The Death Penalty

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

You have called me an idiot, medieval, delusional and a megalomaniac.

No I didn't. I said that the type of thinking you've exhibited towards this particular issue is ironically the same mindset that inspires those same people you're condemning. Not quite the same thing.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Byrnzie wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

You have called me an idiot, medieval, delusional and a megalomaniac.

No I didn't. I said that the type of thinking you've exhibited towards this particular issue is ironically the same mindset that inspires those same people you're condemning. Not quite the same thing.

yes, you did, actually:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

30 years of 3 square meals, internet privileges, sex dolls, magazines, books, physical activity, outstanding health care, fan mail, and someone doing your laundry for you somehow doesn't seem like justice for the rape, murder, and mutilation of an 8 year old girl. 30 Bills, 2013

Byrnzie wrote:

Jail is just paradise, right? The person who wrote that is clearly an idiot.

PJ_Soul

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Two things:

The link I provided for you detailed a serial murderer that killed his cell mate in prison. His cell mate was doing the same time as the serial murderer- even though his crime was assault (hardly multiple murders). If the serial killer had been executed for his first wave of murders, there would be one less victim to his list. A joke of a sentence, idiots suggesting he was on the mend and suitable for a medium security prison, and a dangerous homicidal man permitted to live led to a death. At least in this case, society was negligent to properly deal with the vile man and his obscenities

Secondly. I'm not saying that the death penalty is a prominent deterrent. You are correct when you suggest that is is unlikely to stop someone hell bent on murdering someone. But it would be completely unreasonable to suggest that the death penalty would not prevent even one murder because someone thought better given they would die as a result. It is completely within the spectrum of possibilities and if it was possible to know that it was your daughter that was saved, Hugh... you would be grateful for the death penalty. Impossible to tell who may have been spared or were spared as a result of the impending death sentence attached to a potential crime, we'll just have to feel good for whoever it may have served or would serve.

I will admit that portions of my argument have its flaws in that it requires some of the current judicial policies to change, but have yet to, and may never:

-I don't believe a serial murderer should be put in a cell with ANYONE, much less someone else of much lesser "crime stature", if you will. Solitary confinement? No. But a cellmate? Also no.

-I don't believe anyone who commits a premeditated murder deserves freedom. EVER. I don't give a flying fuck if they've reformed or found Jesus, Waldo, or pray to Gumby. You're DONE.

Look, I can't morally back the death penalty. But I can't say I wouldn't watch a real live version of The Running Man if it were to ever be developed by Fox. And it better have Richard Dawson as the host.

I'd be okay with those conditions- they are a hell of a lot better than what he currently have in place- but the main reason I advocate for the death penalty, once again, is to offer the victims and their survivors a level of justice that meets the crime.

My buddy and I have had this go around several times. He is opposed to the death penalty. His suggestion is to drop murderers off on an island like the Ray Liotta movie, No Escape. I'd be okay with this suggestion as well. Let the murderers sort it out amongst themselves.

Yeah, I could get behind the island idea, assuming it's surrounded by some kind of security (motion detection drones?) so that they can't fashion a raft and escape. :P

Byrnzie

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

You have called me an idiot, medieval, delusional and a megalomaniac.

No I didn't. I said that the type of thinking you've exhibited towards this particular issue is ironically the same mindset that inspires those same people you're condemning. Not quite the same thing.

yes, you did, actually:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

30 years of 3 square meals, internet privileges, sex dolls, magazines, books, physical activity, outstanding health care, fan mail, and someone doing your laundry for you somehow doesn't seem like justice for the rape, murder, and mutilation of an 8 year old girl. 30 Bills, 2013

Byrnzie wrote:

Jail is just paradise, right? The person who wrote that is clearly an idiot.

My mistake. I didn't realize he'd quoted himself.

Though my point still stands. Is jail as attractive and cozy as he'd like us to believe? Does he place so little value on freedom that he thinks 30 or 40 years behind bars is a picnic? Is being subjected to daily abuse, violence, confinement to a small room, no privacy, constant monitoring, no freedom of movement, e.t.c, just a walk in the park?

Funny, but every account of life inside a U.S jail that I've read sounds nothing like what he describes. Sounds to me like he's confusing life in U.S jails with life in a Holiday Inn.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Byrnzie wrote:

My mistake. I didn't realize he'd quoted himself.

Though my point still stands. Is jail as attractive and cozy as he'd like us to believe? Does he place so little value on freedom that he thinks 30 or 40 years behind bars is a picnic? Is being subjected to daily abuse, violence, confinement to a small room, no privacy, constant monitoring, no freedom of movement, e.t.c, just a walk in the park?

Funny, but every account of life inside a U.S jail that I've read sounds nothing like what he describes. Sounds to me like he's confusing life in U.S jails with life in a Holiday Inn.

obviously, I agree with you. there are many out there that think it's reality that people in jail get lobster tails for Friday dinner. it's fallacy, and couldn't be further from the truth.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Well... you two seem to wish to describe prison conditions as the worst possible thing a human might endure. I'm not saying prisons are a treat, but there has to be some level of unpleasantness to them doesn't there? I've detailed Clifford Olson's decent ride in prison. Here's another one:

First... know that an open prison (open jail) is an informal description applied to any penal establishment in which the prisoners are trusted to serve their sentences with minimal supervision and perimeter security and so do not need to be locked up in prison cells. Prisoners may be permitted to take up employment in the community, returning to the prison. (Wiki definition)

Not exactly 'Hell on Earth'.

The case in point:
A man who killed three children he was babysitting and impaled them on garden railings has had his anonymity lifted.

David McGreavy, 62, was jailed for life in 1973 for the murders of four-year-old Paul Ralph and his sisters Dawn, two, and nine-month-old Samantha.

He killed them at their home in Gillam Street, Worcester, in April 1973.

In 2009 a judge imposed a ban on naming him during a hearing to protect him from other prisoners. The High Court has now overturned the ban.

In January, McGreavy made a request to be moved to an open prison and his lawyers had argued that would put his name back in the spotlight and his life at risk.

Justice Secretary Chris Grayling and media organisations argued the application was legally flawed and wrongly prevented the public from knowing the full facts of the case.

McGreavy was lodging with the family at the house in Gillam Street when he carried out the killings.

‘Monster of Worcester’

Paul had been strangled, Dawn was found with her throat cut, and Samantha died from a compound fracture to the skull.

The killings earned McGreavy the nickname the “Monster of Worcester”.

The anonymity ruling was made in 2009 during a hearing when McGreavy unsuccessfully challenged a ruling that he must remain in Category C prison conditions.

On Wednesday, Guy Vassall-Adams, representing the justice secretary and the media organisations objecting to the ban on naming McGreavy, told the court: “The full facts are exceptionally horrific by even the standard of

“The order restricted the media to saying they were ‘three sadistic murders’ but that doesn’t even give you the half of it.”

Lord Justice Pitchford, sitting in London with Mr Justice Simon, ruled the anonymity order must be discharged.

The High Court heard David McGreavy had been in prison for 40 years, during which time he had been seriously assaulted in 1975 and 1996 by fellow prisoners.

His counsel Quincy Whitaker told the court naming him would put him in more danger from other prison inmates.

Ms Whitaker told the court McGreavy had previously spent two years in an open prison until “hostile media coverage” led to him being returned to closed conditions “for his own safety”.

The court heard McGreavy was first transferred to category D open conditions in 1994 but the transfer to Leyhill Prison in south Gloucestershire broke down after other inmates learned of his offence.

Ms Whitaker said the triple killings were “notorious” but no concerns had been subsequently raised about his behaviour.

Name change possibleThere were “more than reasonable grounds” for a fair parole hearing that could mean him being returned to open conditions, which was a pre-requisite for release from custody, she said.

The judge held out the possibility that in future McGreavy could be allowed a change of name to protect him.

He said McGreavy’s ninth parole review was under way and a hearing could be held later this year.

Since 2007 McGreavy has made a number of failed bids to win parole, the court heard.

The Worcester MP at that time, Mike Foster, called for McGreavy to never be allowed back to the city and described the murders as an “absolutely vile crime”.

McGreavy is currently living in closed conditions in a vulnerable prisoners’ unit

David McGreavy
•April 1973 – Murders Paul, Dawn and Samantha Ralph
•Jailed for life later that year
•1994 – Transferred to open prison (category D) then back to closed prison conditions (Category C)
•2007 – One of a number of bids for parole refused
•2009 – Told he must remain in under closed prison conditions and anonymity order granted
•May 2013 – Anonymity order lifted with ninth parole review underway

Yah... Dave spent some time in an 'open prison.' Now that is some serious justice! I mean... he only butchered three young children and then impaled them on garden railings.


Source: http://converseprisonnews.com/category/open-prisons/

Further... The counter argument to the DP says that nobody has the right to decide the fate of others... yet there is a common practice to 'protect' those that have been convicted of committing the types of offences that demand the DP from many. Not only is it such that the side opposed to the DP seeks to refrain from seeking the type of justice that the majority wants... the same side goes out of its way to isolate and protect child murderers from other inmates- in effect... playing God (something they say nobody has the right to do).

Sorry, but the pendulum is too far the other way. We go way too far protecting scumbags that, quite frankly, deserve much less. I guess some people feel good about this- but I don't. I think it stinks.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Well... you two seem to wish to describe prison conditions as the worst possible thing a human might endure. I'm not saying prisons are a treat, but there has to be some level of unpleasantness to them doesn't there?

no one ever said they were the worst possible thing a human can endure. again, with the dramatics.

oy.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

keeping inmates away from other inmates for the safety of all involved (prison staff included) is not playing god. playing god is taking away someone's life. are you seriously going to argue that protecting someone's life is playing god?

seriously?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

keeping inmates away from other inmates for the safety of all involved (prison staff included) is not playing god. playing god is taking away someone's life. are you seriously going to argue that protecting someone's life is playing god?

seriously?

We are making some serious interventions at two different levels to preserve the life of someone who many want dead. In effect, this amounts to playing 'something'. You call levelling justice that amounts to executing someone 'playing god'... why can't the inverse be true as well?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Well... you two seem to wish to describe prison conditions as the worst possible thing a human might endure. I'm not saying prisons are a treat, but there has to be some level of unpleasantness to them doesn't there?

no one ever said they were the worst possible thing a human can endure. again, with the dramatics.

oy.

Okay. And dreaming of medieval times when people were drawn and quartered isn't dramatic? Or rhetorically asking if one knows that a jail isn't a country club isn't dramatic?

Geez, man. How can one make a case when one side of the issue so readily employs tactics when it works for them, yet so easily dismisses them when confronted with them?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

In Kamloops, the prisoners were so undignified at their treatment, they rioted. They had enough of their poor treatment and they resorted to violence to show their displeasure.

At the Kamloops Regional Correctional Centre in Canada, inmates started a fire and destroyed property, causing $80,000 in damage. Why? As the court document put it, they were ticked about the "size and number of pancakes" served at brunch.

Man... things are tough when your pancakes are too thin causing you to bust into a riot.

Same prison purchases a dozen Xbox units each year so that the dudes 'doing time' can spend it better than impoverished kids can.

I'll concede that some prisons are harsh and brutal, but there are some that are too cushy for my liking. When you send a child murderer to prison... you don't wish to hear of them in the 'open prison' system just as you don't want to hear of them enraged because their pancakes are too thin or that they have the high score in Grand Theft Auto.

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Okay. And dreaming of medieval times when people were drawn and quartered isn't dramatic? Or rhetorically asking if one knows that a jail isn't a country club isn't dramatic?

Geez, man. How can one make a case when one side of the issue so readily employs tactics when it works for them, yet so easily dismisses them when confronted with them?

But you're perfectly happy to see the prisoner above raped by his fellow inmates, and possibly beaten, and/or killed? I'm sure some would argue that hanging-drawing-and quartering him would be preferable.

Byrnzie

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

In Kamloops, the prisoners were so undignified at their treatment, they rioted. They had enough of their poor treatment and they resorted to violence to show their displeasure.

At the Kamloops Regional Correctional Centre in Canada, inmates started a fire and destroyed property, causing $80,000 in damage. Why? As the court document put it, they were ticked about the "size and number of pancakes" served at brunch.

Man... things are tough when your pancakes are too thin causing you to bust into a riot.

Same prison purchases a dozen Xbox units each year so that the dudes 'doing time' can spend it better than impoverished kids can.

I'll concede that some prisons are harsh and brutal, but there are some that are too cushy for my liking. When you send a child murderer to prison... you don't wish to hear of them in the 'open prison' system just as you don't want to hear of them enraged because their pancakes are too thin or that they have the high score in Grand Theft Auto.

The hair that broke the camels back. I read about a prison riot in Guatemala - or was it Venezuela? - recently where a dozen or so inmates were killed. It began over a triviality, but had been brewing for a long time, due to abuse by prison guards, over-crowding, and poor conditions generally.

But then, you think prison's a breeze, right? For arguments sake, let's just imagine that they did riot due to thin pancakes. What does that tell you? it tells me that one of the few highlights/pleasures in their lives is a pancake every day. And that, those pancakes mean so much to them that they're prepared to riot, and risk getting killed, and landed longer sentences in the process.
Sounds like their lives in that paradise you call jail must be Heaven on Earth.

know1

Byrnzie wrote:

But you're perfectly happy to see the prisoner above raped by his fellow inmates, and possibly beaten, and/or killed? I'm sure some would argue that hanging-drawing-and quartering him would be preferable.

I find it appalling that people seem to think it's acceptable that prisoners are going to be raped as a matter of course when they're sent to prison. I find it totally unacceptable and do not think that rape should be an acceptable form of punishment. If our prisons can't reasonably guarantee that a prisoner will not be raped, then we shouldn't be sending people there.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

I wish to make you sure that you understand I am only arguing that prison is 'cushy' for those that murder our children. For the guy that is in prison for embezzling money... prison would be brutal. For those that murder our innocent women and children, prison is too good.

But as I clarify this position... I find the irony incredibly rich here. Prisons are generally unsafe places because of the violent offenders that populate them. So... am I supposed to feel sorry for a child murderer because they must face hatred, look over their shoulders and live in fear in a prison for their crime- just as their victims needed to from them? I don't.

Through 75 pages of this thread, Byrnzie, I have yet to even see you make the slightest acknowledgement towards the victims. Hugh as been as steadfast as you in his beliefs, but at times, has made reference to the complexity of the issue. I go to my daughter's soccer games and all around the field, I see parents, grandparents, brothers, and sisters watching and cheering their most precious commodity. And as I do this, I understand that somewhere... some group is unable to experience the joy their daughter could give them because they are tortured with a story unfit for a human to endure. You seem to think very little of this fact in your zealous efforts to be critical of those that support the DP to offer solace for those that seek it as justice. Then you go further suggesting, at times, that prison is too harsh as well.

Try loving something so much that the very thought of losing it in horrific fashion would shred your insides and leave you a quivering mess for the rest of your life. Then consider the source of the loss and the conditions of the loss. Then tell me you wouldn't want justice served that amounted to more than an open prison term such as the one afforded to McGreavy.

JimmyV

know1 wrote:

I find it appalling that people seem to think it's acceptable that prisoners are going to be raped as a matter of course when they're sent to prison. I find it totally unacceptable and do not think that rape should be an acceptable form of punishment. If our prisons can't reasonably guarantee that a prisoner will not be raped, then we shouldn't be sending people there.

I'm not sure where that leaves us. Where should we be sending them?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

know1 wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

But you're perfectly happy to see the prisoner above raped by his fellow inmates, and possibly beaten, and/or killed? I'm sure some would argue that hanging-drawing-and quartering him would be preferable.

I find it appalling that people seem to think it's acceptable that prisoners are going to be raped as a matter of course when they're sent to prison. I find it totally unacceptable and do not think that rape should be an acceptable form of punishment. If our prisons can't reasonably guarantee that a prisoner will not be raped, then we shouldn't be sending people there.

Nobody is 'happy' that these are the conditions. You two should get over yourselves. When you house a whole bunch of violent offenders in one location... what exactly do you think is going to happen? As much as I wish they wouldn't happen anywhere... it is better rapes occur there than out on the street for gawd's sakes.

And I find it equally appalling that people think so little of survivors' pain that they think a nice, gentle pat on the head, a seat in the back of the court room, and cooing "there there now" should suffice when we set about dealing with the murderer of their child. Because, like, they're all emotional and stuff.

Why don't you shift your focus away from the comfort of the depraved murderer and towards your brutal oversight of the victims?

callen

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

know1 wrote:

Byrnzie wrote:

But you're perfectly happy to see the prisoner above raped by his fellow inmates, and possibly beaten, and/or killed? I'm sure some would argue that hanging-drawing-and quartering him would be preferable.

I find it appalling that people seem to think it's acceptable that prisoners are going to be raped as a matter of course when they're sent to prison. I find it totally unacceptable and do not think that rape should be an acceptable form of punishment. If our prisons can't reasonably guarantee that a prisoner will not be raped, then we shouldn't be sending people there.

Nobody is 'happy' that these are the conditions. You two should get over yourselves. When you house a whole bunch of violent offenders in one location... what exactly do you think is going to happen? As much as I wish they wouldn't happen anywhere... it is better rapes occur there than out on the street for gawd's sakes.

And I find it equally appalling that people think so little of survivors' pain that they think a nice, gentle pat on the head, a seat in the back of the court room, and cooing "there there now" should suffice when we set about dealing with the murderer of their child. Because, like, they're all emotional and stuff.

Why don't you shift your focus away from the comfort of the depraved murderer and towards your brutal oversight of the victims?

State sanctioned execution promotes killing as an answer to resolving conflict so abolishing does protect future victims.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

callen wrote:

State sanctioned execution promotes killing as an answer to resolving conflict so abolishing does protect future victims.

Future innocent victims? Or future victims that made their own bed by murdering kids?

Don't want to get executed? Then don't play out your sick fantasies on living flesh.

Holy Christ, man.

callen

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

callen wrote:

State sanctioned execution promotes killing as an answer to resolving conflict so abolishing does protect future victims.

Future innocent victims? Or future victims that made their own bed by murdering kids?

Don't want to get executed? Then don't play out your sick fantasies on living flesh.

Holy Christ, man.

Kill and holy Christ in same post. You missed my point. Do understand my responsibility to convey my message. Glad you didn't bail on this thread, seriously.