The Death Penalty

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.

Remember this question I posed to you and how you responded to it?

know1

[quote="Thirty Bills Unpaid"
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.

JC29856

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....

Thirty Bills Unpaid

know1 wrote:

[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?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

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.

know1

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

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!

Thirty Bills Unpaid

know1 wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

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'.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

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.

know1

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

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.

Cosmo

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.

JonnyPistachio

Cosmo wrote:

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.

Cosmo

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Cosmo wrote:

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).

hedonist

JonnyPistachio wrote:

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.

peacefrompaul

I grew up in a very pro-death penalty household

I am anti-death penalty

DS1119

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

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.

DS1119

"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

Byrnzie

DS1119 wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

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.

Byrnzie

DS1119 wrote:

"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 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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

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?