you are level headed, intelligent & a decent man with a big heart. love you, man.
& love to all. even though we may not see eye to eye, i care about my fellow music lovers. some of you all are my friends. enjoy your night
Cheers, Chadwick!
I think you are a little generous with your nice words, but thanks anyways!
And your last statement is what we must all keep in mind when debating these issues. If debate is enjoyable in the least, then this is so because there is an alternative point of view to debate. As such, these alternative positions and the people that hold them must be respected.
when one suggests that there is no evidence to deterrence, I contributed a credible study which presented findings that showed the dp did work as a deterrence. The study presented findings that suggested the reason why some statistics suggest it doesn't act as a deterrent is the intermittent and inconsistent usage of it led to skewed numbers.
It wasn't a credible study. It was a farcical study. It was a study based on the hypothetical notion that if the DP were to be administered more widely, then we'd see evidence of it's supposed deterrence capability. In other words, kill them all, and kill them regularly, and this would eventually result in the deterrence of future criminals.
All the other studies carried out into this subject, supported by over 80% of criminologists, are based on the facts, and not on fantasies.
But the fact remains: it is not for the state to fulfil "the wishes of the family". justice systems are not about what is owed to the family or anyone. Were it to do so, it would become - as I already said - nothing more than a proxy for a vigilante society. Its role is to administer objective, rational and dispassionate justice.
Well said.
I think what we have here is those people who, on the one hand, wish to live in a vengeful society, where murder is regarded as a solution, and is carried out both by individuals and by the State - thereby creating a sinister sort of merging of minds, in which an unsaid consensus exists that says that violence, including murder, is an acceptable means of resolving problems - and those who wish to live in a society in which the sanctity of life is held as a given, and in a society which places itself on a higher footing than that of base instincts, such as revenge, retribution, and blood-lust (what some here call 'closure'). When a State begins murdering people in the name of 'justice', that State ceases to stand contrary to, and/or above, the aberrations, passions, and sicknesses, of those it condemns.
when one suggests that there is no evidence to deterrence, I contributed a credible study which presented findings that showed the dp did work as a deterrence. The study presented findings that suggested the reason why some statistics suggest it doesn't act as a deterrent is the intermittent and inconsistent usage of it led to skewed numbers.
It wasn't a credible study. It was a farcical study. It was a study based on the hypothetical notion that if the DP were to be administered more widely, then we'd see evidence of it's supposed deterrence capability. In other words, kill them all, and kill them regularly, and this would eventually result in the deterrence of future criminals.
All the other studies carried out into this subject, supported by over 80% of criminologists, are based on the facts, and not on fantasies.
Yes... and No.
You are correct suggesting the study is suspect to scrutiny given the fact that it was based on a hypothesis that the Death Penalty was not used in its proper capacity to show its effectiveness as a deterrent.
You are wrong suggesting that studies to the contrary are factual because they too are flawed given they have generated their data under the same weak testing parameters.
Consider Ohio.
Since the state's beginnings in 1803, the state has executed 393 people.
In two centuries, the state has executed 393 people and in one year alone, the state reported 543 homicides.
Do the math: the death penalty in its capacity for Ohio can hardly be measured for its effectiveness given its extremely rare application. So... arguing that the death penalty is not a deterrent is just as dramatically flawed as studies or opinion to the contrary.
But the fact remains: it is not for the state to fulfil "the wishes of the family". justice systems are not about what is owed to the family or anyone. Were it to do so, it would become - as I already said - nothing more than a proxy for a vigilante society. Its role is to administer objective, rational and dispassionate justice.
Well said.
I think what we have here is those people who, on the one hand, wish to live in a vengeful society, where murder is regarded as a solution, and is carried out both by individuals and by the State - thereby creating a sinister sort of merging of minds, in which an unsaid consensus exists that says that violence is acceptable - and those who wish to live in a society in which the sanctity of life is held as a given, and in a society which places itself on a higher footing than that of base instincts, such as revenge, retribution, and blood-lust (what some here call 'closure'). When a State begins murdering people in the name of 'justice', that State ceases to stand contrary to, and/or above, the aberrations, passions, and sicknesses, of those it condemns.
Don't forget to add the part where we should expect the families to come to terms and accept what 'we' feel is justice instead of what they might think is justice. Obviously, they are nothing more than blubbering emotional messes that know not what they wish for.
I love how the family can be so easily relegated to nothing more than courtroom observers in some people's eyes.
when one suggests that there is no evidence to deterrence, I contributed a credible study which presented findings that showed the dp did work as a deterrence. The study presented findings that suggested the reason why some statistics suggest it doesn't act as a deterrent is the intermittent and inconsistent usage of it led to skewed numbers.
It wasn't a credible study. It was a farcical study. It was a study based on the hypothetical notion that if the DP were to be administered more widely, then we'd see evidence of it's supposed deterrence capability. In other words, kill them all, and kill them regularly, and this would eventually result in the deterrence of future criminals.
All the other studies carried out into this subject, supported by over 80% of criminologists, are based on the facts, and not on fantasies.
Yes... and No.
You are correct suggesting the study is suspect to scrutiny given the fact that it was based on a hypothesis that the Death Penalty was not used in its proper capacity to show its effectiveness as a deterrent.
You are wrong suggesting that studies to the contrary are factual because they too are flawed given they have generated their data under the same weak testing parameters.
Consider Ohio.
Since the state's beginnings in 1803, the state has executed 393 people.
In two centuries, the state has executed 393 people and in one year alone, the state reported 543 homicides.
Do the math: the death penalty in its capacity for Ohio can hardly be measured for its effectiveness given its extremely rare application. So... arguing that the death penalty is not a deterrent is just as dramatically flawed as studies or opinion to the contrary.
No, it's not flawed, it's based on the facts. Claiming that if more executions were carried out, it could be shown that the Death Penalty works as a deterrent, is simply resorting to the lowest, and most obvious, sort of disingenuous and slippery lawyers-speak.
The fact is that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent. It doesn't work as a deterrent in the U.S or anywhere else. And to suggest that it might function as a deterrent if only more people could be executed is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Don't forget to add the part where we should expect the families to come to terms and accept what 'we' feel is justice instead of what they might think is justice. Obviously, they are nothing more than blubbering emotional messes that know not what they wish for.
I love how the family can be so easily relegated to nothing more than courtroom observers in some people's eyes.
Except nobody said anything of the sort.
Though as for satisfying the families 'needs' and 'wishes' - i.e, murdering the murderer - Wolf already covered this above. Justice and the Law should not operate on the level of emotions, such as vengeance, and blood-lust.
And not all families of people raped or murdered wish for the guilty party to be executed, and many are vehemently opposed to it. Probably because it solves nothing, and resolves nothing, but just adds another death to the list, and another grieving family to the list.
Doesn't the Bible teach that 'Though shall not kill?' Aren't the words 'In God We Trust' printed on every banknote in the U.S? If you really trust the word of 'God', then you have a strange way of showing it.
See... the thing is I have addressed these points several times throughout these 45+ pages. You have been very reasonable with your discussion so I don't want to come across as uninterested, but I have done this dance a few times and it always ends up the same.
For example, when one suggests that there is no evidence to deterrence, I contributed a credible study which presented findings that showed the dp did work as a deterrence. The study presented findings that suggested the reason why some statistics suggest it doesn't act as a deterrent is the intermittent and inconsistent usage of it led to skewed numbers. I'm not advocating for such widespread usage, but think about it- common sense can tell you that these findings are not far-fetched given the limiting factors associated with the usage of it.
I have spoke to the irreversability factor by stating that it should only be applied in cases that met certain criteria including 100% certainty (remember the 'heads in the fridge' or the reference to the Cheshire murders)? Further, the advancements of forensics science have become significant- to the point where we now see the same science absolve wrongfully convicted people with the 'old methodology'. I surmise that in time, the wrongfully convicted numbers we have experienced in the past will have abated significantly. I have also stated that this very premise is the one that gives me pause for thought.
You aren't completely safe arguing that you stand on legal grounds with your stance because there are states that legally exercise the dp; therefore, both positions can boast legal backing to some degree.
It's interesting that one can place a ceiling on punishment, when there is no ceiling on crime. It simply doesn't equate: Chadwick's scenario of a backroom gambling table murder in Chicago is different than the abduction, rape and murder of an 8 year old child. One murder victim placed themselves in a dangerous setting assuming a level of risk, while the other was trying to get home from school and was preyed upon by a sadistic maniac.
I know of the studies you are referring to. And I know that far from being credible, they have been widely critiqued for lack of objectivity and questionable methodology. Also, consider last year's meta-study by the National Research Council of all evidence on the deterrence issue from the last 35 years, which concluded that there was no credible studies on deterrence. Here's a line from this article to illustrate the point: "If deterrence worked, how could Texas, which executes a dozen inmates a year, have a higher murder rate than Colorado, which has executed one murderer in more than four decades?"
Let's talk common sense a minute, since you brought it up, and consider what "deterrence" actually means in practice. How likely do you think it is that someone in a murderous rage, someone perhaps fuelled by drugs or alcohol and enough anger to want to kill someone, is going have the clarity of mind and forethought at that moment to stop and weigh up the options, the likelihood of getting caught and executed, and suddenly make a cool-headed decision that they'd better not? Even were it to happen here and there (in for instance Chadwick's backroom gambling table murder), do you think it's reasonable to assume that it happens on a large enough scale to justify a whole death penalty system, with all its monstrous cost and even more monstrous failings? Now consider that scenario in the instance of the people you have been talking about - the worst of the worst - the only ones we should reserve the DP for in your opinion. You call them psychopaths and maniacs, Chadwick says they are sick defects whose brains are not firing on all cylinders. What do you think the likelihood of those people entertaining that cool-headed rational balancing of their options is? Frankly, were the thought of their possible execution in ten or twenty years' time to enter their head at that very moment in even one instance, it would be a miracle.
So please, let's dispense with the deterrence excuse. It is not valid. There is no credible evidence of whether there is a deterrent effect, so citing studies is of little use to your argument. But a little common sense illustrates precisely why we shouldn't expect there to be any deterrent effect.
As to the irreversibility, I have already said come back to me when you can show that there is no danger whatsoever of a mistake. As for smoking gun evidence (head in the fridge) don't make the mistake I am assuming that there is doubt in every case - I am saying nothing of the sort. You are confusing discussion of individual cases with discussion of the practice of the death penalty as a whole. And as for those in individual certainties, I think there are more than enough sound arguments against execution (arguments I have already made) to render the certainty of their guilt a moot point in deciding whether or not they are killed.
Yes, different states and different countries have different laws, but the meaning of justice as being necessarily impartial, dispassionate and equitable is the same in all legal systems. And those principles have to be upheld or it is not justice. That is a logical linguistic legal fact, is it not?
And as to placing a ceiling on punishment, are you actually arguing that there should be none, because there is no ceiling on crime? I'm confused about what you're driving at there, and if it is that - if you are saying "well, they keep doing more and more horrible things, so why can't we?" - then I shouldn't need to point out the complete self-defeating illogicality of that. How plainly can I state this? Because we are not them. Because you are condemning them for their lack of recognition of society's boundaries, at the same time as you are advocating ignoring those boundaries yourself in order to execute them. Society does not operate on the same basis as criminals. That's why they are criminals. They flout the social boundaries that protect our civility. It makes no sense to then argue that we can because they did. That would, as you put it, erode the fabric of our society. But maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say here, because I would have thought that this should have been blindingly obvious. I'll repeat myself: comparing the punishment to the depravity of the crime just falls back into the same old tit-for-tat, eye-for-an-eye confusion of vengeance for justice that I've gone over and over. It is not justice. It cannot be anything but a self-serving aberration of justice.
Post edited by wolfamongwolves on
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Don't forget to add the part where we should expect the families to come to terms and accept what 'we' feel is justice instead of what they might think is justice. Obviously, they are nothing more than blubbering emotional messes that know not what they wish for.
I love how the family can be so easily relegated to nothing more than courtroom observers in some people's eyes.
But the family's wishes are tied too strongly to emotion and that's exactly why they shouldn't be determining what justice is.
Society would be so much better if people didn't worry about justice and instead worked on achieving some level of forgiveness.
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.
what a great discussion you two! excellent stuff! wolf you have the upper hand dealing in pure rationality divorced from emotion, with an impeccable debate form, but thirty bills rooted (here in this recent discussion) in emotions is passionate and wielding logic skillfully! good stuff remembering that i am on wolfman's side of the issue i have to say i am somewhat effected by the passion of bills! this is a sick world and we can't make it healthy, we can only treat the symptoms. capital punishment is a medicine that relieves the symptoms and worsens the disease. forgiveness is a great principle but it isn't very practical in the face of mental illness and old-fashioned brutality. it's a no-win.
chadwick my joke was on myself cuz i was harsh at the start but we can all relate to that desire for justice/revenge. i'd like to jump up and down for three hours next to you and hear some stuff like insignificance, grievance, maybe some blood and not for you. keep rockin out dude!
Here's where I begin to get annoyed. I conceded to Byrnzie that any study which suggests that the dp does act as a deterrent is flawed because, as reasonable as it might sound to some, it stands on hypotheses and speculation. In the same breath, I speak to the illegitimacy of studies that have found the dp doesn't work as a deterrent because it places its findings on the same flawed data. And... both Byrnzie and Wolf refuse to acknowledge this.
In order for someone to tell me that the dp does not work as a deterrent, I'm afraid that such a claim must be backed by sound studies where the dp is a serious threat to potential murderers- not something practiced 393 times in over two centuries. If we make some nice, round numbers that should be easy to follow... lets say that in over two centuries, Ohio has has 100 murders per year (with 543 in 2008 this should be reasonable). 200,000 murders and 393 executions yields a death penalty sentence in 0.001965% of its cases. And you think this is legitimate?
So... this is why this is no longer a discussion people. If one side of the discussion presents something that is mostly irrefutable and the other side dismisses it- failing to see the logic- because it doesn't fall into line with what they want to believe... then there is no point in talking. I would like to speak to some of the other points raised, but I'll leave you with them knowing you won't be hearing the words I have bothered to write in any case.
And Byrnzie... you said doesn't the Bible teach that 'Though shall not kill?' Aren't the words 'In God We Trust' printed on every banknote in the U.S? If you really trust the word of 'God', then you have a strange way of showing it. I am not a religious man- I don't know who you have me confused with.
what a great discussion you two! excellent stuff! wolf you have the upper hand dealing in pure rationality divorced from emotion, with an impeccable debate form, but thirty bills rooted (here in this recent discussion) in emotions is passionate and wielding logic skillfully! good stuff remembering that i am on wolfman's side of the issue i have to say i am somewhat effected by the passion of bills! this is a sick world and we can't make it healthy, we can only treat the symptoms. capital punishment is a medicine that relieves the symptoms and worsens the disease. forgiveness is a great principle but it isn't very practical in the face of mental illness and old-fashioned brutality. it's a no-win.
chadwick my joke was on myself cuz i was harsh at the start but we can all relate to that desire for justice/revenge. i'd like to jump up and down for three hours next to you and hear some stuff like insignificance, grievance, maybe some blood and not for you. keep rockin out dude!
RG... I have thought of you very often in the last portion of this discussion and trust me when I say your story has softened my position somewhat.
Don't forget to add the part where we should expect the families to come to terms and accept what 'we' feel is justice instead of what they might think is justice. Obviously, they are nothing more than blubbering emotional messes that know not what they wish for.
I love how the family can be so easily relegated to nothing more than courtroom observers in some people's eyes.
But the family's wishes are tied too strongly to emotion and that's exactly why they shouldn't be determining what justice is.
Society would be so much better if people didn't worry about justice and instead worked on achieving some level of forgiveness.
Don't forget to add the part where we should expect the families to come to terms and accept what 'we' feel is justice instead of what they might think is justice. Obviously, they are nothing more than blubbering emotional messes that know not what they wish for.
I love how the family can be so easily relegated to nothing more than courtroom observers in some people's eyes.
But the family's wishes are tied too strongly to emotion and that's exactly why they shouldn't be determining what justice is.
Society would be so much better if people didn't worry about justice and instead worked on achieving some level of forgiveness.
Again... so easily said when it isn't your child.
You make assumptions and you don't know me. If it were my child, I would hope that I could rise above actively wishing for the murder of another human being to absolve or lessen my grief. That would solve absolutely nothing except to make me a bad person (in my opinion).
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.
Don't forget to add the part where we should expect the families to come to terms and accept what 'we' feel is justice instead of what they might think is justice. Obviously, they are nothing more than blubbering emotional messes that know not what they wish for.
I love how the family can be so easily relegated to nothing more than courtroom observers in some people's eyes.
But the family's wishes are tied too strongly to emotion and that's exactly why they shouldn't be determining what justice is.
Society would be so much better if people didn't worry about justice and instead worked on achieving some level of forgiveness.
Again... so easily said when it isn't your child.
You make assumptions and you don't know me. If it were my child, I would hope that I could rise above actively wishing for the murder of another human being to absolve or lessen my grief. That would solve absolutely nothing except to make me a bad person (in my opinion).
yes but this ignores the meaning of his comment. it's not about how you hope you would feel, it's that you really can't know until it is your child. this is what he was saying and it stands. you don't know and i don't know how we would feel in that situation.
Here's where I begin to get annoyed. I conceded to Byrnzie that any study which suggests that the dp does act as a deterrent is flawed because, as reasonable as it might sound to some, it stands on hypotheses and speculation. In the same breath, I speak to the illegitimacy of studies that have found the dp doesn't work as a deterrent because it places its findings on the same flawed data. And... both Byrnzie and Wolf refuse to acknowledge this.
In order for someone to tell me that the dp does not work as a deterrent, I'm afraid that such a claim must be backed by sound studies where the dp is a serious threat to potential murderers- not something practiced 393 times in over two centuries. If we make some nice, round numbers that should be easy to follow... lets say that in over two centuries, Ohio has has 100 murders per year (with 543 in 2008 this should be reasonable). 200,000 murders and 393 executions yields a death penalty sentence in 0.001965% of its cases. And you think this is legitimate?
So... this is why this is no longer a discussion people. If one side of the discussion presents something that is mostly irrefutable and the other side dismisses it- failing to see the logic- because it doesn't fall into line with what they want to believe... then there is no point in talking. I would like to speak to some of the other points raised, but I'll leave you with them knowing you won't be hearing the words I have bothered to write in any case.
And Byrnzie... you said doesn't the Bible teach that 'Though shall not kill?' Aren't the words 'In God We Trust' printed on every banknote in the U.S? If you really trust the word of 'God', then you have a strange way of showing it. I am not a religious man- I don't know who you have me confused with.
Actually, read my post again carefully, and the reference to the meta-study I cited, and I think you'll find that I did acknowledge it. So don't get annoyed. The conclusions of that meta-study was that deterrence as an issue was a moot point in the discussion since no studies on either side are credible. "According to a consensus of criminologists, economists and other academics who have reviewed deterrence studies from both sides and officially declared them useless. The National Academy of Sciences picked apart decades of deterrence research last year and recommended "that these studies not be used to inform deliberations" on capital punishment." Hence the appeal to common sense, and considering the applied likelihood of a criminal being deterred.
The rest of your post simply begs the corresponding question back at you, and since it is you who are advocating an active policy of putting people to death based on no credible evidence of deterrence, as opposed to my advocating non-action (not putting people to death), the burden of proof must fall to you. If you are going to kill people, it's you who needs to back up that action with evidence of its justification.
I think it's more than a little disingenuous to be saying I (or we) are dismissing it, failing to see the logic, because it doesn't fall in line with what we want to believe - that is simply not what is going on at all. And for the record, I've had to repeat my logic to you repeatedly because you kept returning to subjective justifications even after I'd repeatedly pointed out that justice is impossible on a subjective basis. Is that not a case of you failing to see the logic?
I am willing to discuss and debate with you, and I am willing to cede points that you might make if they validly make me reconsider the facts. But I don't think it is true to say that I am dismissing anything because it's not what I want to believe. Far from it. But I also don't see what it is that you have presented that is "mostly irrefutable."
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
it is so clear to me & many countless others... it is not revenge & it is not murder. sure on the surface it appears to be murder, rather by the legal system or in a dark alleyway where some fool meets his maker.
i do believe it is not a bad thing to remove vileness from goodness. there is a unseen battle as it is between positive & negative. repulsive acts will not be stood for. degrading & morally evil living should not ever be near innocence let alone damage the goodness of decency.
when all else has failed through their miserable lives (a lifelong predator) it is not reprehensible to shut this sad case down. i am sure nations go to war over less grotesque acts than a lot of the violence forced onto decent living families & communities than people realize.
oil vs' the head hunter false flag waving vs' the guy who skins women alive (& there are more than one of these twisted oxygen stealing freaks) weapons of mass destruction was complete bullshit? vs' countless serial child predators who can not remove themselves from hurting decency.
all of us are not equal, not created equal & never will be equal. goodness prevails
what do you do when danger/nasty presents itself? do you run away while folks' lives are being stomped on & violated? in my way of thinking we do not have that luxury & if we did have that none-contributing sense to stand up for innocence then as people we are surely bullshit.
& by the way, it is not even an eye for an eye. it is beyond that. that is simple school yard monkey bars & swings or some christian's (so called) deep thoughts as they pray on their mountaintop. praying is fine, allowing disgust to fuck around is another thing
yes but this ignores the meaning of his comment. it's not about how you hope you would feel, it's that you really can't know until it is your child. this is what he was saying and it stands. you don't know and i don't know how we would feel in that situation.
I understand exactly what it means. If I know that revenge murder is wrong (and I do know it without a doubt), then the fact that I had extreme emotional circumstances put upon me shouldn't change me. And if it did, that's just sad.
I honestly can't understand someone even advocating that the punishment should be meted out based on what makes the victims feel better (and it really doesn't/shouldn't make them feel better). That makes no sense in a civilized society.
As others have said, justice doesn't really have anything to do with making people feel better. It should be a cold, unemotional handing out of appropriate consequences based on actions committed. Its purpose has nothing to do with the rehabilitation of the victims. At least not in criminal law.
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.
what do you do when danger/nasty presents itself? do you run away while folks' lives are being stomped on & violated? in my way of thinking we do not have that luxury & if we did have that none-contributing sense to stand up for innocence then as people we are surely bullshit.
& by the way, it is not even an eye for an eye. it is beyond that. that is simple school yard monkey bars & swings or some christian's (so called) deep thoughts as they pray on their mountaintop. praying is fine, allowing disgust to fuck around is another thing
This has nothing to do with the death penalty. The death penalty is in place when the criminal is apprehended and not harming anyone anymore. The danger is over.
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 probably going to save my breath (fingers) from here on out. It's obvious we have people on both sides of the issue who are very passionate about it and will not be swayed.
I see a lot of grey in most areas of life, but this issue is one that I only see black and white. Murdering someone is wrong and is not an appropriate punishment for any crime committed. And what's worse (or at least more sad) than that, is the concept that people would actually take comfort from the murder of another person no matter what things they did.
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 not used to the quoting features on this new site, therefore I guess I needed to be more specific to who I am (or was) addressing. I kept receiving error messages because of passages that contained too many words (because of the quoted portions contained 'hidden' in the bulk of the post).
Understand the following:
Wolf... you initially offered the point that suggested there was no evidence to suggest the dp served as a deterrent.
I replied, not stating that I necessarily believed them, that there were studies that claimed the dp would act as a deterrent if given the parameters to do so.
Byrnzie essentially blew off the study as flawed... then definitively stated in absolute fashion: the fact is that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent. It doesn't work as a deterrent in the U.S or anywhere else.
With what studies we have to rely on... if it cannot be said that the dp will work as a deterrent... then it cannot be said that it doesn't work as a deterrent. And you yourself said so when you posted this: the conclusions of that meta-study was that deterrence as an issue was a moot point in the discussion since no studies on either side are credible.
And, given the fact that the term 'ingenuous' has been thrown around a bit here, most recently by yourself towards me, why introduce a point you have recognized as moot (having no place in the discussion) in a subtle manner that tended to promote your opinion?
what do you do when danger/nasty presents itself? do you run away while folks' lives are being stomped on & violated? in my way of thinking we do not have that luxury & if we did have that none-contributing sense to stand up for innocence then as people we are surely bullshit.
& by the way, it is not even an eye for an eye. it is beyond that. that is simple school yard monkey bars & swings or some christian's (so called) deep thoughts as they pray on their mountaintop. praying is fine, allowing disgust to fuck around is another thing
This has nothing to do with the death penalty. The death penalty is in place when the criminal is apprehended and not harming anyone anymore. The danger is over.
the danger is far from over. you're believing dangerous folks just quit being dangerous once behind bars? news flash... it is on for causing pain to the staff & fellow convicts of the penal system. please understand these folks do nothing but wish to harm others. 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, they wish to cause suffering; this all ends once they are put down
I'm probably going to save my breath (fingers) from here on out. It's obvious we have people on both sides of the issue who are very passionate about it and will not be swayed.
I see a lot of grey in most areas of life, but this issue is one that I only see black and white. Murdering someone is wrong and is not an appropriate punishment for any crime committed. And what's worse (or at least more sad) than that, is the concept that people would actually take comfort from the murder of another person no matter what things they did.
some have empathy for evil folks, others have zero empathy for evil folks. it is hard for me to support the lives of vicious living. these beasts revel in the suffering of others. zero, zero & zero tolerance, none, zip
for one moment please think of the evil lifestyles many lead; understand the depths of the hideous mind & soul. i truly believe many good folks have no idea & maybe have been sheltered a bit to much in their lives. let us not ever be the heads in the sand type of people
I'm not used to the quoting features on this new site, therefore I guess I needed to be more specific to who I am (or was) addressing. I kept receiving error messages because of passages that contained too many words (because of the quoted portions contained 'hidden' in the bulk of the post).
Understand the following:
Wolf... you initially offered the point that suggested there was no evidence to suggest the dp served as a deterrent.
I replied, not stating that I necessarily believed them, that there were studies that claimed the dp would act as a deterrent if given the parameters to do so.
Byrnzie essentially blew off the study as flawed... then definitively stated in absolute fashion: the fact is that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent. It doesn't work as a deterrent in the U.S or anywhere else.
With what studies we have to rely on... if it cannot be said that the dp will work as a deterrent... then it cannot be said that it doesn't work as a deterrent. And you yourself said so when you posted this: the conclusions of that meta-study was that deterrence as an issue was a moot point in the discussion since no studies on either side are credible.
And, given the fact that the term 'ingenuous' has been thrown around a bit here, most recently by yourself towards me, why introduce a point you have recognized as moot (having no place in the discussion) in a subtle manner that tended to promote your opinion?
I got you and I understand what you're saying. And you are right that I posted about the meta-study saying that studies on both sides lack credibility. That would appear to be the case. When I introduced the point about deterrence I did not yet know of the meta-study - I only found that afterwards - but I was aware of the studies you were referring to and the questions around their validity. When I introduced it, I hadn't yet recognised it as a moot point. In other words, I learned new information and it changed the tack of my approach somewhat. Which is why I would say it is disingenuous - perhaps "unfair" would be a more appropriate word - to say that I dismissed things that didn't fit with what I wanted to believe.
As for whether there would be a deterrent effect given the parameters to do so, I doubt that very much on the basis of the scenarios I offered. No one is thinking about getting caught, let alone whether they will be put to death if they are caught at the point they are committing a murder. I find it virtually impossible to believe that the presence of the death penalty would actually in practice staying any would-be murderer's hand at that moment. And I think that belief is backed up by the fact that you simply don't see a corresponding surge in murder rates in states or countries that abolish the death penalty. If there was a deterrent effect, and that dam was removed, such surges are precisely what logic, reason and common sense would suggest would necessarily happen. But if - and I find it very hard to imagine it happening in reality - there is a study done that is actually credible, that does put those parameters (whatever they would be I can't imagine), and that then does show a deterrent effect, then we can put that discussion back on the table and weigh it up against the countless other arguments against the death penalty and assess. But I'm certainly not seeking in any way to distort facts to fit what I want to believe.
But for now, I hope I've made it clear to you that while I reject that the study you are referring to is credible enough to support the death penalty, I accept that there are no credible studies showing a definitive lack of deterrent effect on the other. However, I still maintain that when you think about what deterrence actually consists of, it sounds highly improbable. But now I think we should take the advice of those who carried out the meta-study and take that issue off the table.
Agreed?
Post edited by wolfamongwolves on
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
the danger is far from over. you're believing dangerous folks just quit being dangerous once behind bars? news flash... it is on for causing pain to the staff & fellow convicts of the penal system. please understand these folks do nothing but wish to harm others. 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, they wish to cause suffering; this all ends once they are put down
Chadwick, that's so unrealistic. First off, the bars and the enclosure and the heightened security of course greatly reduce their danger. If what you were saying had any actual truth to it, then staff and fellow convicts would be being hurt and murdered on an industrial scale in every prison in every country that does not have the death penalty. That is simply not happening. There are - as there will always be - situations where security lapses and exceptions do happen, but it is extremely rare considering how many murderers are incarcerated. It is very much the exception not the rule, so to use that as a justification for wholesale execution of all murderers is a completely invalid argument. It makes about as much sense as making all air travel illegal on the grounds that, on very rare occasions, planes might crash.
Post edited by wolfamongwolves on
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
the danger is far from over. you're believing dangerous folks just quit being dangerous once behind bars? news flash... it is on for causing pain to the staff & fellow convicts of the penal system. please understand these folks do nothing but wish to harm others. 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week, they wish to cause suffering; this all ends once they are put down
Chadwick, that's so unrealistic. First off, the bars and the enclosure and the heightened security of course greatly reduce their danger. If what you were saying had any actual truth to it, then staff and fellow convicts would be being hurt and murdered on an industrial scale in every prison in every country that does not have the death penalty. That is simply not happening. There are - as there will always be - situations where security lapses and exceptions do happen, but it is extremely rare considering how many murderers are incarcerated. It is very much the exception not the rule, so to use that as a justification for wholesale execution of all murderers is a completely invalid argument. It makes about as much sense as making all air travel illegal on the grounds that, on very rare occasions, planes might crash.
Tell Jeremy Phillips' mother that Chadwick is being unrealistic:
At least in this particular case... the Death Penalty would have served as a deterrent because the killer would not have been afforded the moment to kill again... just as he said he would.
when did i say all murderers are wholesale for execution? that is not at all a fact.
another news flash... dad worked at the iowa state penitentiary 30 years. i can not list all the violence endured as it would take countless hours of typing. i grew up surrounded by prison guards, cops, state police, sheriff deputies & decent wonderful people. daily life threats to dad, his pals & their families are a joke. but every blue moon there is the freak-show actually going to try & burn a families house to the ground, raping & killing everyone & loving it. the dude didn't really meet his own goal very well
some dudes behind bars will not ever be better, will not ever change & will always desire to harm someone, anyone & it happens all the time.
yes the guys in the backroom gambling hall in chicago are all packing heat, one get killed as a self defense gunfight breaks out. dude gets life in prison. this guy is not a terrible person. he actually looked out for dad's wellbeing & a mutual respect rules.
do not believe for a moment i have no idea what i am talking about. i have an entire horde of corrections officers at my fingertips for conversation, goodtimes, compassion & the mutual love of our father/friend & both good & bad memories & so the iowa state flag (presented to us by the warden at dad's final day above ground) rests in its place at my brother's house.
Here's where I begin to get annoyed. I conceded to Byrnzie that any study which suggests that the dp does act as a deterrent is flawed because, as reasonable as it might sound to some, it stands on hypotheses and speculation. In the same breath, I speak to the illegitimacy of studies that have found the dp doesn't work as a deterrent because it places its findings on the same flawed data. And... both Byrnzie and Wolf refuse to acknowledge this.
Except the data isn't flawed. It's just you who says the studies are flawed. Yet the the studies are based on all of the evidence pertaining to the death penalty as it's currently applied, and all of the studies arrive at the same conclusion: the death penalty does not work as a deterrent. Nothing flawed about that. The data is accurate. Why is that so hard for you to accept?
Comments
you are level headed, intelligent & a decent man with a big heart. love you, man.
& love to all. even though we may not see eye to eye, i care about my fellow music lovers. some of you all are my friends.
enjoy your night
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
I think you are a little generous with your nice words, but thanks anyways!
And your last statement is what we must all keep in mind when debating these issues. If debate is enjoyable in the least, then this is so because there is an alternative point of view to debate. As such, these alternative positions and the people that hold them must be respected.
All the other studies carried out into this subject, supported by over 80% of criminologists, are based on the facts, and not on fantasies.
I think what we have here is those people who, on the one hand, wish to live in a vengeful society, where murder is regarded as a solution, and is carried out both by individuals and by the State - thereby creating a sinister sort of merging of minds, in which an unsaid consensus exists that says that violence, including murder, is an acceptable means of resolving problems - and those who wish to live in a society in which the sanctity of life is held as a given, and in a society which places itself on a higher footing than that of base instincts, such as revenge, retribution, and blood-lust (what some here call 'closure').
When a State begins murdering people in the name of 'justice', that State ceases to stand contrary to, and/or above, the aberrations, passions, and sicknesses, of those it condemns.
You are correct suggesting the study is suspect to scrutiny given the fact that it was based on a hypothesis that the Death Penalty was not used in its proper capacity to show its effectiveness as a deterrent.
You are wrong suggesting that studies to the contrary are factual because they too are flawed given they have generated their data under the same weak testing parameters.
Consider Ohio.
Since the state's beginnings in 1803, the state has executed 393 people.
http://www.drc.ohio.gov/public/capital.htm
In 2008, the state reported 543 homicides to the FBI.
http://www.publicsafety.ohio.gov/links/ocjs_HomicidesinOhio2008.pdf
In two centuries, the state has executed 393 people and in one year alone, the state reported 543 homicides.
Do the math: the death penalty in its capacity for Ohio can hardly be measured for its effectiveness given its extremely rare application. So... arguing that the death penalty is not a deterrent is just as dramatically flawed as studies or opinion to the contrary.
I love how the family can be so easily relegated to nothing more than courtroom observers in some people's eyes.
No, it's not flawed, it's based on the facts. Claiming that if more executions were carried out, it could be shown that the Death Penalty works as a deterrent, is simply resorting to the lowest, and most obvious, sort of disingenuous and slippery lawyers-speak.
The fact is that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent. It doesn't work as a deterrent in the U.S or anywhere else. And to suggest that it might function as a deterrent if only more people could be executed is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Though as for satisfying the families 'needs' and 'wishes' - i.e, murdering the murderer - Wolf already covered this above. Justice and the Law should not operate on the level of emotions, such as vengeance, and blood-lust.
And not all families of people raped or murdered wish for the guilty party to be executed, and many are vehemently opposed to it. Probably because it solves nothing, and resolves nothing, but just adds another death to the list, and another grieving family to the list.
Doesn't the Bible teach that 'Though shall not kill?' Aren't the words 'In God We Trust' printed on every banknote in the U.S? If you really trust the word of 'God', then you have a strange way of showing it.
Let's talk common sense a minute, since you brought it up, and consider what "deterrence" actually means in practice. How likely do you think it is that someone in a murderous rage, someone perhaps fuelled by drugs or alcohol and enough anger to want to kill someone, is going have the clarity of mind and forethought at that moment to stop and weigh up the options, the likelihood of getting caught and executed, and suddenly make a cool-headed decision that they'd better not? Even were it to happen here and there (in for instance Chadwick's backroom gambling table murder), do you think it's reasonable to assume that it happens on a large enough scale to justify a whole death penalty system, with all its monstrous cost and even more monstrous failings? Now consider that scenario in the instance of the people you have been talking about - the worst of the worst - the only ones we should reserve the DP for in your opinion. You call them psychopaths and maniacs, Chadwick says they are sick defects whose brains are not firing on all cylinders. What do you think the likelihood of those people entertaining that cool-headed rational balancing of their options is? Frankly, were the thought of their possible execution in ten or twenty years' time to enter their head at that very moment in even one instance, it would be a miracle.
So please, let's dispense with the deterrence excuse. It is not valid. There is no credible evidence of whether there is a deterrent effect, so citing studies is of little use to your argument. But a little common sense illustrates precisely why we shouldn't expect there to be any deterrent effect.
As to the irreversibility, I have already said come back to me when you can show that there is no danger whatsoever of a mistake. As for smoking gun evidence (head in the fridge) don't make the mistake I am assuming that there is doubt in every case - I am saying nothing of the sort. You are confusing discussion of individual cases with discussion of the practice of the death penalty as a whole. And as for those in individual certainties, I think there are more than enough sound arguments against execution (arguments I have already made) to render the certainty of their guilt a moot point in deciding whether or not they are killed.
Yes, different states and different countries have different laws, but the meaning of justice as being necessarily impartial, dispassionate and equitable is the same in all legal systems. And those principles have to be upheld or it is not justice. That is a logical linguistic legal fact, is it not?
And as to placing a ceiling on punishment, are you actually arguing that there should be none, because there is no ceiling on crime? I'm confused about what you're driving at there, and if it is that - if you are saying "well, they keep doing more and more horrible things, so why can't we?" - then I shouldn't need to point out the complete self-defeating illogicality of that. How plainly can I state this? Because we are not them. Because you are condemning them for their lack of recognition of society's boundaries, at the same time as you are advocating ignoring those boundaries yourself in order to execute them. Society does not operate on the same basis as criminals. That's why they are criminals. They flout the social boundaries that protect our civility. It makes no sense to then argue that we can because they did. That would, as you put it, erode the fabric of our society. But maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say here, because I would have thought that this should have been blindingly obvious. I'll repeat myself: comparing the punishment to the depravity of the crime just falls back into the same old tit-for-tat, eye-for-an-eye confusion of vengeance for justice that I've gone over and over. It is not justice. It cannot be anything but a self-serving aberration of justice.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Society would be so much better if people didn't worry about justice and instead worked on achieving some level of forgiveness.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
wolf you have the upper hand dealing in pure rationality divorced from emotion, with an impeccable debate form, but
thirty bills rooted (here in this recent discussion) in emotions is passionate and wielding logic skillfully! good stuff
remembering that i am on wolfman's side of the issue i have to say i am somewhat effected by the passion of bills!
this is a sick world and we can't make it healthy, we can only treat the symptoms. capital punishment is a medicine that relieves the symptoms and worsens the disease. forgiveness is a great principle but it isn't very practical in the face of mental illness and old-fashioned brutality. it's a no-win.
chadwick my joke was on myself cuz i was harsh at the start but we can all relate to that desire for justice/revenge. i'd like to jump up and down for three hours next to you and hear some stuff like insignificance, grievance, maybe some blood and not for you. keep rockin out dude!
Here's where I begin to get annoyed. I conceded to Byrnzie that any study which suggests that the dp does act as a deterrent is flawed because, as reasonable as it might sound to some, it stands on hypotheses and speculation. In the same breath, I speak to the illegitimacy of studies that have found the dp doesn't work as a deterrent because it places its findings on the same flawed data. And... both Byrnzie and Wolf refuse to acknowledge this.
In order for someone to tell me that the dp does not work as a deterrent, I'm afraid that such a claim must be backed by sound studies where the dp is a serious threat to potential murderers- not something practiced 393 times in over two centuries. If we make some nice, round numbers that should be easy to follow... lets say that in over two centuries, Ohio has has 100 murders per year (with 543 in 2008 this should be reasonable). 200,000 murders and 393 executions yields a death penalty sentence in 0.001965% of its cases. And you think this is legitimate?
So... this is why this is no longer a discussion people. If one side of the discussion presents something that is mostly irrefutable and the other side dismisses it- failing to see the logic- because it doesn't fall into line with what they want to believe... then there is no point in talking. I would like to speak to some of the other points raised, but I'll leave you with them knowing you won't be hearing the words I have bothered to write in any case.
And Byrnzie... you said doesn't the Bible teach that 'Though shall not kill?' Aren't the words 'In God We Trust' printed on every banknote in the U.S? If you really trust the word of 'God', then you have a strange way of showing it. I am not a religious man- I don't know who you have me confused with.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
The rest of your post simply begs the corresponding question back at you, and since it is you who are advocating an active policy of putting people to death based on no credible evidence of deterrence, as opposed to my advocating non-action (not putting people to death), the burden of proof must fall to you. If you are going to kill people, it's you who needs to back up that action with evidence of its justification.
I think it's more than a little disingenuous to be saying I (or we) are dismissing it, failing to see the logic, because it doesn't fall in line with what we want to believe - that is simply not what is going on at all. And for the record, I've had to repeat my logic to you repeatedly because you kept returning to subjective justifications even after I'd repeatedly pointed out that justice is impossible on a subjective basis. Is that not a case of you failing to see the logic?
I am willing to discuss and debate with you, and I am willing to cede points that you might make if they validly make me reconsider the facts. But I don't think it is true to say that I am dismissing anything because it's not what I want to believe. Far from it. But I also don't see what it is that you have presented that is "mostly irrefutable."
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
i do believe it is not a bad thing to remove vileness from goodness. there is a unseen battle as it is between positive & negative. repulsive acts will not be stood for. degrading & morally evil living should not ever be near innocence let alone damage the goodness of decency.
when all else has failed through their miserable lives (a lifelong predator) it is not reprehensible to shut this sad case down. i am sure nations go to war over less grotesque acts than a lot of the violence forced onto decent living families & communities than people realize.
oil vs' the head hunter
false flag waving vs' the guy who skins women alive (& there are more than one of these twisted oxygen stealing freaks)
weapons of mass destruction was complete bullshit? vs' countless serial child predators who can not remove themselves from hurting decency.
all of us are not equal, not created equal & never will be equal. goodness prevails
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
& by the way, it is not even an eye for an eye. it is beyond that. that is simple school yard monkey bars & swings or some christian's (so called) deep thoughts as they pray on their mountaintop. praying is fine, allowing disgust to fuck around is another thing
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
I honestly can't understand someone even advocating that the punishment should be meted out based on what makes the victims feel better (and it really doesn't/shouldn't make them feel better). That makes no sense in a civilized society.
As others have said, justice doesn't really have anything to do with making people feel better. It should be a cold, unemotional handing out of appropriate consequences based on actions committed. Its purpose has nothing to do with the rehabilitation of the victims. At least not in criminal law.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I see a lot of grey in most areas of life, but this issue is one that I only see black and white. Murdering someone is wrong and is not an appropriate punishment for any crime committed. And what's worse (or at least more sad) than that, is the concept that people would actually take comfort from the murder of another person no matter what things they did.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Understand the following:
Wolf... you initially offered the point that suggested there was no evidence to suggest the dp served as a deterrent.
I replied, not stating that I necessarily believed them, that there were studies that claimed the dp would act as a deterrent if given the parameters to do so.
Byrnzie essentially blew off the study as flawed... then definitively stated in absolute fashion: the fact is that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent. It doesn't work as a deterrent in the U.S or anywhere else.
With what studies we have to rely on... if it cannot be said that the dp will work as a deterrent... then it cannot be said that it doesn't work as a deterrent. And you yourself said so when you posted this: the conclusions of that meta-study was that deterrence as an issue was a moot point in the discussion since no studies on either side are credible.
And, given the fact that the term 'ingenuous' has been thrown around a bit here, most recently by yourself towards me, why introduce a point you have recognized as moot (having no place in the discussion) in a subtle manner that tended to promote your opinion?
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
for one moment please think of the evil lifestyles many lead; understand the depths of the hideous mind & soul. i truly believe many good folks have no idea & maybe have been sheltered a bit to much in their lives. let us not ever be the heads in the sand type of people
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
As for whether there would be a deterrent effect given the parameters to do so, I doubt that very much on the basis of the scenarios I offered. No one is thinking about getting caught, let alone whether they will be put to death if they are caught at the point they are committing a murder. I find it virtually impossible to believe that the presence of the death penalty would actually in practice staying any would-be murderer's hand at that moment. And I think that belief is backed up by the fact that you simply don't see a corresponding surge in murder rates in states or countries that abolish the death penalty. If there was a deterrent effect, and that dam was removed, such surges are precisely what logic, reason and common sense would suggest would necessarily happen. But if - and I find it very hard to imagine it happening in reality - there is a study done that is actually credible, that does put those parameters (whatever they would be I can't imagine), and that then does show a deterrent effect, then we can put that discussion back on the table and weigh it up against the countless other arguments against the death penalty and assess. But I'm certainly not seeking in any way to distort facts to fit what I want to believe.
But for now, I hope I've made it clear to you that while I reject that the study you are referring to is credible enough to support the death penalty, I accept that there are no credible studies showing a definitive lack of deterrent effect on the other. However, I still maintain that when you think about what deterrence actually consists of, it sounds highly improbable. But now I think we should take the advice of those who carried out the meta-study and take that issue off the table.
Agreed?
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/29/prison-couldnt-keep-michael-wayne-mcgray-from-killing-just-like-he-said-it-wouldnt/
At least in this particular case... the Death Penalty would have served as a deterrent because the killer would not have been afforded the moment to kill again... just as he said he would.
another news flash...
dad worked at the iowa state penitentiary 30 years. i can not list all the violence endured as it would take countless hours of typing. i grew up surrounded by prison guards, cops, state police, sheriff deputies & decent wonderful people. daily life threats to dad, his pals & their families are a joke. but every blue moon there is the freak-show actually going to try & burn a families house to the ground, raping & killing everyone & loving it. the dude didn't really meet his own goal very well
some dudes behind bars will not ever be better, will not ever change & will always desire to harm someone, anyone & it happens all the time.
yes the guys in the backroom gambling hall in chicago are all packing heat, one get killed as a self defense gunfight breaks out. dude gets life in prison. this guy is not a terrible person. he actually looked out for dad's wellbeing & a mutual respect rules.
do not believe for a moment i have no idea what i am talking about. i have an entire horde of corrections officers at my fingertips for conversation, goodtimes, compassion & the mutual love of our father/friend & both good & bad memories & so the iowa state flag (presented to us by the warden at dad's final day above ground) rests in its place at my brother's house.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce