The Death Penalty

JC29856

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

JC29856 wrote:

we come so far from those days, havent we?

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.

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.

know1

Anyone whose "pain is eased" by the revenge murder of another human being is sick themselves in my opinion.

know1

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

know1 wrote:

Anyone whose "pain is eased" by the revenge murder of another human being is sick themselves in my opinion.

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?

know1

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

know1 wrote:

Anyone whose "pain is eased" by the revenge murder of another human being is sick themselves in my opinion.

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

know1 wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

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?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

know1 wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

know1 wrote:

Anyone whose "pain is eased" by the revenge murder of another human being is sick themselves in my opinion.

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.

Well... you're a better person than us then.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

JC29856 wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

JC29856 wrote:

we come so far from those days, havent we?

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.

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.

know1

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

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?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

know1 wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

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.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Well... you're a better person than us then.

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.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

know1 wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

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.

JonnyPistachio

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

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! :?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Well... you're a better person than us then.

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.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

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?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Well... you're a better person than us then.

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.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh. Everything is good. I have to run and would like to address your last comment but do not have the time.

know1

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

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.