| [ron h] Monday, June 08, 2009 1:02:05 PM | |
|
| I don't mean to get the NRA and it's supporters on my ass, but I think there is a connection with gun laws and violent crime...look at China or Japan's gun laws and their crime rate...everyone, even the kids, pack heat in Iran...in the States, there's one form of firearm or another in the majority of residences and businesses...no one feels safe anymore and with good reason... |
|
| [ron h] Monday, June 08, 2009 12:49:11 PM | |
|
 You had me going there, Soy!!!...Thanks for keeping it real !!!
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Soylentgreen4u a.k.a. theWOLFMAN from Monday, June 08, 2009 10:13:46 AM)| |  | Soylentgreen4u a.k.a. theWOLFMAN wrote: | | HELLO RON....I WAS JUST BEING OFF-THE-WALL LIKE USUAL  .....OH I AGREE,VICTIMS AND FAMILIES OF VICTIMS DON'T SEEM TO RECEIVE JUSTICE TOO OFTEN ANYMORE,IT'S NOT THE MONEY ISSUES THAT BOTHER ME-I KNOW SOME PEOPLE ARE HUNG UP ON MONEY THIS,AND MONEY THAT  -IT'S MORE OF A WHAT'S RIGHT ISSUE WITH ME,AS I'M SURE IT IS WITH YOU AND MOST,WE'VE ALL WITNESSED ON TV EXTREMELY VIOLENT CRIMES COMMITED,AND THEN THE OBLIGATORY LONG DRAWN OUT TRIALS,TO WHICH THE END RESULT IS TO SAY THE LEAST CRIMINAL IN ITSELF....I'M SORRY,BUT IF I WAS IN CHARGE,AND THE CRIME IS CUT AND DRY GUILTY,YOU'RE FERTILIZER BUDDY!...DONE,FINISHED,YOUR TIME HAS COME TO AN END....IN MY MIND SEVERE PUNISHMENTS ARE THE WAY,AND ONLY WAY TO HELP DETER THESE VILE PIECES OF HUMAN FILTH FROM THIS HEINOUS BEHAVIOUR.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Hi Soy...my argument is strictly based on doing to them what they did to others vs. having to spend tax payer money supporting them 'til they die a natural death...I'm all for the Island you envision so long as they are on their own, can't get off and we send no support...if they can plant gardens and be self-sustaining, I'd go for that, if given the choice...but until that option comes along, I'd have to regress to my previous post...
| | | Soylentgreen4u a.k.a. theWOLFMAN wrote: | | HOW ABOUT FOR THE FOLKS WHO DON'T SUPPORT EXECUTION,YOU SENTENCE THE MURDERERS,SERIAL KILLERS AND SUCH TO EXILE ON AN ISLAND,SIMILAR TO THE 'ESCAPE FROM NY' THINGY...YOU PUT 'EM IN THERE WITH THE SMOKERS,AND VOILA!....PROBLEM SOLVED,PLUS THEY GIVE SOMETHING BACK TO SOCIETY...
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | My 2 cents...Killing another Human Being under any circumstance other than in defense (of Country, self, of another person...)...basically cold blooded murder (pre-meditated or not) is the worst act one can perform against another and should be met with the same fate. There is no rehabilitating an individual who has freely done it at least once already. They may choose to not do it again and be a model citizen for the reat of their life, if given the chance...but as far as I'm concerened when it comes to human life, you only get one chance...no mulligans in my book...and it should come within 30 days of conviction, period!!
| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | That I can agree on to re-pre-pare people for Society, when they are fit to be re-released in it... I know you have people in jail for stupid pety things... stealing, ect.. drugs are a huge problem, esp Crack,, but if those people can prove and be rehabilitated to be able to be productive in Society then I agee,,,
But some of them.... OMG.. It scares the hell out of me to think this Vince Lee guy could be released in as little as a year,, WTF??????
Violent repeat offenders, I have a small prob with.. LOL.... They are usually building themselves up to do a much bigger crime such as assault, ect... if they are showm a bigger way to reform themselves and really try too,, them they may be helped. But most of the people who commit the most hidious of the crimes, have been in and out of the jail system most of their lives...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Absolutely. The decapitation freak and Fritzl are two exapmles of people who, in my opinion, should stay behind bars for life. Working or not, just stay there.
I remember seeing a very interesting TV report from Iceland (I think it was Iceland), where they have a prison where they actualy let inmates out to go to work, and see their families. Of course, if they behave, and its only for the light cases, but it was said that it works surprisingly well. And they ahve to pay for their "stay" in the prison themselves.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Exactly, make them feel usefull, make them used to working, and lessen their cost to society. They are not slaves, they are paying their debt. Work keeps them in condition to work, keeps the idea in their head, busy hands dont have as much time to get into trouble so less crime in prison. in this manner some sentances could be reduced, for minor things, and some basic skills can be learned. in time, the cost of law enforcement to society can be reduced, lowering taxes, benefiting the economy for all, so there is less poverty, which helps reduce crime. win win.
sure there are the ocasional ones who are too dangerous to let out anywhere for any reason, but at least 80% of prisoners are capable of working under supervision.
| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [ron h] Monday, June 08, 2009 12:47:59 PM | |
|
How about donating convicted murderers to Science??? Just the thought of that would be a deterrent, eh?? And it would serve humankind in general...guinea pigs, if you will...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, June 08, 2009 10:50:40 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Keeping them alive is, imo, a purpose of itself. Getting them to work benefits everyone, including the convicts.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | no, you proposed economic ideas to keep them alive, I am pointing out that fails. its cheaper to kill them, but thats not the reason. I just think its beter.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Im sorry, but if youre proposing to kill people to save money, Im out of it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | I will take just those few cases, no doubt, no waste of time holding them. it costs over 200 000 a year to hold someone in max security, no way they can do enough work to pay that off, let alone help the victims family.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, June 08, 2009 12:47:05 PM | |
|
Well, plain crimes like shoplifting dont warrant capital punishment, at least imo.
Could be that we are. We always end up in one.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, June 08, 2009 11:59:54 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | homicide, yes, but not general crime.
we are NOT going back to capitalism/socialism are we?
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not really. They rank higher then most west European countries, at least by homicide rate.
Sure, work is an honour, and everyone should work, priority given to non-convicts. Now, its a question of how to get work for everyone.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | there is less crime in iran.
you can spend a lot of money to make him work, but given that there are people who want to work that havent killed anyone, that honor (yes work is an honor) should go to them first
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Look, I know that its an imperfect system. What I said is that we shouldnt base punishment on vengeance. I am an atheist, raised by two atheists, and one of the things they taught me is that vengeance is childish.
Thats why I guarantee you that no matter how harsh the punishment is, people will still commit crimes. Look at how harsh punishments are in Iran. Does it mean that they dont have crime? Or how harsh punishments are in your country, and it still has a crime rate way higher than Europe, where punishments are a lot less severe. What this tells is that people wont be intimidated into submission, and that is as it should be.
There is another reason why I touched on the issue of what good does capital punishment do. As I said, you gain nothing from killing a convict. Only a corpse. You can leave him alive and make him work, so at least he can serve of the material part of his debt. Thats not an ideal or an illusion. It can be done, if there is will for it.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | No system is perfect Strat, but it's the best we've got...born and raised in a Christian family, I was taught eye for an eye, although that is pretty hard core if followed through to the letter...there has to be punishment, and that punishment should be harsh enough so that others will think twice before commiting such a crime...the day is long gone when most ppl fear Judgement Day...a lot of ppl don't even believe there is a God (or what ever their Diety may be), so we must protect ourselves as a Society...if I hate my ex-wife and decide to kill her because I know I'll be out in 8-10 years, hell, I can do that standing on my head, what's to stop me...that's bunk!! Punishment is to hold a person accountable for their actions as well as keep order, it's two-fold...there are plenty of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to fill our prisons, no shortage in that department...I wish it wouldn't come to this in the first place, but it's an imperfect system in an imperfect world Strat...but it's the best we've got...especially in a country with a Constitutional Right to bear arms...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, June 08, 2009 12:45:54 PM | |
|
Well, looking on the bright side, it helps with unemployment. And as I said - rather keep them alive and on state money, than kill them. As far as Im concerned, its all better then execution.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, June 08, 2009 11:59:17 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | keeping them alive is somewhat a purpose. but the work doesnt benefit everyone, as we need guards, transport... more cost than benefit. if we could be sure of rehab, or keeping them secure, perhaps remote firelookout towers could be manned by them, dunno.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Keeping them alive is, imo, a purpose of itself. Getting them to work benefits everyone, including the convicts.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | no, you proposed economic ideas to keep them alive, I am pointing out that fails. its cheaper to kill them, but thats not the reason. I just think its beter.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Im sorry, but if youre proposing to kill people to save money, Im out of it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | I will take just those few cases, no doubt, no waste of time holding them. it costs over 200 000 a year to hold someone in max security, no way they can do enough work to pay that off, let alone help the victims family.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, June 08, 2009 11:59:54 AM | |
|
homicide, yes, but not general crime.
we are NOT going back to capitalism/socialism are we?
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, June 08, 2009 10:52:12 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Not really. They rank higher then most west European countries, at least by homicide rate.
Sure, work is an honour, and everyone should work, priority given to non-convicts. Now, its a question of how to get work for everyone.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | there is less crime in iran.
you can spend a lot of money to make him work, but given that there are people who want to work that havent killed anyone, that honor (yes work is an honor) should go to them first
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Look, I know that its an imperfect system. What I said is that we shouldnt base punishment on vengeance. I am an atheist, raised by two atheists, and one of the things they taught me is that vengeance is childish.
Thats why I guarantee you that no matter how harsh the punishment is, people will still commit crimes. Look at how harsh punishments are in Iran. Does it mean that they dont have crime? Or how harsh punishments are in your country, and it still has a crime rate way higher than Europe, where punishments are a lot less severe. What this tells is that people wont be intimidated into submission, and that is as it should be.
There is another reason why I touched on the issue of what good does capital punishment do. As I said, you gain nothing from killing a convict. Only a corpse. You can leave him alive and make him work, so at least he can serve of the material part of his debt. Thats not an ideal or an illusion. It can be done, if there is will for it.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | No system is perfect Strat, but it's the best we've got...born and raised in a Christian family, I was taught eye for an eye, although that is pretty hard core if followed through to the letter...there has to be punishment, and that punishment should be harsh enough so that others will think twice before commiting such a crime...the day is long gone when most ppl fear Judgement Day...a lot of ppl don't even believe there is a God (or what ever their Diety may be), so we must protect ourselves as a Society...if I hate my ex-wife and decide to kill her because I know I'll be out in 8-10 years, hell, I can do that standing on my head, what's to stop me...that's bunk!! Punishment is to hold a person accountable for their actions as well as keep order, it's two-fold...there are plenty of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to fill our prisons, no shortage in that department...I wish it wouldn't come to this in the first place, but it's an imperfect system in an imperfect world Strat...but it's the best we've got...especially in a country with a Constitutional Right to bear arms...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, June 08, 2009 11:59:17 AM | |
|
keeping them alive is somewhat a purpose. but the work doesnt benefit everyone, as we need guards, transport... more cost than benefit. if we could be sure of rehab, or keeping them secure, perhaps remote firelookout towers could be manned by them, dunno.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, June 08, 2009 10:50:40 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Keeping them alive is, imo, a purpose of itself. Getting them to work benefits everyone, including the convicts.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | no, you proposed economic ideas to keep them alive, I am pointing out that fails. its cheaper to kill them, but thats not the reason. I just think its beter.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Im sorry, but if youre proposing to kill people to save money, Im out of it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | I will take just those few cases, no doubt, no waste of time holding them. it costs over 200 000 a year to hold someone in max security, no way they can do enough work to pay that off, let alone help the victims family.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, June 08, 2009 10:52:12 AM | |
|
Not really. They rank higher then most west European countries, at least by homicide rate.
Sure, work is an honour, and everyone should work, priority given to non-convicts. Now, its a question of how to get work for everyone.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, June 08, 2009 9:28:49 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | there is less crime in iran.
you can spend a lot of money to make him work, but given that there are people who want to work that havent killed anyone, that honor (yes work is an honor) should go to them first
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Look, I know that its an imperfect system. What I said is that we shouldnt base punishment on vengeance. I am an atheist, raised by two atheists, and one of the things they taught me is that vengeance is childish.
Thats why I guarantee you that no matter how harsh the punishment is, people will still commit crimes. Look at how harsh punishments are in Iran. Does it mean that they dont have crime? Or how harsh punishments are in your country, and it still has a crime rate way higher than Europe, where punishments are a lot less severe. What this tells is that people wont be intimidated into submission, and that is as it should be.
There is another reason why I touched on the issue of what good does capital punishment do. As I said, you gain nothing from killing a convict. Only a corpse. You can leave him alive and make him work, so at least he can serve of the material part of his debt. Thats not an ideal or an illusion. It can be done, if there is will for it.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | No system is perfect Strat, but it's the best we've got...born and raised in a Christian family, I was taught eye for an eye, although that is pretty hard core if followed through to the letter...there has to be punishment, and that punishment should be harsh enough so that others will think twice before commiting such a crime...the day is long gone when most ppl fear Judgement Day...a lot of ppl don't even believe there is a God (or what ever their Diety may be), so we must protect ourselves as a Society...if I hate my ex-wife and decide to kill her because I know I'll be out in 8-10 years, hell, I can do that standing on my head, what's to stop me...that's bunk!! Punishment is to hold a person accountable for their actions as well as keep order, it's two-fold...there are plenty of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to fill our prisons, no shortage in that department...I wish it wouldn't come to this in the first place, but it's an imperfect system in an imperfect world Strat...but it's the best we've got...especially in a country with a Constitutional Right to bear arms...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, June 08, 2009 10:50:40 AM | |
|
Keeping them alive is, imo, a purpose of itself. Getting them to work benefits everyone, including the convicts.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, June 08, 2009 9:27:19 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | no, you proposed economic ideas to keep them alive, I am pointing out that fails. its cheaper to kill them, but thats not the reason. I just think its beter.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Im sorry, but if youre proposing to kill people to save money, Im out of it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | I will take just those few cases, no doubt, no waste of time holding them. it costs over 200 000 a year to hold someone in max security, no way they can do enough work to pay that off, let alone help the victims family.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Soylentgreen4u] Monday, June 08, 2009 10:13:46 AM | |
|
HELLO RON....I WAS JUST BEING OFF-THE-WALL LIKE USUAL .....OH I AGREE,VICTIMS AND FAMILIES OF VICTIMS DON'T SEEM TO RECEIVE JUSTICE TOO OFTEN ANYMORE,IT'S NOT THE MONEY ISSUES THAT BOTHER ME-I KNOW SOME PEOPLE ARE HUNG UP ON MONEY THIS,AND MONEY THAT -IT'S MORE OF A WHAT'S RIGHT ISSUE WITH ME,AS I'M SURE IT IS WITH YOU AND MOST,WE'VE ALL WITNESSED ON TV EXTREMELY VIOLENT CRIMES COMMITED,AND THEN THE OBLIGATORY LONG DRAWN OUT TRIALS,TO WHICH THE END RESULT IS TO SAY THE LEAST CRIMINAL IN ITSELF....I'M SORRY,BUT IF I WAS IN CHARGE,AND THE CRIME IS CUT AND DRY GUILTY,YOU'RE FERTILIZER BUDDY!...DONE,FINISHED,YOUR TIME HAS COME TO AN END....IN MY MIND SEVERE PUNISHMENTS ARE THE WAY,AND ONLY WAY TO HELP DETER THESE VILE PIECES OF HUMAN FILTH FROM THIS HEINOUS BEHAVIOUR.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Sunday, June 07, 2009 10:18:48 PM)| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Hi Soy...my argument is strictly based on doing to them what they did to others vs. having to spend tax payer money supporting them 'til they die a natural death...I'm all for the Island you envision so long as they are on their own, can't get off and we send no support...if they can plant gardens and be self-sustaining, I'd go for that, if given the choice...but until that option comes along, I'd have to regress to my previous post...
| | | Soylentgreen4u a.k.a. theWOLFMAN wrote: | | HOW ABOUT FOR THE FOLKS WHO DON'T SUPPORT EXECUTION,YOU SENTENCE THE MURDERERS,SERIAL KILLERS AND SUCH TO EXILE ON AN ISLAND,SIMILAR TO THE 'ESCAPE FROM NY' THINGY...YOU PUT 'EM IN THERE WITH THE SMOKERS,AND VOILA!....PROBLEM SOLVED,PLUS THEY GIVE SOMETHING BACK TO SOCIETY...
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | My 2 cents...Killing another Human Being under any circumstance other than in defense (of Country, self, of another person...)...basically cold blooded murder (pre-meditated or not) is the worst act one can perform against another and should be met with the same fate. There is no rehabilitating an individual who has freely done it at least once already. They may choose to not do it again and be a model citizen for the reat of their life, if given the chance...but as far as I'm concerened when it comes to human life, you only get one chance...no mulligans in my book...and it should come within 30 days of conviction, period!!
| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | That I can agree on to re-pre-pare people for Society, when they are fit to be re-released in it... I know you have people in jail for stupid pety things... stealing, ect.. drugs are a huge problem, esp Crack,, but if those people can prove and be rehabilitated to be able to be productive in Society then I agee,,,
But some of them.... OMG.. It scares the hell out of me to think this Vince Lee guy could be released in as little as a year,, WTF??????
Violent repeat offenders, I have a small prob with.. LOL.... They are usually building themselves up to do a much bigger crime such as assault, ect... if they are showm a bigger way to reform themselves and really try too,, them they may be helped. But most of the people who commit the most hidious of the crimes, have been in and out of the jail system most of their lives...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Absolutely. The decapitation freak and Fritzl are two exapmles of people who, in my opinion, should stay behind bars for life. Working or not, just stay there.
I remember seeing a very interesting TV report from Iceland (I think it was Iceland), where they have a prison where they actualy let inmates out to go to work, and see their families. Of course, if they behave, and its only for the light cases, but it was said that it works surprisingly well. And they ahve to pay for their "stay" in the prison themselves.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Exactly, make them feel usefull, make them used to working, and lessen their cost to society. They are not slaves, they are paying their debt. Work keeps them in condition to work, keeps the idea in their head, busy hands dont have as much time to get into trouble so less crime in prison. in this manner some sentances could be reduced, for minor things, and some basic skills can be learned. in time, the cost of law enforcement to society can be reduced, lowering taxes, benefiting the economy for all, so there is less poverty, which helps reduce crime. win win.
sure there are the ocasional ones who are too dangerous to let out anywhere for any reason, but at least 80% of prisoners are capable of working under supervision.
| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, June 08, 2009 9:28:49 AM | |
|
there is less crime in iran.
you can spend a lot of money to make him work, but given that there are people who want to work that havent killed anyone, that honor (yes work is an honor) should go to them first
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, June 08, 2009 7:48:09 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Look, I know that its an imperfect system. What I said is that we shouldnt base punishment on vengeance. I am an atheist, raised by two atheists, and one of the things they taught me is that vengeance is childish.
Thats why I guarantee you that no matter how harsh the punishment is, people will still commit crimes. Look at how harsh punishments are in Iran. Does it mean that they dont have crime? Or how harsh punishments are in your country, and it still has a crime rate way higher than Europe, where punishments are a lot less severe. What this tells is that people wont be intimidated into submission, and that is as it should be.
There is another reason why I touched on the issue of what good does capital punishment do. As I said, you gain nothing from killing a convict. Only a corpse. You can leave him alive and make him work, so at least he can serve of the material part of his debt. Thats not an ideal or an illusion. It can be done, if there is will for it.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | No system is perfect Strat, but it's the best we've got...born and raised in a Christian family, I was taught eye for an eye, although that is pretty hard core if followed through to the letter...there has to be punishment, and that punishment should be harsh enough so that others will think twice before commiting such a crime...the day is long gone when most ppl fear Judgement Day...a lot of ppl don't even believe there is a God (or what ever their Diety may be), so we must protect ourselves as a Society...if I hate my ex-wife and decide to kill her because I know I'll be out in 8-10 years, hell, I can do that standing on my head, what's to stop me...that's bunk!! Punishment is to hold a person accountable for their actions as well as keep order, it's two-fold...there are plenty of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to fill our prisons, no shortage in that department...I wish it wouldn't come to this in the first place, but it's an imperfect system in an imperfect world Strat...but it's the best we've got...especially in a country with a Constitutional Right to bear arms...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, June 08, 2009 9:27:19 AM | |
|
no, you proposed economic ideas to keep them alive, I am pointing out that fails. its cheaper to kill them, but thats not the reason. I just think its beter.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, June 08, 2009 7:49:23 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Im sorry, but if youre proposing to kill people to save money, Im out of it.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | I will take just those few cases, no doubt, no waste of time holding them. it costs over 200 000 a year to hold someone in max security, no way they can do enough work to pay that off, let alone help the victims family.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, June 08, 2009 7:49:23 AM | |
|
Im sorry, but if youre proposing to kill people to save money, Im out of it.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by Head banger from Monday, June 08, 2009 7:10:51 AM)| | | Head banger wrote: | | I will take just those few cases, no doubt, no waste of time holding them. it costs over 200 000 a year to hold someone in max security, no way they can do enough work to pay that off, let alone help the victims family.
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, June 08, 2009 7:48:09 AM | |
|
Look, I know that its an imperfect system. What I said is that we shouldnt base punishment on vengeance. I am an atheist, raised by two atheists, and one of the things they taught me is that vengeance is childish.
Thats why I guarantee you that no matter how harsh the punishment is, people will still commit crimes. Look at how harsh punishments are in Iran. Does it mean that they dont have crime? Or how harsh punishments are in your country, and it still has a crime rate way higher than Europe, where punishments are a lot less severe. What this tells is that people wont be intimidated into submission, and that is as it should be.
There is another reason why I touched on the issue of what good does capital punishment do. As I said, you gain nothing from killing a convict. Only a corpse. You can leave him alive and make him work, so at least he can serve of the material part of his debt. Thats not an ideal or an illusion. It can be done, if there is will for it.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Monday, June 08, 2009 7:14:41 AM)| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | No system is perfect Strat, but it's the best we've got...born and raised in a Christian family, I was taught eye for an eye, although that is pretty hard core if followed through to the letter...there has to be punishment, and that punishment should be harsh enough so that others will think twice before commiting such a crime...the day is long gone when most ppl fear Judgement Day...a lot of ppl don't even believe there is a God (or what ever their Diety may be), so we must protect ourselves as a Society...if I hate my ex-wife and decide to kill her because I know I'll be out in 8-10 years, hell, I can do that standing on my head, what's to stop me...that's bunk!! Punishment is to hold a person accountable for their actions as well as keep order, it's two-fold...there are plenty of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to fill our prisons, no shortage in that department...I wish it wouldn't come to this in the first place, but it's an imperfect system in an imperfect world Strat...but it's the best we've got...especially in a country with a Constitutional Right to bear arms...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
|
| [ron h] Monday, June 08, 2009 7:14:41 AM | |
|
No system is perfect Strat, but it's the best we've got...born and raised in a Christian family, I was taught eye for an eye, although that is pretty hard core if followed through to the letter...there has to be punishment, and that punishment should be harsh enough so that others will think twice before commiting such a crime...the day is long gone when most ppl fear Judgement Day...a lot of ppl don't even believe there is a God (or what ever their Diety may be), so we must protect ourselves as a Society...if I hate my ex-wife and decide to kill her because I know I'll be out in 8-10 years, hell, I can do that standing on my head, what's to stop me...that's bunk!! Punishment is to hold a person accountable for their actions as well as keep order, it's two-fold...there are plenty of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to fill our prisons, no shortage in that department...I wish it wouldn't come to this in the first place, but it's an imperfect system in an imperfect world Strat...but it's the best we've got...especially in a country with a Constitutional Right to bear arms...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, June 08, 2009 6:12:32 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, June 08, 2009 7:11:51 AM | |
|
yeah, I know. sounds good though. plus they might get blown off course
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Sunday, June 07, 2009 10:21:21 PM)| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | See HB, thwere's the cost of the pilot, fuel, co-pilot and a couple of ppl to push 'em out of the plain...too much trouble...a little rope and one good push and ta da no more murderer...
| | | Head banger wrote: | | yep. something could be learned from Iraq. I forget who said it, but the idea "give them flying lessons, take them up in a plane, toss them out without a parachute, and if they learn to fly on the way down, good for them!
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Capital Punishment in the States is a joke...Texas by far is the leader in executions each year...as comedian Ron White explains "Texas put in a speed lane for executions...if two or more see the murder happen and there is absolutely no doubt...")...they go straight to the front of the line...or something to that effect...otherwise they sit on death row for 15-20 years on our dime...wtf is that??? Hell, throw 'em off a cliff for all I care...especially convicted gangbangers who use fear and then murder...let 'em live a little as they're falling to their death's!!!
| | | Head banger wrote: | | I agree. the death penalty is highly underused. of course here its non existant.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | My 2 cents...Killing another Human Being under any circumstance other than in defense (of Country, self, of another person...)...basically cold blooded murder (pre-meditated or not) is the worst act one can perform against another and should be met with the same fate. There is no rehabilitating an individual who has freely done it at least once already. They may choose to not do it again and be a model citizen for the reat of their life, if given the chance...but as far as I'm concerened when it comes to human life, you only get one chance...no mulligans in my book...and it should come within 30 days of conviction, period!!
| | | ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: | | That I can agree on to re-pre-pare people for Society, when they are fit to be re-released in it... I know you have people in jail for stupid pety things... stealing, ect.. drugs are a huge problem, esp Crack,, but if those people can prove and be rehabilitated to be able to be productive in Society then I agee,,,
But some of them.... OMG.. It scares the hell out of me to think this Vince Lee guy could be released in as little as a year,, WTF??????
Violent repeat offenders, I have a small prob with.. LOL.... They are usually building themselves up to do a much bigger crime such as assault, ect... if they are showm a bigger way to reform themselves and really try too,, them they may be helped. But most of the people who commit the most hidious of the crimes, have been in and out of the jail system most of their lives...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Absolutely. The decapitation freak and Fritzl are two exapmles of people who, in my opinion, should stay behind bars for life. Working or not, just stay there.
I remember seeing a very interesting TV report from Iceland (I think it was Iceland), where they have a prison where they actualy let inmates out to go to work, and see their families. Of course, if they behave, and its only for the light cases, but it was said that it works surprisingly well. And they ahve to pay for their "stay" in the prison themselves.
| | | Head banger wrote: | | Exactly, make them feel usefull, make them used to working, and lessen their cost to society. They are not slaves, they are paying their debt. Work keeps them in condition to work, keeps the idea in their head, busy hands dont have as much time to get into trouble so less crime in prison. in this manner some sentances could be reduced, for minor things, and some basic skills can be learned. in time, the cost of law enforcement to society can be reduced, lowering taxes, benefiting the economy for all, so there is less poverty, which helps reduce crime. win win.
sure there are the ocasional ones who are too dangerous to let out anywhere for any reason, but at least 80% of prisoners are capable of working under supervision.
| | | BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: | | If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein
Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| [Head banger] Monday, June 08, 2009 7:10:51 AM | |
|
I will take just those few cases, no doubt, no waste of time holding them. it costs over 200 000 a year to hold someone in max security, no way they can do enough work to pay that off, let alone help the victims family.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, June 08, 2009 6:12:32 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
|
| [~ MG_Metalgoddess~] Monday, June 08, 2009 6:59:58 AM | |
|
Yes they have a sort of secret society with-in the prison them selves.. I studied serial killers for 6 months and wrote a paper on it for my psychology class..
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by spapad from Sunday, June 07, 2009 7:24:34 PM)| | | spapad wrote: | | Believe it or not most stone cold killers dispise child molesters which J. Dahmer was, hence the end of his life. (Quoting Message by ~ MG_Metalgoddess~ from Saturday, June 06, 2009 3:49:31 PM)
| |
|
~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: |
| |
|
I couldnt agree with more!!!!!! Some-one will prob take care of him in time,,,, just like jeffrey dahmer...
Dahmer was cleaning a bathroom in a prison and one of the prisoners, that allready had a life sentence,, unscrewed a pipe from the sink and smashed his head in. I Call it KARMA.....
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
vince lee is a perfect candidate for the death penalty. what good is keeping him around, never mind letting him out?
| |
|
~ MG_Metalgoddess~ wrote: |
| |
That I can agree on to re-pre-pare people for Society, when they are fit to be re-released in it... I know you have people in jail for stupid pety things... stealing, ect.. drugs are a huge problem, esp Crack,, but if those people can prove and be rehabilitated to be able to be productive in Society then I agee,,,
But some of them.... OMG.. It scares the hell out of me to think this Vince Lee guy could be released in as little as a year,, WTF??????
Violent repeat offenders, I have a small prob with.. LOL.... They are usually building themselves up to do a much bigger crime such as assault, ect... if they are showm a bigger way to reform themselves and really try too,, them they may be helped. But most of the people who commit the most hidious of the crimes, have been in and out of the jail system most of their lives...
| |
|
_strat_ wrote: |
| |
Absolutely. The decapitation freak and Fritzl are two exapmles of people who, in my opinion, should stay behind bars for life. Working or not, just stay there.
I remember seeing a very interesting TV report from Iceland (I think it was Iceland), where they have a prison where they actualy let inmates out to go to work, and see their families. Of course, if they behave, and its only for the light cases, but it was said that it works surprisingly well. And they ahve to pay for their "stay" in the prison themselves.
| |
|
Head banger wrote: |
| |
Exactly, make them feel usefull, make them used to working, and lessen their cost to society. They are not slaves, they are paying their debt. Work keeps them in condition to work, keeps the idea in their head, busy hands dont have as much time to get into trouble so less crime in prison. in this manner some sentances could be reduced, for minor things, and some basic skills can be learned. in time, the cost of law enforcement to society can be reduced, lowering taxes, benefiting the economy for all, so there is less poverty, which helps reduce crime. win win.
sure there are the ocasional ones who are too dangerous to let out anywhere for any reason, but at least 80% of prisoners are capable of working under supervision.
| |
|
BLOOD SUCKER Esquire wrote: |
| |
| If those whom are incarcerated were to prove their productivity to society, would it not be feasible, then, to somehow utilize their strengths by setting up work and labor camps to generate a pseudo penitentiary economy? By paying off their debt to society by being involved in much needed but costly programs such as infrastructure projects, housing and commercial development, snow removal, trash pick up, road repair, etc? All jurisdictions are lashing at out at the high price of wages, union dues, labor shortages, and work projects that never seem to have the necessary funding or manpower to take the architects blueprint past the developmental stages. But when you have a relatively young labor force sitting in a priosn cell for X amount of years, would it not be prudent, and cost effective, to use their time, skills, and ability to serve the populice by contributing to society in a productive manner? I'm certainly not insinuating slave labor. However, instead of locking them up, throwing away the key, and letting them sit, rot, and decay, then why not use their best years either physiclaly or mentally to effectually better the economy around them by invloving them directly in work. Not study, not weight training programs, and certainly not useless psychological imprisonment. Recall Shawshank Redemption? Any work that was available to the inmates was highly coveted. A man feels like a man when he is productive with either his hands or his mind. In this manner, the inmate can begin to pay his debt to society in a productive and impactful fashion. Any thoughts on this? a. Hammerstein Edited at: Saturday, June 06, 2009 12:40:32 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited at: Sunday, June 07, 2009 7:28:05 PM |
|
|
| [_strat_] Monday, June 08, 2009 6:12:32 AM | |
|
Good afternoon Ron...
Well, the jury and a judge are not fundamentaly right. And if we go to court, there is always the problem of justice... A rich guy can afford a good lawyer that will get him off the hook, no matter what he did. If you are poor, youre screwed. Besides, I was also saying that nobody should have the right to decide wheter somebody should live or die. The murderer took that right, yes. But it doesnt mean that anyone should be legally able to do the same.
If you only take the cases where there is absolutely no doubt... Well, you are not going to have a lot of them.
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by ronhartsell from Monday, June 08, 2009 5:50:52 AM)| | | ronhartsell wrote: | | Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
|
| [ron h] Monday, June 08, 2009 5:50:52 AM | |
|
Good morning Strat...
In my eyes, revenge would be to zip-tie the murderer's hands and leave him in a room with the victim's family for a while...
To appease the public?...it's an issue of the brutal crime with paying for his existence...a cost issue...
In the States, a jury of Peers or a Judge (the defendant has the choice of which) decides a person's guilt and their sentence...
I'm only talking talking of cases where there is absolutely NO DOUBT of their guilt...not the probability of...
[Show/Hide Quoted Message] (Quoting Message by _strat_ from Monday, June 08, 2009 5:03:25 AM)| | | _strat_ wrote: | | Hmm... Well, as I said, I am against capital punishment. Heres why: justice is justice and revenge is revenge. Capital punishment is about revenge, not justice. Sorry, but I dont see how or why should we support the "eye for an eye" logic, and think of ourselves as a modern and at least a remotely tolerant society.
The thing about killing a convict is first of all that it only serves to appease the public. He killed = he was killed. But thats all. Besides that, death penalty doesnt serve anything at all. If you keep him/her in prison for life, and get him to work, then we have something. Maybe put a part of his earnings to the family of the victim? All that fails if you simply strap him on an electric chair, to the amusement of sadistic cop thugs.
That, and I already feel uncomfortable enough knowing that the only armed force in the country is under state control. To have state decide who lives and who dies, hell to have anybody decide that, would be too much.
And there is the issue of certainty. I guess in certain cases it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt who was the murderer. But in many cases it isnt. A couple of years ago we had a case, where a man was released from prison. He was charged with murder, and already served of some 20 years (I think), when new evidence came to light, and shown that he was innocent. Sure, he lost 20 years in prison, and that is terrible. But, if he was sentenced to death, what then? |
|
|
