poor little george stinney had me thinking..... could we americans today create such a monster out a 14 year old boy, create so much fear and hate that we would torture, rape, sodomize, kill or force the 14 year boy to commit suicide while in our custody because of our treatment? today in this day, and age could we treat a 14 year old boy the way poor little george stinney was treated back in 1944? i was just thinking this to myself while fu(king around at work....
[quote="Thirty Bills Unpaid"
Remember this question I posed to you and how you responded to it?
OK - I wasn't responding the the first question as I never said anything about cold or callous.
But I absolutely think it's a sickness to want to murder someone for revenge. And furthermore, if that eases someone's pain, I think it's worse.[/quote]
Know... I'm not prepared to do this discussion on the level you are bringing it to.
Truth be known, although I think the death penalty has its place in our justice system... I don't really care given I have no authentic position to argue from. I debate for the sake of debating more than I do for the cause.
Your tactics leave a little to be desired. Essentially, you are calling me and every other supporter of the death penalty 'sick'. I guess that's your right, but I- like most people- usually refer people as 'sick' when they do horrific things. With your choice of words, you have managed to lump myself, as well as the parents of Olson's victims that we have both referenced in our brief discussion, in the mix with our most obscene individuals.
If we are going to sling mud... the side I tend to advocate for would, among other things that I'm not even going to bother with, call everyone that doesn't support the death penalty as weak and soft on crime. They would also say that by advocating for the murderer- you are disrespectful and uncaring for the dead... not to mention indifferent to the survivors.
You have become confused with what I was saying before... so let me be clear: I'm not going to 'sling mud' with you. Even though you have not elaborately pieced together your position, I respect it and do not feel the need to call you down for it. I've placed a lot of well thought out pieces throughout this thread and, quite frankly, deserve a little more respect than for someone kind of late to the dance calling me a piece of shit (or sicko... same thing).
I also haven't hung you (no pun intended) on our intial interactions. If you care to discuss on a more civil platform... I'd probably be game and could very easily forget your initial approach with me. If, you still feel as if I am a piece of shit because I support the death penalty under certain circumstances... well fair enough then. What's a guy to do?
I can only speak for myself, but I'd say I'm actually TOUGHER on crime than those who support the death penalty. My position is that death lets the criminal off easier than a lifetime behind bars.
And again, I am NOT advocating for the criminal. I am advocating for the basic right of ANY individual, innocent or guilty, not to be killed by the state.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Know... I'm not prepared to do this discussion on the level you are bringing it to.
Truth be known, although I think the death penalty has its place in our justice system... I don't really care given I have no authentic position to argue from. I debate for the sake of debating more than I do for the cause.
Your tactics leave a little to be desired. Essentially, you are calling me and every other supporter of the death penalty 'sick'. I guess that's your right, but I- like most people- usually refer people as 'sick' when they do horrific things. With your choice of words, you have managed to lump myself, as well as the parents of Olson's victims that we have both referenced in our brief discussion, in the mix with our most obscene individuals.
If we are going to sling mud... the side I tend to advocate for would, among other things that I'm not even going to bother with, call everyone that doesn't support the death penalty as weak and soft on crime. They would also say that by advocating for the murderer- you are disrespectful and uncaring for the dead... not to mention indifferent to the survivors.
You have become confused with what I was saying before... so let me be clear: I'm not going to 'sling mud' with you. Even though you have not elaborately pieced together your position, I respect it and do not feel the need to call you down for it. I've placed a lot of well thought out pieces throughout this thread and, quite frankly, deserve a little more respect than for someone kind of late to the dance calling me a piece of shit (or sicko... same thing).
I also haven't hung you (no pun intended) on our intial interactions. If you care to discuss on a more civil platform... I'd probably be game and could very easily forget your initial approach with me. If, you still feel as if I am a piece of shit because I support the death penalty under certain circumstances... well fair enough then. What's a guy to do?
You're reading WAY too much into a short comment that I made initially.
Let me state it clearly and try to take this at face value rather than add things to it.
I think someone whose pain is eased by the revenge murder of another human being is sick.
I DO NOT think someone who is pro-death penalty is sick...although I do not agree with the death penalty in any situation.
Go back and look at my first comment. I was referring to that article and right near the top it mentions something about their pain easing if/when the guy would be killed.
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.
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.
This particular issue may ultimately be an 'Us vs. Them' issue (death or no death)... so the following words may or may not be appropriate.
What I meant to get across was that in order for meaningful discussion, I think we have to be more reasonable when considering the other side's perspective. I have a hard time 'taking my foot of the throttle' when it seems as if there is never the slightest acknowledgement that the side I argue for has any merit whatsoever.
For example, I posted that the Stinney case was horrific. I also posted responses to both Byrnzie and yourself that certain situations made it difficult to argue for the death penalty. In doing so, I have openly admitted that the issue is complex and there are many variables that need to be considered when discussing it. This is not a one-sided debate in my mind (and have expressed that I might be wrong on more than one occasion).
When opponents snub their noses at seemingly relevant material for such an issue... or dismiss them without the slightest acknowledgement... it leaves opponents 'firmly in the other camp' and aggressive or hostile in their approach to the discussion.
If this debate is one-sided... let me know and I'll opt out. I will not have changed my mind on the subject, but if I'm speaking gibberish such as the fools who oppose gun legislation... then for gawd's sakes let me know and I'll do some soul-searching!
Know... I'm not prepared to do this discussion on the level you are bringing it to.
Truth be known, although I think the death penalty has its place in our justice system... I don't really care given I have no authentic position to argue from. I debate for the sake of debating more than I do for the cause.
Your tactics leave a little to be desired. Essentially, you are calling me and every other supporter of the death penalty 'sick'. I guess that's your right, but I- like most people- usually refer people as 'sick' when they do horrific things. With your choice of words, you have managed to lump myself, as well as the parents of Olson's victims that we have both referenced in our brief discussion, in the mix with our most obscene individuals.
If we are going to sling mud... the side I tend to advocate for would, among other things that I'm not even going to bother with, call everyone that doesn't support the death penalty as weak and soft on crime. They would also say that by advocating for the murderer- you are disrespectful and uncaring for the dead... not to mention indifferent to the survivors.
You have become confused with what I was saying before... so let me be clear: I'm not going to 'sling mud' with you. Even though you have not elaborately pieced together your position, I respect it and do not feel the need to call you down for it. I've placed a lot of well thought out pieces throughout this thread and, quite frankly, deserve a little more respect than for someone kind of late to the dance calling me a piece of shit (or sicko... same thing).
I also haven't hung you (no pun intended) on our intial interactions. If you care to discuss on a more civil platform... I'd probably be game and could very easily forget your initial approach with me. If, you still feel as if I am a piece of shit because I support the death penalty under certain circumstances... well fair enough then. What's a guy to do?
You're reading WAY too much into a short comment that I made initially.
Let me state it clearly and try to take this at face value rather than add things to it.
I think someone whose pain is eased by the revenge murder of another human being is sick.
I DO NOT think someone who is pro-death penalty is sick...although I do not agree with the death penalty in any situation.
Go back and look at my first comment. I was referring to that article and right near the top it mentions something about their pain easing if/when the guy would be killed.
To imply one is 'sick' for wanting to take another man's life... is to suggest they are cold or a deviant. That's definitely how it comes out to the reader. I've read the comments. I don't think I have read too much into them.
If I'm understanding what you are saying now... then I guess I would have suggested that the person who needed the death of their child's murderer to be 'suffering' instead of 'sick'. Then I would have added that, as hurtful and horrific as their reality might be, the 'cure' wouldn't be to take a man's life. Then... I would have suggested means by which we could help this person come to terms with their reality. For example, when I watched the movie, The Cell, I became somewhat empathetic for the 'deranged psychotic killer'. In all likelihood, the killer of a child (sticking with the same theme we have used to this point) has deep-rooted, underlying problems that they were never capable of dealing with. Detailing these problems, through some form of counselling, might be one way to help those 'suffering' come to terms with what happened to their loved one.
Regardless of my approach versus your approach... I appreciate you taking the time to clear the air regarding what you had intended with what you wrote. If I was hyper-sensitive... I apologize. It hasn't been lost on me that this thread is full of my posts arguing my position and very few others compared to the entries from 'the other side'.
This particular issue may ultimately be an 'Us vs. Them' issue (death or no death)... so the following words may or may not be appropriate.
What I meant to get across was that in order for meaningful discussion, I think we have to be more reasonable when considering the other side's perspective. I have a hard time 'taking my foot of the throttle' when it seems as if there is never the slightest acknowledgement that the side I argue for has any merit whatsoever.
For example, I posted that the Stinney case was horrific. I also posted responses to both Byrnzie and yourself that certain situations made it difficult to argue for the death penalty. In doing so, I have openly admitted that the issue is complex and there are many variables that need to be considered when discussing it. This is not a one-sided debate in my mind (and have expressed that I might be wrong on more than one occasion).
When opponents snub their noses at seemingly relevant material for such an issue... or dismiss them without the slightest acknowledgement... it leaves opponents 'firmly in the other camp' and aggressive or hostile in their approach to the discussion.
If this debate is one-sided... let me know and I'll opt out. I will not have changed my mind on the subject, but if I'm speaking gibberish such as the fools who oppose gun legislation... then for gawd's sakes let me know and I'll do some soul-searching!
ok, I'm not usually of the "I will not be swayed no matter what you say" ilk, as some are in gun debates and abortion issues and whatnot. I enjoy discussing this with you and others. It's not whether I believe that someone should die or not.It's not whether I believe the living victims deserve "closure" or however we want to phrase it.
My belief is that it is not up to humans to premeditate who lives or dies, no matter what.
If you don't want to further the discussion, that's fine. I just think sometimes it's not a bad thing to discuss things that make you think, even if ultimately you walk away from it still having the same beliefs.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
This particular issue may ultimately be an 'Us vs. Them' issue (death or no death)... so the following words may or may not be appropriate.
What I meant to get across was that in order for meaningful discussion, I think we have to be more reasonable when considering the other side's perspective. I have a hard time 'taking my foot of the throttle' when it seems as if there is never the slightest acknowledgement that the side I argue for has any merit whatsoever.
For example, I posted that the Stinney case was horrific. I also posted responses to both Byrnzie and yourself that certain situations made it difficult to argue for the death penalty. In doing so, I have openly admitted that the issue is complex and there are many variables that need to be considered when discussing it. This is not a one-sided debate in my mind (and have expressed that I might be wrong on more than one occasion).
When opponents snub their noses at seemingly relevant material for such an issue... or dismiss them without the slightest acknowledgement... it leaves opponents 'firmly in the other camp' and aggressive or hostile in their approach to the discussion.
If this debate is one-sided... let me know and I'll opt out. I will not have changed my mind on the subject, but if I'm speaking gibberish such as the fools who oppose gun legislation... then for gawd's sakes let me know and I'll do some soul-searching!
ok, I'm not usually of the "I will not be swayed no matter what you say" ilk, as some are in gun debates and abortion issues and whatnot. I enjoy discussing this with you and others. It's not whether I believe that someone should die or not.It's not whether I believe the living victims deserve "closure" or however we want to phrase it.
My belief is that it is not up to humans to premeditate who lives or dies, no matter what.
If you don't want to further the discussion, that's fine. I just think sometimes it's not a bad thing to discuss things that make you think, even if ultimately you walk away from it still having the same beliefs.
I'm in the same camp here. I see gray area in many issues, but the death penalty is not one of them.
I do not believe anything the pro-death-penalty side could say would sway me.
I just do not believe murder - ANY MURDER - is OK.
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.
I'm against the death penalty... I used to be for it, but after learning more about the flaws in our criminal justice system, I think that it is better to have life sentences for those accused and found guilty... just in case the courts systems rule incorrectly. The truly guilty are imprisoned and segreated from the rest of us and the truely innocent are not murdered by the rest of us.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
I'm against the death penalty... I used to be for it, but after learning more about the flaws in our criminal justice system, I think that it is better to have life sentences for those accused and found guilty... just in case the courts systems rule incorrectly. The truly guilty are imprisoned and segreated from the rest of us and the truely innocent are not murdered by the rest of us.
Same here.
And Over the years of discussing here and with friends and folks in the real world (no offense internet friends ) I've come to meet quite a few folks who used to be pro-DP, but changed over to anti after learning about the flaws in the system. I've never once heard someone flip the opposite, from anti-DP to pro-DP.
Just an observation.
I'm against the death penalty... I used to be for it, but after learning more about the flaws in our criminal justice system, I think that it is better to have life sentences for those accused and found guilty... just in case the courts systems rule incorrectly. The truly guilty are imprisoned and segreated from the rest of us and the truely innocent are not murdered by the rest of us.
Same here.
And Over the years of discussing here and with friends and folks in the real world (no offense internet friends ) I've come to meet quite a few folks who used to be pro-DP, but changed over to anti after learning about the flaws in the system. I've never once heard someone flip the opposite, from anti-DP to pro-DP.
Just an observation.
...
Understandable why someone would. Hypothetically speaking, had Adam Lanza not committed suicide, I can see the call for his death due to the horrific nature of his crime.
The problem is not all of the cases are cut and dry as that. There are just too many variables involved with the courts systems that allows for human error. If there were some sort of method to be 100% certain that the defendant was truly guilty of the capital crime... then, maybe I would change my mind (but, i probably wouldn't).
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Same here.
And Over the years of discussing here and with friends and folks in the real world (no offense internet friends ) I've come to meet quite a few folks who used to be pro-DP, but changed over to anti after learning about the flaws in the system. I've never once heard someone flip the opposite, from anti-DP to pro-DP.
Just an observation.
:wave:
I'm a flipper.
I used to be against it, but my views shifted as I got older (probably when my niece was born) and, I suppose, became less tolerant of the horrors some are capable of inflicting upon others.
I do still have some issues related to it that I have yet to reconcile within myself, and it's far, far from a black-and-white issue for 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:
The government provides equal rights to all law abiding citizens. Once you are convicted of a crime all bets are off...including owning a weapon and in the States where they support capital punishment your life.
"If we design a legal system that will be so generous to the suspect that there is absolutely no possibility of unjustly convicting that one out of ten thousand defendants who, in spite of overwhelming evidence, is really innocent, then we have also designed a legal system that is utterly incapable of convicting the other 9999 about whose guilt there is no mistake."
-- G. Edward Griffin in The Great Prison Break
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:
Once you are convicted of a crime all bets are off...including owning a weapon and in the States where they support capital punishment your life.
Except people like Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech, or Adam Lanza at Newtown, didn't have criminal records, and yet they still managed to get their hands on guns and carry out a massacre. So your point is moot.
"If we design a legal system that will be so generous to the suspect that there is absolutely no possibility of unjustly convicting that one out of ten thousand defendants who, in spite of overwhelming evidence, is really innocent, then we have also designed a legal system that is utterly incapable of convicting the other 9999 about whose guilt there is no mistake."
-- G. Edward Griffin in The Great Prison Break
This from from a 'member and officer of the John Birch Society for much of his life', and a Christian fundamentalist who believes in the actual existence of Noah's Arkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin
But then, I suppose you'll quote just any old whack-job if what he says happens to support your passion for state-sanctioned revenge killings.
I can only speak for myself, but I'd say I'm actually TOUGHER on crime than those who support the death penalty. My position is that death lets the criminal off easier than a lifetime behind bars.
And again, I am NOT advocating for the criminal. I am advocating for the basic right of ANY individual, innocent or guilty, not to be killed by the state.
Hugh...not trying to provoke you... but I don't see enough of this in your words. You are 100% opposed to the death penalty. Fair enough, but realize that discussing such a topic then is nearly akin to discussing the second ammendment or religion with one of the zealots.
In the other thread that was suggesting prisoners had it too easy... you were very vocal that things were not that easy and that conditions were extremely poor for prisoners. Here you claim you're tougher on crime than many supporting the death penalty.
So, where do you actually rest?
I speak for the survivors and the justice for the mutilated and dead. I advocate for death in certain circumstances, but if death is not appropriate... shouldn't hard time be appropriate?
I illustrated conditions for two of Canada's most brutal mass/serial murderers:
One got married and is now applying for parole every two years now until death- forcing the survivors to attend, protest and re-live the experience at the same time.
The other sold bodies for cash, received excellent treatment for his cancer, made love to plastic dolls (which he complained weren't real enough- guess he was hoping for something he could stick a knife into without it popping?), and more.
The cash for bodies was interesting. Why didn't we feed this shitbird cabbage soup. let him sleep on the floor in general population, and deny him any of the luxuries he started to demand until he professed where he disposed of those children? Why did we cater to his needs and make a rich deal with him so that he would finally let the children be buried properly? I'll tell you why... because people really sensitive to the needs of inmates would have shit their pants. I'm not suggesting you are one of these people, but to these people I say, "Get a fucking grip, man!" We have gone waaaaaaaaaaaaay toooooooooo far in our sense of 'fair treatment' for people who step outside the law in grandiose fashion.
I'd just as soon wish that we wouldn't have crime at all. But given that we do... this debate centers on where we should be at regarding how we deal with the crimes that are inflicted upon us. There are two ends of the spectrum here: there is a grey area whether you wish to acknowledge it or not. Just because it feels right to you that we are not in a position to decide whether a man should live or die doesn't mean you are 100% correct (just as those who firmly believe it is their right to possess an AK-47 might not be correct as well).
When I speak of moderation... with death not an option... I could rest comfortably if one assured me that parole was not an option for slam dunk cases such as the ones I presented and conditions for people already discussed were nearly unbearable: Cancer? Oh well. Sure hope there is no Heaven or Hell... because you will be finding out soon, Mr. Olson.
Coould you accept my level of 'moderation'... or do you feel the need to treat Clifford Olson, the Butcher of BC' with some dignity?
I can only speak for myself, but I'd say I'm actually TOUGHER on crime than those who support the death penalty. My position is that death lets the criminal off easier than a lifetime behind bars.
And again, I am NOT advocating for the criminal. I am advocating for the basic right of ANY individual, innocent or guilty, not to be killed by the state.
Hugh...not trying to provoke you... but I don't see enough of this in your words. You are 100% opposed to the death penalty. Fair enough, but realize that discussing such a topic then is nearly akin to discussing the second ammendment or religion with one of the zealots.
In the other thread that was suggesting prisoners had it too easy... you were very vocal that things were not that easy and that conditions were extremely poor for prisoners. Here you claim you're tougher on crime than many supporting the death penalty.
So, where do you actually rest?
I speak for the survivors and the justice for the mutilated and dead. I advocate for death in certain circumstances, but if death is not appropriate... shouldn't hard time be appropriate?
I illustrated conditions for two of Canada's most brutal mass/serial murderers:
One got married and is now applying for parole every two years now until death- forcing the survivors to attend, protest and re-live the experience at the same time.
The other sold bodies for cash, received excellent treatment for his cancer, made love to plastic dolls (which he complained weren't real enough- guess he was hoping for something he could stick a knife into without it popping?), and more.
The cash for bodies was interesting. Why didn't we feed this shitbird cabbage soup. let him sleep on the floor in general population, and deny him any of the luxuries he started to demand until he professed where he disposed of those children? Why did we cater to his needs and make a rich deal with him so that he would finally let the children be buried properly? I'll tell you why... because people really sensitive to the needs of inmates would have shit their pants. I'm not suggesting you are one of these people, but to these people I say, "Get a fucking grip, man!" We have gone waaaaaaaaaaaaay toooooooooo far in our sense of 'fair treatment' for people who step outside the law in grandiose fashion.
I'd just as soon wish that we wouldn't have crime at all. But given that we do... this debate centers on where we should be at regarding how we deal with the crimes that are inflicted upon us. There are two ends of the spectrum here: there is a grey area whether you wish to acknowledge it or not. Just because it feels right to you that we are not in a position to decide whether a man should live or die doesn't mean you are 100% correct (just as those who firmly believe it is their right to possess an AK-47 might not be correct as well).
When I speak of moderation... with death not an option... I could rest comfortably if one assured me that parole was not an option for slam dunk cases such as the ones I presented and conditions for people already discussed were nearly unbearable: Cancer? Oh well. Sure hope there is no Heaven or Hell... because you will be finding out soon, Mr. Olson.
Coould you accept my level of 'moderation'... or do you feel the need to treat Clifford Olson, the Butcher of BC' with some dignity?
I have stated numerous times that while I am against the death penalty, most criminals live in very poor conditions, whether that mean emotional, physical, or mental. there are, of course, exceptions to this rule, which you spoke about above. Those disgust me. Criminals should not be given those rights. I think the justice system needs an overhaul to stop that type of nonsense. is the parole and incarceration system perfect? not even close. does that mean I should "compromise" to include death back into the options? No. there is compromise in criminal conditions, there is no compromise in death.
all humans deserve dignity. they don't deserve blow up dolls or parole hearings every two years. but if someone is ill, I still think they need to be given health care, just as any citizen of Canada is afforded.
gender reassignment? no. chemo? yes.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
It's time for the demise of capital punishment in the US
The death penalty may be in terminal decline, but it's a symptom of a broken justice system that locks up 6 million Americans
Jill Filipovic
guardian.co.uk, Friday 4 January 2013
2012 was a bad year for the death penalty in America, but a better one for humanity.
Executions have decreased 75% since their peak in 1996, and Connecticut joined 17 other states and the District of Columbia in abolishing capital punishment. All in all, the United States justice system killed 43 people last year.
That our government punished "only" 43 people by lethal injection in 2012 is a macabre achievement, but represents a significant departure from the death penalty-happy 1980s and 90s, when hundreds of inmates were killed every year. Those of us who think it's about time our country joined the ranks of civilized nations can only hope this trend continues.
The United States is in the good company of China, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia as one of the top five executioners in the world. Not to be outdone, we imprison more people than any other nation ever has – more than China, more than the Soviet Union at the height of the gulags. We have 5% of the world's population, but 25% of the world's prisoners. And we lock up more of our children than anyone else: more than 70,000 kids were in jail in 2010, and Texas alone has sentenced more than 400 minors to life behind bars.
Six million people are under "correctional supervision" in the United States. More than half of those are in for drug crimes. And of the people who are in prison for drugs, 80% are there for possession. Billions of dollars in prison spending, much of it directed at private enterprise, means that a handful of businessmen are getting very wealthy on the mass incarceration racket.
Prison in the US is not an equal opportunity placement. As Michelle Alexander details in her book The New Jim Crow, our mass incarceration system functions as a means of social control in much the same way that Jim Crow laws and even slavery did. Of black American men who don't graduate from high school, more than half end up in jail. African Americans are 13% of the US population but comprise 40% of its prisoners.
The death penalty is similarly racialized. Race and location play crucial roles in whether a prosecutor will seek the death penalty and whether a jury will award it. More than three quarters of death penalty convictions are for crimes involving white victims, even though half of all murder victims in the US are black. And a black defendant accused of murdering a white victim is three times more likely to get the death penalty than a white person accused of killing a white victim.
Even putting aside the fact that our prison industry is essentially a systematic method of racial oppression, we should ask ourselves: what purpose does the death penalty serve?
It doesn't deter crime. It punishes a perpetrator, but does so with a sentence that can't be undone. We can never know how many executed men were actually innocent. We do know that more than 100 death row inmates have been exonerated. We also know that our justice system is imperfect by construction, and that there is no way to ensure that no innocent person is ever convicted of a crime. In a flawed system, imposing death upon the convicted simply sets the stakes too high.
But even if we were able to be completely certain that all death row inmates were guilty, we should still oppose the death penalty. The state's ability to infringe upon the basic freedoms of its citizens through incarceration is not a power that should be taken lightly. It is a power that must sometimes be leveled to achieve a fully functional society, but it must be treated with exceptional reverence – the power to deprive a citizen of their liberty is, after all, the power to deprive them of the entire normalcy and much of the joy of daily life, to curtail most of what we understand as "living". To deprive them of life entirely is an egregious abuse.
State-sponsored, judicially-approved killings do not promote esteem or admiration for our justice system; they promote distrust, and at best, fear. Figures who establish their authority with extreme physical violence are not respected, whether those figures are parents, police officers or the courts. Modeling abusive behavior does not often lead to less abuse.
A justice system where the criminal defendant is presumed innocent, where the state bears the burden of proving guilt, where there are rules and protections against the introduction of evidence illegally obtained or unfairly prejudicial, and where all accused are entitled to be heard by a jury of their peers is, in theory, a marvelous one. But killing the people we convict taints what could be exceptional. Meting out exceptionally long prison sentences, and punishing offenders with state-sponsored physical and psychologically torture like solitary confinement, and tangential but ignored physical and psychological torture like prison rape and assault, turn the potentially noble into the actively sadistic.
It does seem as though the US is headed in the right direction. It's too late for the 43 people who were executed last year. But for the 6 million who are currently in our correctional system, change can't come soon enough.
A justice system where the criminal defendant is presumed innocent, where the state bears the burden of proving guilt, where there are rules and protections against the introduction of evidence illegally obtained or unfairly prejudicial, and where all accused are entitled to be heard by a jury of their peers is, in theory, a marvelous one. But killing the people we convict taints what could be exceptional. Meting out exceptionally long prison sentences, and punishing offenders with state-sponsored physical and psychologically torture like solitary confinement, and tangential but ignored physical and psychological torture like prison rape and assault, turn the potentially noble into the actively sadistic.
It does seem as though the US is headed in the right direction. It's too late for the 43 people who were executed last year. But for the 6 million who are currently in our correctional system, change can't come soon enough.
Byrnzie...
It is disturbing to read of the statistics the writer detailed which describe the prevalence for prosecutors pursuing and achieving the death penalty with racial bias. I also find it disturbing when the writer presents statistics regarding the incarceration of children (the US had 70,000 kids in jail in 2010... Texas sentencing 400 minors to life in prison).
It also begs for examining the need for the legalization of drugs with 80% of the prison population serving possession charges. This number is gross. Outside of this fact- that sits outside of the argument for the death penalty (nobody is getting executed for the possession of drugs)- I have some problems with the piece.
I''m toying with the idea of supporting the idea for abolishing the death penalty, but when I read this type of opinion... I question what gets abolished next? Jill seems to think that not only is the death penalty weak... but long sentences are poor choices too. When the death penalty is gone... are long sentences next for the bleeding heart contingency of society? Jill loses me when she states the following:
Meting out exceptionally long prison sentences, and punishing offenders with state-sponsored physical and psychologically torture like solitary confinement, and tangential but ignored physical and psychological torture like prison rape and assault, turn the potentially noble into the actively sadistic.
She's soft and neglects to remember the acts that have people placed in prison- or else she chooses to ignore them. She's a bleeding heart that has her emotions squarely in the corner of the criminals who's actions have hurt other people. Potentially noble? Really? There might be a potentially noble rapists or arsonist in the prison system that doesn't realize his potential given the fact that conditions aren't condusive for doing so... but what are we to do? Don't burn someone's fucking house down, man. Don't rape our daughters. Don't assault people at the subway station. And if you don't... you won't have a 'long sentence'.
I agree that small time hoods should not have to worry about being assaulted while serving their sentences. I would support better supervision to support them and secure their dignity and safety. As for the criminals of the 'grotesque' variety... I truly couldn't care less how their time is spent. If each day is a struggle... oh well. I guess you shouldn't have murdered that old lady for her purse.
If you find yourself in prison... don't be a prick while serving your time. Tow the line and you won't be placed in solitary confinement. What answers does she offer the prison system for dealing with unruly inmates? Jill offers fluff, but not much practicality. She critiques everything without offering tangible solutions to real problems and anybody can spout crap like that and sound eloquent.
If I read this piece correctly... did she promote doing away with the death penalty, doing away with sentencing people for long terms, and in subtle fashion suggest making prisons 'nicer' places (maybe where professionals can mentor and befriend criminals while having fireside chats and special coffees)?
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:
Once you are convicted of a crime all bets are off...including owning a weapon and in the States where they support capital punishment your life.
Except people like Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech, or Adam Lanza at Newtown, didn't have criminal records, and yet they still managed to get their hands on guns and carry out a massacre. So your point is moot.
How many people kill people in the US while drunk driving who didn't have a criminal record? I would have to say your point is moot.
It's time for the demise of capital punishment in the US
The death penalty may be in terminal decline, but it's a symptom of a broken justice system that locks up 6 million Americans
Jill Filipovic
guardian.co.uk, Friday 4 January 2013
2012 was a bad year for the death penalty in America, but a better one for humanity.
Executions have decreased 75% since their peak in 1996, and Connecticut joined 17 other states and the District of Columbia in abolishing capital punishment. All in all, the United States justice system killed 43 people last year.
That our government punished "only" 43 people by lethal injection in 2012 is a macabre achievement, but represents a significant departure from the death penalty-happy 1980s and 90s, when hundreds of inmates were killed every year. Those of us who think it's about time our country joined the ranks of civilized nations can only hope this trend continues.
The United States is in the good company of China, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia as one of the top five executioners in the world. Not to be outdone, we imprison more people than any other nation ever has – more than China, more than the Soviet Union at the height of the gulags. We have 5% of the world's population, but 25% of the world's prisoners. And we lock up more of our children than anyone else: more than 70,000 kids were in jail in 2010, and Texas alone has sentenced more than 400 minors to life behind bars.
Six million people are under "correctional supervision" in the United States. More than half of those are in for drug crimes. And of the people who are in prison for drugs, 80% are there for possession. Billions of dollars in prison spending, much of it directed at private enterprise, means that a handful of businessmen are getting very wealthy on the mass incarceration racket.
Prison in the US is not an equal opportunity placement. As Michelle Alexander details in her book The New Jim Crow, our mass incarceration system functions as a means of social control in much the same way that Jim Crow laws and even slavery did. Of black American men who don't graduate from high school, more than half end up in jail. African Americans are 13% of the US population but comprise 40% of its prisoners.
The death penalty is similarly racialized. Race and location play crucial roles in whether a prosecutor will seek the death penalty and whether a jury will award it. More than three quarters of death penalty convictions are for crimes involving white victims, even though half of all murder victims in the US are black. And a black defendant accused of murdering a white victim is three times more likely to get the death penalty than a white person accused of killing a white victim.
Even putting aside the fact that our prison industry is essentially a systematic method of racial oppression, we should ask ourselves: what purpose does the death penalty serve?
It doesn't deter crime. It punishes a perpetrator, but does so with a sentence that can't be undone. We can never know how many executed men were actually innocent. We do know that more than 100 death row inmates have been exonerated. We also know that our justice system is imperfect by construction, and that there is no way to ensure that no innocent person is ever convicted of a crime. In a flawed system, imposing death upon the convicted simply sets the stakes too high.
But even if we were able to be completely certain that all death row inmates were guilty, we should still oppose the death penalty. The state's ability to infringe upon the basic freedoms of its citizens through incarceration is not a power that should be taken lightly. It is a power that must sometimes be leveled to achieve a fully functional society, but it must be treated with exceptional reverence – the power to deprive a citizen of their liberty is, after all, the power to deprive them of the entire normalcy and much of the joy of daily life, to curtail most of what we understand as "living". To deprive them of life entirely is an egregious abuse.
State-sponsored, judicially-approved killings do not promote esteem or admiration for our justice system; they promote distrust, and at best, fear. Figures who establish their authority with extreme physical violence are not respected, whether those figures are parents, police officers or the courts. Modeling abusive behavior does not often lead to less abuse.
A justice system where the criminal defendant is presumed innocent, where the state bears the burden of proving guilt, where there are rules and protections against the introduction of evidence illegally obtained or unfairly prejudicial, and where all accused are entitled to be heard by a jury of their peers is, in theory, a marvelous one. But killing the people we convict taints what could be exceptional. Meting out exceptionally long prison sentences, and punishing offenders with state-sponsored physical and psychologically torture like solitary confinement, and tangential but ignored physical and psychological torture like prison rape and assault, turn the potentially noble into the actively sadistic.
It does seem as though the US is headed in the right direction. It's too late for the 43 people who were executed last year. But for the 6 million who are currently in our correctional system, change can't come soon enough.
Ridiculous article to say the least. She should lay of the bongs before typing such a fluff piece.
It's time for the demise of capital punishment in the US
The death penalty may be in terminal decline, but it's a symptom of a broken justice system that locks up 6 million Americans
Jill Filipovic
guardian.co.uk, Friday 4 January 2013
2012 was a bad year for the death penalty in America, but a better one for humanity.
Executions have decreased 75% since their peak in 1996, and Connecticut joined 17 other states and the District of Columbia in abolishing capital punishment. All in all, the United States justice system killed 43 people last year.
That our government punished "only" 43 people by lethal injection in 2012 is a macabre achievement, but represents a significant departure from the death penalty-happy 1980s and 90s, when hundreds of inmates were killed every year. Those of us who think it's about time our country joined the ranks of civilized nations can only hope this trend continues.
The United States is in the good company of China, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia as one of the top five executioners in the world. Not to be outdone, we imprison more people than any other nation ever has – more than China, more than the Soviet Union at the height of the gulags. We have 5% of the world's population, but 25% of the world's prisoners. And we lock up more of our children than anyone else: more than 70,000 kids were in jail in 2010, and Texas alone has sentenced more than 400 minors to life behind bars.
Six million people are under "correctional supervision" in the United States. More than half of those are in for drug crimes. And of the people who are in prison for drugs, 80% are there for possession. Billions of dollars in prison spending, much of it directed at private enterprise, means that a handful of businessmen are getting very wealthy on the mass incarceration racket.
Prison in the US is not an equal opportunity placement. As Michelle Alexander details in her book The New Jim Crow, our mass incarceration system functions as a means of social control in much the same way that Jim Crow laws and even slavery did. Of black American men who don't graduate from high school, more than half end up in jail. African Americans are 13% of the US population but comprise 40% of its prisoners.
The death penalty is similarly racialized. Race and location play crucial roles in whether a prosecutor will seek the death penalty and whether a jury will award it. More than three quarters of death penalty convictions are for crimes involving white victims, even though half of all murder victims in the US are black. And a black defendant accused of murdering a white victim is three times more likely to get the death penalty than a white person accused of killing a white victim.
Even putting aside the fact that our prison industry is essentially a systematic method of racial oppression, we should ask ourselves: what purpose does the death penalty serve?
It doesn't deter crime. It punishes a perpetrator, but does so with a sentence that can't be undone. We can never know how many executed men were actually innocent. We do know that more than 100 death row inmates have been exonerated. We also know that our justice system is imperfect by construction, and that there is no way to ensure that no innocent person is ever convicted of a crime. In a flawed system, imposing death upon the convicted simply sets the stakes too high.
But even if we were able to be completely certain that all death row inmates were guilty, we should still oppose the death penalty. The state's ability to infringe upon the basic freedoms of its citizens through incarceration is not a power that should be taken lightly. It is a power that must sometimes be leveled to achieve a fully functional society, but it must be treated with exceptional reverence – the power to deprive a citizen of their liberty is, after all, the power to deprive them of the entire normalcy and much of the joy of daily life, to curtail most of what we understand as "living". To deprive them of life entirely is an egregious abuse.
State-sponsored, judicially-approved killings do not promote esteem or admiration for our justice system; they promote distrust, and at best, fear. Figures who establish their authority with extreme physical violence are not respected, whether those figures are parents, police officers or the courts. Modeling abusive behavior does not often lead to less abuse.
A justice system where the criminal defendant is presumed innocent, where the state bears the burden of proving guilt, where there are rules and protections against the introduction of evidence illegally obtained or unfairly prejudicial, and where all accused are entitled to be heard by a jury of their peers is, in theory, a marvelous one. But killing the people we convict taints what could be exceptional. Meting out exceptionally long prison sentences, and punishing offenders with state-sponsored physical and psychologically torture like solitary confinement, and tangential but ignored physical and psychological torture like prison rape and assault, turn the potentially noble into the actively sadistic.
It does seem as though the US is headed in the right direction. It's too late for the 43 people who were executed last year. But for the 6 million who are currently in our correctional system, change can't come soon enough.
Ridiculous article to say the least. She should lay of the bongs before typing such a fluff piece.
The only thing that's ridiculous here are your lame comments.
It's time for the demise of capital punishment in the US
The death penalty may be in terminal decline, but it's a symptom of a broken justice system that locks up 6 million Americans
Jill Filipovic
guardian.co.uk, Friday 4 January 2013
2012 was a bad year for the death penalty in America, but a better one for humanity.
Executions have decreased 75% since their peak in 1996, and Connecticut joined 17 other states and the District of Columbia in abolishing capital punishment. All in all, the United States justice system killed 43 people last year.
That our government punished "only" 43 people by lethal injection in 2012 is a macabre achievement, but represents a significant departure from the death penalty-happy 1980s and 90s, when hundreds of inmates were killed every year. Those of us who think it's about time our country joined the ranks of civilized nations can only hope this trend continues.
The United States is in the good company of China, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia as one of the top five executioners in the world. Not to be outdone, we imprison more people than any other nation ever has – more than China, more than the Soviet Union at the height of the gulags. We have 5% of the world's population, but 25% of the world's prisoners. And we lock up more of our children than anyone else: more than 70,000 kids were in jail in 2010, and Texas alone has sentenced more than 400 minors to life behind bars.
Six million people are under "correctional supervision" in the United States. More than half of those are in for drug crimes. And of the people who are in prison for drugs, 80% are there for possession. Billions of dollars in prison spending, much of it directed at private enterprise, means that a handful of businessmen are getting very wealthy on the mass incarceration racket.
Prison in the US is not an equal opportunity placement. As Michelle Alexander details in her book The New Jim Crow, our mass incarceration system functions as a means of social control in much the same way that Jim Crow laws and even slavery did. Of black American men who don't graduate from high school, more than half end up in jail. African Americans are 13% of the US population but comprise 40% of its prisoners.
The death penalty is similarly racialized. Race and location play crucial roles in whether a prosecutor will seek the death penalty and whether a jury will award it. More than three quarters of death penalty convictions are for crimes involving white victims, even though half of all murder victims in the US are black. And a black defendant accused of murdering a white victim is three times more likely to get the death penalty than a white person accused of killing a white victim.
Even putting aside the fact that our prison industry is essentially a systematic method of racial oppression, we should ask ourselves: what purpose does the death penalty serve?
It doesn't deter crime. It punishes a perpetrator, but does so with a sentence that can't be undone. We can never know how many executed men were actually innocent. We do know that more than 100 death row inmates have been exonerated. We also know that our justice system is imperfect by construction, and that there is no way to ensure that no innocent person is ever convicted of a crime. In a flawed system, imposing death upon the convicted simply sets the stakes too high.
But even if we were able to be completely certain that all death row inmates were guilty, we should still oppose the death penalty. The state's ability to infringe upon the basic freedoms of its citizens through incarceration is not a power that should be taken lightly. It is a power that must sometimes be leveled to achieve a fully functional society, but it must be treated with exceptional reverence – the power to deprive a citizen of their liberty is, after all, the power to deprive them of the entire normalcy and much of the joy of daily life, to curtail most of what we understand as "living". To deprive them of life entirely is an egregious abuse.
State-sponsored, judicially-approved killings do not promote esteem or admiration for our justice system; they promote distrust, and at best, fear. Figures who establish their authority with extreme physical violence are not respected, whether those figures are parents, police officers or the courts. Modeling abusive behavior does not often lead to less abuse.
A justice system where the criminal defendant is presumed innocent, where the state bears the burden of proving guilt, where there are rules and protections against the introduction of evidence illegally obtained or unfairly prejudicial, and where all accused are entitled to be heard by a jury of their peers is, in theory, a marvelous one. But killing the people we convict taints what could be exceptional. Meting out exceptionally long prison sentences, and punishing offenders with state-sponsored physical and psychologically torture like solitary confinement, and tangential but ignored physical and psychological torture like prison rape and assault, turn the potentially noble into the actively sadistic.
It does seem as though the US is headed in the right direction. It's too late for the 43 people who were executed last year. But for the 6 million who are currently in our correctional system, change can't come soon enough.
Ridiculous article to say the least. She should lay of the bongs before typing such a fluff piece.
The only thing that's ridiculous here are your lame comments.
Not lame at all. Someone writes an article...a subjective one at that...and I guess we should all read it and take it as some divine truth.
How many people kill people in the US while drunk driving who didn't have a criminal record? I would have to say your point is moot.
What does that have to with it? NOTHING, that's what.
Keep the silly comments coming.
Well since this was your quote
"Except people like Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech, or Adam Lanza at Newtown, didn't have criminal records, and yet they still managed to get their hands on guns and carry out a massacre. So your point is moot."
What does this have to do with the death penalty then? :?
Comments
Remember this question I posed to you and how you responded to it?
Remember this question I posed to you and how you responded to it?[/quote]
OK - I wasn't responding the the first question as I never said anything about cold or callous.
But I absolutely think it's a sickness to want to murder someone for revenge. And furthermore, if that eases someone's pain, I think it's worse.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
OK - I wasn't responding the the first question as I never said anything about cold or callous.
But I absolutely think it's a sickness to want to murder someone for revenge. And furthermore, if that eases someone's pain, I think it's worse.[/quote]
Know... I'm not prepared to do this discussion on the level you are bringing it to.
Truth be known, although I think the death penalty has its place in our justice system... I don't really care given I have no authentic position to argue from. I debate for the sake of debating more than I do for the cause.
Your tactics leave a little to be desired. Essentially, you are calling me and every other supporter of the death penalty 'sick'. I guess that's your right, but I- like most people- usually refer people as 'sick' when they do horrific things. With your choice of words, you have managed to lump myself, as well as the parents of Olson's victims that we have both referenced in our brief discussion, in the mix with our most obscene individuals.
If we are going to sling mud... the side I tend to advocate for would, among other things that I'm not even going to bother with, call everyone that doesn't support the death penalty as weak and soft on crime. They would also say that by advocating for the murderer- you are disrespectful and uncaring for the dead... not to mention indifferent to the survivors.
You have become confused with what I was saying before... so let me be clear: I'm not going to 'sling mud' with you. Even though you have not elaborately pieced together your position, I respect it and do not feel the need to call you down for it. I've placed a lot of well thought out pieces throughout this thread and, quite frankly, deserve a little more respect than for someone kind of late to the dance calling me a piece of shit (or sicko... same thing).
I also haven't hung you (no pun intended) on our intial interactions. If you care to discuss on a more civil platform... I'd probably be game and could very easily forget your initial approach with me. If, you still feel as if I am a piece of shit because I support the death penalty under certain circumstances... well fair enough then. What's a guy to do?
And again, I am NOT advocating for the criminal. I am advocating for the basic right of ANY individual, innocent or guilty, not to be killed by the state.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
You're reading WAY too much into a short comment that I made initially.
Let me state it clearly and try to take this at face value rather than add things to it.
I think someone whose pain is eased by the revenge murder of another human being is sick.
I DO NOT think someone who is pro-death penalty is sick...although I do not agree with the death penalty in any situation.
Go back and look at my first comment. I was referring to that article and right near the top it mentions something about their pain easing if/when the guy would be killed.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
This particular issue may ultimately be an 'Us vs. Them' issue (death or no death)... so the following words may or may not be appropriate.
What I meant to get across was that in order for meaningful discussion, I think we have to be more reasonable when considering the other side's perspective. I have a hard time 'taking my foot of the throttle' when it seems as if there is never the slightest acknowledgement that the side I argue for has any merit whatsoever.
For example, I posted that the Stinney case was horrific. I also posted responses to both Byrnzie and yourself that certain situations made it difficult to argue for the death penalty. In doing so, I have openly admitted that the issue is complex and there are many variables that need to be considered when discussing it. This is not a one-sided debate in my mind (and have expressed that I might be wrong on more than one occasion).
When opponents snub their noses at seemingly relevant material for such an issue... or dismiss them without the slightest acknowledgement... it leaves opponents 'firmly in the other camp' and aggressive or hostile in their approach to the discussion.
If this debate is one-sided... let me know and I'll opt out. I will not have changed my mind on the subject, but if I'm speaking gibberish such as the fools who oppose gun legislation... then for gawd's sakes let me know and I'll do some soul-searching!
To imply one is 'sick' for wanting to take another man's life... is to suggest they are cold or a deviant. That's definitely how it comes out to the reader. I've read the comments. I don't think I have read too much into them.
If I'm understanding what you are saying now... then I guess I would have suggested that the person who needed the death of their child's murderer to be 'suffering' instead of 'sick'. Then I would have added that, as hurtful and horrific as their reality might be, the 'cure' wouldn't be to take a man's life. Then... I would have suggested means by which we could help this person come to terms with their reality. For example, when I watched the movie, The Cell, I became somewhat empathetic for the 'deranged psychotic killer'. In all likelihood, the killer of a child (sticking with the same theme we have used to this point) has deep-rooted, underlying problems that they were never capable of dealing with. Detailing these problems, through some form of counselling, might be one way to help those 'suffering' come to terms with what happened to their loved one.
Regardless of my approach versus your approach... I appreciate you taking the time to clear the air regarding what you had intended with what you wrote. If I was hyper-sensitive... I apologize. It hasn't been lost on me that this thread is full of my posts arguing my position and very few others compared to the entries from 'the other side'.
ok, I'm not usually of the "I will not be swayed no matter what you say" ilk, as some are in gun debates and abortion issues and whatnot. I enjoy discussing this with you and others. It's not whether I believe that someone should die or not.It's not whether I believe the living victims deserve "closure" or however we want to phrase it.
My belief is that it is not up to humans to premeditate who lives or dies, no matter what.
If you don't want to further the discussion, that's fine. I just think sometimes it's not a bad thing to discuss things that make you think, even if ultimately you walk away from it still having the same beliefs.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I'm in the same camp here. I see gray area in many issues, but the death penalty is not one of them.
I do not believe anything the pro-death-penalty side could say would sway me.
I just do not believe murder - ANY MURDER - is OK.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Hail, Hail!!!
Same here.
And Over the years of discussing here and with friends and folks in the real world (no offense internet friends
Just an observation.
Understandable why someone would. Hypothetically speaking, had Adam Lanza not committed suicide, I can see the call for his death due to the horrific nature of his crime.
The problem is not all of the cases are cut and dry as that. There are just too many variables involved with the courts systems that allows for human error. If there were some sort of method to be 100% certain that the defendant was truly guilty of the capital crime... then, maybe I would change my mind (but, i probably wouldn't).
Hail, Hail!!!
I'm a flipper.
I used to be against it, but my views shifted as I got older (probably when my niece was born) and, I suppose, became less tolerant of the horrors some are capable of inflicting upon others.
I do still have some issues related to it that I have yet to reconcile within myself, and it's far, far from a black-and-white issue for me.
I am anti-death penalty
The government provides equal rights to all law abiding citizens. Once you are convicted of a crime all bets are off...including owning a weapon and in the States where they support capital punishment your life.
-- G. Edward Griffin in The Great Prison Break
Except people like Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech, or Adam Lanza at Newtown, didn't have criminal records, and yet they still managed to get their hands on guns and carry out a massacre. So your point is moot.
This from from a 'member and officer of the John Birch Society for much of his life', and a Christian fundamentalist who believes in the actual existence of Noah's Ark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Edward_Griffin
But then, I suppose you'll quote just any old whack-job if what he says happens to support your passion for state-sanctioned revenge killings.
Hugh...not trying to provoke you... but I don't see enough of this in your words. You are 100% opposed to the death penalty. Fair enough, but realize that discussing such a topic then is nearly akin to discussing the second ammendment or religion with one of the zealots.
In the other thread that was suggesting prisoners had it too easy... you were very vocal that things were not that easy and that conditions were extremely poor for prisoners. Here you claim you're tougher on crime than many supporting the death penalty.
So, where do you actually rest?
I speak for the survivors and the justice for the mutilated and dead. I advocate for death in certain circumstances, but if death is not appropriate... shouldn't hard time be appropriate?
I illustrated conditions for two of Canada's most brutal mass/serial murderers:
One got married and is now applying for parole every two years now until death- forcing the survivors to attend, protest and re-live the experience at the same time.
The other sold bodies for cash, received excellent treatment for his cancer, made love to plastic dolls (which he complained weren't real enough- guess he was hoping for something he could stick a knife into without it popping?), and more.
The cash for bodies was interesting. Why didn't we feed this shitbird cabbage soup. let him sleep on the floor in general population, and deny him any of the luxuries he started to demand until he professed where he disposed of those children? Why did we cater to his needs and make a rich deal with him so that he would finally let the children be buried properly? I'll tell you why... because people really sensitive to the needs of inmates would have shit their pants. I'm not suggesting you are one of these people, but to these people I say, "Get a fucking grip, man!" We have gone waaaaaaaaaaaaay toooooooooo far in our sense of 'fair treatment' for people who step outside the law in grandiose fashion.
I'd just as soon wish that we wouldn't have crime at all. But given that we do... this debate centers on where we should be at regarding how we deal with the crimes that are inflicted upon us. There are two ends of the spectrum here: there is a grey area whether you wish to acknowledge it or not. Just because it feels right to you that we are not in a position to decide whether a man should live or die doesn't mean you are 100% correct (just as those who firmly believe it is their right to possess an AK-47 might not be correct as well).
When I speak of moderation... with death not an option... I could rest comfortably if one assured me that parole was not an option for slam dunk cases such as the ones I presented and conditions for people already discussed were nearly unbearable: Cancer? Oh well. Sure hope there is no Heaven or Hell... because you will be finding out soon, Mr. Olson.
Coould you accept my level of 'moderation'... or do you feel the need to treat Clifford Olson, the Butcher of BC' with some dignity?
I have stated numerous times that while I am against the death penalty, most criminals live in very poor conditions, whether that mean emotional, physical, or mental. there are, of course, exceptions to this rule, which you spoke about above. Those disgust me. Criminals should not be given those rights. I think the justice system needs an overhaul to stop that type of nonsense. is the parole and incarceration system perfect? not even close. does that mean I should "compromise" to include death back into the options? No. there is compromise in criminal conditions, there is no compromise in death.
all humans deserve dignity. they don't deserve blow up dolls or parole hearings every two years. but if someone is ill, I still think they need to be given health care, just as any citizen of Canada is afforded.
gender reassignment? no. chemo? yes.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ishment-us
It's time for the demise of capital punishment in the US
The death penalty may be in terminal decline, but it's a symptom of a broken justice system that locks up 6 million Americans
Jill Filipovic
guardian.co.uk, Friday 4 January 2013
2012 was a bad year for the death penalty in America, but a better one for humanity.
Executions have decreased 75% since their peak in 1996, and Connecticut joined 17 other states and the District of Columbia in abolishing capital punishment. All in all, the United States justice system killed 43 people last year.
That our government punished "only" 43 people by lethal injection in 2012 is a macabre achievement, but represents a significant departure from the death penalty-happy 1980s and 90s, when hundreds of inmates were killed every year. Those of us who think it's about time our country joined the ranks of civilized nations can only hope this trend continues.
The United States is in the good company of China, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia as one of the top five executioners in the world. Not to be outdone, we imprison more people than any other nation ever has – more than China, more than the Soviet Union at the height of the gulags. We have 5% of the world's population, but 25% of the world's prisoners. And we lock up more of our children than anyone else: more than 70,000 kids were in jail in 2010, and Texas alone has sentenced more than 400 minors to life behind bars.
Six million people are under "correctional supervision" in the United States. More than half of those are in for drug crimes. And of the people who are in prison for drugs, 80% are there for possession. Billions of dollars in prison spending, much of it directed at private enterprise, means that a handful of businessmen are getting very wealthy on the mass incarceration racket.
Prison in the US is not an equal opportunity placement. As Michelle Alexander details in her book The New Jim Crow, our mass incarceration system functions as a means of social control in much the same way that Jim Crow laws and even slavery did. Of black American men who don't graduate from high school, more than half end up in jail. African Americans are 13% of the US population but comprise 40% of its prisoners.
The death penalty is similarly racialized. Race and location play crucial roles in whether a prosecutor will seek the death penalty and whether a jury will award it. More than three quarters of death penalty convictions are for crimes involving white victims, even though half of all murder victims in the US are black. And a black defendant accused of murdering a white victim is three times more likely to get the death penalty than a white person accused of killing a white victim.
Even putting aside the fact that our prison industry is essentially a systematic method of racial oppression, we should ask ourselves: what purpose does the death penalty serve?
It doesn't deter crime. It punishes a perpetrator, but does so with a sentence that can't be undone. We can never know how many executed men were actually innocent. We do know that more than 100 death row inmates have been exonerated. We also know that our justice system is imperfect by construction, and that there is no way to ensure that no innocent person is ever convicted of a crime. In a flawed system, imposing death upon the convicted simply sets the stakes too high.
But even if we were able to be completely certain that all death row inmates were guilty, we should still oppose the death penalty. The state's ability to infringe upon the basic freedoms of its citizens through incarceration is not a power that should be taken lightly. It is a power that must sometimes be leveled to achieve a fully functional society, but it must be treated with exceptional reverence – the power to deprive a citizen of their liberty is, after all, the power to deprive them of the entire normalcy and much of the joy of daily life, to curtail most of what we understand as "living". To deprive them of life entirely is an egregious abuse.
State-sponsored, judicially-approved killings do not promote esteem or admiration for our justice system; they promote distrust, and at best, fear. Figures who establish their authority with extreme physical violence are not respected, whether those figures are parents, police officers or the courts. Modeling abusive behavior does not often lead to less abuse.
A justice system where the criminal defendant is presumed innocent, where the state bears the burden of proving guilt, where there are rules and protections against the introduction of evidence illegally obtained or unfairly prejudicial, and where all accused are entitled to be heard by a jury of their peers is, in theory, a marvelous one. But killing the people we convict taints what could be exceptional. Meting out exceptionally long prison sentences, and punishing offenders with state-sponsored physical and psychologically torture like solitary confinement, and tangential but ignored physical and psychological torture like prison rape and assault, turn the potentially noble into the actively sadistic.
It does seem as though the US is headed in the right direction. It's too late for the 43 people who were executed last year. But for the 6 million who are currently in our correctional system, change can't come soon enough.
Byrnzie...
It is disturbing to read of the statistics the writer detailed which describe the prevalence for prosecutors pursuing and achieving the death penalty with racial bias. I also find it disturbing when the writer presents statistics regarding the incarceration of children (the US had 70,000 kids in jail in 2010... Texas sentencing 400 minors to life in prison).
It also begs for examining the need for the legalization of drugs with 80% of the prison population serving possession charges. This number is gross. Outside of this fact- that sits outside of the argument for the death penalty (nobody is getting executed for the possession of drugs)- I have some problems with the piece.
I''m toying with the idea of supporting the idea for abolishing the death penalty, but when I read this type of opinion... I question what gets abolished next? Jill seems to think that not only is the death penalty weak... but long sentences are poor choices too. When the death penalty is gone... are long sentences next for the bleeding heart contingency of society? Jill loses me when she states the following:
Meting out exceptionally long prison sentences, and punishing offenders with state-sponsored physical and psychologically torture like solitary confinement, and tangential but ignored physical and psychological torture like prison rape and assault, turn the potentially noble into the actively sadistic.
She's soft and neglects to remember the acts that have people placed in prison- or else she chooses to ignore them. She's a bleeding heart that has her emotions squarely in the corner of the criminals who's actions have hurt other people. Potentially noble? Really? There might be a potentially noble rapists or arsonist in the prison system that doesn't realize his potential given the fact that conditions aren't condusive for doing so... but what are we to do? Don't burn someone's fucking house down, man. Don't rape our daughters. Don't assault people at the subway station. And if you don't... you won't have a 'long sentence'.
I agree that small time hoods should not have to worry about being assaulted while serving their sentences. I would support better supervision to support them and secure their dignity and safety. As for the criminals of the 'grotesque' variety... I truly couldn't care less how their time is spent. If each day is a struggle... oh well. I guess you shouldn't have murdered that old lady for her purse.
If you find yourself in prison... don't be a prick while serving your time. Tow the line and you won't be placed in solitary confinement. What answers does she offer the prison system for dealing with unruly inmates? Jill offers fluff, but not much practicality. She critiques everything without offering tangible solutions to real problems and anybody can spout crap like that and sound eloquent.
If I read this piece correctly... did she promote doing away with the death penalty, doing away with sentencing people for long terms, and in subtle fashion suggest making prisons 'nicer' places (maybe where professionals can mentor and befriend criminals while having fireside chats and special coffees)?
It's fluff.
How many people kill people in the US while drunk driving who didn't have a criminal record? I would have to say your point is moot.
Ridiculous article to say the least. She should lay of the bongs before typing such a fluff piece.
The only thing that's ridiculous here are your lame comments.
What does that have to with it? NOTHING, that's what.
Keep the silly comments coming.
Tell that to Bradley Manning.
Tell it to Leonard Peltier.
Not lame at all. Someone writes an article...a subjective one at that...and I guess we should all read it and take it as some divine truth.
Well since this was your quote
"Except people like Seung-Hui Cho at Virginia Tech, or Adam Lanza at Newtown, didn't have criminal records, and yet they still managed to get their hands on guns and carry out a massacre. So your point is moot."
What does this have to do with the death penalty then? :?