Oh, and it appears Hyman Barshay wasn't a poet. He was a judge. Though it's hard to find out seeing as he was such an irrelevance there's hardly any available information on him.
But then I suppose you'll gran any crumb you find in your desperate effort to defend and justify state-sponsored revenge killings.
so you learnt nothing from the tw*t incident then?
I don't mean to offend anyone, a lot of what I say should be taken with a grain of salt... that said for most of you I'm a stranger on a computer on the other side of the world, don't give me that sort of power!
don't ever give the government power to take away our arms, but by god, let them have the power to take away our lives!
:fp:
You would never need to worry, Hugh.
Only sick, predatory bastards would.
I use an expression often when it comes to coaching: You get what you tolerate.
Consider the following:
Nobody can say if the families’ pain will be eased with Olson’s death from cancer Friday in a prison hospital. Each child was different and so was the way each was mourned. Some families have kept out of the media glare as Olson infamously taunted them with sadistic disclosures to tabloid journalists, nefarious legal appeals, and futile appearances before the National Parole Board. Others have been very vocal with the media and have insisted on being present at every parole hearing to stand before Olson on behalf of the children he murdered.
The reactions to the news that Olson was dying ranged from anger to uncertainty. “I’ve waited 30 years for this. Once he is dead, justice will be done. They should not have taken the death penalty away just before he murdered our children,” Terry Bizeau, mother of 15-year-old victim Terri Lyn Carson, said in an e-mail to The Globe.
“I just hope when he dies, it’s real soon. I hope it’s really painful for him,” Ray King, the father of 15-year-old Raymond King, Olson’s eighth victim, told the National Post.
These people received no closure from the crimes that rocked their world. They re-lived the horror of their children's final hours daily and were reminded of it periodically from a voice that should have been eradicated from this earth. Throughout this thread, much has been made about the killer and what needs to be done for them. It is my opinion that they conceded their rights as a human being when they left the human race to pleasure themselves in utterly sick fashion. As such, our courts and society should be looking to the needs of the survivors as our priority and offer whatever we can to alleviate the suffering they have been forced to endure. In short... fuck the child murderer.
People who have not been personally affected by such tragedy are not the best people to decide what is right and what is wrong: they have no authentic perspective and it is easy to armchair philosophize about 'what is right and what is wrong' with fluff. Imagine how frustrating it must be for an indifferent society to ignore the pain that has been delivered to you in the event of a parent's worst nightmare:
At every step of the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of the sadistic murderer of their children, the families were treated as an inconvenience, rather than emotionally affected participants. Out of their anger and humiliation the Rosenfeldts reached out to other families, forming the Parents of BC Murder Victims in July, 1981.
“Over and above the death of Daryn, and the ugly manner in which he died,” Mrs. Rosenfeldt said, “our anger became very much focused on the justice system. It was born out of sheer hurt at our loss of dignity in the way we were treated and in particular for the loss of dignity for my little boy. Nobody, I felt gave a damn about his life, other than us, and my family.”
No enlightened philosophy here. Only reality. We failed these people and for what? Cash for bodies. Sex dolls. Isolated, cushy cell. Cable television. Headlines. Fuck me.
don't ever give the government power to take away our arms, but by god, let them have the power to take away our lives!
:fp:
You would never need to worry, Hugh.
Only sick, predatory bastards would.
I use an expression often when it comes to coaching: You get what you tolerate.
On the flip side, as a Canadian you need to consider the likes of David Marshall, Guy Paul Morin,or David Milgaard when making such a claim. None of these men were the sick, predatory men you are berating yet they all found themselves on the wrong side of the law. If Canada continued to have the death penalty what would have happened to the likes of them? It's so easy to take a life; giving back one that is wrongfully taken is an entirely different matter. I personally believe that life in prison should mean just that; life with no possibility of parole. Once you take a person's life you can't undo your error. You can't give them back what you've wrongfully taken
The death penalty is vengeance; nothing more, nothing less. It isn't a deterrent and it has nothing to do with justice.
On the flip side, as a Canadian you need to consider the likes of David Marshall, Guy Paul Morin,or David Milgaard when making such a claim. None of these men were the sick, predatory men you are berating yet they all found themselves on the wrong side of the law. If Canada continued to have the death penalty what would have happened to the likes of them? It's so easy to take a life; giving back one that is wrongfully taken is an entirely different matter. I personally believe that life in prison should mean just that; life with no possibility of parole. Once you take a person's life you can't undo your error. You can't give them back what you've wrongfully taken
The death penalty is vengeance; nothing more, nothing less. It isn't a deterrent and it has nothing to do with justice.
Those case are from 1971, 1984, and 1969 (respectively). They are definitely worth learning from, but let's get serious: forensic science has come leap years since those days. Factor in social media that some like to utilize (such as Magnotta or Bernardo) and many cases are flat out 'slam dunks' compared to what they used to be. As significant as it might have been towards this debate at one time, the 'might get the wrong guy' is losing relevance in light of our advances.
In an earlier post, I described that only some cases of the extreme variety- coupled with 'conditions' that made the case very clear- should be considered for the death penalty.
What you call 'vengeance' I call 'justice'. Merriam-Webster describes justice as the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments... and vengeance as (punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense . They are synonymous if you ask me.
It is said that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tell me how it is 'justice' when a serial, sadistic child rapist (Olson) murders 11 kids in horrific fashion, gets sentenced, and receives cash, sex dolls, cable television and nice, warm meals with people to do his laundry? I'm not suggesting sodomizing and mutilating the bastard as he did with his victims, but certainly 'clinical' death is NOT a stretch given the extreme nature of his offences. Guys do harder time for theft or drugs.
I hear people speak of problems within the system and that maybe we need to ammend conditions for said criminals so that their time isn't as 'light' as what they have proven to be. To these people I ask the following: given the opportunity... would you seriously opt for the sentence Olson served versus capital punishment? If so... do you actually think this is justice served?
The execution of George Stinney was carried out at the South Carolina State Penitentiary in Columbia, on June 16, 1944. At 7:30 p.m., Stinney walked to the execution chamber with a Bible under his arm, which he later used as a booster seat in the electric chair. [5] Standing 5 foot 1 inch (155 cm) tall and weighing just over 90 pounds (40 kg),[4] he was small for his age, which presented difficulties in securing him to the frame holding the electrodes. Nor did the state's adult-sized face-mask fit him; as he was hit with the first 2,400 V surge of electricity, the mask covering his face slipped off, “revealing his wide-open, tearful eyes and saliva coming from his mouth”...After two more jolts of electricity, the boy was dead."[8][9] Stinney was declared dead within four minutes of the initial electrocution. From the time of the murders until Stinney's execution, eighty-one days had passed.[5]
The execution of George Stinney was carried out at the South Carolina State Penitentiary in Columbia, on June 16, 1944. At 7:30 p.m., Stinney walked to the execution chamber with a Bible under his arm, which he later used as a booster seat in the electric chair. [5] Standing 5 foot 1 inch (155 cm) tall and weighing just over 90 pounds (40 kg),[4] he was small for his age, which presented difficulties in securing him to the frame holding the electrodes. Nor did the state's adult-sized face-mask fit him; as he was hit with the first 2,400 V surge of electricity, the mask covering his face slipped off, “revealing his wide-open, tearful eyes and saliva coming from his mouth”...After two more jolts of electricity, the boy was dead."[8][9] Stinney was declared dead within four minutes of the initial electrocution. From the time of the murders until Stinney's execution, eighty-one days had passed.[5]
(still yawning)
jesus.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
The execution of George Stinney was carried out at the South Carolina State Penitentiary in Columbia, on June 16, 1944. At 7:30 p.m., Stinney walked to the execution chamber with a Bible under his arm, which he later used as a booster seat in the electric chair. [5] Standing 5 foot 1 inch (155 cm) tall and weighing just over 90 pounds (40 kg),[4] he was small for his age, which presented difficulties in securing him to the frame holding the electrodes. Nor did the state's adult-sized face-mask fit him; as he was hit with the first 2,400 V surge of electricity, the mask covering his face slipped off, “revealing his wide-open, tearful eyes and saliva coming from his mouth”...After two more jolts of electricity, the boy was dead."[8][9] Stinney was declared dead within four minutes of the initial electrocution. From the time of the murders until Stinney's execution, eighty-one days had passed.[5]
(still yawning)
jesus.
land of the free, home of the brave!!! american pride!!!!!!
Following his arrest, Stinney's father was fired from his job and his parents and siblings were given the choice of leaving town or being lynched. The family was forced to flee, leaving the 14-year-old child with no support during his 81-day confinement and trial. His trial, including jury selection, lasted just one day. Stinney's court-appointed attorney was a tax commissioner preparing to run for office. There was no court challenge to the testimony of the three police officers who claimed that Stinney had confessed, although that was the only evidence presented. There were no written records of a confession. Three witnesses were called for the prosecution: the man who discovered the bodies of the two girls and the two doctors who performed the post mortem. No witnesses were called for the defense. The trial lasted two and a half hours. The jury took ten minutes to deliberate before it returned with a 'guilty' verdict.
People who have not been personally affected by such tragedy are not the best people to decide what is right and what is wrong: they have no authentic perspective and it is easy to armchair philosophize about 'what is right and what is wrong' with fluff. Imagine how frustrating it must be for an indifferent society to ignore the pain that has been delivered to you in the event of a parent's worst nightmare:
So the people who are the "best to decide what is right and what is wrong" are those suffering from the emotional distress of horrific crimes?
That's a novel thought....and one I couldn't disagree with anymore than I do.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
People who have not been personally affected by such tragedy are not the best people to decide what is right and what is wrong: they have no authentic perspective and it is easy to armchair philosophize about 'what is right and what is wrong' with fluff. Imagine how frustrating it must be for an indifferent society to ignore the pain that has been delivered to you in the event of a parent's worst nightmare:
So the people who are the "best to decide what is right and what is wrong" are those suffering from the emotional distress of horrific crimes?
That's a novel thought....and one I couldn't disagree with anymore than I do.
They are not necessarily the best- that wasn't my point which you have missed. I said they aren't necessarily the worst either.
Your last two posts reflect what I am talking about: a person far removed from any personal tragedy (such as the parents of the children Olson killed) spouting 'fluff' when you truly do not know the level of pain or need that was inflicted upon them unwillingly.
Am I to assume we should ignore their thoughts on the subject because people like yourself 'probably know best'? Maybe pat them on the head... whisper tsk tsk... give them a good, reassuring look and tell them they'll ge tover it?
The execution of George Stinney was carried out at the South Carolina State Penitentiary in Columbia, on June 16, 1944. At 7:30 p.m., Stinney walked to the execution chamber with a Bible under his arm, which he later used as a booster seat in the electric chair. [5] Standing 5 foot 1 inch (155 cm) tall and weighing just over 90 pounds (40 kg),[4] he was small for his age, which presented difficulties in securing him to the frame holding the electrodes. Nor did the state's adult-sized face-mask fit him; as he was hit with the first 2,400 V surge of electricity, the mask covering his face slipped off, “revealing his wide-open, tearful eyes and saliva coming from his mouth”...After two more jolts of electricity, the boy was dead."[8][9] Stinney was declared dead within four minutes of the initial electrocution. From the time of the murders until Stinney's execution, eighty-one days had passed.[5]
(still yawning)
jesus.
land of the free, home of the brave!!! american pride!!!!!!
Following his arrest, Stinney's father was fired from his job and his parents and siblings were given the choice of leaving town or being lynched. The family was forced to flee, leaving the 14-year-old child with no support during his 81-day confinement and trial. His trial, including jury selection, lasted just one day. Stinney's court-appointed attorney was a tax commissioner preparing to run for office. There was no court challenge to the testimony of the three police officers who claimed that Stinney had confessed, although that was the only evidence presented. There were no written records of a confession. Three witnesses were called for the prosecution: the man who discovered the bodies of the two girls and the two doctors who performed the post mortem. No witnesses were called for the defense. The trial lasted two and a half hours. The jury took ten minutes to deliberate before it returned with a 'guilty' verdict.
This is just gross.
Qualifying my position again in light of this gruesome tale: I'm not advocating the death penalty for all (especially children) and I'm only advocating for it as an option for those cases that are particularly offensive and that meet certain criteria which remove any level of doubt.
They are not necessarily the best- that wasn't my point which you have missed. I said they aren't necessarily the worst either.
Your last two posts reflect what I am talking about: a person far removed from any personal tragedy (such as the parents of the children Olson killed) spouting 'fluff' when you truly do not know the level of pain or need that was inflicted upon them unwillingly.
Am I to assume we should ignore their thoughts on the subject because people like yourself 'probably know best'? Maybe pat them on the head... whisper tsk tsk... give them a good, reassuring look and tell them they'll ge tover it?
How do you know what I know or have experienced?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
They are not necessarily the best- that wasn't my point which you have missed. I said they aren't necessarily the worst either.
Your last two posts reflect what I am talking about: a person far removed from any personal tragedy (such as the parents of the children Olson killed) spouting 'fluff' when you truly do not know the level of pain or need that was inflicted upon them unwillingly.
Am I to assume we should ignore their thoughts on the subject because people like yourself 'probably know best'? Maybe pat them on the head... whisper tsk tsk... give them a good, reassuring look and tell them they'll ge tover it?
How do you know what I know or have experienced?
Making a qualified assumption. Statistics and your tone seemed to suggest it. If I was wrong, I apologize profusely. Seriously.
this bothers me. just because we're anti death penalty in any situation, does not mean we put ourselves on any moral pedestal. we just hold different positions on an emotional subject.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
People who have not been personally affected by such tragedy are not the best people to decide what is right and what is wrong: they have no authentic perspective and it is easy to armchair philosophize about 'what is right and what is wrong' with fluff. Imagine how frustrating it must be for an indifferent society to ignore the pain that has been delivered to you in the event of a parent's worst nightmare:
So the people who are the "best to decide what is right and what is wrong" are those suffering from the emotional distress of horrific crimes?
That's a novel thought....and one I couldn't disagree with anymore than I do.
They are not necessarily the best- that wasn't my point which you have missed. I said they aren't necessarily the worst either.
Your last two posts reflect what I am talking about: a person far removed from any personal tragedy (such as the parents of the children Olson killed) spouting 'fluff' when you truly do not know the level of pain or need that was inflicted upon them unwillingly.
Am I to assume we should ignore their thoughts on the subject because people like yourself 'probably know best'? Maybe pat them on the head... whisper tsk tsk... give them a good, reassuring look and tell them they'll ge tover it?
the last paragraph probably wasn't necessary. no one is suggesting the living victims "get over it" and you know it.
but who best to decide the punishments than a person who can remain objective? that's what the whole justice system is based on. anonymous objectivity. that's why juries are selected at random and made sure to eliminate as much bias for or against he accused when doing so.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
but who best to decide the punishments than a person who can remain objective? that's what the whole justice system is based on. anonymous objectivity. that's why juries are selected at random and made sure to eliminate as much bias for or against he accused when doing so.
I was thinking about this quite a bit lately. I tried my best to put myself in the position where one of my close family members was murdered and there was sufficient evidence to convict a person. Here's where I'm a hypocrite, and I'll admit it, I'd want revenge. I'd want to kill the person with my damned bare hands like an animal. It would be an immediate fix for my bloodlust, but years after the revenge, it would likely haunt me (playing God). But that is why I'm glad the system is in place to take that out of my hands...and to take justice out of the hands of people who have been through the most difficult emotion times of their lives. Objectivity is the only way to ensure people are handed the rightful punishments. This is also why I believe in the future, more US states will abolish the death penalty.
Also, I'm surprised there are people who accept the position of administering the execution. Put yourself in those shoes for a day! :?
this bothers me. just because we're anti death penalty in any situation, does not mean we put ourselves on any moral pedestal. we just hold different positions on an emotional subject.
Then how is one to respond from my position?
It's tough to gauge intent on a forum chat site... but to me... know was pretty strong with his/her language and ideas. For example, know used the term 'sick' for grieving parents. I think this is a little insensitive. Given such... there is a hint of arrogance that wasn't as much interested in discussing the topic versus flaunting a position regardless of whatever might be said from the other side.
but who best to decide the punishments than a person who can remain objective? that's what the whole justice system is based on. anonymous objectivity. that's why juries are selected at random and made sure to eliminate as much bias for or against he accused when doing so.
I was thinking about this quite a bit lately. I tried my best to put myself in the position where one of my close family members was murdered and there was sufficient evidence to convict a person. Here's where I'm a hypocrite, and I'll admit it, I'd want revenge. I'd want to kill the person with my damned bare hands like an animal. It would be an immediate fix for my bloodlust, but years after the revenge, it would likely haunt me (playing God). But that is why I'm glad the system is in place to take that out of my hands...and to take justice out of the hands of people who have been through the most difficult emotion times of their lives. Objectivity is the only way to ensure people are handed the rightful punishments. This is also why I believe in the future, more US states will abolish the death penalty.
Also, I'm surprised there are people who accept the position of administering the execution. Put yourself in those shoes for a day! :?
it would take a "special" kind of person to choose that for a profession.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
the last paragraph probably wasn't necessary. no one is suggesting the living victims "get over it" and you know it.
but who best to decide the punishments than a person who can remain objective? that's what the whole justice system is based on. anonymous objectivity. that's why juries are selected at random and made sure to eliminate as much bias for or against he accused when doing so.
This is how many parents of the Olson victims felt. It was included in one of the links I provided earlier. It wasn't as if the legal system flat out said, "Get over it." But the actions of it seemed to imply it: an indifference towards those that lived the pain.
As aghast and mortified as we all are when it comes to hearing of these events... think how exaggerated and personal that feeling is for those directly involved? I do not hear much from those opposed to the death penalty regarding the recovery of grieving family members (or a society for that matter). I hear much for the welfare of the convicted murderer though.
Maybe a balance might be best served between the two sides on this issue?
this bothers me. just because we're anti death penalty in any situation, does not mean we put ourselves on any moral pedestal. we just hold different positions on an emotional subject.
Then how is one to respond from my position?
It's tough to gauge intent on a forum chat site... but to me... know was pretty strong with his/her language and ideas. For example, know used the term 'sick' for grieving parents. I think this is a little insensitive. Given such... there is a hint of arrogance that wasn't as much interested in discussing the topic versus flaunting a position regardless of whatever might be said from the other side.
very well. I took as a sweeping comment on all anti-death penalty folks (because this is a common sentiment left in these threads the longer they go on), and it wasn't intended as such. my apologies.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
the last paragraph probably wasn't necessary. no one is suggesting the living victims "get over it" and you know it.
but who best to decide the punishments than a person who can remain objective? that's what the whole justice system is based on. anonymous objectivity. that's why juries are selected at random and made sure to eliminate as much bias for or against he accused when doing so.
This is how many parents of the Olson victims felt. It was included in one of the links I provided earlier. It wasn't as if the legal system flat out said, "Get over it." But the actions of it seemed to imply it: an indifference towards those that lived the pain.
As aghast and mortified as we all are when it comes to hearing of these events... think how exaggerated and personal that feeling is for those directly involved? I do not hear much from those opposed to the death penalty regarding the recovery of grieving family members (or a society for that matter). I hear much for the welfare of the convicted murderer though.
Maybe a balance might be best served between the two sides on this issue?
but what balance could be served by still having the death penalty? I don't want to sound cold, but in my opinion, it is not the court's duty or obligation to concern itself with the emotional welfare and recovery of those directly involved. it's duty is to serve the public's best interest in serving justice.
I cannot imagine the pain of losing a loved one in this way. it's painful enough by natural means. but as difficult as it may seem to seperate the two, I truly believe that you have to take emotion out of the justice equation. the only way to truly serve justice for all humanity is to administer it without human emotion.
You don't hear much from the opposition about the grieving family members simply because it shouldn't be a factor in whether a person lives or dies.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
It's tough to gauge intent on a forum chat site... but to me... know was pretty strong with his/her language and ideas. For example, know used the term 'sick' for grieving parents. I think this is a little insensitive. Given such... there is a hint of arrogance that wasn't as much interested in discussing the topic versus flaunting a position regardless of whatever might be said from the other side.
Not true. I used "sick" to describe someone who wants to murder someone else for revenge.
I did not use the term sick to describe someone who was grieving.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Comments
That's right. Proven.
Oh, and it appears Hyman Barshay wasn't a poet. He was a judge. Though it's hard to find out seeing as he was such an irrelevance there's hardly any available information on him.
But then I suppose you'll gran any crumb you find in your desperate effort to defend and justify state-sponsored revenge killings.
Whoops! Missed this one.
:fp:
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
You would never need to worry, Hugh.
Only sick, predatory bastards would.
I use an expression often when it comes to coaching: You get what you tolerate.
Consider the following:
Nobody can say if the families’ pain will be eased with Olson’s death from cancer Friday in a prison hospital. Each child was different and so was the way each was mourned. Some families have kept out of the media glare as Olson infamously taunted them with sadistic disclosures to tabloid journalists, nefarious legal appeals, and futile appearances before the National Parole Board. Others have been very vocal with the media and have insisted on being present at every parole hearing to stand before Olson on behalf of the children he murdered.
The reactions to the news that Olson was dying ranged from anger to uncertainty. “I’ve waited 30 years for this. Once he is dead, justice will be done. They should not have taken the death penalty away just before he murdered our children,” Terry Bizeau, mother of 15-year-old victim Terri Lyn Carson, said in an e-mail to The Globe.
“I just hope when he dies, it’s real soon. I hope it’s really painful for him,” Ray King, the father of 15-year-old Raymond King, Olson’s eighth victim, told the National Post.
These people received no closure from the crimes that rocked their world. They re-lived the horror of their children's final hours daily and were reminded of it periodically from a voice that should have been eradicated from this earth. Throughout this thread, much has been made about the killer and what needs to be done for them. It is my opinion that they conceded their rights as a human being when they left the human race to pleasure themselves in utterly sick fashion. As such, our courts and society should be looking to the needs of the survivors as our priority and offer whatever we can to alleviate the suffering they have been forced to endure. In short... fuck the child murderer.
People who have not been personally affected by such tragedy are not the best people to decide what is right and what is wrong: they have no authentic perspective and it is easy to armchair philosophize about 'what is right and what is wrong' with fluff. Imagine how frustrating it must be for an indifferent society to ignore the pain that has been delivered to you in the event of a parent's worst nightmare:
At every step of the investigation, prosecution and incarceration of the sadistic murderer of their children, the families were treated as an inconvenience, rather than emotionally affected participants. Out of their anger and humiliation the Rosenfeldts reached out to other families, forming the Parents of BC Murder Victims in July, 1981.
“Over and above the death of Daryn, and the ugly manner in which he died,” Mrs. Rosenfeldt said, “our anger became very much focused on the justice system. It was born out of sheer hurt at our loss of dignity in the way we were treated and in particular for the loss of dignity for my little boy. Nobody, I felt gave a damn about his life, other than us, and my family.”
No enlightened philosophy here. Only reality. We failed these people and for what? Cash for bodies. Sex dolls. Isolated, cushy cell. Cable television. Headlines. Fuck me.
Source:
http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/natio ... ice=mobile
That's a good point
On the flip side, as a Canadian you need to consider the likes of David Marshall, Guy Paul Morin,or David Milgaard when making such a claim. None of these men were the sick, predatory men you are berating yet they all found themselves on the wrong side of the law. If Canada continued to have the death penalty what would have happened to the likes of them? It's so easy to take a life; giving back one that is wrongfully taken is an entirely different matter. I personally believe that life in prison should mean just that; life with no possibility of parole. Once you take a person's life you can't undo your error. You can't give them back what you've wrongfully taken
The death penalty is vengeance; nothing more, nothing less. It isn't a deterrent and it has nothing to do with justice.
Those case are from 1971, 1984, and 1969 (respectively). They are definitely worth learning from, but let's get serious: forensic science has come leap years since those days. Factor in social media that some like to utilize (such as Magnotta or Bernardo) and many cases are flat out 'slam dunks' compared to what they used to be. As significant as it might have been towards this debate at one time, the 'might get the wrong guy' is losing relevance in light of our advances.
In an earlier post, I described that only some cases of the extreme variety- coupled with 'conditions' that made the case very clear- should be considered for the death penalty.
What you call 'vengeance' I call 'justice'. Merriam-Webster describes justice as the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments... and vengeance as (punishment inflicted in retaliation for an injury or offense . They are synonymous if you ask me.
It is said that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Tell me how it is 'justice' when a serial, sadistic child rapist (Olson) murders 11 kids in horrific fashion, gets sentenced, and receives cash, sex dolls, cable television and nice, warm meals with people to do his laundry? I'm not suggesting sodomizing and mutilating the bastard as he did with his victims, but certainly 'clinical' death is NOT a stretch given the extreme nature of his offences. Guys do harder time for theft or drugs.
I hear people speak of problems within the system and that maybe we need to ammend conditions for said criminals so that their time isn't as 'light' as what they have proven to be. To these people I ask the following: given the opportunity... would you seriously opt for the sentence Olson served versus capital punishment? If so... do you actually think this is justice served?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Stinney
The execution of George Stinney was carried out at the South Carolina State Penitentiary in Columbia, on June 16, 1944. At 7:30 p.m., Stinney walked to the execution chamber with a Bible under his arm, which he later used as a booster seat in the electric chair. [5] Standing 5 foot 1 inch (155 cm) tall and weighing just over 90 pounds (40 kg),[4] he was small for his age, which presented difficulties in securing him to the frame holding the electrodes. Nor did the state's adult-sized face-mask fit him; as he was hit with the first 2,400 V surge of electricity, the mask covering his face slipped off, “revealing his wide-open, tearful eyes and saliva coming from his mouth”...After two more jolts of electricity, the boy was dead."[8][9] Stinney was declared dead within four minutes of the initial electrocution. From the time of the murders until Stinney's execution, eighty-one days had passed.[5]
(still yawning)
jesus.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
land of the free, home of the brave!!! american pride!!!!!!
Following his arrest, Stinney's father was fired from his job and his parents and siblings were given the choice of leaving town or being lynched. The family was forced to flee, leaving the 14-year-old child with no support during his 81-day confinement and trial. His trial, including jury selection, lasted just one day. Stinney's court-appointed attorney was a tax commissioner preparing to run for office. There was no court challenge to the testimony of the three police officers who claimed that Stinney had confessed, although that was the only evidence presented. There were no written records of a confession. Three witnesses were called for the prosecution: the man who discovered the bodies of the two girls and the two doctors who performed the post mortem. No witnesses were called for the defense. The trial lasted two and a half hours. The jury took ten minutes to deliberate before it returned with a 'guilty' verdict.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
So the people who are the "best to decide what is right and what is wrong" are those suffering from the emotional distress of horrific crimes?
That's a novel thought....and one I couldn't disagree with anymore than I do.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
So the parents of Clifford Olson's victims were cold, callous beings? To use your words... they were 'sick' for wanting Olson dead for his crimes?
The citizens of the USA were 'sick' for wanting Osama Bin Laden dead in the aftermath of 9-11?
Absolutely.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
They are not necessarily the best- that wasn't my point which you have missed. I said they aren't necessarily the worst either.
Your last two posts reflect what I am talking about: a person far removed from any personal tragedy (such as the parents of the children Olson killed) spouting 'fluff' when you truly do not know the level of pain or need that was inflicted upon them unwillingly.
Am I to assume we should ignore their thoughts on the subject because people like yourself 'probably know best'? Maybe pat them on the head... whisper tsk tsk... give them a good, reassuring look and tell them they'll ge tover it?
Well... you're a better person than us then.
This is just gross.
Qualifying my position again in light of this gruesome tale: I'm not advocating the death penalty for all (especially children) and I'm only advocating for it as an option for those cases that are particularly offensive and that meet certain criteria which remove any level of doubt.
How do you know what I know or have experienced?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Making a qualified assumption. Statistics and your tone seemed to suggest it. If I was wrong, I apologize profusely. Seriously.
this bothers me. just because we're anti death penalty in any situation, does not mean we put ourselves on any moral pedestal. we just hold different positions on an emotional subject.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
the last paragraph probably wasn't necessary. no one is suggesting the living victims "get over it" and you know it.
but who best to decide the punishments than a person who can remain objective? that's what the whole justice system is based on. anonymous objectivity. that's why juries are selected at random and made sure to eliminate as much bias for or against he accused when doing so.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I was thinking about this quite a bit lately. I tried my best to put myself in the position where one of my close family members was murdered and there was sufficient evidence to convict a person. Here's where I'm a hypocrite, and I'll admit it, I'd want revenge. I'd want to kill the person with my damned bare hands like an animal. It would be an immediate fix for my bloodlust, but years after the revenge, it would likely haunt me (playing God). But that is why I'm glad the system is in place to take that out of my hands...and to take justice out of the hands of people who have been through the most difficult emotion times of their lives. Objectivity is the only way to ensure people are handed the rightful punishments. This is also why I believe in the future, more US states will abolish the death penalty.
Also, I'm surprised there are people who accept the position of administering the execution. Put yourself in those shoes for a day! :?
Then how is one to respond from my position?
It's tough to gauge intent on a forum chat site... but to me... know was pretty strong with his/her language and ideas. For example, know used the term 'sick' for grieving parents. I think this is a little insensitive. Given such... there is a hint of arrogance that wasn't as much interested in discussing the topic versus flaunting a position regardless of whatever might be said from the other side.
it would take a "special" kind of person to choose that for a profession.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
This is how many parents of the Olson victims felt. It was included in one of the links I provided earlier. It wasn't as if the legal system flat out said, "Get over it." But the actions of it seemed to imply it: an indifference towards those that lived the pain.
As aghast and mortified as we all are when it comes to hearing of these events... think how exaggerated and personal that feeling is for those directly involved? I do not hear much from those opposed to the death penalty regarding the recovery of grieving family members (or a society for that matter). I hear much for the welfare of the convicted murderer though.
Maybe a balance might be best served between the two sides on this issue?
very well. I took as a sweeping comment on all anti-death penalty folks (because this is a common sentiment left in these threads the longer they go on), and it wasn't intended as such. my apologies.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
but what balance could be served by still having the death penalty? I don't want to sound cold, but in my opinion, it is not the court's duty or obligation to concern itself with the emotional welfare and recovery of those directly involved. it's duty is to serve the public's best interest in serving justice.
I cannot imagine the pain of losing a loved one in this way. it's painful enough by natural means. but as difficult as it may seem to seperate the two, I truly believe that you have to take emotion out of the justice equation. the only way to truly serve justice for all humanity is to administer it without human emotion.
You don't hear much from the opposition about the grieving family members simply because it shouldn't be a factor in whether a person lives or dies.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Not true. I used "sick" to describe someone who wants to murder someone else for revenge.
I did not use the term sick to describe someone who was grieving.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.