect people's physical health if they are alive. That is we should not have physical punishment and those who are imprisoned should have a good diet and good medical provision.

Also, I do not think criminals should be killed in an inhumane and brutal manner. I think we should use lethal injection or firing squad.

[che's long lost daughter]

I am not sure if I am against or in favor of death penalty. I live in a country where majority of people are Catholic, or should I say Christians. Christianism teaches that life is sacred so killing is absolutely repulsed. We are considered the only christian country in Asia and death penalty is implemented in our country. How ironic. See the hypocrisy of religion there?


Death penalty would not stop people from commiting crimes. Killing would not stop people from killing other people. So what's the point with death penalty.

On the other hand, I think dying is better than spending the rest of your life in jail (with no parole). Imagine its effect to yourself and your family. Remember that the effect would not just be physical but psychological and emotional as well. Plus, in my country, being in jail is like a death sentence. The condition of prisoners here would make you cringe. I really feel sorry for them. Even if they have committed crimes, they still are human beings with dignity and who reserves respect as much as all of us do.

[mia wallace]

i'm against it. no one has the right to take another person's life... there are ways to make the criminal to pay for his crimes.
if it's needed, they could even be worse (more painful) then the death.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Originally posted by che's long lost [email protected] 6 2004, 03:18 PM
I am not sure if I am against or in favor of death penalty. I live in a country where majority of people are Catholic, or should I say Christians. Christianism teaches that life is sacred so killing is absolutely repulsed. We are considered the only christian country in Asia and death penalty is implemented in our country. How ironic. See the hypocrisy of religion there?


Death penalty would not stop people from commiting crimes. Killing would not stop people from killing other people. So what's the point with death penalty.

On the other hand, I think dying is better than spending the rest of your life in jail (with no parole). Imagine its effect to yourself and your family. Remember that the effect would not just be physical but psychological and emotional as well. Plus, in my country, being in jail is like a death sentence. The condition of prisoners here would make you cringe. I really feel sorry for them. Even if they have committed crimes, they still are human beings with dignity and who reserves respect as much as all of us do.
Christian country in asia?! :blink: Now, what holy asian empire would that be? I thought the only countries that considered themselves specifically christian are the English, perhaps some other europeans, and some Americans would say so.

[che's long lost daughter]

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2004, 07:24 PM

Christian country in asia?! :blink: Now, what holy asian empire would that be? I thought the only countries that considered themselves specifically christian are the English, perhaps some other europeans, and some Americans would say so.
I live in the Philippines. Have you ever heard of my country???? We were the only country in Asia that was conquered by Spain and they stayed here for 333 years and left behind Spanish culture and religion (Catholic). Well, there were other countries in Asia that were under other European countries like Portugal, England and the Netherlands but they were not able to get the people to acquire their religion like what Spain was able to do here. Most countries in Asia have Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism for a religion. So, that's the reason why we are "dubbed" as the only christian country in Asia.

[The Feral Underclass]

I deplore violence and I do not condone the use of force or violence against people. I am also principly against the death penalty in capitalist society because I am opposed to bouregois laws, and no crime is deservant of your life.

However I can not say because a human has no right to take another humans life because unfortunatly capitalism does not give me that option. In a revolutionary situation it maybe necessary to kill. Once society has been taken under workers control and has harmonized I do not think that the death penalty should be condoned or even needed.

[DEPAVER]

I'm generally opposed, but this SOB that killed that 11 year old girl needs to be done away with.

If he had killed my child, you can be sure I'd kill him if the state didn't. Why do you want this piece of shit having a bed and a roof over his head, plus three meals a day, while that little girl lies cold, dead and rotting in the ground?

Maybe we need some island we can drop off these types and make sure there's no chance of escape. No food, no provisions, no shelter. You just figure it out with all the other child murderers.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm generally opposed, but this SOB that killed that 11 year old girl needs to be done away with.

it is a difficult question. The problem with this is we dont know enough about it. We sometimes get caught up with our own personal hatred and dispair at crimes like this and dont look at it objectivly. These people may actually be ill. I am not saying that he is not evil, it was an evil thing to do, but being evil maybe something we dont understand. Maybe we have a lot to learn about people who feel compelled to commit such disgusting inhumane crimes. Maybe we can find a cure. Maybe when people live in a socially and economiclly free society crimes such as these may not exist. In which case, if it is the conditions of society which twist peoples minds like this, they are a victim of society. Then again they could just be evil and the death penalty maybe simply be a way to rid the world of human beings who have lost their right to be human.

[bubbrubb]

i have to say i'm for it because i think if you take a life intentionally yours should be taken(except for in wars or the people who are doing the executions of course)and for people who are child molestors, should be taken out of the gene pool just for being complete wierdos :che:

[toastedmonkey]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Feb 6 2004, 05:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (The Anarchist Tension @ Feb 6 2004, 05:57 PM)
Im against the death penalty, People have the right to life whatever their crimes.

In 1917 Lenin arrested and detained some leading capitalists and Tzarist people. He made them sign a contract stating that they would not organize against the revolution. He realised them and of course they did.

What do you think we should do in a revolutionary situation? [/b]
Detain them, hold them for aslong as need be, then of course the question is how long do you hold them and there is also the situation the Cuban Revolution was in, that first execution carried out by Ernesto, it would appear justified especailly with the outcome of the revolution, but there was possibly other ways of handling it, it is also easy to talk with hindsight, who knows how ones logic works in such times.


Mia [email protected] 6th 2004, 07:18 PM
there are ways to make the criminal to pay for his crimes.Could you please edit that&#33; i object to the automatic referal of a criminal as solely male, women commit crimes aswell&#33;

[LSD]

I&#39;m generally opposed, but this SOB that killed that 11 year old girl needs to be done away with.


i have to say i&#39;m for it because i think if you take a life intentionally yours should be taken(except for in wars or the people who are doing the executions of course)and for people who are child molestors, should be taken out of the gene pool just for being complete wierdos


I think the death penalty should be given to people who have committed the crimes that society regards as most repulsive. It should operate as a deterrent. I think that some criminals will not be rehabilitated. I do not think it is that important though, the prevention of crime is more important than punishing crime. Of course the redress of those who grieve is important. And the punishment of individuals helps prevent crime, but it is not the only measure needed to prevent crime.

You can all make the point that sometimes death is justified, and I would agree IF we had a justice system capable of infalible determinations. If you can show me how that can be done than fine...... somehow I doubt you will.....

The simple fact is that innocent people will be killed and that once they&#39;ve been killed NOTHING CAN BE DONE. There is nothing that society can do to rectify the situation at all. Until society is infalible it can&#39;t impose irrepairable punnishments.



I can&#39;t believe you&#39;d rather reduce somebody to the level of an animal than have them
permanently removed form society...

It&#39;s the "permanent" part that bothers me...

[redstar2000]

It strikes me that those in this thread who are making a rational (non-moral) argument against the death penalty in communist society are relying heavily on the certain fact that an occasional individual will be wrongly executed.

It is as if they are saying "we don&#39;t want innocent blood on our hands".

Well, no one "wants" that.

Some time in the near future, you are driving down a quiet residential street at a moderate speed when a small child suddenly darts in front of your vehicle...and is instantly killed.

How horrible would you feel about that? It makes my guts twist a little just to write the words.

Would you quit driving?

You know that the "price" of private automobile traffic is the regular and predictable loss of innocent human life.

Want to outlaw all privately-owned vehicles?

The fact is is that automobiles are so useful that we accept the risk--not only of our own deaths but those of innocents that we might possibly kill.

Likewise, the death penalty is so useful in removing those who are dangerous to our personal safety in a quick and inexpensive way...that we--or at least I--am willing to accept the risk of an occasional wrongful death.

I would feel horrible if it happened--but I think the gain is worth the risk.

:redstar2000:

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[LSD]

Redstar2000:

Although the scenario you outlined is indeed a valid concern, for me it is not the primary one.

As I&#39;ve posted above, I am mostly concerned that when these inevitable mistakes occur, it is better that the falsely be in jail so that he can be released, rather than dead and beyond the help of society. It is not so much the fear of killing the innocent that bothers me (not that it doesn&#39;t of course) but the certain knowledge that once executed these innocents are permanently punished for these imagined or misassociated crimes. Some might argue that prison will have a "permanent" psychological impact, and it probably does, but through therapy and through aid these people can at least return to something, they at least do not need to suffer for nothing for ever. When I kill you, you&#39;re dead. And no matter how badly everyone might feel if it turnd out you&#39;re innocent, there&#39;s nothing that can be done.

As I said above, something is better than nothing.

[The Feral Underclass]

Redstar2000

I am not sure that I agree with you. The risk of murdering innocent people is by no means justifiable. Imagine being at home with your wife and kids, watching the news, enjoying your families company and then suddenly the police burst into your house, arrest you for murder. Put you on trial and then your sentance is death.

The crazy thing about it is that you have no idea what is going on. The police are telling you things you did which you didnt do, names of people you dont know and all the while your family is being branded the family of murderer. Then the fateful day comes when they strap you to a chair anmd run volts of electricity through your body. You never did anything. You weren&#39;t a murderer. You&#39;re just some average guy who works in a saw mill who got arrested one day. Wham, you&#39;re dead.

What you are saying is that we should kill this person just because their is a possibility that he is a murderer. There is also a possibility that he is innocent, but who cares, "ya win some ya loose some." What about this mans family? What about his life?

The death penalty is a difficult issue and a complicated one. I am not fundamentally opposed to it, but I think your point is way off. If people are innocent then they should be released, not executed. We should stop the death penalty because we are taking responsability for the fact we may be killing innocent people, not have execution and hope we get it right.

[redstar2000]

I can&#39;t tell from your scenario whether it&#39;s set in present class society or not--the fact that there are "specialists" known as "police" suggest that you are talking about the present.

Very well, you are a completely innocent person caught up in a nightmarish bureaucratic scenario in which you face either death or an enormous prison term...which do you choose?

If you choose the long prison term, there&#39;s always the chance that fresh evidence will turn up that will get you released (after many delays...those who serve the present-day criminal "justice" system are extremely reluctant to admit error). A "lucky" few have been released after serving 20 years or more in prison.

Further, if you can prove negligence or malice on the part of the police or the prosecutors, you can win a substantial judgment in court...millions of dollars.

Or you are sentenced to death--in the United States, that usually means that you&#39;ll actually be executed after 3 to 5 years of failed appeals...though some cases have dragged on for decades. During that period there is also the faint chance that new evidence might be discovered that will free you.

I would imagine that either alternative would be psychologically devastating. What would come out of this machine would be a corpse...one still breathing and the other not.

The only "therapy" that I think would be really useful to the corpse that was still breathing would be a twice-daily shot of heroin.

In communist society, I think wrongful execution would be rarer than it is now...no one then can "build a political career" on being "tough on crime"--there&#39;s no such thing as a "political career".

And I don&#39;t think that people are likely to be cynical and say "you win some, you lose some" about a wrongful execution that might take place. Indeed, I think it will be a scandal of tremendous magnitude...as well as a great tragedy. As I indicated earlier, the people directly involved in the miscarriage of justice will probably be ostracized...some may even commit suicide from remorse. Some trial procedures might be altered to make this kind of outcome even more unlikely. And so on.

I regard lengthy prison terms in class society as "execution by inches"...we kill the human personality by degrees. Some even take an openly sadistic delight in the process--the kind of people who get jobs as prison guards, for example.

I think the death penalty is more humane...it&#39;s what I would want for myself.

:redstar2000:

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[LSD]

Redstar2000:

You may consider the death penalty more humane but many wouldn&#39;t. Many who are indeed innocent would wish to remain in jail, knowing that there is a chance that the truth will present itself one day and they will be released. I know that personally, even if I were guilty, I would prefer life imprisonment over death.

So if you want to have an optional death penalty available at request, fine. And if someone prefers death over remaining incarcerated they can decide. Somehow I doubt you&#39;d get that many takers. But you&#39;d get some and it would be there choice. That I can support, but killing someone that you cannot be sure will not be exonerated a year later?

Death is permanent, prison is not.

And you may not think that therapy would help, and it probably wouldn&#39;t completely, but people are more resiliant than you suspect. If your theory were correct, there would be a atagering amount of "breathing corpses" walking around the world. Prison is terrible, but people recover. Plus, I&#39;m assuming that a prison in a communist society would be far better than the ones you see today.

[Soviet power supreme]

Well im for death penalty in most repulsive cases.I think that rehabilation thing is just stupid.What is the point when the crime has already happened.The habilation should start in cradle and teach the kids not to become murderers.That is not going to happen in capitalist society since there is not enough funding on social sector.

What kind of price tag would you guys then put for example killing a 10 year old child coldblooded?5 years?15years?50years? in prison.

[LSD]

What kind of price tag would you guys then put for example killing a 10 year old child coldblooded?5 years?15years?50years? in prison.

Yes, but what if they&#39;re innocent?
What kind of price tag would you put for executing an innocent man?

[Soviet power supreme]

A death penalty of course.The court would have hurried too much with the case.But what is the chance that they are innocent?Now im talking about communist society&#39;s court and I know that for example Mumia is innocent but in communist court judges wouldnt be rascist or corrupted and death penalty cases would be investigated very seriously before making judgements.

[LSD]

A death penalty of course.The court would have hurried too much with the case.But what is the chance that they are innocent?Now im talking about communist society&#39;s court and I know that for example Mumia is innocent but in communist court judges wouldnt be rascist or corrupted and death penalty cases would be investigated very seriously before making judgements.

No system is perfect and mistakes would nonetheless be made. Even a communist justice system will be falible. And honestly, to avoid killing and thereby permanently punishing the innocent, is not having a death penalty really that high a price??

Nobody wants life in prison and there is no evidence that death is a better deterent, so why not protect the innocent if you can?

[JoseyWales]

I like the idea of ostracizing from society.

It&#39;s a very anarchistic way of handling such matters, in that any community member who refuses to cooperate with others (in matters other than murder, rape, etc....it could be failure to cooperate on various issues) finds him or herself ostracized and isolated from necessary resources.

You have to be careful in thinking about private armies, police or other agencies that carry out such sentences. This is the route of anarcho-capitalism, representing a concentration of power based on economics, leading to elite access to power based on income. Power must be dispersed completely in order to insure access by everyone.

So, perhaps there is some island where we can send these people. Maybe a former army station in the Pacific, where the tides and resources make escape virtually impossible.

"It&#39;s a hell of a thing , killing a man. You take away all he&#39;s got and all he&#39;s ever gonna
have."

[Soviet power supreme]

Nobody wants life in prison and there is no evidence that death is a better deterent, so why not protect the innocent if you can?

You make it sound like half of prisoners are innocents but
What do you think a man should get for killing a 10 year old child coldblooded ?

[Solace]

I like the idea of ostracizing from society.

I don&#39; think that would be very useful for serious crimes. Ostrcaczing (as we seen it in previous societies) would mean to be sent to exile. You&#39;re are just translating the problem. Not in my backyard.


No system is perfect and mistakes would nonetheless be made. Even a communist justice system will be falible.

Of course, we cannot eleminate every risk of mistakes, but we can reduce them greatly. The point is that in a capitalism system, the juges decisions are not always impartial. You end up with foolish condamnations based on... nothing. A condamnation in a communist society looks more fair to me. How many times have we heard about the manipulation of "proofs" and "evidence" by authorities?

[The Children of the Revolution]

I don&#39; think that would be very useful for serious crimes. Ostrcaczing (as we seen it in previous societies) would mean to be sent to exile. You&#39;re are just translating the problem. Not in my backyard.


Ostracising a member of a community WAS effectively a death sentence in the early modern period. In the crazy witch hunts of the late seventeenth century, many suspected "witches" that escaped trial were simply ostracised; excluded from society. Thus, they could buy or sell no food - and ended up surviving on scraps or dying of starvation. This would not work so well in the tweny-first century, granted, but don&#39;t be so quick to dismiss the idea.



The habilation should start in cradle and teach the kids not to become murderers.That is not going to happen in capitalist society since there is not enough funding on social sector.


This is a good point. I believe that in a Communist society, where there are no inequalities and no class tensions, crime would be significantly reduced. Most of the potential crimes would be prevented. Furthermore, prison standards would improve as the numbers "inside" decreased. So life imprisonment doesn&#39;t look quite so bad.

[LSD]

What do you think a man should get for killing a 10 year old child coldblooded ?

Life imprisonment.


Of course, we cannot eleminate every risk of mistakes, but we can reduce them greatly. The point is that in a capitalism system, the juges decisions are not always impartial. You end up with foolish condamnations based on... nothing. A condamnation in a communist society looks more fair to me. How many times have we heard about the manipulation of "proofs" and "evidence" by authorities?

Yes, yes yes.....capitalist justice is faulty, a communist one will be better.......fine. But it won&#39;t be perfect.
No system is perfect.

So, again, with that in mind, why have a death penalty and be certain that you&#39;re condemning the innocent to perpetual punnishment, when the advantages of executions are so few??

[Solace]

Yes, yes yes, LSD,.....no system is perfect, they&#39;ll always be mistakes.......fine.

Death penalty would be used in extreme cases only. When the crime was repeated and the criminal showed no sign of possible rehabilitation. Right there, we eliminate the risks of mistakes.

Personnally, I would prefer to die than to be sent in that "hell-hole". I stay with what I said; life imprisonment post-pone the death penalty. Even innocent people who finally get out of there are unable to go back in society.

I&#39;m against the imprisonment system as a whole.

[pandora]

Some years ago i had the pleasure of meeting Sister Helen Prejean. At the juncture she had two men, one on either side, at the live televised event each of whom had been on death row in Texas, but through investigation were later found innocent. After one meets people who were due to be executed, and then found to be innocent one realizes how corrupt the system is.
Both these men were white. I could not help but think if either had been African American or Hispanic let alone Chicano in Texas, neither would have been so lucky.
It is telling that even though Ms. Prejean was up for the Nobel Peace Prize none of the affiliates ran much of a news story on the event, even though the event which preceded her coming, the arresting of two young men who trying to perform a copy cat killing to the murders in Juarez, El Paso, this being in Las Cruces, were caught and ratted on one another.
These boys, for in truth that is what they were, were merciless in their killing of the young woman, who was a college student. That being said, two wrongs definately do not make a right and they most definately needed to be locked up and treated psychologically for what they had done. I had no doubt that they would be abused when locked up if not just by the jailers, by the inmates, and would suffer horribly for their crimes without being killed.
Killing does not change behavior, and telling someone you are going to kill them refuses hope in them and creates resistance to any change of heart possible.
It&#39;s interesting to have this conversation on the Che Guevara web site, in his youth, I think he would have said treatment was the best therapy, but in and after the war, I believe, his mind had changed to not wishing to be bothered to rehabilitate men who he felt were too much trouble to be bothered with, so most likely he would have lovingly shot them in the head after a good meal. Honestly.
But that is not to say that that would be the best answer. Once in the mountains of Central Peru going to OXapampa, Guevera and his friend Alberto witnessed two men report a murder, the victim&#39;s son and a person Guevara referred to as a "volitile mulatto" who claimed a third indigenous man was the murderer, having brought the photo. The sargeant showed the photo to Guevara and Alberto saying, "Look, gentlemen, the classic example of the murderer." Both Guevara and Alberto agreed much as you or I would if we were cowardly and afraid in a jail in Texas, but secretly both suspected the mulatto man. Of course no doubt the Indigenous man was imprisoned or killed. Then Guevara and Alberto were forced to share a lift with mulatto whom they were assured had killed the man, but later convinced themselves he had not.
Not only in this situation, similar to many situations particularly in the Southern United States is a man put to death perhaps for being the wrong skin tone and wrongfully accused, but at the time Guevara and Alberto would have convicted the other man, the mulatto, but than later realized the verdict was not perhaps correct. In a nutshell, the problem with the death penalty.
Even when you find the correct person who murdered the situation is killing someone the job of the state, or is it the job of a society to rehabilitate its members. I in my life time have shared beers and stories many times with murderers who have killed someone, sometimes they told me their story sometimes they did not. Sometimes they were soldiers for the government killing innocent civilians or doing clean up, sometimes they killed someone in a duel or bar fight. Always there was trauma associated, and always the person would have been better off, I felt, as would the society, it they had been properly treated, instead of simply being let go or jailed and then let go without some psychtriatric treatment. I would never have taken out a gun and shot any of these people, I enjoyed their conversation, and felt great shame for them and deeply saddened for the families and the victim. There must be a better way to bring about forgiveness and closure than killing another person. As Sister Helen Prejean said that day, "I wonder what real closure it really brings."
Cheers.

[Gaia]

The death Penalty is ineffective in deterring people from crime, take a look at crime statistics where there is no death penalty compared to places where they toast their wrong doers.
Who really thinks they have the right to take anothers life? Then let that person do the executing and live with blood on their hands.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
There never has been and never will be justification for the planned taking another persons life (of course self defense is not included in this as that is not pre-meditated). If you plan on killing anyone you had better have a good reason for it and I do not believe one exists.
Surely incarceration is a crueller and more appropriate punishment, for those who you really want to suffer? Living is harder then dying and it lasts longer.

[LSD]

Death penalty would be used in extreme cases only. When the crime was repeated and the criminal showed no sign of possible rehabilitation. Right there, we eliminate the risks of mistakes.

Hardly.
You can&#39;t "eliminate the risks of mistakes", you can only reduce them.

What if a criminal has committed one crime, but not the second. They&#39;ve served the original sentence, but as a known criminal they would naturally be suspected for the second crime. Let&#39;s say evidence is scarce and, in the end, they&#39;re convicted.

Rare, maybe, but it would happen. Not even your repeated-crime model would be infallible.


Personnally, I would prefer to die than to be sent in that "hell-hole". I stay with what I said; life imprisonment post-pone the death penalty. Even innocent people who finally get out of there are unable to go back in society.

If you would prefer to die, kill yourself. But you cannot speak for every convict and if even one wishes to live, even in such circumstances, they must have such a right. At least then, should they be innocent, they have a chance of release.
As far as I know, no one has developped a cure for death yet.


I&#39;m against the imprisonment system as a whole.

Understandable, but do you have a viable alternative?

[Guest1]

I really cannot believe anyone here would support the death penalty in anything but a war-time or class-revolt situation.

As LSD clearly stated repeatedly, it is never "ok" to kill the innocent. You have no right. The government has no right.

No human being has the right to take the life of another, who the fuck are you to decide who lives and who dies?

You are as flawed as anyone, and have much more in common with the murderers you wanna murder than you think.

[Mano Dayak]

clearly against... u never know if the person siiting on the electric chair is really the one who did it.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 8 2004, 12:18 AM
Yes, but what if they&#39;re innocent?
What kind of price tag would you put for executing an innocent man?
I would put myself up for execution in exchange for the execution of some drug dealers or murderers.

It is a good point that life imprisonment might be a better deterrent. In Texas I believe George Bush reduced violent crime by a third, I think. I am not sure whether it was because of the use of the death penalty though.

[Solace]

My bad choice of word here. I meant ‘reduce’ not ‘eliminate’. And yes, I have a viable alternative. Do you care to hear about it?


I really cannot believe anyone here would support the death penalty in anything but a war-time or class-revolt situation.

Let is be said once for all. I am in favor of death penalty in a communist society for extreme cases. asurely, I am not the only one in this site.


As LSD clearly stated repeatedly, it is never "ok" to kill the innocent. You have no right. The government has no right. (…) No human being has the right to take the life of another, who the fuck are you to decide who lives and who dies?

There would be no government. The people – I assume a large # - would have voted. The decision do not depend on a single ‘authority’. This is not about me or you. A community has the right to decide which ‘elements’ are dangerous. The life of many people should not be put at risk for one individual.

Of course, applied as we know it, in the current system, death penalty is horrible. The jury is way too small to be unbiased, not matter how much they want to be. The more we make a jury large, the more the condemnations will be credible.

There is always the risk of mistake, as in everything. I do not deny that. But endangering the life of thousand is not better, either. The community prevails on the individuals.


You are as flawed as anyone, and have much more in common with the murderers you wanna murder than you think

Nah. Go away. That landed 75 miles away from me.

[redstar2000]

I&#39;m starting to grow a bit weary of the "you do not have a right to..." arguments.

You do "not have a right to execute a murderer or rapist or someone guilty of inflicting unprovoked violence on another"...???

Then what "right" do you have to imprison him in harsh conditions for decades?

The "right" originates in the right of the people to live their lives without threat or fear of violence.

People have a right to walk the streets of their cities at any hour without having to fear violence...any more than they&#39;d have to fear attack by tigers.

Women have the right to live their lives without fearing rape.

People have the right to enjoy an evening in a drinking establishment without having to fear that an incautious remark will result in a savage beating.

Children, in particular, have the right not to live in fear of "strangers".

Fearfulness is a shitty way to have to live...and we have the right to reduce or eliminate that as much as we can.

The argument is not about "right"...the argument is about the best way to deal with the problem.

The "long imprisonment" advocates do not realize the implications of their position; they focus on the rare execution of someone innocent of the violent crime.

Are they willing to be prison guards themselves? Prisons don&#39;t just de-humanize the prisoners, you know.

In fact, I think the worst result of the "long imprisonment" option is what it does to us.

What kind of "free society" has prisons?

Jails for non-violent crimes...yes, I can see that. Places that would look and feel like apartment buildings, except that you couldn&#39;t leave. Short two or three year sentences, lots of rehabilitation, etc., etc....sure.

But prisons? Ancient stone fortresses, freezing in winter and boiling in summer, shitty food, the daily gang-rape, etc. Or the new modern prison, sleek and featureless, sensory deprivation elevated to high art, etc.

And not just for a few years but for decades.&#33;

This is what you want???

No thanks.

:redstar2000:

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Solace]

Fearfulness is a shitty way to have to live...and we have the right to reduce or eliminate that as much as we can.

This is exactly it&#33; Threating the safety and the lifes of many many people for one indivudual doesn&#39;t make any sense. They don&#39;t need to lock and arm themselves in order to be secure. We are better off without the dangerous element in society&#33;

[LSD]

I&#39;m starting to grow a bit weary of the "you do not have a right to..." arguments.

Good, because I didn&#39;t make one.


I made the simple and repeated point that the death penalty is an intrinsically permanent and entirely irrepairable punishment.

If you execute the wrong man, there is nothing you can do. If you imprison him, there is at least something you can do. No matter the psychological toll, no matter the long-term effects, it&#39;s better to have a system that has the flexibility to deal with the inevitable innocent execution.

Some sort of imprisonment is inevitable, at least until another viable alternatvie is presented. Sure, communist prisons will be nothing like their modern equivilents, but they will be prisons. And since practically no one would propose execution for such crimes as assault or kidnapping, these penalties would require reasonably extended prison terms.

The question isn&#39;t whether or not long prison terms would exist, they would have to. The question is do you have a death program in addition.

Do you supplement your justice system with a program so inflexible as to offer no chance for appeal or reconsideration once it has been discharged.

Death is the sole punishment that is absolutely irrevocable,

and I don&#39;t trust anyone with that kind of power.

[Guest1]

The rot of organized murder will set in much quicker than the rot of forceful incarceration.
Besides, murder has been proven to be higher in death penalty states.
Now, I&#39;d like to respond to your implication that anyone should be cast out of society entirely for their crimes with a quote from Khalil Gibran&#39;s "The Prophet":

Oftentimes have I heard you speak of one who commits a wrong as though he were not one of you, but a stranger unto you and an intruder upon your world.

But I say that even as the holy and the righteous cannot rise beyond the highest which is in each one of you,

So the wicked and the weak cannot fall lower than the lowest which is in you also.

And as a single leaf turns not yellow but with the silent knowledge of the whole tree,

So the wrong-doer cannot do wrong without the hidden will of you all.

Like a procession you walk together towards your god-self.

You are the way and the wayfarers.

And when one of you falls down he falls for those behind him, a caution against the stumbling stone.

Ay, and he falls for those ahead of him, who though faster and surer of foot, yet removed not the stumbling stone.

And this also, though the word lie heavy upon your hearts:

The murdered is not unaccountable for his own murder,

And the robbed is not blameless in being robbed.

The righteous is not innocent of the deeds of the wicked,

And the white-handed is not clean in the doings of the felon.

Yea, the guilty is oftentimes the victim of the injured,

And still more often the condemned is the burden-bearer for the guiltless and unblamed.

You cannot separate the just from the unjust and the good from the wicked;

For they stand together before the face of the sun even as the black thread and the white are woven together.

And when the black thread breaks, the weaver shall look into the whole cloth, and he shall examine the loom also.

If any of you would bring judgment the unfaithful wife,

Let him also weight the heart of her husband in scales, and measure his soul with measurements.

And let him who would lash the offender look unto the spirit of the offended.

And if any of you would punish in the name of righteousness and lay the ax unto the evil tree, let him see to its roots;

And verily he will find the roots of the good and the bad, the fruitful and the fruitless, all entwined together in the silent heart of the earth.

And you judges who would be just,

What judgment pronounce you upon him who though honest in the flesh yet is a thief in spirit?

What penalty lay you upon him who slays in the flesh yet is himself slain in the spirit?

And how prosecute you him who in action is a deceiver and an oppressor,

Yet who also is aggrieved and outraged?

And how shall you punish those whose remorse is already greater than their misdeeds?

Is not remorse the justice which is administered by that very law which you would fain serve?

Yet you cannot lay remorse upon the innocent nor lift it from the heart of the guilty.

Unbidden shall it call in the night, that men may wake and gaze upon themselves.

And you who would understand justice, how shall you unless you look upon all deeds in the fullness of light?

Only then shall you know that the erect and the fallen are but one man standing in twilight between the night of his pigmy-self and the day of his god-self,

And that the corner-stone of the temple is not higher than the lowest stone in its foundation.

[Soviet power supreme]

Maybe we need some island we can drop off these types and make sure there&#39;s no chance of escape. No food, no provisions, no shelter. You just figure it out with all the other child murderers.

Ohh that is just disgusting.You do know what this leads?Cannibalism.


Sometimes they were soldiers for the government killing innocent civilians or doing clean up, sometimes they killed someone in a duel or bar fight.

Those arent murders.I think everybody agree that death penalty is for the most repulsive cases.

Now I want to know how can you count someones death in years in prison?


Now have you consider that in communist society these murders would be a rare thing?People would concetrate more on social sector and education.There wouldnt be no need to robbers kill the shop assitant for the money or some psychopatic killing 150 in mall, because these kinds of things would be taken care before the incident, by therapy, education and people would would not have to kill to steal money.

Of course there still would be murders in communist society, but not that many as now.

[Guest1]

Yes, so we can take the time to rehabilitate these murderers, or we can take the extra care of making sure we don&#39;t kill anyone knowing there&#39;s a chance they could be innocent.

Besides, the murder rate goes down in societies that clearly oppose murder. By not allowing the state to murder that is.

[redstar2000]

The question isn&#39;t whether or not long prison terms would exist, they would have to.

To what purpose? Keeping people alive who have already demonstrated a willingness to use violence against others? Keeping them locked up in an environment where abrupt and savage violence is routine?

So when they get out, they can do what they have gotten really good at? Only worse?

I simply cannot comprehend your rationale...in place of the very rare execution of an innocent person, you will substitute the common injury or death of many additional innocent people. And in the latter case, it&#39;s known for certain that they are innocent.

That just strikes me as crazy.

As to the quotations of Kahlil Gibran...perhaps we should put a copy of his book next to the hospital bed of each victim of violent crime. It will be a great comfort to them...if they regain consciousness long enough to read it.

:redstar2000:

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Guest1]

It will be a great comfort to them

As if taking another life will.

Don&#39;t try this on me. "Ooh, think of the victims".

An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind.

[hazard]

this is sort of an old topic for me to post on

as an expert in these matters of life and death and morality, as theya re phrased within the abortion debate, the death penalty and euthanasia, all arguments that work for one work for all of them

there really is no way to defend any of these practices as they all deal with killing people, legally, at various phases of that persons life and for various reasons

the death penalty is, to me, the most open and shut case of them all

morally repugnant and vile, reprehensible and sickening

there is no logical way that someone can defend this practice as it is phrased as being permissible under the law of any so called civilized nation

as such, only the least civilized of the industrialized world, which also happens to be the least socialist, the usa allows capital punishment to remain considered a suitable punishment for their criminals

it all comes down to dollars and sense, as well as the never ending protestant zeal for conducting lynches and witch hunts for sport and pleasure

the defense of capital punishment seems to be three pronged

deterant, protection and monetary

deterant is idiotic. people don&#39;t typically kill other people, which is the only capital offense in the usa, if they think they are going to be caught and or punished for it. the same applies to every other crime in the spectrum. to increase the punitive factor for being convicted of the crime ignores the essential premise that crimes aren&#39;t performed with the eventual consequence held under consideration. deterant, as a defence not just for capital punishment but for any crime is ridiculous.

protection is moronic. this defence actually translates more into revenge than anything. but for the sake of argument, lets assume that the modern prison system is so easy to subvert that one in every ten convicted murderers escape from maximum security installations. and lets say that one in every ten of those who escape go forth and commit another murder. keep in mind that I have yet to hear of a convicted murdereer who not only escapes from prison, but escapes and duplicates the very same crime they committed that found them in there in the first place. now what we have is a convict twice guilty of commiting the same crime at a ratio of one in a hundred. had ALL of those convicts who were convicted of first degree been executed, thats ONE extra murder for the ONE HUNDRED &#39;legal&#39; murders it requires to save that life. and then when you take into account HOW these people are convicted, you must realize that a certain percentage of those one hundred convicts are actually innocent, and another percentage would have gotten off on lesser charges or found innocent had they been able to afford a better lawyer. all to save ONE so called innocent life, but who knows. that so called innocent might have themselves been a murderer, or about to murder or commit mass murder or invent some sort of weapon of mass destruction. the numbers DO NOT add up. protection as a defence is a ridiculous ploy that is typically used to generate fear, ussually during election time, in the cattle herd of america.

monetary is stupidified. lets look at this for half a second. placing a dollar sign on a human life. don&#39;t bother me with the details.

capital punishment is not condonable, ever, in a modern world with modern laws.

[redstar2000]

An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind.

People sure do like that quote a lot...I must have seen its sorry ass dragged out in a dozen threads or more over the last 15 months.

Literally, it&#39;s nonsense...there are many people who have injured no one and thus would retain their vision.

But we&#39;re "not supposed" to take the "sayings of the wise" literally, are we?

We&#39;re supposed to genuflect or bow or murmur softly "that&#39;s so true".

I mean, how dare a "miserable sinner" like myself challenge the quip of a "holy man"?

It&#39;s easier than it looks, folks.

:redstar2000:

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

Hazard&#39;s "argument" that the death penalty does not save innocent lives is based on numbers that he gracefully plucked from his rectal orifice.

Anyone is free to make up numbers to "prove" anything they want.

Anyone who is not a fool is equally free to reject them.


...as an expert in these matters of life and death and morality...

I have to chuckle when anyone tries this gambit...the idea that anyone would attempt to pass themselves off as "expert" on such "subjects".

It&#39;s like claiming to be Senior City Planning Adviser for "the New Jerusalem". :lol:

:redstar2000:

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[hazard]

those numbers were as conservative as I could conjure up, whether or not you are questioning which orifice they appeared from

in reality, as I pointed out, NOBODY escapes from maximum a security penitentiary

if I wanted to play hardball, I would have said ONE in a THOUSAND escape and ONE in TEN THOUSAND escapees recommit. which would mean that ONE MILLION people have to be executed in order to save the life of one so called innocent. now these numbers aren&#39;t quite as tilted in your favour as my previous set, but are far more accurate in terms of reality.

I say expert in the same way that I say genius, in reference to myself. not that I&#39;m neither of these. i AM BOTH.

[Guest1]

Redstar, more and more, you&#39;re just starting to sound like a rambling grumpy old man.

I&#39;ll try this from another perspective:

1) The government has no right to exist. It is here by violence, by force. No one volunteered to delegate power to it, though they may have chosen to some extent who to delegate it to.

2) Since it has no right to exist, we must accept this fact at least for now, and try to limit its actions. Why? Because it is a beast that should be killed, but we only have the power to tie it down for now. How? By limiting its actions to those that are socially beneficial, and taking power away from it wherever we can. Never give the government more power than is absolutely necessary for the good of the people. For now.

3) State sanctioned murder is the clearest case of government power we can go without. Government power that can easily be abused, that can become a nightmare for anyone who becomes the victim of a faceless bureaucracy. It is also permanent, meaning that even if the government&#39;s crimes are exposed, there is no way to undo their actions. If they abuse this power that no one should have, even if they are thrown out in a people&#39;s revolution, nothing can be done to bring those people back.

4) Not only is it a dangerous power, but it is one that corrupts society in general. State sanctioned murder in its more accepted form, war, has been the downfall of several major Democracies and will continue to be a cancer that must be caught and eliminated quickly to save any progressive society. The judicial murder you propose we accept has a more subtle effect on society. The proliferation of murder. You can continue to ignore me when I raise this point, but societies that murder their own citizens have higher crime rates, not lower.

That is why I do not support judicial slaughter. Even in a post revolutionary society.

[redstar2000]

Redstar, more and more, you&#39;re just starting to sound like a rambling grumpy old man.

Perhaps...but that seems to me to be preferable to declaring myself a "genius" and an "expert". :lol:

I really have no difficulties with your general line of argument as it relates to present-day society. It is "reformist" in spirit, of course...but I&#39;ve never been against reformists trying their best to introduce whatever reforms they think might be helpful. If you think that abolition of the death penalty serves to reduce the power of government under class society and want to fight for that...go right ahead.

Under capitalism, whether one is executed after 3-5 years of psychological torture or is tortured daily for 30 or 40 or 50 years in a hell-hole prison is a "choice" that is pretty meaningless. Immediate suicide would be preferable, in my view, to either of those "alternatives".

The humane alternative that would exist in communist society, in my view, would escape both of those horrors. If you got caught and convicted of serious violence against another human being, then within a few months, you&#39;d be fertilizer.

And that&#39;s it. No prisons. No long periods of false hopes and dreaded expectations. A quick trial, a quicker review, and you&#39;re history.

(Trials would be held, I think, in the communities where the crime took place and might involve juries of as many as 500 citizens...as the Athenians once did it. Alternatively, neighboring communities could have a "swap" agreement...they try all of your cases and you try all of theirs, so as to avoid community bias.)

Contrary to your inferences, I do not think that such a procedure would lead to any "increase" in "government power" or anything like that. We&#39;re not talking about "political crimes" or "bad thoughts" here.

This is about individuals who have shown the willingness to inflict severe violence on innocent people...should they get the chance to do it again?

You say yes; I say no.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Guest1]

Well, you&#39;re right, it is better than calling yourself a genius and an expert :D

I like what you&#39;re saying in terms of judgement and juries. However, I&#39;d say there&#39;s the danger of mob mentality if they had the right to kill.

Plus, the death penalty would likely be even more of a rot to the community because of how close the community is. It&#39;s not somebody you don&#39;t know, someone killed by a judge, it&#39;s someone you&#39;ve all lived with for a long time, who you all decided to kill.

However, I do see how it can be dangerous to keep someone like that around when there&#39;s such a small community. However, if they&#39;re going to deal with people who attempt to hoard resources, or people who assault, they&#39;re going to have to be able to hold people who may become a danger to the community. So murderers won&#39;t be that different.

They will all be held in much more humane prison grounds. Pretty much neighbourhoods that are fenced in. With grass, houses, etc.

I don&#39;t see what&#39;s wrong with that, and they could also have psychiatrists visiting constantly. Psychiatrists who could decide if and when to let them out. If they showed signs of changing their behaviour, caring for the community more, they could be let out and reintegrated.

As for those that were talking about dumping them on an island, that&#39;s how Australia was created, it ended up turning into a racist, violent, right-wing society. I&#39;d say we wanna avoid that now :P