The murder of a murderer....

[Melusine]

Originally posted by Arnabas: Does anyone believe that a magical transformation occurs on one's 18th birthday, so that, overnight, one suddenly becomes an "adult"?

No, I don't think anyone in this thread was trying to argue that, don't you agree?

[RudeDawg]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: Besides what if the person executed was innocent? AS the U.S.A already proves, many of those who are executed are innocent, and once they are gone, they’re gone. And even one innocent man executed, is a stain and blight upon a nation that claims to uphold the constitution.

This is the third time that this argument has been used in this thread. It's a myth, people. Here in Texas, there is 1 case of someone being PROVEN innocent after an execution. ONE. I will agree, that is one too many, but it is NOT the 'many" that keep being pointed out.. [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img]

[Sazerac]

Guys and ladies, I shouldn't have to say this, but PLAY NICE. It's fine to have differences of opinion, but if they start becoming personal attacks, I WILL ring down the curtain on this thread.

Things are already starting to get hot in here. If they get hotter, I will put the smack down on it.

-Sazerac

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

Sorry, but I seriously cannot see the logic behind the death penalty.
Let's break it down with an example of soemone who lives in a country with the death penalty:

Step 1. Someone does something extrememly wrong, for example killing a couple innocents.
step 2. Because we as a society all seem to agree that killing people is wrong....
step 3. He is killed.

Is it just me or is there some seriously broken logic here.

[Gammit]

This argument has been played out time and time again in a variety of forums, and I don't think anybody is any closer to swaying one side over today than ever before. Thus, this all must come to the presenting of the mother of total subjective thought: opinion. Ahem... I consider myself a liberal (in most aspects), yet I have little moral problems with the death penalty whatsoever. What is atrocious is that yes, there are some (many?) innocent people who will wrongly be put to death because of our system... true. However, what else to do? Keep these individuals in jail for life, all while giving them free access to cable television, a weight room, hot meals, and I have to pay for it (although not all prisoners get this posh lifestyle, many do)? Granted it does cost taxpayers more to put a prisoner to death than it does to keep him/her in jail for life, but it's the principle. Plain and simply, this man was convicted (there's the key word... they've been convicted in a court of law, had the right to an attorney, had the right to appeal, etc.). I would rather pay $100 to end a convicted murderer's life than $10 to let them live a life of comparable luxury. I am confident that with our judicial system's establishment of checks and balances, and the development of further forensic science, that our system is as good as it gets. If anybody has a better idea, I welcome it. But thus far, I feel I've heard quite a bit, and I still believe we have one of the best systems out there. If you disagree, feel free to voice your opinion, or better yet, do something about it to change the system. I'm just thankful that I live in a country (one of many)where I can act to change a system, if I so choose. We all could have been born somewher else (Yay, our countries... let's all be thankful). Then again, like I said before, philisophical debate such as this is all boils down to opinion. So, please, let's all remember that just because some of us may disagree with others, it doesn't make anybody less educated, enlightened, or just.

[ 05-29-2002, 02:09 PM: Message edited by: Gammit ]

[Attalus]

Talthyr, that is a fallacy. We have NOT decide "as a society that killing is wrong." Some elements of society have made that startling leap. We have decided that murder is wrong, and has been for thousands of years. Killing is sometimes the duty of the state, such as when war is being waged. The state can kill a terrorist, or an enemy soldier, or a convicted murderer. Just because there is no proven deterrance is no argument at all, really, because, since time immemorial, humankind has killied people who murder other humans.

Originally posted by RudeDawg: quote: Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: Besides what if the person executed was innocent? AS the U.S.A already proves, many of those who are executed are innocent, and once they are gone, they’re gone. And even one innocent man executed, is a stain and blight upon a nation that claims to uphold the constitution.

This is the third time that this argument has been used in this thread. It's a myth, people. Here in Texas, there is 1 case of someone being PROVEN innocent after an execution. ONE. I will agree, that is one too many, but it is NOT the 'many" that keep being pointed out.. [img]graemlins/idontagreeatall.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]And yet There are many whose executions have been stayed at the last moment, only to find that they were innocent. Consider that nationwide, 89 individuals have been released from death row since 1973. Florida alone is responsible for nearly 25% of these miscarriages of justice. Conflicting standards puts the number of innocents released from death row at either 19 or 21. Since 1979, the people of Florida have executed 50 prisoners and released 21. And there are serious questions about the guilt or innocence of some of those who have been killed. In August, Equal Justice USA released a damning report which raised reasonable doubts about the guilt of James Adams (executed in 1984), Jesse J. Tafero (1990), and Willie Jasper Darden, Jr. (1998). There are others still on Florida's death row who can raise serious doubts about their guilt, notably Samuel Jason Derrick, Virginia Larzelere, Paul William Scott, and William Thomas Zeigler.

A study of jury death sentencing in Philadelphia between 1983 and 1993 found that black defendants were 38% more likely than non-black defendants to receive the death penalty. In Illinois, 87% of death row inmates are black

On the 50th anniversary of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, President Clinton signed an executive order to the effect that the U.S. would honor numerous international treaties with respect to minimal standards and safeguards applicable to the death penalty, including ICCPR, the Geneva Convention, and the ECOSOC. However, the U.S. continues to violate these treaties by executing juveniles and the mentally ill and accepting a racial bias in the application of the death penalty.

Statistics demonstrate that the death penalty does not deter murder. The South, which accounts for roughly 80% of the executions carried out in the U.S., maintains the highest murder rate of American regions. The Northeast, which accounts for roughly 1% of executions, has the lowest murder rate. A conference of police chiefs in 1995 placed the death penalty last as a factor in reducing violent crime

From 1985 to 1995, Amnesty International has documented the execution of juveniles in eight countries: Bangladesh, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and the United States. Of those countries, the United States by far had executed the most juveniles.

[Azred]

Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk: While that is tragic, that is no excuse for the death penalty. As has been shown, it is no deterrent otherwise there would be no murders in Texas, seeing how bloodthirsty they are there.

[img]graemlins/madhell.gif[/img] All right! I'm bloodthirsty! [img]graemlins/madhell.gif[/img]

[img]graemlins/laugh3.gif[/img] Seriously, I simply must write that down in my diary. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img]

***************

Let me reiterate: If a 17-year-old commits an adult crime, then the 17-year-old must accept the adult consequences.

[Talthyr Malkaviel]

Originally posted by Attalus: Talthyr, that is a fallacy. We have NOT decide "as a society that killing is wrong." Some elements of society have made that startling leap. We have decided that murder is wrong, and has been for thousands of years. Killing is sometimes the duty of the state, such as when war is being waged. The state can kill a terrorist, or an enemy soldier, or a convicted murderer. Just because there is no proven deterrance is no argument at all, really, because, since time immemorial, humankind has killied people who murder other humans.

Well I would like to point out that I did that on purpose, would it have made you feel better if I had put that society has deemed it wrong to murder people?
And about humans killing murder since time immemorial, so what if they have... just because we have diesn't mean we should continue to do so, murdering someone who has murdered is still murder, and murdering them is simple revenge, we may now have trials and judges, but why do they have the right to have a person murdered? Why is murdering them so much better than sticking them in a prison for life??

[Arnabas]

Sigh... There is no easy answer here. Can we all (both sides) agree that it is frustrating that a murderer/ rapist/ pedophile/ whatever can live in jail with all his meals provided, entertainment and health privileges, etc, while there are many good, decent homeless people who we do nothing to help? They starve to death, or freeze in winter because nobody is willing to help "the bums who won't get a job" and yet criminals are given food and shelter at our expense. Just seems wrong, doesn't it? So what can be done? There is increasing frustration at "criminal rights" being greater then the rights of innocents.
Here's another stupid example. There was a 7-up ad pulled because it shows the spokesperson in jail and when he drops his 7-up, he says "I'm not picking that up". 7-up was forced to remove it because it made fun of prison rape and hurt the criminals feelings... Give me a break.