death penalty - under used?

[king will of orange]

edit: I just realized I am totally wrong. Sorry.

[Anonymous]

I agree. When you take the life of another your own life atoumatically becomes forfeit.

[Nobody]

You claim the Death Penalty is a deterrent, but do you think the truly sick members of our society would be like "I'd kill them, but wait, I'll be sent to the chair!!". Nope, they're just sick. I both am replused by them, but also feel a SLIGHT [focus on slight] bit of pity for them becasue they are just so out there. Of course, 99.99999999999999999% of my pity goes to the family of the victim.

[Anonymous]

Personally, I could care less if it deterrs crime or not. It's about justice to me.

[tacoernie]

i agree something needs to be done with these people, but not the further taking of life. it seems like this entire thread is admitting defeat already, by using the death penelty as a deterent (which, as these crimes still occur, it obviously is not), it feels like you are not perpared to address the issues that cause these (and other) crimes to occur. rather than flinging stones from atop your moral high horse, why not get off your arse and help?

[Vinny Rafarino]

Who gives a fuck what you think littlebill. How many times do we have to ban you?...Block this ****'s IP address before he makes the mistake of pretending to have balls and gives me his address.

[king will of orange]

Like I said, I am a total goatfucker.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Well alright littlebill. Congratulations on being such a little pussy.

I wondering littlebill, exactly what dosage of Rohypnol do you need to give your wife and kid to keep them around?

[Pete]

Tell your friends, Dull Finger Fuck and Crazy Peter Puller, that they will never be rid of me if they continue with their insults.

Oh the irony. I don't think I ever insulted you in the manner which you have insulted me. The irony is killing me.

You know, in Toronto a few years back, there was a husband-wife serial killer pair. The wife actually gave her kid sister to her husband to rape. After he had raped her, they both took part in torturing and killing the poor girl. Sick. Now if Canadians want to support these maggots, that's their business. If they are that liberal, then good for them.

Paul Bernado is rotting in solitary. It is cheaper that way than killing him. I think Evil ***** (I forget her name) is soon to enter solitary at womans prison, either that or she will be deported to whoever will take her, which is no one. Which means she will not be released into the Canadian public because if she is she is dead. Her name: Carla Halmoka (I remembered). And yes she is disgusting.

Despite what the liberals say, the death penalty could be a good deterrent if used properly.

The death penalty is not a deterant, and it never was...except perhaps in Rome after that slave revolt when they crucified a slave every mile on the Apian way. Anyways, today it costs more to kill them than to keep them alive.

It's a percious resource that should be used more frequently.

With new technology coming out 20 years down the line you could find out that you killed the wrong person and the real criminal has been at large the whole time? Then what?

[king will of orange]

I like goatcock.

[Vinny Rafarino]

littlebill's little intellect can't think that far ahead.

Here's five accounts of mishandled justice. Believe me comrades there are plenty more.

In 1975, only a year before the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of capital punishment, two African-American men in Florida, Freddie Pitts and Wilbert Lee, were released from prison after twelve years awaiting execution for the murder of two white men. Their convictions were the result of coerced confessions, erroneous testimony of an alleged eyewitness, and incompetent defense counsel. Though a white man eventually admitted his guilt, a nine-year legal battle was required before the governor would grant Pitts and Lee a pardon.(33) Had their execution not been stayed while the constitutional status of the death penalty was argued in the courts, these two innocent men probably would not be alive today.

Just months after Pitts and Lee were released, authorities in New Mexico were forced to admit they had sentenced to death four white men -- motorcyclists from Los Angeles -- who were innocent. The accused offered a documented alibi at their trial, but the prosecution dismissed it as an elaborate ruse. The jury's verdict was based mainly on what was later revealed to be perjured testimony (encouraged by the police) from an alleged eyewitness. Thanks to persistent investigation by newspaper reporters and the confession of the real killer, the error was exposed and the defendants were released after eighteen months on death row.(34)

In Georgia in 1975, Earl Charles was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. A surviving victim of the crime erroneously identified Charles as the gunman; her testimony was supported by a jail-house informant who claimed he had heard Charles confess . Incontrovertible alibi evidence, showing that Charles was in Florida at the very time of the crime, eventually established his innocence -- but not until he had spent more than three years under death sentence. His release was owing largely to his mother's unflagging efforts.(35)

In 1989, Texas authorities decided not to retry Randall Dale Adams after the appellate court reversed his conviction for murder. Adams had spent more than three years on death row for the murder of a Dallas police officer. He was convicted on the perjured testimony of a 16-year-old youth who was the real killer. Adams's plight was vividly presented in the 1988 docudrama, The Thin Blue Line, which convincingly told the true story of the crime and exposed the errors that resulted in his conviction.(36)

Another case in Texas from the 1980s tells an even more sordid story. In 1980 a black high school janitor, Clarence Brandley, and his white co-worker found the body of a missing 15-year-old white schoolgirl. Interrogated by the police, they were told, " One of you two is going to hang for this." Looking at Brandley, the officer said, "Since you're the nigger, you're elected." In a classic case of rush to judgment, Brandley was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. The circumstantial evidence against him was thin, other leads were ignored by the police, and the courtroom atmosphere reeked of racism. In 1986 Centurion Ministries -- a volunteer group devoted to freeing wrongly convicted prisoners -- came to Brandley's aid. Evidence had meanwhile emerged that another man had committed the murder for which Brandley was awaiting execution. Brandley was not released until 1990.(37)

With this useless justice system I think someone could get away with clipping littlebill by blaming it on a band of rogue leprechauns.

[Pete]

Hey, I am just saying what is happening to them now. Under current laws they have to be killed 'humanly' which means extremely expensive machinery. So what does the government do? Make that process illegal and throw the worst people into a hole to rot for the rest of their lives! IMO that is much worse than dying before the guilt has set in, or insanity, or lonliness, or anything else that comes from solitary.

[king will of orange]

I thuck donkeycock... and lithp.

[Ghost Writer]

The death penalty is underused. Far more crimes that warrant the death penalty are not punished in this manner. Chalk it up to politically correct nonsense.

[redstarshining]

Quote: from king will of orange on 6:20 am on June 15, 2003
Like I said, I am a total goatfucker.


I thought you prefer donkeys?

[Ghost Writer]

This is just sad. The leftists used to debate. Now all they do is insult people. Does anyone else notice the decline of this site?

[redstarshining]

Well, he was banned and that for a good reason ( plenty of racist remarks ). If you had read the original posts by this person -before they were edited- you wouldn't put the blame on the leftists now.

[Pete]

GW some of us debate. Such as me and RAF (when he isnt slag happy).

[redstarshining]

I doubt the efficiency of the death penalty as a measure to prevent crime. Someone who plans to commit murder will hardly think about the consequences. I have to admit that I don't have any figures to back up my claim.

Then you have the big problem, which was already mentioned, that you cannot bring anyone back from the dead if the judicial decision later turns out to be false. 'One-way justice' is always problematic.

I find it far more efficient to force those people to actually repair at least some of the damage they did to society ( in cases of major crimes such as murder, rape, child abuse etc. where rehabilitation has very low chances of success ). A good measure would be to sentence such offenders to unlimited community services in a controlled and secured environment.

[redstarshining]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 5:59 pm on June 15, 2003
GW some of us debate. Such as me and RAF (when he isnt slag happy).


err... i did too, in another thread. But nobody answered yet.

[Pete]

I know. :) Dinnae worry.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Bigbill has been banned, he has no rights here and is fair game in every way.

In line with the banning, and my newfound lack of anything to pass the time, anything he posts will be edited or deleted as soon as possible and banning all his accounts will be more of a pleasure than a chore.

If he persists his ISP will be contacted. If they do not take action his supply of donkeydick will be cut off untill his will crumbles and he gives in to our demands.

--- G.

[redstarshining]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 6:18 pm on June 15, 2003
I know. :) Dinnae worry.


Dinnae? is that canadian? ;)

[Pete]

No that is me being too lazy to type do not because dinnae doesn't have one of the middle top row keys on it.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Sounds Scottish ;)

[Vinny Rafarino]

Well there are a ton of Scots in Canada Eh. They even named a part of it New Scotland.

[atlanticche]

maybe its because there both in the north

[Loknar]

I personally perfer the death penelty. However if it is abolished I hope we dont adopt Europe's policy toward convicted murderers and start rehabiliating undeserving people (Murderers, rapists ect.) them then releasing them back into the world.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Yeah, that really sucks, to rehabilitate people and give second chances instead of spending hundreds of dollars a day to keep them in prison for their entire lives.

--- G.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 1:40 pm on June 17, 2003
Yeah, that really sucks, to rehabilitate people and give second chances instead of spending hundreds of dollars a day to keep them in prison for their entire lives.

--- G.

LOL, when will the dumb idiots learn...

To all those in favour of state sanctioned murder, today you find your selves defending capital punishment, however tomorrow you may be arrested for a murder you did not commit and be sentanced to death by injection. Im sure that your opinions on the death penalty would rapidly change in such a situation.

[redstarshining]

Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 2:40 pm on June 17, 2003
Yeah, that really sucks, to rehabilitate people and give second chances instead of spending hundreds of dollars a day to keep them in prison for their entire lives.

--- G.



But in some cases it's almost impossible to rehabilitate people. Where I live it happens just too often that rapists, who are almost NEVER one time offenders, get sentenced to 2 years in prison ( the minimum penalty for rape is 1 and a half year on probation if I remember correctly ), then they get a little bit of psychological treatment, then some psychologist testifies that they are "cured" and they are released from prison. A few weeks later they do it again. I will look for some up to date facts & figures to prove my point.

In cases like that the success rate for rehabilitation is so low that I can't see any way to justify spending precious tax money on those people. Instead they should work and pay back some of their debt to society.

[Soul Rebel]

Just a little info. that some people keep getting wrong- it is actually 6 times more expensive to use the death penalty than it is to keep someone in jail. So if we are concerned with tax payer money- then the death penalty needs to go.

[Hampton]

America's attempt to rehabilitate their prisoners stopped a long time ago. Most who are in for petty drug crimes will only need rehabilitate after they get out of jail to try and get over the shock of being there. Many of the programs that did any good at all have been cut for seemingly being to humane to the prisoner, such as programs allowed them to work toward degrees such as masters and phds.

[Dhul Fiqar]

AK47: I have no idea what you are talking about, how did capital punishment get into this particular line of reasoning? I know it's the original premise of the thread but it has nothing to do with the passage you quoted.

redstarshining: Fair enough, but you are making a common but serious mistake in assuming it costs less to keep people in jail than to give them psychological counceling. It is in fact SAVING taxpayer money, not the other way around. Your solution may or may not be better (for the purpose of this argument) but it is far far more expensive.

I would also like to add that numerous studies, mostly in the UK, have concluded that it takes something around a 25% increase in prison population to achieve an approximately ONE percentage decrease in recorded crime rates. That means to reduce crime by four percent you have to double what is being spent on prisons and jails today. If that seems cost effective to you, by all means support it.

But be warned that to make any impact on crime figures with this method will cost more than the GDP could possibly handle.

--- G.

[RAM]

The death penalty should never be used die to mistakes. Also having the death penalty would make it easy for them to commit a crime knowng that they will die. I think that all should be given the chnage of rehabilitation even if they don't rehabilitate!

[Loknar]

Rehabilitate a bank robber or a petty theif . But why does a murderer deserve it? What about the victim(s)? I don’t care much about the costs but some people don’t deserve the rehabilitation. There is the case of the man in Belgium who filmed he torture and murder of 2 little girls, should someone like that be rehabilitated? Further more it is a risk to the community as a whole to rehabilitate someone and for that rehabilitation to end up failing. I wonder what the success rate of rehabilitation is, it seems that it isn’t too high as redstarshining pointed out. I must admit I am leaning a bit toward abolishing the death penalty but I damned sure would never want to risk the community over rehabilitation of a scum bag who doesn’t deserve it. Isn’t there such a thing as being too humane?

[Dhul Fiqar]

A vast majority of all crime is petty, only a tiny portion of criminals are actually in jail for murder or child molestation. Most offences relate to drug posession or property damage/theft.

There would be plenty of space for those really bad cases to be kept isolated from society if the courts would consider measures such as house arrest or rehabilitation for those that need not be put into prisons where they are perhaps raped and hardened into career criminals.

The system is not set up to punish the truly horriffic offenders you are talking about, it is primarily built around keeping people confined to a small room under constant threat of rape because of relatively petty offences.

--- G.

[Loknar]

I have no problem rehabilitating petty crimes you see. But keeping a murderer under House arrest? What about the risk to the next door neighbor and their kids. and society as a whole? And again what about the victim?


Prison should be a place for punishment and rehabilitation. Basically show them that there is a consequence that results from your actions.

[Vinny Rafarino]

The problem does not lie in what they "deserve" Loknar. The problem lies in the fact that many innocent citizens have been put to death for crimes they did not commit. This is unacceptable. I agree, if you rape and murder a child you deserve nothing but death. However in order to execute this criminal there must be a policy of capital punishment put in place. If said policy exists then there are going to be civilians that are later found to be innocent put to death. Do you feel this is acceptable Loknar? You simply can't and still be considered human.

[Loknar]

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 8:56 pm on June 17, 2003
The problem does not lie in what they "deserve" Loknar. The problem lies in the fact that many innocent citizens have been put to death for crimes they did not commit. This is unacceptable. I agree, if you rape and murder a child you deserve nothing but death. However in order to execute this criminal there must be a policy of capital punishment put in place. If said policy exists then there are going to be civilians that are later found to be innocent put to death. Do you feel this is acceptable Loknar? You simply can't and still be considered human.

No I dont find it acceptable. However , what would you have society do? Allow them to walk free.? This is why I am leaning toward life imprisonmemt over the death penelty.

[Pete]

Quote: from Loknar on 2:46 pm on June 17, 2003
I have no problem rehabilitating petty crimes you see. But keeping a murderer under House arrest? What about the risk to the next door neighbor and their kids. and society as a whole? And again what about the victim?


Prison should be a place for punishment and rehabilitation. Basically show them that there is a consequence that results from your actions.


I fully support throwing murderes (brutal murders not drunk drivers, hunting accident, ect 'muderers' there are differences for every crime) into a little 2X2X3 (metres) hole for the rest of their life.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 6:09 pm on June 17, 2003
AK47: I have no idea what you are talking about, how did capital punishment get into this particular line of reasoning? I know it's the original premise of the thread but it has nothing to do with the passage you quoted.

--- G.


No dude I agreed with you post and said something like LOL because what you posted was funny, I then went on to post something off on the origional lines of the conversation, with no relavance to what you posted.

Sorry about that...

[WUOrevolt]

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 8:21 am on June 15, 2003
Personally, I could care less if it deterrs crime or not. It's about justice to me.

dark Capitalist you are 100% wrong. Murder is murder either way.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Outside of political subversionism, life in prison is the only acceptable answer.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from leftistmarleyist on 6:50 pm on June 17, 2003

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 8:21 am on June 15, 2003
Personally, I could care less if it deterrs crime or not. It's about justice to me.

dark Capitalist you are 100% wrong. Murder is murder either way.


No, when you kill someone, your own life automatically becomes null. The state, which is responsible for upholding the right to life, then has the responsibility to execute you.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 7:04 am on June 18, 2003

Quote: from leftistmarleyist on 6:50 pm on June 17, 2003

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 8:21 am on June 15, 2003
Personally, I could care less if it deterrs crime or not. It's about justice to me.

dark Capitalist you are 100% wrong. Murder is murder either way.


No, when you kill someone, your own life automatically becomes null. The state, which is responsible for upholding the right to life, then has the responsibility to execute you.

You're 17 son, and not even bright enough to drop the spoon-fed horse shite that your class has been throwing your genetation in hopes of creating more mindless capitalist drones. We can give fuck-all to what you have to say. You connot convince anyone besides other useless right-wingers that the innocent people who will die on death row as a result of capital punishment are acceptable losses. You are simply brain dead with no hope for resuscitation. No matter how many joules we hit you with brutha....Flat lines all the way down.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Quote: from Loknar on 3:46 am on June 18, 2003
I have no problem rehabilitating petty crimes you see. But keeping a murderer under House arrest? What about the risk to the next door neighbor and their kids. and society as a whole? And again what about the victim?


Prison should be a place for punishment and rehabilitation. Basically show them that there is a consequence that results from your actions.


Had you read my post more clearly you would have seen that I did not suggest house arrest for murderers, but for petty offenders, in order to free up space and resources to deal with REAL criminals.

To quote myself word by word:
"There would be plenty of space for those really bad cases to be kept isolated from society if the courts would consider measures such as house arrest or rehabilitation for those that need not be put into prisons "

--- G.

[Loknar]

Dhul Fiqar

My appologies

[redstarshining]

Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 7:09 pm on June 17, 2003
AK47: I have no idea what you are talking about, how did capital punishment get into this particular line of reasoning? I know it's the original premise of the thread but it has nothing to do with the passage you quoted.

redstarshining: Fair enough, but you are making a common but serious mistake in assuming it costs less to keep people in jail than to give them psychological counceling. It is in fact SAVING taxpayer money, not the other way around. Your solution may or may not be better (for the purpose of this argument) but it is far far more expensive.

I would also like to add that numerous studies, mostly in the UK, have concluded that it takes something around a 25% increase in prison population to achieve an approximately ONE percentage decrease in recorded crime rates. That means to reduce crime by four percent you have to double what is being spent on prisons and jails today. If that seems cost effective to you, by all means support it.

But be warned that to make any impact on crime figures with this method will cost more than the GDP could possibly handle.

--- G.


Ok, maybe I was wrong about the cost for rehabilitation, but if you put only major offenders for lifetime in prison, it should be affordable. Especially when they are productive.

I'm all for rehabilitation of petty offenders, we have a rehabilitation system in Europe and I'm happy with it.
Except for major crimes. I used to know a person who was involved in human trafficking ( saw him a couple of times, didn't know him personally ), was convicted for it and got sentenced to 5 years in prisons, and will soon be released. All I can say is, I wish this person a slow and painful death. This guy will _never_ be rehabilitated. But since the death penalty is not an option in my opinion, I find this to be the best solution.

I think both the american and the european legal systems are flawed ( as far as I can judge it ). The american is inhumane and the european is inefficient and dated. For example, until recently ( until 1998 I think ) the physical mistreatment of mentally disabled people was regarded as damage of property in Germany.

[onepunchmachinegun]

I don't believe in death sentences. If there is a chance that they might have been innocent death sentences shouldn't be an option. In my mind there will always be that chance. Still, I can't see how killing a man can justify whatever he did! No matter how horrible the crime maybe I can't be justified with another murder. The person who "pushes the button" is equally guilty of murder as the person who did the cirme...

[Loknar]

Quote: from onepunchmachinegun on 7:48 pm on June 29, 2003
I don't believe in death sentences. If there is a chance that they might have been innocent death sentences shouldn't be an option. In my mind there will always be that chance. Still, I can't see how killing a man can justify whatever he did! No matter how horrible the crime maybe I can't be justified with another murder. The person who "pushes the button" is equally guilty of murder as the person who did the cirme...

Then by your standards, we shouldnt have executed people at the Nuremburg trials; correct?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I fully support the death penalty for premeditated murder: once you kill someone your right to life is forfeited.

But as for killing due to avoidable recklessness: no, absolutely not.

As for political subversionists I believe they should be exiled.

[Guest1]

no state has the right to murder. does the state have the right to steal? no. does it have the right to maim? no. does it have the right to kidnap? no. so why should have the right to commit any other crime? besides, it's more expensive than holding them for life actually, and you can always let someone out if they were wrongly convicted. let's see you try to raise the dead.

[Ghost]

Murder, whether it be by the state or by individual people is wrong, whatever the circumstances. All criminals should be imprisoned, but not killed. If we support government sponsored murder, which is effectively what the death penalty is, then it makes us just as bad as them. You say what gives them the right to kill others, well what gives you the right to kill them?

[Dhul Fiqar]

Actually, the state DOES have a right to steal and kidnap. They just call it taxes and jail ;)

--- G.

[RAM]

The death penality seems and easy way out for me for the criminal

[sc4r]

To but in and perhaps sound pedantic.

Execution is not Murder, by definition. It is killing. Using the word Murder is an attempt to establish wrongdoing by 'bad word' association and is a tactic frequently resorted to by those who are uninterested in facing reality and only in achieving their dogmatic ends.

Any society defines for itself what is and is not acceptable. It taks all sorts of things into consideration when doing so.

For myself I think that those who get their knockers in a twist about executing people for serious crimes belong in a religous order rather than in a pragmatic movement such as communism.

A Human life on this planet is at present worth something in the order of 1 hours labour for an average western worker. To argue that we must in one bound leap from that to it being of almost infinite value strikes me as being hopelessly isolated from reality.

A small test for all those who have said 'human life is completely sacrosanct' - Are you presently contributing every single $ above that required to sustain your own life and earning capacity to the likes of Oxfam, Aids charities and so on? If not, Why not? Do you perchance mean that it is only other people who should have to bear the brunt of your ideals?

[elijahcraig]

I am against the death penalty. All States are corrupt, they have no right, and it would be and is a joke, to kill people for their crimes. The State murders, and it is defended. No death penalty, it is not killing the problem, it is killing the victim of the problem, marxists should know that.

[Ghost]

Anyone who uses the argument that execution is not murder by defiinition is just being unnecessarily politically correct. Murder is murder if done on purpose, no matter what form.

[Moskitto]

I used to be in support of the death penalty, however I am now against the death penalty and have been for some years.

I would agree that certain extreme cases do deserve the death penalty, locally a man cought HIV commiting his first rape and raped 5 more women as revenge against a whole gender when he discovered he was positive from a radio bullitin.

Death penalty systems collapse into brutality and racism when they are corrupted, The US and Turkey are excellent examples of this. There are so many cases in these countries where people are having convictions overturned days, hours or even minutes before their execution. Unless there is a way of proving absolute guilt then this is a risk any country with the death penalty should deal with.

The death penalty does not act as an effective deterant, It may deter a pre-meditated murder, it is unlikely to deter a crime of passion, someone in a towering rage is unlikely to think "ooh, i'll go to the chair for this." Landing a knife into the back of the guy who's gonna rape your girlfriend is murder, but is it unjustified?

[red Badger]

It seems to ahve escaped the Americans attention that they are the only "industrialised" country that supports the death penalty... maybe the others realised that killing doesnt help. it isnt surprising, the americans have been late in illegalising slavery and countless other things... its actually been only a week since it was legalised to be attracted to someone of your own sex... so keep telling yourselves that you are a world leader in freedom...

[dopediana]

the death penalty is wrong. it's cheap retribution. i'm sure it comes as a relief. i'd rather die than waste away in a cell the rest of my life. in addition, there are far too many cases of people who have been falsely accused based on race, ethnicity, and religious and political beliefs that it is one of the most misused forms of punishment. people are being put in jail for petty crimes such as drug possession for long times while hockey dads who beat the coach to death because he didn't play the man's son long enough gets only 10 years.

and sorry, republicans, there's no reciprocating the bumper sticker either.

why are so many pro-lifers for the death penalty?
why are so many pro-choicers against the death penalty?

[Loknar]

Quote: from the amaryllis on 7:32 am on July 4, 2003

and sorry, republicans, there's no reciprocating the bumper sticker either.

Republicans arent the only ones who are in favor of the death penelty.



why are so many pro-lifers for the death penalty?
why are so many pro-choicers against the death penalty?

Because pro lifers think about the victims involved. I notice that Europeans give no thought whats-so-ever to the victims of murder or their famlies. It's only about the dumb crminal and how he needs to be rehabiliated.

[elijahcraig]

Well, for me it comes down to this: the death penalty can never be used because the State is never 100% accurate in its trial procedure, guilty or innocent? we don't know for sure, we can't execute people who might have been falsely convicted. Plus, the State is corrupt, in essence, the US government has slaughtered millions, this alone makes it unjust for a State to kill someone. It's hypocrisy. It's like letting Jeffrey Dahmer judge whether John Wayne Gacy is guilty, and then letting the Zodiac Killer cut his throat, it's just unjust and fucked up.