The Death Penalty

JimmyV wrote:

know1 wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

No, it is the ultimate punishment reserved for the ultimate crimes. And it does solve the problem 100% of the time. Not a single murderer executed by the state has ever or will ever kill again.

It doesn't seem to change the murder rate, though, so you really can't say it's solving the problem.

True, but the murder rate overall is not the problem I see it solving. The rate of murders committed by those who have their death sentence carried out is zero. We cannot say the same for those who have been sentenced to prison.

PJ_Soul wrote:

Didn't you just say that you thought death was too easy for Ariel Castro? From that I had assumed that you'd changed your mind on this issue.... I assumed that you thought killing criminals basically let them off the hook.

JimmyV wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Didn't you just say that you thought death was too easy for Ariel Castro? From that I had assumed that you'd changed your mind on this issue.... I assumed that you thought killing criminals basically let them off the hook.

A mistaken assumption. Death by his own hand, at a time of his own choosing, in a manner of his own choosing, is far too easy a punishment for Arial Castro. Those condemned to die via the death penalty are afforded none of those choices.

Plus, he cut a deal to avoid the death penalty. His sentence was life in prison, a sentence he has now escaped. Far too easy.

JimmyV wrote:

callen wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

No, it is the ultimate punishment reserved for the ultimate crimes. And it does solve the problem 100% of the time. Not a single murderer executed by the state has ever or will ever kill again.

And you are okay with a few innocent people getting killed along the way? There will never be a system created where this will not happen and this is what's happening right now with our current system to which you now support.

No, I am not. As I have stated previously in this thread, the problem with the death penalty is that it is used far too often. We are all aware of cases where, regardless of a jury's verdict, there is still a reasonable question of guilt. The death penalty should never be applied in these cases. That is why innocents are put to death. At the same time we are also aware of cases where guilt is not in question. There is a time and a place for the death penalty to be used.

JimmyV wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

A mistaken assumption. Death by his own hand, at a time of his own choosing, in a manner of his own choosing, is far too easy a punishment for Arial Castro. Those condemned to die via the death penalty are afforded none of those choices.

Plus, he cut a deal to avoid the death penalty. His sentence was life in prison, a sentence he has now escaped. Far too easy.

So in your opinion, the point of the death penalty is not to rid the world of the person (suicide takes care of that just as well but without a murderous government), but to exact revenge.

The point of the death penalty, in my opinion, is that it is an ultimate and final punishment. I don't equate punishment with revenge. I understand some do.

Suicide in the case of Castro was a coward's way out of facing any punishment at all.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

callen wrote:

And you are okay with a few innocent people getting killed along the way? There will never be a system created where this will not happen and this is what's happening right now with our current system to which you now support.

No, I am not. As I have stated previously in this thread, the problem with the death penalty is that it is used far too often. We are all aware of cases where, regardless of a jury's verdict, there is still a reasonable question of guilt. The death penalty should never be applied in these cases. That is why innocents are put to death. At the same time we are also aware of cases where guilt is not in question. There is a time and a place for the death penalty to be used.

'Situational' if certain conditions have been met. In particular, the very nature of the crime (children, serial, mass, bondage and torture) and the elements used to establish guilt (pictures, video, DNA, multiple eyewitness testimony, and confessions).

You could also flip the question: are people okay with a few innocents being killed because we do not eliminate the threat? Refer to the case I submitted in a post a while back that illustrated a serial killer killing a fellow inmate.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Huh?

Firstly... nobody on this forum is applauding violence within our prison system. I'm not too sure where these posts are coming from?

Secondly... what are you talking about when you say we should charge the government with crimes for allowing it to happen? This is ridiculous. You take a concentrated population of violent criminals and you place them all in the same vicinity... what do you think is going to happen? They are violent offenders with a propensity for violence... only this time... for some... the shoe is on the other foot- they play the victim.

The prisons do not promote these behaviours and do take steps to curb the violence within their walls. Unfortunately... some prisons are brimming with poorly behaving people and the mechanisms in place to safeguard some inmates are stressed. Short of isolating every prisoner from each other, how exactly do you propose we stop the violence you speak of?

On the flip side... where we could think about charging the government is when they release an offender into mainstream society and an innocent person is hurt because so. To me... this is grievous, irresponsible and negligent because the sentence was either too light to begin with or cut short in error.

know1 wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Huh?

Firstly... nobody on this forum is applauding violence within our prison system. I'm not too sure where these posts are coming from?

Secondly... what are you talking about when you say we should charge the government with crimes for allowing it to happen? This is ridiculous. You take a concentrated population of violent criminals and you place them all in the same vicinity... what do you think is going to happen? They are violent offenders with a propensity for violence... only this time... for some... the shoe is on the other foot- they play the victim.

The prisons do not promote these behaviours and do take steps to curb the violence within their walls. Unfortunately... some prisons are brimming with poorly behaving people and the mechanisms in place to safeguard some inmates are stressed. Short of isolating every prisoner from each other, how exactly do you propose we stop the violence you speak of?

On the flip side... where we could think about charging the government is when they release an offender into mainstream society and an innocent person is hurt because so. To me... this is grievous, irresponsible and negligent because the sentence was either too light to begin with or cut short in error.

You really haven't noticed how anytime a particularly notorious criminal is caught, a bunch of people on these forums will make comments about how they'll get what they deserve when they're in prison and the other prisoners get their hands on them? It's actually pretty common...and it's actually pretty sickening.

What I am saying is that it seems to be a basic certainty that prisoners will be raped in prison. If it's a certainty - and rape is certainly not an applicable punishment within our criminal laws - then it is a complete failure by our government and we're essentially sentencing people to rape. That is wrong, in my opinion.

It would be one thing if it occasionally happened despite our best efforts, but if it's always happening and we're not doing anything about it (and some people apparently even are gleeful about it) then we're doing something criminal.

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Huh?

Firstly... nobody on this forum is applauding violence within our prison system. I'm not too sure where these posts are coming from?

Secondly... what are you talking about when you say we should charge the government with crimes for allowing it to happen? This is ridiculous. You take a concentrated population of violent criminals and you place them all in the same vicinity... what do you think is going to happen? They are violent offenders with a propensity for violence... only this time... for some... the shoe is on the other foot- they play the victim.

The prisons do not promote these behaviours and do take steps to curb the violence within their walls. Unfortunately... some prisons are brimming with poorly behaving people and the mechanisms in place to safeguard some inmates are stressed. Short of isolating every prisoner from each other, how exactly do you propose we stop the violence you speak of?

On the flip side... where we could think about charging the government is when they release an offender into mainstream society and an innocent person is hurt because so. To me... this is grievous, irresponsible and negligent because the sentence was either too light to begin with or cut short in error.

Who should get charged for a crime is the corrections officers who turn a blind eye, and in some cases even take bribes to do so.

I was thinking more along the lines of those case workers so eager to have their subjects released to... I don't know... validate their work? Why some are so anxious to get people with intensely violent dispositions released back into public is perplexing to say the least.