The Death Penalty

HughFreakingDillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

tbergs said:

Speaking of punishment fitting the crime, should the juveniles who started the fire due to reckless behavior out west be lit on fire? They've caused more damage and destruction than several murders and rapists combined, not including the long term health conditions from all the smoke.

Another reason why the death penalty is a backwards justice process.

Juvenile argument and one I'm not going to entertain for very long.

Premeditated murder- with sadistic qualities sprinkled in- is a lot different than morons acting moronically.

Those kids need an intervention, but they are a far cry from, oh, say Steven Smith raping and murdering an infant who was put to death in Ohio.

Poor Steve, eh? The backwards justice system was so cruel to him. 

seriously, does "punishment fitting the crime" only apply to rapists and murderers? or if someone burns down someone's house, and it's ruled arson, should that person's house be burned down?

I see no need to punish the house. Don't get silly.

I feel people who rape and murder infants, like the aforementioned Steve Smith, demand a stiffer sentence than a dope dealer or car thief. In my mind, it most accurately demonstrates the grievous nature of their offences. You obviously feel there is no need to differentiate and that jail is most suitable for both.

still won't answer a legitimate question that obviously pokes holes in your stance. ok.

LOL, well, generally people who commit a more serious offense get a more serious sentence; much longer periods of time, more restrictions with regards to visitation/amenities/freedom, not to mention the dregs of society they get to bunk and shower with. 

Your question was not legitimate- it was stupid. And I did answer it. Are you having troubles this morning.

To your other point though and to demonstrate how confused you are at the very moment... you said this: "generally people who commit a more serious offense get a more serious sentence."

Hmmm. Sounds like a punishment fitting the crime. Except such a punishment doesn't really fit the crime. Jail is very suitable for run of the mill criminals, but... even though you have made a point to distinguish the varying sentences depending on the severity of the offences... it's still the same.

Deal dope? Jail. Rape and murder an infant? Jail. Except not as nice a cell. Yah. I'm not there with you.

stupid?

stay classy.

as often stated,  you obviously can't defend your stance, so you result to petty insults. 

2 years in jail and 25 years is the same to you. LOL. ok then. 

oftenreading

Quick poll - how many on here have ever been in a maximum security prison?

I have. Not as an inmate, luckily. I periodically work in the prison system.

For those of you who think it is a cakewalk, you have no idea.

HughFreakingDillon

oftenreading said:

Quick poll - how many on here have ever been in a maximum security prison?

I have. Not as an inmate, luckily. I periodically work in the prison system.

For those of you who think it is a cakewalk, you have no idea.

but don't they get lobster and xbox, often? surely they must have a nicer mattress to sleep on than I do! 

I have two lawyer friends who said that were utterly shocked and appalled at the conditions that inmates live in. what they described to me was nothing short of a living hell. 

Thirty Bills Unpaid

oftenreading said:

Quick poll - how many on here have ever been in a maximum security prison?

I have. Not as an inmate, luckily. I periodically work in the prison system.

For those of you who think it is a cakewalk, you have no idea.

Have you ever been to a crime scene where they scoop up the remains of dead victims?

I bet that wouldn't be fantastic either.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

tbergs said:

Speaking of punishment fitting the crime, should the juveniles who started the fire due to reckless behavior out west be lit on fire? They've caused more damage and destruction than several murders and rapists combined, not including the long term health conditions from all the smoke.

Another reason why the death penalty is a backwards justice process.

Juvenile argument and one I'm not going to entertain for very long.

Premeditated murder- with sadistic qualities sprinkled in- is a lot different than morons acting moronically.

Those kids need an intervention, but they are a far cry from, oh, say Steven Smith raping and murdering an infant who was put to death in Ohio.

Poor Steve, eh? The backwards justice system was so cruel to him. 

seriously, does "punishment fitting the crime" only apply to rapists and murderers? or if someone burns down someone's house, and it's ruled arson, should that person's house be burned down?

I see no need to punish the house. Don't get silly.

I feel people who rape and murder infants, like the aforementioned Steve Smith, demand a stiffer sentence than a dope dealer or car thief. In my mind, it most accurately demonstrates the grievous nature of their offences. You obviously feel there is no need to differentiate and that jail is most suitable for both.

still won't answer a legitimate question that obviously pokes holes in your stance. ok.

LOL, well, generally people who commit a more serious offense get a more serious sentence; much longer periods of time, more restrictions with regards to visitation/amenities/freedom, not to mention the dregs of society they get to bunk and shower with. 

Your question was not legitimate- it was stupid. And I did answer it. Are you having troubles this morning.

To your other point though and to demonstrate how confused you are at the very moment... you said this: "generally people who commit a more serious offense get a more serious sentence."

Hmmm. Sounds like a punishment fitting the crime. Except such a punishment doesn't really fit the crime. Jail is very suitable for run of the mill criminals, but... even though you have made a point to distinguish the varying sentences depending on the severity of the offences... it's still the same.

Deal dope? Jail. Rape and murder an infant? Jail. Except not as nice a cell. Yah. I'm not there with you.

stupid?

stay classy.

as often stated,  you obviously can't defend your stance, so you result to petty insults. 

2 years in jail and 25 years is the same to you. LOL. ok then. 

Stay classy, eh?

I'm assuming mocking (LOL definitively bolded for
greater impact... and twice now) with laughter and provoking (ignoring a response to belittle begging for one) fits 'staying classy'?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

tbergs said:

Speaking of punishment fitting the crime, should the juveniles who started the fire due to reckless behavior out west be lit on fire? They've caused more damage and destruction than several murders and rapists combined, not including the long term health conditions from all the smoke.

Another reason why the death penalty is a backwards justice process.

Juvenile argument and one I'm not going to entertain for very long.

Premeditated murder- with sadistic qualities sprinkled in- is a lot different than morons acting moronically.

Those kids need an intervention, but they are a far cry from, oh, say Steven Smith raping and murdering an infant who was put to death in Ohio.

Poor Steve, eh? The backwards justice system was so cruel to him. 

seriously, does "punishment fitting the crime" only apply to rapists and murderers? or if someone burns down someone's house, and it's ruled arson, should that person's house be burned down?

I see no need to punish the house. Don't get silly.

I feel people who rape and murder infants, like the aforementioned Steve Smith, demand a stiffer sentence than a dope dealer or car thief. In my mind, it most accurately demonstrates the grievous nature of their offences. You obviously feel there is no need to differentiate and that jail is most suitable for both.

still won't answer a legitimate question that obviously pokes holes in your stance. ok.

LOL, well, generally people who commit a more serious offense get a more serious sentence; much longer periods of time, more restrictions with regards to visitation/amenities/freedom, not to mention the dregs of society they get to bunk and shower with. 

Your question was not legitimate- it was stupid. And I did answer it. Are you having troubles this morning.

To your other point though and to demonstrate how confused you are at the very moment... you said this: "generally people who commit a more serious offense get a more serious sentence."

Hmmm. Sounds like a punishment fitting the crime. Except such a punishment doesn't really fit the crime. Jail is very suitable for run of the mill criminals, but... even though you have made a point to distinguish the varying sentences depending on the severity of the offences... it's still the same.

Deal dope? Jail. Rape and murder an infant? Jail. Except not as nice a cell. Yah. I'm not there with you.

Your argument has such internal inconsistency that all you can do when people point this out is to call their points juvenile or stupid.

Either "an eye for an eye" is logical and fitting, or it isn't. Your point appears to be that "an eye for an eye" makes perfect sense for rapists and murderers, but for any other crime it's patently foolish. And therein lies the inconsistency that others are pointing out, and which makes it clear that your argument relies on emotion, not reason.

Not all crimes are the same, nor carry the same impact.

You can try and compare embezzlement to murder if you wish, but they are not even close.

The argument I am resistant to is trying to insist that if a sentence of death can be issued for a murderer... then all other crimes should reflect a sentence that reflects the nature of their offence. Why? And we can work from the other side too:

Burglary= jail.
Mass Murder= jail.

How does the above reflect reason? Do you want me to post some examples where burglars and murderers have shared the same sentence?

oftenreading

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oftenreading said:

Quick poll - how many on here have ever been in a maximum security prison?

I have. Not as an inmate, luckily. I periodically work in the prison system.

For those of you who think it is a cakewalk, you have no idea.

Have you ever been to a crime scene where they scoop up the remains of dead victims?

I bet that wouldn't be fantastic either.

Yup, and no it's not. 

Totally irrelevant to the question, though. Another appeal to emotion over reason. 

HughFreakingDillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

tbergs said:

Speaking of punishment fitting the crime, should the juveniles who started the fire due to reckless behavior out west be lit on fire? They've caused more damage and destruction than several murders and rapists combined, not including the long term health conditions from all the smoke.

Another reason why the death penalty is a backwards justice process.

Juvenile argument and one I'm not going to entertain for very long.

Premeditated murder- with sadistic qualities sprinkled in- is a lot different than morons acting moronically.

Those kids need an intervention, but they are a far cry from, oh, say Steven Smith raping and murdering an infant who was put to death in Ohio.

Poor Steve, eh? The backwards justice system was so cruel to him. 

seriously, does "punishment fitting the crime" only apply to rapists and murderers? or if someone burns down someone's house, and it's ruled arson, should that person's house be burned down?

I see no need to punish the house. Don't get silly.

I feel people who rape and murder infants, like the aforementioned Steve Smith, demand a stiffer sentence than a dope dealer or car thief. In my mind, it most accurately demonstrates the grievous nature of their offences. You obviously feel there is no need to differentiate and that jail is most suitable for both.

still won't answer a legitimate question that obviously pokes holes in your stance. ok.

LOL, well, generally people who commit a more serious offense get a more serious sentence; much longer periods of time, more restrictions with regards to visitation/amenities/freedom, not to mention the dregs of society they get to bunk and shower with. 

Your question was not legitimate- it was stupid. And I did answer it. Are you having troubles this morning.

To your other point though and to demonstrate how confused you are at the very moment... you said this: "generally people who commit a more serious offense get a more serious sentence."

Hmmm. Sounds like a punishment fitting the crime. Except such a punishment doesn't really fit the crime. Jail is very suitable for run of the mill criminals, but... even though you have made a point to distinguish the varying sentences depending on the severity of the offences... it's still the same.

Deal dope? Jail. Rape and murder an infant? Jail. Except not as nice a cell. Yah. I'm not there with you.

Your argument has such internal inconsistency that all you can do when people point this out is to call their points juvenile or stupid.

Either "an eye for an eye" is logical and fitting, or it isn't. Your point appears to be that "an eye for an eye" makes perfect sense for rapists and murderers, but for any other crime it's patently foolish. And therein lies the inconsistency that others are pointing out, and which makes it clear that your argument relies on emotion, not reason.

Not all crimes are the same, nor carry the same impact.

You can try and compare embezzlement to murder if you wish, but they are not even close.

The argument I am resistant to is trying to insist that if a sentence of death can be issued for a murderer... then all other crimes should reflect a sentence that reflects the nature of their offence. Why? And we can work from the other side too:

Burglary= jail.
Mass Murder= jail.

How does the above reflect reason? Do you want me to post some examples where burglars and murderers have shared the same sentence?

it doesn't, because the example itself isn't reasonable.  you are missing a pretty significant part of the equation: the length of the sentence. the equivalent of this would be if a doctor told you all cancers are equal.  

doc: you have cancer.
you: what type? is it treatable?
doc: it's cancer. next! 

look, it's pretty obvious that you seem to believe you are morally superior because of the following pro-DP formula:

level of outrage = level of morality

what you don't see/believe is that I, and I'm sure many other anti-DPers, can be, and have been, just as, or more, outraged than you on any given subject. BUT, we recognize that the justice system is bigger than our collective outrage. it's about checks and balances, making sure we do the least amount we have to do to protect society, not the most. if we did the most, we'd kill everyone convicted of any crime. 

murder and rape aren't fair. nothing will balance those offences out. but killing people isn't the answer to it. 

commence cherry picking a sentence and over-dramatizing/mocking it. 

tbergs

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

oftenreading said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

tbergs said:

Speaking of punishment fitting the crime, should the juveniles who started the fire due to reckless behavior out west be lit on fire? They've caused more damage and destruction than several murders and rapists combined, not including the long term health conditions from all the smoke.

Another reason why the death penalty is a backwards justice process.

Juvenile argument and one I'm not going to entertain for very long.

Premeditated murder- with sadistic qualities sprinkled in- is a lot different than morons acting moronically.

Those kids need an intervention, but they are a far cry from, oh, say Steven Smith raping and murdering an infant who was put to death in Ohio.

Poor Steve, eh? The backwards justice system was so cruel to him. 

seriously, does "punishment fitting the crime" only apply to rapists and murderers? or if someone burns down someone's house, and it's ruled arson, should that person's house be burned down?

I see no need to punish the house. Don't get silly.

I feel people who rape and murder infants, like the aforementioned Steve Smith, demand a stiffer sentence than a dope dealer or car thief. In my mind, it most accurately demonstrates the grievous nature of their offences. You obviously feel there is no need to differentiate and that jail is most suitable for both.

still won't answer a legitimate question that obviously pokes holes in your stance. ok.

LOL, well, generally people who commit a more serious offense get a more serious sentence; much longer periods of time, more restrictions with regards to visitation/amenities/freedom, not to mention the dregs of society they get to bunk and shower with. 

Your question was not legitimate- it was stupid. And I did answer it. Are you having troubles this morning.

To your other point though and to demonstrate how confused you are at the very moment... you said this: "generally people who commit a more serious offense get a more serious sentence."

Hmmm. Sounds like a punishment fitting the crime. Except such a punishment doesn't really fit the crime. Jail is very suitable for run of the mill criminals, but... even though you have made a point to distinguish the varying sentences depending on the severity of the offences... it's still the same.

Deal dope? Jail. Rape and murder an infant? Jail. Except not as nice a cell. Yah. I'm not there with you.

Your argument has such internal inconsistency that all you can do when people point this out is to call their points juvenile or stupid.

Either "an eye for an eye" is logical and fitting, or it isn't. Your point appears to be that "an eye for an eye" makes perfect sense for rapists and murderers, but for any other crime it's patently foolish. And therein lies the inconsistency that others are pointing out, and which makes it clear that your argument relies on emotion, not reason.

Not all crimes are the same, nor carry the same impact.

You can try and compare embezzlement to murder if you wish, but they are not even close.

The argument I am resistant to is trying to insist that if a sentence of death can be issued for a murderer... then all other crimes should reflect a sentence that reflects the nature of their offence. Why? And we can work from the other side too:

Burglary= jail.
Mass Murder= jail.

How does the above reflect reason? Do you want me to post some examples where burglars and murderers have shared the same sentence?

I get what you're saying but you're making vague comparisons of jail being the punishment in all cases. Here's the equivalent:

Speeding 5 mph over the limit = Ticket
Speeding 30 mph over the limit = Ticket

Same punishment, right? Type of punishment, yes, ticket. Level of punishment, no. At that higher speed it could turn in to a reckless or careless charge on top of an increased fine, jail time, probation and other sanctions.

When it comes to crime, we established a tiered charge and sentencing structure based on the severity of the offense, unless it's murder and then we say, fuck it, kill them. Why the exception? Besides the fact that most are open to viewing. That's really twisted and only further shows it's for vengeance.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

I agree that the viewing component of the punishment is (to use the term already used) twisted.

Alrhough... I'll never judge victims for their willingness to participate. If it was one of my children... I'm not sure how I'd be with regards to viewing the event as much as I'd be okay with justice/vengeance/whatever you want to call it for my slain child.

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

I agree that the viewing component of the punishment is (to use the term already used) twisted.

Alrhough... I'll never judge victims for their willingness to participate. If it was one of my children... I'm not sure how I'd be with regards to viewing the event as much as I'd be okay with justice/vengeance/whatever you want to call it for my slain child.

Just out of curiosity Thirty, how would you feel if someone killed your kid and you wanted the murderer to die (and the DP were legal where you are), but that killer had a lovely devastated family, who did nothing to make the person end up like that, and that family was being torn apart through the long DP process and the fact that their child/brother/father/etc was going to be killed? Say they fully acknowledged the horrible crimes he committed, and made no excuses for them whatsoever, but they are still being destroyed over the killing of their own flesh and blood? That nice family are victims too. How would you feel about that situation? Or, thinking of it another way, how would you feel if your own kid was the killer/rapist? Would you want your kid to be killed by the government? Would that help you and your family? Would you be willing to quietly accept the murder of your kid because the DP is legal and because your kid deserved it? I'm not asking so I can throw it back at you or anything like that. I've just never asked this question of a supporter of the DP before, and since I always see supporters talking about "if it were my kid that got killed...", I'm wondering how they would feel about the DP if the roles were reversed.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Soul...

If anybody killed one of my kids... I'd feel nothing for their murderer and would want them gone. I might feel a bit badly for their family, but I'm not sure whether I'd concern myself too much over their grief or not given mine would be much greater. Yes... much greater.

I wouldn't want their killer doing what people like Olsen or Shearing did in Canadian prisons- claiming headlines for various things, getting married, receiving top notch cancer care in timely fashion, receiving 'life like' sex dolls, and other notorious things.

If it was my son who murdered someone and he was set to receive the DP... of course I wouldn't want that for him- I love my kid unconditionally.

In the hypothetical you've presented... we are concerning ourselves with the murderer. You've been to the point lately suggesting opponents of the DP are not concerned with murderers and do not feel pity for them. I'm curious to know what your motive is for presenting it? It seems to suggest you do empathize with the murderer.

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Soul...

If anybody killed one of my kids... I'd feel nothing for their murderer and would want them gone. I might feel a bit badly for their family, but I'm not sure whether I'd concern myself too much over their grief or not given mine would be much greater. Yes... much greater.

I wouldn't want their killer doing what people like Olsen or Shearing did in Canadian prisons- claiming headlines for various things, getting married, receiving top notch cancer care in timely fashion, receiving 'life like' sex dolls, and other notorious things.

If it was my son who murdered someone and he was set to receive the DP... of course I wouldn't want that for him- I love my kid unconditionally.

In the hypothetical you've presented... we are concerning ourselves with the murderer. You've been to the point lately suggesting opponents of the DP are not concerned with murderers and do not feel pity for them. I'm curious to know what your motive is for presenting it? It seems to suggest you do empathize with the murderer.

Oh, as always, my hypothetical is not actually concerned about the murderer in any way. It shows concern for the surviving victims, who include the family of the murdered victim of course, but also, in many cases, the family of the convicted. I feel deeply for them and the living hell their flesh and blood has also put them through. As I've said dozens of times with 100% clarity, I couldn't care less about the feelings of the murderer (always assuming, obviously, that he's actually guilty... which isn't always a given). I am a little taken aback by your interpretation of the scenario I made up, since I sincerely don't understand how you interpreted that as sympathy for the murderer. I don't feel like anything I said suggests that in any way. I was indeed curious specifically because I wondered if you gave a shit about the rest of the victims in such horrible situations as this, as you would be yourself, if your child committed a heinous crime and was going to be killed by the state.
.... FWIW, if, god forbid, your kid ended up on death row, I would stand behind your fight to stop the state sanctioned murder of your child.

HughFreakingDillon

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Soul...

If anybody killed one of my kids... I'd feel nothing for their murderer and would want them gone. I might feel a bit badly for their family, but I'm not sure whether I'd concern myself too much over their grief or not given mine would be much greater. Yes... much greater.

I wouldn't want their killer doing what people like Olsen or Shearing did in Canadian prisons- claiming headlines for various things, getting married, receiving top notch cancer care in timely fashion, receiving 'life like' sex dolls, and other notorious things.

If it was my son who murdered someone and he was set to receive the DP... of course I wouldn't want that for him- I love my kid unconditionally.

In the hypothetical you've presented... we are concerning ourselves with the murderer. You've been to the point lately suggesting opponents of the DP are not concerned with murderers and do not feel pity for them. I'm curious to know what your motive is for presenting it? It seems to suggest you do empathize with the murderer.

Oh, as always, my hypothetical is not actually concerned about the murderer in any way. It shows concern for the surviving victims, who include the family of the murdered victim of course, but also, in many cases, the family of the convicted. I feel deeply for them and the living hell their flesh and blood has also put them through. As I've said dozens of times with 100% clarity, I couldn't care less about the feelings of the murderer (always assuming, obviously, that he's actually guilty... which isn't always a given). I am a little taken aback by your interpretation of the scenario I made up, since I sincerely don't understand how you interpreted that as sympathy for the murderer. I don't feel like anything I said suggests that in any way. I was indeed curious specifically because I wondered if you gave a shit about the rest of the victims in such horrible situations as this, as you would be yourself, if your child committed a heinous crime and was going to be killed by the state.
.... FWIW, if, god forbid, your kid ended up on death row, I would stand behind your fight to stop the state sanctioned murder of your child.

it's because he can't reconcile his thirst for blood and how it would be for those on the other side of it. 

Thirty Bills Unpaid

PJ_Soul said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

Soul...

If anybody killed one of my kids... I'd feel nothing for their murderer and would want them gone. I might feel a bit badly for their family, but I'm not sure whether I'd concern myself too much over their grief or not given mine would be much greater. Yes... much greater.

I wouldn't want their killer doing what people like Olsen or Shearing did in Canadian prisons- claiming headlines for various things, getting married, receiving top notch cancer care in timely fashion, receiving 'life like' sex dolls, and other notorious things.

If it was my son who murdered someone and he was set to receive the DP... of course I wouldn't want that for him- I love my kid unconditionally.

In the hypothetical you've presented... we are concerning ourselves with the murderer. You've been to the point lately suggesting opponents of the DP are not concerned with murderers and do not feel pity for them. I'm curious to know what your motive is for presenting it? It seems to suggest you do empathize with the murderer.

Oh, as always, my hypothetical is not actually concerned about the murderer in any way. It shows concern for the surviving victims, who include the family of the murdered victim of course, but also, in many cases, the family of the convicted. I feel deeply for them and the living hell their flesh and blood has also put them through. As I've said dozens of times with 100% clarity, I couldn't care less about the feelings of the murderer (always assuming, obviously, that he's actually guilty... which isn't always a given). I am a little taken aback by your interpretation of the scenario I made up, since I sincerely don't understand how you interpreted that as sympathy for the murderer. I don't feel like anything I said suggests that in any way. I was indeed curious specifically because I wondered if you gave a shit about the rest of the victims in such horrible situations as this, as you would be yourself, if your child committed a heinous crime and was going to be killed by the state.
.... FWIW, if, god forbid, your kid ended up on death row, I would stand behind your fight to stop the state sanctioned murder of your child.

I re-read your post. I concede that I misinterpreted to some degree. Sorry. I also feel I have done a really shitty job detailing my position in my last few posts... and I'm too lazy to articulate any better than I already have. Reading posts on my phone and posting on my phone when I don't really have the time to do so is not conducive for effective communication (both listening and speaking). I'll be more careful next time.

It is a grim hypothetical. I don't really want to think of my child murdered and I don't want to think of him murdering anyone. If either were to happen... please give me your change when you walk by me as I sit on the ground outside of Tim Hortons. I'd be devastated.

As a side note, I think it's a good point in time to express that I think you're a good person. I've never not thought that as much as we have disagreed (and will continue to disagree) over some topics throughout the years.

HughFreakingDillon

i think any rational, normal human being would be broken by either scenario. i wish more people would think of the victims on all sides of it, as pjsoul presented. 

cincybearcat

Something not talked about often enough is the fact that correction officers safety should also be a consideration.

I've been reading through some different articles and statistics, but it seems about 1,000 officers are hurt each year due to assault.  I'm not sure how accurate this is now but it seemed at one point fatalities for correction officers due to assault was roughly 5 per year.

What isn't clear is what is the profile of the assailant in these instances.  And that is a key piece of data.  

HughFreakingDillon

cincybearcat said:

Something not talked about often enough is the fact that correction officers safety should also be a consideration.

I've been reading through some different articles and statistics, but it seems about 1,000 officers are hurt each year due to assault.  I'm not sure how accurate this is now but it seemed at one point fatalities for correction officers due to assault was roughly 5 per year.

What isn't clear is what is the profile of the assailant in these instances.  And that is a key piece of data.  

thirty has actually brought this up in the past, but the problem is, we can't use that as a reason to put people to death. there is no way, obviously, to know if an inmate will commit an assault or worse on a corrections officer, so killing them to prevent that is putting the cart before the horse. 

Thirty Bills Unpaid

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

Something not talked about often enough is the fact that correction officers safety should also be a consideration.

I've been reading through some different articles and statistics, but it seems about 1,000 officers are hurt each year due to assault.  I'm not sure how accurate this is now but it seemed at one point fatalities for correction officers due to assault was roughly 5 per year.

What isn't clear is what is the profile of the assailant in these instances.  And that is a key piece of data.  

thirty has actually brought this up in the past, but the problem is, we can't use that as a reason to put people to death. there is no way, obviously, to know if an inmate will commit an assault or worse on a corrections officer, so killing them to prevent that is putting the cart before the horse. 

We can if we were so inclined. The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.

Not only officers, but other inmates as well. McGray had killed old, young, men, and women. He was convicted. Then eagerly fast tracked to a medium security prison because enthusiastic corrections officials determined he was not a threat (despite saying to the contrary lol). Then... of course... he killed a cell mate who had expressed he felt for his safety and requested a transfer to another cell.

If he had rightfully been executed... one less victim. 

I haven't read anout any recent victims, but I'm sure he's plotting something. And, I'm sure some advocate is vouching for his character (albeit at arm's length- they're not assuming any risk and inviting him for any sleepover).

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/prison-couldnt-keep-michael-wayne-mcgray-from-killing-just-like-he-said-it-wouldnt

HughFreakingDillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

Something not talked about often enough is the fact that correction officers safety should also be a consideration.

I've been reading through some different articles and statistics, but it seems about 1,000 officers are hurt each year due to assault.  I'm not sure how accurate this is now but it seemed at one point fatalities for correction officers due to assault was roughly 5 per year.

What isn't clear is what is the profile of the assailant in these instances.  And that is a key piece of data.  

thirty has actually brought this up in the past, but the problem is, we can't use that as a reason to put people to death. there is no way, obviously, to know if an inmate will commit an assault or worse on a corrections officer, so killing them to prevent that is putting the cart before the horse. 

We can if we were so inclined. The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.

Not only officers, but other inmates as well. McGray had killed old, young, men, and women. He was convicted. Then eagerly fast tracked to a medium security prison because enthusiastic corrections officials determined he was not a threat (despite saying to the contrary lol). Then... of course... he killed a cell mate who had expressed he felt for his safety and requested a transfer to another cell.

If he had rightfully been executed... one less victim. 

I haven't read anout any recent victims, but I'm sure he's plotting something. And, I'm sure some advocate is vouching for his character (albeit at arm's length- they're not assuming any risk and inviting him for any sleepover).

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/prison-couldnt-keep-michael-wayne-mcgray-from-killing-just-like-he-said-it-wouldnt

and this post proves the anti-DP stance. humans and their decision making/emotional responses is fallible. you don't put someone to death because people in the sentencing phase fucked up. I can't even express how ludicrous that is. 

if he had killed a cellmate that had also been convicted of murder, would you be calling him a victim? or would you be applauding McGray's "service to society"?