Absolutely. You commit a crime against humanity as the one he committed to his grandmother...you get the same treatment. Generations before us had it right centuries ago when these type of people were just disposed off. Not this PC crap of trying to reform people. Just simply some people can not be reformed. They are quite simple burdens and dangers on society who should just be eliminated. Save the money and effort. Cut the losses.
It costs more money to execute people than to keep them locked up.
Next.
That's why we should change the 'process of execution' so that it doesn't. If we wanted... we could be really cost effective with regards to how we put down shitbaggers that need death for what they have done.
I'm curious, Byrnzie: I know where you stand with regards to the death penalty, but where do you stand with regards to offering the opportunity for parole? Does everyone, regardless of their crime, deserve an opportunity for parole at some point in time during their sentence?
Absolutely. You commit a crime against humanity as the one he committed to his grandmother...you get the same treatment. Generations before us had it right centuries ago when these type of people were just disposed off. Not this PC crap of trying to reform people. Just simply some people can not be reformed. They are quite simple burdens and dangers on society who should just be eliminated. Save the money and effort. Cut the losses.
It costs more money to execute people than to keep them locked up.
Next.
i would like to see our worst offenders, placed in the worlds worst prisons...not the US worst prisons.
we could pay 100 bucks a month for the trash thing...rather than 1000 bucks a month here.
i believe our trash things are not deterred by our justice system....takes too long.
carandiru prison, awaits.
live and let live...unless it violates the pearligious doctrine.
I'm curious, Byrnzie [...] Does everyone, regardless of their crime, deserve an opportunity for parole at some point in time during their sentence?
No. Not if they're likely to re-offend. And it's up to the authorities to assess the risks.
Like I said above, regarding the guy who shot the fireman, the authorities failed.
You place a lot of stock in the 'authorities' then. Given the propensity of offenders to re-offend... they fail often and sometimes in dramatic fashion:
Imagine a person who has committed an unspeakable crime (say, for example, the rape and murder of a child). Now imagine they have undergone an incredible transformation of character- for the better. Would you support a system that allows for this described person to be tendered a level of understanding and afforded parole?
I'm curious, Byrnzie [...] Does everyone, regardless of their crime, deserve an opportunity for parole at some point in time during their sentence?
No. Not if they're likely to re-offend. And it's up to the authorities to assess the risks.
Like I said above, regarding the guy who shot the fireman, the authorities failed.
You place a lot of stock in the 'authorities' then. Given the propensity of offenders to re-offend... they fail often and sometimes in dramatic fashion:
Imagine a person who has committed an unspeakable crime (say, for example, the rape and murder of a child). Now imagine they have undergone an incredible transformation of character- for the better. Would you support a system that allows for this described person to be tendered a level of understanding and afforded parole?
that's why the system isn't set up for only rehabilitation, but the punishment also has to fit the crime. rape and murder of a child? if it was premeditated and not related to mental illness? life in prison. no parole.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I'm curious, Byrnzie [...] Does everyone, regardless of their crime, deserve an opportunity for parole at some point in time during their sentence?
No. Not if they're likely to re-offend. And it's up to the authorities to assess the risks.
Like I said above, regarding the guy who shot the fireman, the authorities failed.
You place a lot of stock in the 'authorities' then. Given the propensity of offenders to re-offend... they fail often and sometimes in dramatic fashion:
Imagine a person who has committed an unspeakable crime (say, for example, the rape and murder of a child). Now imagine they have undergone an incredible transformation of character- for the better. Would you support a system that allows for this described person to be tendered a level of understanding and afforded parole?
that's why the system isn't set up for only rehabilitation, but the punishment also has to fit the crime. rape and murder of a child? if it was premeditated and not related to mental illness? life in prison. no parole.
Could one argue that this is 'death by time and confinement'? And if so... is it reasonable to suggest that you and I feel the same regarding the fate of such people: only we differ with regards to how we wish for the 'offender' to meet their end?
Could one argue that this is 'death by time and confinement'? And if so... is it reasonable to suggest that you and I feel the same regarding the fate of such people: only we differ with regards to how we wish for the 'offender' to meet their end?
death by time and confinement? that's quite a stretch. I wish for the natural end to someone's life. not the government's end. if they die under the watch of the government while protecting the public, then so be it.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Imagine if all that care and concern for the innocent went into pursuing a good abortion policy! Such as 13 weeks is the time line.....you got 13 weeks of pro choice, BUT after that its MURDER1! I would be for that policy! That would save millions of babies, plus continue to give the mother her choice. Ill take it!
As far as death penalty....all you population control buffs should be for death and abortion!
I support the death penalty because if it were taken away completely.....criminals would take it to another level in all forms!
Theres no time like the present
A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!
Imagine if all that care and concern for the innocent went into pursuing a good abortion policy! Such as 13 weeks is the time line.....you got 13 weeks of pro choice, BUT after that its MURDER1! I would be for that policy! That would save millions of babies, plus continue to give the mother her choice. Ill take it!
As far as death penalty....all you population control buffs should be for death and abortion!
I support the death penalty because if it were taken away completely.....criminals would take it to another level in all forms!
really. hmmm.......tell me how the criminals have taken over everywhere else in the world that doesn't have the death penalty?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Could one argue that this is 'death by time and confinement'? And if so... is it reasonable to suggest that you and I feel the same regarding the fate of such people: only we differ with regards to how we wish for the 'offender' to meet their end?
death by time and confinement? that's quite a stretch. I wish for the natural end to someone's life. not the government's end. if they die under the watch of the government while protecting the public, then so be it.
I'm not so sure it's a stretch. By confining them in a caged chamber until they die... that's not exactly a 'natural end' to someone's life. And, in effect... it does become the government or- more appropriately- the people's end.
Could one argue that this is 'death by time and confinement'? And if so... is it reasonable to suggest that you and I feel the same regarding the fate of such people: only we differ with regards to how we wish for the 'offender' to meet their end?
death by time and confinement? that's quite a stretch. I wish for the natural end to someone's life. not the government's end. if they die under the watch of the government while protecting the public, then so be it.
I'm not so sure it's a stretch. By confining them in a caged chamber until they die... that's not exactly a 'natural end' to someone's life. And, in effect... it does become the government or- more appropriately- the people's end.
the confinement is not what kills them. the needle/rope/bullet/chair does.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Absolutely. You commit a crime against humanity as the one he committed to his grandmother...you get the same treatment. Generations before us had it right centuries ago when these type of people were just disposed off. Not this PC crap of trying to reform people. Just simply some people can not be reformed. They are quite simple burdens and dangers on society who should just be eliminated. Save the money and effort. Cut the losses.
It costs more money to execute people than to keep them locked up.
I'm curious, Byrnzie [...] Does everyone, regardless of their crime, deserve an opportunity for parole at some point in time during their sentence?
No. Not if they're likely to re-offend. And it's up to the authorities to assess the risks.
Like I said above, regarding the guy who shot the fireman, the authorities failed.
You place a lot of stock in the 'authorities' then. Given the propensity of offenders to re-offend... they fail often and sometimes in dramatic fashion:
Imagine a person who has committed an unspeakable crime (say, for example, the rape and murder of a child). Now imagine they have undergone an incredible transformation of character- for the better. Would you support a system that allows for this described person to be tendered a level of understanding and afforded parole?
that's why the system isn't set up for only rehabilitation, but the punishment also has to fit the crime. rape and murder of a child? if it was premeditated and not related to mental illness? life in prison. no parole.
When you say, 'the punishment also has to fit the crime'... I agree. Where we tend to disagree though is what might be befitting of a horrific crime that warrants a more significant penalty. I'm not in favour of executing everyone, however there have been plenty of cases where if the punishment was to fit the crime... then capital punishment in a controlled setting would be too fair for the offender.
I'm not sure about placing a 'ceiling' on punishment. A drug deal goes badly and somebody kills three guys in some dark apartment: sure... life in prison. A guy rapes and murders children or kills his 92 year old grandmother with a hammer: well... death. Monsters such as these deserve no less if you truly think that the punishment should fit the crime.
It's just my feel that the death penalty should be in place for those extreme crimes that warrant it.
Anyways... we're about to go around again on this one. We don't need to. I have not expected to change your mind with this last post: I just wanted to spit it out anyways.
Absolutely. You commit a crime against humanity as the one he committed to his grandmother...you get the same treatment. Generations before us had it right centuries ago when these type of people were just disposed off. Not this PC crap of trying to reform people. Just simply some people can not be reformed. They are quite simple burdens and dangers on society who should just be eliminated. Save the money and effort. Cut the losses.
It costs more money to execute people than to keep them locked up.
Next.
Just not true. Not true at all. :fp:
Actually, I believe he is correct if you factor in capital punishment trials.
I don't have time right now to look up direct sources, however.
Absolutely. You commit a crime against humanity as the one he committed to his grandmother...you get the same treatment. Generations before us had it right centuries ago when these type of people were just disposed off. Not this PC crap of trying to reform people. Just simply some people can not be reformed. They are quite simple burdens and dangers on society who should just be eliminated. Save the money and effort. Cut the losses.
It costs more money to execute people than to keep them locked up.
Next.
Just not true. Not true at all. :fp:
wow, you really know your stuff. it is a known FACT that exhausting all appeals and processes in order to serve due process before murdering them costs the system more than keeping them locked up without using added resources of the courts.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
When you say, 'the punishment also has to fit the crime'... I agree. Where we tend to disagree though is what might be befitting of a horrific crime that warrants a more significant penalty. I'm not in favour of executing everyone, however there have been plenty of cases where if the punishment was to fit the crime... then capital punishment in a controlled setting would be too fair for the offender.
I'm not sure about placing a 'ceiling' on punishment. A drug deal goes badly and somebody kills three guys in some dark apartment: sure... life in prison. A guy rapes and murders children or kills his 92 year old grandmother with a hammer: well... death. Monsters such as these deserve no less if you truly think that the punishment should fit the crime.
It's just my feel that the death penalty should be in place for those extreme crimes that warrant it.
Anyways... we're about to go around again on this one. We don't need to. I have not expected to change your mind with this last post: I just wanted to spit it out anyways.
I personally think we have to do what is necessary for society to remain safe, but that is limited to incarceration. I don't believe in taking a person's life, no matter what (except in self defense).
It is not up to me, in my opinion, to decide a person's right to life. Nor is it anyone's. And the idea that death is worse than a lifetime behind bars is certainly debatable. I think death is getting off easier.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
wow, you really know your stuff. it is a known FACT that exhausting all appeals and processes in order to serve due process before murdering them costs the system more than keeping them locked up without using added resources of the courts.
What doesn't get taken into account...actually conveniently left out is people who are sent to prison for life terms will also exhaust those same legal appeals and processes as well. For the rest of their miserable lives they will abuse the judicial system until they die. And quite frankly you just can't put a monetary value on the closure itprovides to the victims families and the deterrent in serves in society.
wow, you really know your stuff. it is a known FACT that exhausting all appeals and processes in order to serve due process before murdering them costs the system more than keeping them locked up without using added resources of the courts.
What doesn't get taken into account...actually conveniently left out is people who are sent to prison for life terms will also exhaust those same legal appeals and processes as well. For the rest of their miserable lives they will abuse the judicial system until they die. And quite frankly you just can't put a monetary value on the closure itprovides to the victims families and the deterrent in serves in society.
there are many documented cases of the victims families NOT gaining closure out of it, and there is also evidence to the contrary, that it does NOT serve a deterrent at all.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
When you say, 'the punishment also has to fit the crime'... I agree. Where we tend to disagree though is what might be befitting of a horrific crime that warrants a more significant penalty. I'm not in favour of executing everyone, however there have been plenty of cases where if the punishment was to fit the crime... then capital punishment in a controlled setting would be too fair for the offender.
I'm not sure about placing a 'ceiling' on punishment. A drug deal goes badly and somebody kills three guys in some dark apartment: sure... life in prison. A guy rapes and murders children or kills his 92 year old grandmother with a hammer: well... death. Monsters such as these deserve no less if you truly think that the punishment should fit the crime.
It's just my feel that the death penalty should be in place for those extreme crimes that warrant it.
Anyways... we're about to go around again on this one. We don't need to. I have not expected to change your mind with this last post: I just wanted to spit it out anyways.
I personally think we have to do what is necessary for society to remain safe, but that is limited to incarceration. I don't believe in taking a person's life, no matter what (except in self defense).
It is not up to me, in my opinion, to decide a person's right to life. Nor is it anyone's. And the idea that death is worse than a lifetime behind bars is certainly debatable. I think death is getting off easier.
Did you feel the Texas father who walked in on the man molesting his daughter was within his rights when he beat the creep to death?
Aren't you glad the father never practiced restraint?
Now consider a similar scenario where a father kills a man that has not only molested his daughter... but killed her as well: would this father be within his rights to exercise a similar brand of justice? If the father couldn't because the creep was arrested before the father could get his hands on him... can't we expect the courts to act on behalf of the father? Why must we consider the needs and rights of the offender as much as the survivors?
I have no pity for predators that have destroyed lives. Once acting out in such violent and destructive fashion, they have forfeited the right to live in my opinion; but I'm not hell bent on capital punishment as much as I want it. If you can guarantee me no movies, no television, no conjugal visits, no steak, no lobster, or no pick up basketball games for the 'monsters' while they serve their sentences... then I could rest easier knowing those bastards we speak of are for sure having a shitty time. I know you can't, but in such a scenario... I'd tend to agree with you- death would likely be preferential.
Aren't you glad the father never practiced restraint?
Now consider a similar scenario where a father kills a man that has not only molested his daughter... but killed her as well: would this father be within his rights to exercise a similar brand of justice? If the father couldn't because the creep was arrested before the father could get his hands on him... can't we expect the courts to act on behalf of the father? Why must we consider the needs and rights of the offender as much as the survivors?
I have no pity for predators that have destroyed lives. Once acting out in such violent and destructive fashion, they have forfeited the right to live in my opinion; but I'm not hell bent on capital punishment as much as I want it. If you can guarantee me no movies, no television, no conjugal visits, no steak, no lobster, or no pick up basketball games for the 'monsters' while they serve their sentences... then I could rest easier knowing those bastards we speak of are for sure having a shitty time. I know you can't, but in such a scenario... I'd tend to agree with you- death would likely be preferential.
I don't feel it was his "right" to take the guy's life, but I also commented on this a while back that in that situation, I probably would have done the same. And I probably wouldn't even be charged for it either.
this is a common misconception among people who are pro death penalty. They think that people who are against the death penalty have pity on the perps. Pity doesn't enter into the equation. If I had pity for them, I wouldn't be saying to throw them in solitary for a month. I wouldn't be saying I don't give a shit if the guy gets raped by his cell mate day in and day out. I hope their lives are LIVING hells.
But it's not my call, nor anyone else's, to take a life. People can forfeit their freedom, but they cannot forfeit their life. Taking their freedom away serves a purpose-protection of society. Taking their life serves no purpose other than bloodlust.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I don't feel it was his "right" to take the guy's life, but I also commented on this a while back that in that situation, I probably would have done the same. And I probably wouldn't even be charged for it either.
this is a common misconception among people who are pro death penalty. They think that people who are against the death penalty have pity on the perps. Pity doesn't enter into the equation. If I had pity for them, I wouldn't be saying to throw them in solitary for a month. I wouldn't be saying I don't give a shit if the guy gets raped by his cell mate day in and day out. I hope their lives are LIVING hells.
But it's not my call, nor anyone else's, to take a life. People can forfeit their freedom, but they cannot forfeit their life. Taking their freedom away serves a purpose-protection of society. Taking their life serves no purpose other than bloodlust.
I have never gotten the impression you take any pity on these types of people: I only expressed it in my post.
By saying 'taking a life serves no purpose other than bloodlust', you are reflecting your set of values. This might seem perfectly logical to you and make perfect sense; but others- especially those directly impacted by the crime- possess differing sets of values. To some... taking the life of someone who has killed one of their loved ones signifies a step towards closure. Call it bloodlust or whatever you want, but the survivors are whom the courts are indebted to- they cannot do much for the victims. And, to my way of thinking... if the survivors wish it... then so be it: society owes violent offenders nothing.
Clashing sets of values. Who's is correct? I'm not sure. DS is arguing alongside me... that's kind of scary; but you said it yourself- given the same situation as the father in Texas... you would probably do the same thing. It's easier to sit on the sideline and pass judgement on how things should work, but living an experience may demand an entirely different- and possibly novel- perspective and one that should be supported given, say, the murder of a child to deal with.
I have never gotten the impression you take any pity on these types of people: I only expressed it in my post.
By saying 'taking a life serves no purpose other than bloodlust', you are reflecting your set of values. This might seem perfectly logical to you and make perfect sense; but others- especially those directly impacted by the crime- possess differing sets of values. To some... taking the life of someone who has killed one of their loved ones signifies a step towards closure. Call it bloodlust or whatever you want, but the survivors are whom the courts are indebted to- they cannot do much for the victims. And, to my way of thinking... if the survivors wish it... then so be it: society owes violent offenders nothing.
Clashing sets of values. Who's is correct? I'm not sure. DS is arguing alongside me... that's kind of scary; but you said it yourself- given the same situation as the father in Texas... you would probably do the same thing. It's easier to sit on the sideline and pass judgement on how things should work, but living an experience may demand an entirely different- and possibly novel- perspective and one that should be supported given, say, the murder of a child to deal with.
yes, in the heat of the moment, as would most fathers, I would assume, would do the same thing. courts don't decide things in the heat of the moment. they are supposed to be the objective, level-headed parent of society. there is no REASON to kill the criminal. it serves no purpose. the courts are not indebted to the survivors-they are indebted to keeping society safe. Along these same lines of thinking, the courts being indebted to the survivors, I completely disagree with victim impact statements. It's prejudicial. having more people love you or care about you or possessing the ability to speak dramatically and articulate should not affect the sentence of the accused. I can't believe that shit is even allowed. maybe after sentence in handed down, but before? how could that NOT impact the judge's sentence? we are then saying the life of the captain of the football team is more important than that of a hooker, and that's not right.
yes, I went on a tangent, but I think it's a slippery slope.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I have never gotten the impression you take any pity on these types of people: I only expressed it in my post.
By saying 'taking a life serves no purpose other than bloodlust', you are reflecting your set of values. This might seem perfectly logical to you and make perfect sense; but others- especially those directly impacted by the crime- possess differing sets of values. To some... taking the life of someone who has killed one of their loved ones signifies a step towards closure. Call it bloodlust or whatever you want, but the survivors are whom the courts are indebted to- they cannot do much for the victims. And, to my way of thinking... if the survivors wish it... then so be it: society owes violent offenders nothing.
Clashing sets of values. Who's is correct? I'm not sure. DS is arguing alongside me... that's kind of scary; but you said it yourself- given the same situation as the father in Texas... you would probably do the same thing. It's easier to sit on the sideline and pass judgement on how things should work, but living an experience may demand an entirely different- and possibly novel- perspective and one that should be supported given, say, the murder of a child to deal with.
yes, in the heat of the moment, as would most fathers, I would assume, would do the same thing. courts don't decide things in the heat of the moment. they are supposed to be the objective, level-headed parent of society. there is no REASON to kill the criminal. it serves no purpose. the courts are not indebted to the survivors-they are indebted to keeping society safe. Along these same lines of thinking, the courts being indebted to the survivors, I completely disagree with victim impact statements. It's prejudicial. having more people love you or care about you or possessing the ability to speak dramatically and articulate should not affect the sentence of the accused. I can't believe that shit is even allowed. maybe after sentence in handed down, but before? how could that NOT impact the judge's sentence? we are then saying the life of the captain of the football team is more important than that of a hooker, and that's not right.
yes, I went on a tangent, but I think it's a slippery slope.
Not to make little of what you have said, you speak from a safe and clean perspective though. You might think differently if it was you sitting in the courts daily- listening to the gory details of your loved one's final hours. Courts have a little more purpose than just keeping society safe. Aside from the responsibility of sanctioning the offender, I think courts are indebted to compensate the survivors just as much as they have a role in awarding 'damages' to people who have suffered them (such as establishing settlements in legal matters from business wrongdoings).
Victim impact statements are, among other things, a gesture afforded to survivors as a mechanism to alleviate their suffering. Those that choose to express their rage or grief are given the forum to do it. At what other point does the process allow for the survivors to officially address the offender that has hurt them? I would agree with you that their statements should not have any impact on sentencing, but they certainly have their place in the process.
Whatever works for the survivors works for me. I'm truly not concerned in the slightest if victim impact statements negatively affected, say, Michael Rafferty's sentencing after it was established he was guilty.
Totally against capital punishment. I do not think a we as a society should make those decisions. However, I cannot judge a man or woman, who act out of revenge and kill another human being. Its weird. I don't mind people taking the law into their own hands and killing one another but I don't want society as a whole to make that kind of decision. I don't know.
wow, you really know your stuff. it is a known FACT that exhausting all appeals and processes in order to serve due process before murdering them costs the system more than keeping them locked up without using added resources of the courts.
What doesn't get taken into account...actually conveniently left out is people who are sent to prison for life terms will also exhaust those same legal appeals and processes as well. For the rest of their miserable lives they will abuse the judicial system until they die. And quite frankly you just can't put a monetary value on the closure itprovides to the victims families and the deterrent in serves in society.
Totally against capital punishment. I do not think a we as a society should make those decisions. However, I cannot judge a man or woman, who act out of revenge and kill another human being. Its weird. I don't mind people taking the law into their own hands and killing one another but I don't want society as a whole to make that kind of decision. I don't know.
Imagine how frustrating it would be that you tried to fall asleep every night, but couldn't because you were wondering what the murderer of your wife or child was doing? Playing pool? Laughing? Eating a nice meal? Watching Survivor? Marrying some weird woman attracted to bad men?
Call me extreme... but I just don't think it is beyond our moral compass to clinically execute some people for committing unspeakable acts. We do much worse to much better... but we are prepared to draw the line on executing Clifford Olson?
Absolutely. You commit a crime against humanity as the one he committed to his grandmother...you get the same treatment. Generations before us had it right centuries ago when these type of people were just disposed off. Not this PC crap of trying to reform people. Just simply some people can not be reformed. They are quite simple burdens and dangers on society who should just be eliminated. Save the money and effort. Cut the losses.
It costs more money to execute people than to keep them locked up.
Next.
Just not true. Not true at all. :fp:
Yes it is. Though if you have evidence to the contrary then go ahead and provide it.
Comments
That's why we should change the 'process of execution' so that it doesn't. If we wanted... we could be really cost effective with regards to how we put down shitbaggers that need death for what they have done.
I'm curious, Byrnzie: I know where you stand with regards to the death penalty, but where do you stand with regards to offering the opportunity for parole? Does everyone, regardless of their crime, deserve an opportunity for parole at some point in time during their sentence?
we could pay 100 bucks a month for the trash thing...rather than 1000 bucks a month here.
i believe our trash things are not deterred by our justice system....takes too long.
carandiru prison, awaits.
Interesting choice of words.
No. Not if they're likely to re-offend. And it's up to the authorities to assess the risks.
Like I said above, regarding the guy who shot the fireman, the authorities failed.
No. Not if they're likely to re-offend. And it's up to the authorities to assess the risks.
Like I said above, regarding the guy who shot the fireman, the authorities failed.
You place a lot of stock in the 'authorities' then. Given the propensity of offenders to re-offend... they fail often and sometimes in dramatic fashion:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/29 ... t-wouldnt/
Imagine a person who has committed an unspeakable crime (say, for example, the rape and murder of a child). Now imagine they have undergone an incredible transformation of character- for the better. Would you support a system that allows for this described person to be tendered a level of understanding and afforded parole?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
that's why the system isn't set up for only rehabilitation, but the punishment also has to fit the crime. rape and murder of a child? if it was premeditated and not related to mental illness? life in prison. no parole.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Could one argue that this is 'death by time and confinement'? And if so... is it reasonable to suggest that you and I feel the same regarding the fate of such people: only we differ with regards to how we wish for the 'offender' to meet their end?
A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!
All people need to do more on every level!
death by time and confinement? that's quite a stretch. I wish for the natural end to someone's life. not the government's end. if they die under the watch of the government while protecting the public, then so be it.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
As far as death penalty....all you population control buffs should be for death and abortion!
I support the death penalty because if it were taken away completely.....criminals would take it to another level in all forms!
A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!
All people need to do more on every level!
really. hmmm.......tell me how the criminals have taken over everywhere else in the world that doesn't have the death penalty?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I'm not so sure it's a stretch. By confining them in a caged chamber until they die... that's not exactly a 'natural end' to someone's life. And, in effect... it does become the government or- more appropriately- the people's end.
the confinement is not what kills them. the needle/rope/bullet/chair does.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
If that's what the laws were at the time. I'm not familiar with them. Are you?
Just not true. Not true at all. :fp:
When you say, 'the punishment also has to fit the crime'... I agree. Where we tend to disagree though is what might be befitting of a horrific crime that warrants a more significant penalty. I'm not in favour of executing everyone, however there have been plenty of cases where if the punishment was to fit the crime... then capital punishment in a controlled setting would be too fair for the offender.
I'm not sure about placing a 'ceiling' on punishment. A drug deal goes badly and somebody kills three guys in some dark apartment: sure... life in prison. A guy rapes and murders children or kills his 92 year old grandmother with a hammer: well... death. Monsters such as these deserve no less if you truly think that the punishment should fit the crime.
It's just my feel that the death penalty should be in place for those extreme crimes that warrant it.
Anyways... we're about to go around again on this one. We don't need to. I have not expected to change your mind with this last post: I just wanted to spit it out anyways.
Actually, I believe he is correct if you factor in capital punishment trials.
I don't have time right now to look up direct sources, however.
wow, you really know your stuff.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I personally think we have to do what is necessary for society to remain safe, but that is limited to incarceration. I don't believe in taking a person's life, no matter what (except in self defense).
It is not up to me, in my opinion, to decide a person's right to life. Nor is it anyone's. And the idea that death is worse than a lifetime behind bars is certainly debatable. I think death is getting off easier.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
What doesn't get taken into account...actually conveniently left out is people who are sent to prison for life terms will also exhaust those same legal appeals and processes as well. For the rest of their miserable lives they will abuse the judicial system until they die. And quite frankly you just can't put a monetary value on the closure itprovides to the victims families and the deterrent in serves in society.
there are many documented cases of the victims families NOT gaining closure out of it, and there is also evidence to the contrary, that it does NOT serve a deterrent at all.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Did you feel the Texas father who walked in on the man molesting his daughter was within his rights when he beat the creep to death?
http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/texas-fathe ... r-1.837385
Aren't you glad the father never practiced restraint?
Now consider a similar scenario where a father kills a man that has not only molested his daughter... but killed her as well: would this father be within his rights to exercise a similar brand of justice? If the father couldn't because the creep was arrested before the father could get his hands on him... can't we expect the courts to act on behalf of the father? Why must we consider the needs and rights of the offender as much as the survivors?
I have no pity for predators that have destroyed lives. Once acting out in such violent and destructive fashion, they have forfeited the right to live in my opinion; but I'm not hell bent on capital punishment as much as I want it. If you can guarantee me no movies, no television, no conjugal visits, no steak, no lobster, or no pick up basketball games for the 'monsters' while they serve their sentences... then I could rest easier knowing those bastards we speak of are for sure having a shitty time. I know you can't, but in such a scenario... I'd tend to agree with you- death would likely be preferential.
I don't feel it was his "right" to take the guy's life, but I also commented on this a while back that in that situation, I probably would have done the same. And I probably wouldn't even be charged for it either.
this is a common misconception among people who are pro death penalty. They think that people who are against the death penalty have pity on the perps. Pity doesn't enter into the equation. If I had pity for them, I wouldn't be saying to throw them in solitary for a month. I wouldn't be saying I don't give a shit if the guy gets raped by his cell mate day in and day out. I hope their lives are LIVING hells.
But it's not my call, nor anyone else's, to take a life. People can forfeit their freedom, but they cannot forfeit their life. Taking their freedom away serves a purpose-protection of society. Taking their life serves no purpose other than bloodlust.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I have never gotten the impression you take any pity on these types of people: I only expressed it in my post.
By saying 'taking a life serves no purpose other than bloodlust', you are reflecting your set of values. This might seem perfectly logical to you and make perfect sense; but others- especially those directly impacted by the crime- possess differing sets of values. To some... taking the life of someone who has killed one of their loved ones signifies a step towards closure. Call it bloodlust or whatever you want, but the survivors are whom the courts are indebted to- they cannot do much for the victims. And, to my way of thinking... if the survivors wish it... then so be it: society owes violent offenders nothing.
Clashing sets of values. Who's is correct? I'm not sure. DS is arguing alongside me... that's kind of scary; but you said it yourself- given the same situation as the father in Texas... you would probably do the same thing. It's easier to sit on the sideline and pass judgement on how things should work, but living an experience may demand an entirely different- and possibly novel- perspective and one that should be supported given, say, the murder of a child to deal with.
yes, in the heat of the moment, as would most fathers, I would assume, would do the same thing. courts don't decide things in the heat of the moment. they are supposed to be the objective, level-headed parent of society. there is no REASON to kill the criminal. it serves no purpose. the courts are not indebted to the survivors-they are indebted to keeping society safe. Along these same lines of thinking, the courts being indebted to the survivors, I completely disagree with victim impact statements. It's prejudicial. having more people love you or care about you or possessing the ability to speak dramatically and articulate should not affect the sentence of the accused. I can't believe that shit is even allowed. maybe after sentence in handed down, but before? how could that NOT impact the judge's sentence? we are then saying the life of the captain of the football team is more important than that of a hooker, and that's not right.
yes, I went on a tangent, but I think it's a slippery slope.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Not to make little of what you have said, you speak from a safe and clean perspective though. You might think differently if it was you sitting in the courts daily- listening to the gory details of your loved one's final hours. Courts have a little more purpose than just keeping society safe. Aside from the responsibility of sanctioning the offender, I think courts are indebted to compensate the survivors just as much as they have a role in awarding 'damages' to people who have suffered them (such as establishing settlements in legal matters from business wrongdoings).
Victim impact statements are, among other things, a gesture afforded to survivors as a mechanism to alleviate their suffering. Those that choose to express their rage or grief are given the forum to do it. At what other point does the process allow for the survivors to officially address the offender that has hurt them? I would agree with you that their statements should not have any impact on sentencing, but they certainly have their place in the process.
Whatever works for the survivors works for me. I'm truly not concerned in the slightest if victim impact statements negatively affected, say, Michael Rafferty's sentencing after it was established he was guilty.
No they don't use/exhaust the same legal appeals.
Imagine how frustrating it would be that you tried to fall asleep every night, but couldn't because you were wondering what the murderer of your wife or child was doing? Playing pool? Laughing? Eating a nice meal? Watching Survivor? Marrying some weird woman attracted to bad men?
Call me extreme... but I just don't think it is beyond our moral compass to clinically execute some people for committing unspeakable acts. We do much worse to much better... but we are prepared to draw the line on executing Clifford Olson?
Yes it is. Though if you have evidence to the contrary then go ahead and provide it.