Strange...

[Frohickey]

Remember prior to the Sept 11 attacks, the Afghan resistance fighter Masood was killed under the orders of Osama bin laden.

Now, with prior to the recent attacks on US forces, an Iraqi cleric al-Khoei was killed, maybe under the order of al-Sadr.

Seems that there is no stigma to ordering the killing of the competiting ideology.

I think it was a Peter Franklin, Ben Franklin's son that was arrested for aiding the British crown during the American Revolution, but he wasn't killed on the spot, in fact, after the war, he was released, and even had a chance to reconcile with his father.

[mactastic]

Remember prior to the Sept 11 attacks, the Afghan resistance fighter Masood was killed under the orders of Osama bin laden.

Now, with prior to the recent attacks on US forces, an Iraqi cleric al-Khoei was killed, maybe under the order of al-Sadr.

Sounds like proof of an Iraq - al Qaeda connection to me...

How did everyone else miss this?

[Frohickey]

Sounds like proof of an Iraq - al Qaeda connection to me...

That was not what I was trying to illustrate. Just that there is no anathema to killing, thats all.

If you want to talk about the lack of an Iraq/alQaeda connection, I think there are plenty of other threads about that. The lack of one still doesn't change my mind about the Iraq situation... namely, GWBush should have asked for a Congressional declaration of war in both the Afghanistan and Iraq.

[IJ Reilly]

Yeah, don't change the subject -- that's Frohickey's trick.

[mactastic]

That was not what I was trying to illustrate. Just that there is no anathema to killing, thats all.


Nope there sure isn't. Remember the 'Wanted: Dead or Alive' speech?

Or were you trying to illustrate that only their side has no anathema to killing?

[Ugg]

Well, Sharon has no qualms about ordering the deaths of leading Palestinians and has done so for quite some time now, about 40 years or so. I wonder how many death orders that gw has signed in the last 3 years?

[zimv20]

Well, Sharon has no qualms about ordering the deaths of leading Palestinians and has done so for quite some time now
speaking of which, the events of the past two days in iraq has felt rather israeli/palestinian to me.

[3rdpath]

...I think there are plenty of other threads about that.

sometimes the jokes just write themselves...

[3rdpath]

speaking of which, the events of the past two days in iraq has felt rather israeli/palestinian to me.

there is a good chance of a comparable duration...

[skunk]

there is a good chance of a comparable duration...
The Hundred Years' War II?

[Frohickey]

Nope there sure isn't. Remember the 'Wanted: Dead or Alive' speech?

Or were you trying to illustrate that only their side has no anathema to killing?

I was trying to illustrate that their side has no anathema to killing their competition. I don't see GWBush ordering FBI agents to the houses of Senators that voted against the use of force resolution in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Pity. Masood, from the various interviews, sounded like an Afghani version of George Washington. al Khoei might have been too. We'll never know.

[Neserk]

Well, Sharon has no qualms about ordering the deaths of leading Palestinians and has done so for quite some time now, about 40 years or so. I wonder how many death orders that gw has signed in the last 3 years?

Don't know but I know he signed a lot when he was gov. of TX!

[Frohickey]

Don't know but I know he signed a lot when he was gov. of TX!

Texas governors do not have a whole lot of power when it comes to the penal system. At least be honest about it.

From: Rick Halperin
Jan. 14

Texas governor's powers limited in execution cases

Texas Gov. Rick Perry could not single-handedly commute one or all of the
death sentences in the Lone Star State, even if he wanted to. The state
constitution won't allow it.

Departing Illinois Gov. George Ryan surprised many last weekend when he
commuted the sentences of all of the state's 167 condemned inmates.

Texas is the nation's No. 1 death penalty state, with 289 executions
since 1982 and 452 inmates currently on death row.

Ryan had much more power to act than Perry.

Perry's only literal power is to give an inmate a 1-time 30-day stay of
execution. Beyond that, any pardon, commutation or clemency action must
first get a recommendation from the 18-member Board of Pardons and
Paroles, which is appointed by the governor.

Perry is a death penalty supporter.

(source: Associated Press)


Article 4 - EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT Section 11 - BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES; PAROLE LAWS; REPRIEVES, COMMUTATIONS, AND PARDONS; REMISSION OF FINES AND FORFEITURES (http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/txconst/sections/cn000400-001100.html)

[Frohickey]

I know that it might be an unpopular view around here, but I'd like to understand what is the repulsion for the death penalty? Sure, there are some situations where the guilt of the death-row inmate might be in question, but the system is supposed to take care of these.

Would you support the death penalty for people whose guilt is not in question, admits to the crime, and has eye witnesses to the crime?

[Neserk]

Texas governors do not have a whole lot of power when it comes to the penal system. At least be honest about it.



I believe he made it much easier to put someone to death and the governor does have a stay of execution. And from my recollection of the people he put to death quite a few of them should have had stays. No offense to those living there but TX scares the hell out of me! I prefer not to fly through or God forbid drive through that state!

[zimv20]

what is the repulsion for the death penalty?
i don't think it's the business of the state to kill people. this is independent of the flawed system. for crimes severe enough, i do support life imprisonment.


Would you support the death penalty for people whose guilt is not in question, admits to the crime, and has eye witnesses to the crime?
no, for the reasons stated above.

i do support euthanasia; i do not think the state has the right to charge someone w/ a crime for trying to kill themselves, or to interfere. i also think that person has the right to have a doctor assist, and the doctor should be able to do so w/o fear of reprisal from the state.

[pseudobrit]

I was trying to illustrate that their side has no anathema to killing their competition. I don't see GWBush ordering FBI agents to the houses of Senators that voted against the use of force resolution in Afghanistan or Iraq.

But they do out covert CIA operatives as revenge.

[amnesiac1984]

I know that it might be an unpopular view around here, but I'd like to understand what is the repulsion for the death penalty? Sure, there are some situations where the guilt of the death-row inmate might be in question, but the system is supposed to take care of these.

Would you support the death penalty for people whose guilt is not in question, admits to the crime, and has eye witnesses to the crime?

There is only one thing to understand, no matter how many arguments you make for it, nobody has the right to kill another human being, and nobody should do so ever under any circumstances! To make this crime punishable by death is the most hypocritical thing EVER!

[toontra]

the system is supposed to take care of these.

Would you support the death penalty for people whose guilt is not in question, admits to the crime, and has eye witnesses to the crime?

It's not that simple - what if it turns out the witness was lying, and the accused admitted to guilt under pressure or because of a mental condition - what happens then, after the state has murdered an innocent person? These are not hypothetical situations - they happen, and this is one, but by no means the only, reason why no civalised society should allow murder.

PS Out of interest, are you anti-abortion?

[numediaman]

I think it was a Peter Franklin, Ben Franklin's son that was arrested for aiding the British crown during the American Revolution, but he wasn't killed on the spot, in fact, after the war, he was released, and even had a chance to reconcile with his father.

Off topic, but . . .

Franklin's son was William. He was governor of the "Jerseys" and remained loyal to the crown throughout the Revolutionary War -- causing a rift to develop between father and son. After the war, William returned to England and he and his father were never reconciled.

From Benjamin Franklin's last will and testament:

To my son, William Franklin, late Governor of the Jerseys, I give and devise all the lands I hold or have a right to, in the province of Nova Scotia, to hold to him, his heirs, and assigns forever. I also give to him all my books and papers, which he has in his possession, and all debts standing against him on my account books, willing that no payment for, nor restitution of, the same be required of him, by my executors. The part he acted against me in the late war, which is of public notoriety, will account for my leaving him no more of an estate he endeavoured to deprive me of.

Translation: "I leave you nothing".

[mactastic]

Would you support the death penalty for people whose guilt is not in question, admits to the crime, and has eye witnesses to the crime?

First objection. Why should we go around killing people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong? It's an exercise in hypocrisy.

Second objection. Personally I think the death penalty is too easy for the kinds of criminal we're talking about. I'd rather they spent a good long time in a dark cell somewhere waiting to die.

Third objection. Possibility of getting it wrong. Sure you can pose the hypothetical 'guaranteed guilty' criminal, but what percentage of your death-eligible defendants fall into this catagory? Deal with reality Frohickey, an admission of guilt is not a guarantee, nor are eyewitnesses. Both have been faked and coerced. What if the guy who says he did it has a grand 'suicide-by-cop' plan going on and as a result the real killer is free and able to kill again?

Fourth objection. Cost. Although on a moral level cost really has no bearing on this issue, in reality it does. The cost of implementing the safeguards necessary to make sure we are only killing the guilty are, and always will be, higher than the cost of incarcerating them for life.

Fifth objection. It doesn't prevent crime. I haven't seen anything to indicate that capital punishment reduces the incidences of capital crimes. It does however, assuage that thirst for vengence that humans seem to have in spades, and it allows polititians to claim to be 'tough on crime'.

Killing people in any situation other than immediate self defense or immediate defense of someone else (military work excepted) is wrong. That's my bottom line.

[Frohickey]

PS Out of interest, are you anti-abortion?

Nope. I'm fine with abortion. I'm against paying for someone else's abortion though. If I'm paying for a person's abortion, I should be the one that had the pleasure of the deed. :eek: :D

Now, do I think an abortion should only be the woman's choice? I think it should be the couple's choice.

[mactastic]

Now, do I think an abortion should only be the woman's choice? I think it should be the couple's choice.

Any exceptions?

[Frohickey]

Putting to death people that murder other people shows that there is value in the life of innocents, and the price for murder of innocents is the forfeiture of your life.

Sure, the criminal justice system could get it wrong. But what do we do with the ones that kill, and kill again. Put them in a dark cell again?

The death row inmate that is put to death will never commit another crime.

So, too bad that the victim of the murder was not able to defend himself/herself of the murder, and kill the murderer first? Sorry, too bad, you need to kill the other one first or else you won't get justice. Oh, you are already dead, why do you need justice anyway? Maybe all of those Nazi death camp guards should not have been put to death for their role in the deaths of the Holocaust victims. They don't need justice, they are dead already. [end-sarcasm]

[skunk]

Putting to death people that murder other people shows that there is value in the life of innocents, and the price for murder of innocents is the forfeiture of your life.

Sure, the criminal justice system could get it wrong. But what do we do with the ones that kill, and kill again. Put them in a dark cell again?

The death row inmate that is put to death will never commit another crime.

Nor will the wrongly convicted innocent. Nor will the judicial murder of an innocent show anyone that there is value in anything...

[Frohickey]

Any exceptions?

If the woman's life is in imminent danger if the birth were allowed, then I could see that as an exception.

Otherwise, if one of the couple says 'No', the birth continues.

If the woman is the one that doesn't want the birth, then the other will need to compensate the woman for pain, suffering, and pickles&ice cream for 9 months, after which, the woman releases all claim to the little smelly-poop factory.

If the man is the one that doesn't want the birth, then the other releases all claim of support from the man to raise the little smelly-poop factory.

Oh, there will be a binding legal agreement to be signed by both when the decision is made.

[mactastic]

Putting to death people that murder other people shows that there is value in the life of innocents, and the price for murder of innocents is the forfeiture of your life.

But does this prevent crime? Or just provide vengance?

Sure, the criminal justice system could get it wrong. But what do we do with the ones that kill, and kill again. Put them in a dark cell again?

No, the solution is to not let them out in the first place. You can try to divert attention by insinuating that I would let murderers out of prison, but first show me where I advocate such action. I think a life sentence should mean you_don't_leave_until_you_die. That solves that problem.

The death row inmate that is put to death will never commit another crime.

Neither will the one kept in a cell for the rest of their life.

So, too bad that the victim of the murder was not able to defend himself/herself of the murder, and kill the murderer first? Sorry, too bad, you need to kill the other one first or else you won't get justice. Oh, you are already dead, why do you need justice anyway? Maybe all of those Nazi death camp guards should not have been put to death for their role in the deaths of the Holocaust victims. They don't need justice, they are dead already. [end-sarcasm]

What? You're not making and sense here. Are you attempting to ridicule me for being 'soft on crime'? Or is this another of your thoroughly inapt analogies again?

[mactastic]

If the woman's life is in imminent danger if the birth were allowed, then I could see that as an exception.

Otherwise, if one of the couple says 'No', the birth continues.

If the woman is the one that doesn't want the birth, then the other will need to compensate the woman for pain, suffering, and pickles&ice cream for 9 months, after which, the woman releases all claim to the little smelly-poop factory.

If the man is the one that doesn't want the birth, then the other releases all claim of support from the man to raise the little smelly-poop factory.

Oh, there will be a binding legal agreement to be signed by both when the decision is made.

So you are FOR giving rapists rights?

[Frohickey]

i don't think it's the business of the state to kill people. this is independent of the flawed system. for crimes severe enough, i do support life imprisonment.

no, for the reasons stated above.

i do support euthanasia; i do not think the state has the right to charge someone w/ a crime for trying to kill themselves, or to interfere. i also think that person has the right to have a doctor assist, and the doctor should be able to do so w/o fear of reprisal from the state.

Fine with euthanasia.

I think that people have property rights, and their body is their property. As such, the disposition of their property belongs to the owner of the property, and the state has no right to interfere with what an owner does to their property. If that includes ending it, then so be it.

As to the doctor-assist, couldn't they just charter a Hawaiian Scenic Tours and Euthanasia-by-molten lava helicopter?

Back to death penalty. I think that the act of murdering, or other acts befitting the death penalty are not only crimes against the victim, but also a crime against society. By the death of the criminal, society is soothed that justice is served, and society can go on about its business. Now, with the emergence of a vocal anti-death penalty minority, we might just have the beginnings of a society that is not soothed by putting to death of criminals, but there is still the question of justice for the crime victim, but, if they are dead, why should they matter. The dead don't vote. (erp, they do in certain heavily-democrat sections of the country. :p)

[Frohickey]

So you are FOR giving rapists rights?

Nope. A rapist that would exercise their right to stop an abortion would necessarily have to implicate themselves. Rapists are subject to summary execution by their victims upon identification and conviction. :D

[zimv20]

i was looking for death penalty opinion poll data and came across this:

Young analyzed data from the 1990 and 1996 General Social Survey, the leading barometer of social trends in the nation. The annual poll is conducted by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago. The survey asks people whether they support or oppose the death penalty, a question similar to one that prosecutors use to screen prospective jurors in capital punishment cases. If you say you're opposed, prosecutors typically send you on your way, leaving a pool of jurors who support capital punishment or aren't opposed to it, Young says.

Young wondered if people who favored the death penalty were more predisposed toward conviction than others or more likely to hold prejudiced views of blacks, who comprise the majority of defendants in murder cases. The GSS allowed him to address both issues. One series of questions sought to measure racial prejudice by asking respondents whether they believed blacks were "lazy" or "hard-working," and how respondents would feel if a close relative married a black person. Another question asked whether it was a bigger mistake to convict an innocent person or to free someone who was guilty, one way of measuring what social scientists call a "conviction mentality."

Young found that death penalty supporters were more likely to have prejudiced views of blacks -- about a third more likely, he estimates.

He also found that death penalty supporters were nearly twice as likely to say it was worse to let the guilty go than to convict an innocent defendant. Based on other GSS data, Young suggests that this attitude is motivated by a view of human nature that sees people generally as untrustworthy and out to take advantage of others. Those characteristics reinforce each other, he argues, making death penalty juries more conviction-prone, particularly when the defendant is black.

link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9798-2004Mar19.html)

[mactastic]

Rapists are subject to summary execution by their victims upon identification and conviction. :D

They are???

Come on Frohickey, stay in the real world.....

[skunk]

What if the woman wants an abortion, the man says no, and the woman dies in childbirth? What price right to life?

Can you get done for rape within marriage over there?

[amnesiac1984]

Putting to death people that murder other people shows that there is value in the life of innocents, and the price for murder of innocents is the forfeiture of your life.

Sure, the criminal justice system could get it wrong. But what do we do with the ones that kill, and kill again. Put them in a dark cell again?

The death row inmate that is put to death will never commit another crime.

So, too bad that the victim of the murder was not able to defend himself/herself of the murder, and kill the murderer first? Sorry, too bad, you need to kill the other one first or else you won't get justice. Oh, you are already dead, why do you need justice anyway? Maybe all of those Nazi death camp guards should not have been put to death for their role in the deaths of the Holocaust victims. They don't need justice, they are dead already. [end-sarcasm]

Justice isn't an eye for an eye. AN eye for an eye is ************. Justice in this case would be for the murderer to fully repent and to have learned his lesson. This is not easy, and currently doesn't happen very often, but I think that should be the ultimate goal of any justice system.

Nothing is going to bring back the dead innocent, especially not murdering the murderer. There is NEVER a reason or an excuse to kill somebody, EVERYBODY is salvageable, we just aren't clever enough to do it yet. Crime is a social disease remember, and one day we'll cure it, just like we will cure cancer. IMHO

[trebblekicked]

He also found that death penalty supporters were nearly twice as likely to say it was worse to let the guilty go than to convict an innocent defendant

link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9798-2004Mar19.html)


hmm. i wonder if any of them realized that by convicting an innocent defendant you were letting the guilty go free.

[Frohickey]

They are???

Come on Frohickey, stay in the real world.....

I should have said "Rapist should be subject to summary execution by their victims..."

Sorry, I had already assumed that we are in a new world with new abortion laws as I was outlining. I had assumed that you were following along in that I was describing a new world with these new abortion laws.

[Frohickey]

2-pound dog used for deadly place kick (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=785143#post785143)

Another candidate for capital punishment.

[Neserk]

First objection. Why should we go around killing people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong? It's an exercise in hypocrisy.

Second objection. Personally I think the death penalty is too easy for the kinds of criminal we're talking about. I'd rather they spent a good long time in a dark cell somewhere waiting to die.

Third objection. Possibility of getting it wrong. Sure you can pose the hypothetical 'guaranteed guilty' criminal, but what percentage of your death-eligible defendants fall into this catagory? Deal with reality Frohickey, an admission of guilt is not a guarantee, nor are eyewitnesses. Both have been faked and coerced. What if the guy who says he did it has a grand 'suicide-by-cop' plan going on and as a result the real killer is free and able to kill again?

Fourth objection. Cost. Although on a moral level cost really has no bearing on this issue, in reality it does. The cost of implementing the safeguards necessary to make sure we are only killing the guilty are, and always will be, higher than the cost of incarcerating them for life.

Fifth objection. It doesn't prevent crime. I haven't seen anything to indicate that capital punishment reduces the incidences of capital crimes. It does however, assuage that thirst for vengence that humans seem to have in spades, and it allows polititians to claim to be 'tough on crime'.
.


Well said.

[Neserk]

Nope. A rapist that would exercise their right to stop an abortion would necessarily have to implicate themselves.

nope, they just claim it was consensual.

[pseudobrit]

2-pound dog used for deadly place kick (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=785143#post785143)

Another candidate for capital punishment.

So go kill him. And leave my government out of your fondness for taking people's lives. You want government out of your wallet but you think it's a-okay when it ends your life? You value money more than life?

Oh, I forgot who I was talking to.

[idkew]

2-pound dog used for deadly place kick (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=785143#post785143)

Another candidate for capital punishment.


but this was a yorkie. that is not a dog.

[idkew]

1,2,3,4,5.


I agree with all except number two.

Living with access to the internet and cable tv is not prison. This is great compared to what quite a few criminals face in the "real" world. Some people even commit crimes to go back to jail. At least there, they know where/when their next meal will be.

[idkew]

If the woman is the one that doesn't want the birth, then the other will need to compensate the woman for pain, suffering, and pickles&ice cream for 9 months, after which, the woman releases all claim to the little smelly-poop factory.


But why should the woman be compensated and not the man? Just because she is carrying it means little. Should the man be compensated for the 1/4th of his life he has to deal with a hormonal woman? I could argue that is painful and you suffer from it.

She knew that when she opened her legs there was a possibility of getting pregnant. Same as the man knew when he rose to the occasion. If you don't want a kid, don't have sex. If you can't figure that out, that is your problem, and you should not be compensated for being a moron.

[Frohickey]

So go kill him. And leave my government out of your fondness for taking people's lives. You want government out of your wallet but you think it's a-okay when it ends your life? You value money more than life?

Oh, I forgot who I was talking to.

Some people forfeit their lives when they commit a crime.

[toontra]

Some people forfeit their lives when they commit a crime.

Says you! This isn't an argument, this is a prejudiced opinion.

[skunk]

Some people forfeit their lives when they commit a crime.
Some people forfeit their lives when they are falsely convicted.

[wwworry]

Justice isn't an eye for an eye. AN eye for an eye is ************. Justice in this case would be for the murderer to fully repent and to have learned his lesson. This is not easy, and currently doesn't happen very often, but I think that should be the ultimate goal of any justice system.

Nothing is going to bring back the dead innocent, especially not murdering the murderer. There is NEVER a reason or an excuse to kill somebody, EVERYBODY is salvageable, we just aren't clever enough to do it yet. Crime is a social disease remember, and one day we'll cure it, just like we will cure cancer. IMHO

Mactastic brought up a good point back there by mentioning that the eye for an eye was originally posited as a way to prevent vengence and the escalation of "justice".

It is logically easy to go from "the one that kills should be killed." to "the family of one that cases pain shall be put into pain"

It's not so easy to say what punishment should be because the act of punishment is different than the act of crime. The penitentary system, originally developed by Philadelphia Quakers, was to put the criminal in solitary confinement with a bible so the criminal would read and repent. It was supposed to be humane, Most of them went insane and solitary was deamed to be a cruel punishment.

[idkew]

Most of them went insane and solitary was deamed to be a cruel punishment.

What about the cruel and inhumane crimes these people committed against others?

[skunk]

What about the cruel and inhumane crimes these people committed against others?
Or "allegedly" committed. It is not a mark of humanity to drive others to death or near-death, but it is a human trait to err. Whether you are for or against capital punishment in principle, one wrong conviction makes a nonsense of the practice.

[idkew]

Or "allegedly" committed. It is not a mark of humanity to drive others to death or near-death, but it is a human trait to err. Whether you are for or against capital punishment in principle, one wrong conviction makes a nonsense of the practice.

So, no one ever committed a crime then, they were all falsely accused?

Think of it this way: You are felony assaulted. Your attacker is not prosecuted due to whatever reason, but the fact remains that is the attacker. How would that make you feel?

You now lost function of (insert body part here) due to the attack, and the person who did this for you is not punished, because (insert "alleged" reason here).

Furthermore, you are unable to win in civil court (to pay for the mounting medical bills) due to the lack of a criminal conviction. Now, you are not only handicapped because of this person, you are now insolvent.

[mactastic]

Some people forfeit their lives when they commit a crime.

And others can afford a good defense attorney! :eek:

(Or team of defense attorneys.)

[skunk]

So, no one ever committed a crime then, they were all falsely accused?
Did I say that out loud? Or at all?

Think of it this way: You are felony assaulted. Your attacker is not prosecuted due to whatever reason, but the fact remains that is the attacker. How would that make you feel?

You now lost function of (insert body part here) due to the attack, and the person who did this for you is not punished, because (insert "alleged" reason here).

Furthermore, you are unable to win in civil court (to pay for the mounting medical bills) due to the lack of a criminal conviction. Now, you are not only handicapped because of this person, you are now insolvent.

Explain the relevance of this to the debate on capital punishment?

[mactastic]

Furthermore, you are unable to win in civil court (to pay for the mounting medical bills) due to the lack of a criminal conviction. Now, you are not only handicapped because of this person, you are now insolvent.

Do you remember the OJ case? The one where the state was unable to get a conviction (if it doesn't fit, you must acquit) against the 'Dream Team'? Do you remember the outcome of the civil case that followed?

Now, what was your argument again?

[idkew]

Do you remember the OJ case? The one where the state was unable to get a conviction (if it doesn't fit, you must acquit) against the 'Dream Team'? Do you remember the outcome of the civil case that followed?

Now, what was your argument again?

OJ was an exception. You should easily see that.

AEIOU are vowels. Sometimes Y is a vowel. That doesn't mean it is always a vowel.

Now what was your argument again?

[pseudobrit]

Think of it this way: You are felony assaulted. Your attacker is not prosecuted due to whatever reason, but the fact remains that is the attacker. How would that make you feel?

I'm Catholic. My God commands me to forgive, despite the primal urge for revenge.

You now lost function of (insert body part here) due to the attack, and the person who did this for you is not punished, because (insert "alleged" reason here).

Furthermore, you are unable to win in civil court (to pay for the mounting medical bills) due to the lack of a criminal conviction. Now, you are not only handicapped because of this person, you are now insolvent.

Sounds implausible, and more like an argument for national healthcare.

[blackfox]

Remember prior to the Sept 11 attacks, the Afghan resistance fighter Masood was killed under the orders of Osama bin laden.
.
I was saddened to hear that news originally, as I held great respect for Masoud in his efforts against the Soviet invasion...it is difficult to say why he was killed, it may have been because he was a Tajik, a minority in Afghanistan, which made up much of the educated 'professional' class of Afghanistan(the taliban traditionally views of the city and westernized values as evil, as well as the fact the taliban are Pashtoons, a majority tribe of Afghanistan)...it could have been that the respect he earned from his resistance made him a target for competing power structures (eg Taliban) as the other major revered resitance fighter abdul Haq was also killed in the '90s...sad...it would appear that the rationalization to kill someone to silence their views/power affects all of humanity...although the manner of thinking between us 'cultured' rational westerners and those who are poor illiterate and steeped in Islamic teachings may be so great as to make analysis impossible...

[zimv20]

I was saddened to hear that news originally, as I held great respect for Masoud in his efforts against the Soviet invasion...it is difficult to say why he was killed, it may have been because he was a Tajik, a minority in Afghanistan, which made up much of the educated 'professional' class of Afghanistan(the taliban traditionally views of the city and westernized values as evil, as well as the fact the taliban are Pashtoons, a majority tribe of Afghanistan)...it could have been that the respect he earned from his resistance made him a target for competing power structures (eg Taliban) as the other major revered resitance fighter abdul Haq was also killed in the '90s...sad...it would appear that the rationalization to kill someone to silence their views/power affects all of humanity...although the manner of thinking between us 'cultured' rational westerners and those who are poor illiterate and steeped in Islamic teachings may be so great as to make analysis impossible...
isn't it generally accepted that he was killed because he was the leader of the northern alliance, and bin laden knew that the inevitable reprisals would (otherwise) have massoud, newly funded and equipped, at the head of that reprisal?

[idkew]

Sounds implausible...

Kinda like the argument against punishment? (as in, they could be innocent, so lets not punish)

[pseudobrit]

Kinda like the argument against punishment? (as in, they could be innocent, so lets not punish)

You've dropped "capital" from your argument. Nice tactic. No one here has said they're against punishment.

[skunk]

Kinda like the argument against punishment? (as in, they could be innocent, so lets not punish)
Who is making an argument against punishment here? What on earth are you talking about? Which thread are you following? :confused:

[wwworry]

What about the cruel and inhumane crimes these people committed against others?
The Pennsylvania Prison Society, which pushed through the "penitentiary" system, thought it would be a more humane system. They were Quarkers, you know. So they were a bit surprised when it backfired on them.

They still believe in the principle of reform. Most criminal acts are done by the the under 28 crowd. All the ex-cons I know said they were young and foolish and on drugs when they committed the crime. Most people get older and wiser and they give up the life. THe prison society advocates education and treatment for prisoners.

There is a program called Ready Willing and Able that does some good work.

[skunk]

The Pennsylvania Prison Society, which pushed through the "penitentiary" system, thought it would be a more humane system. They were Quarkers, you know.
What, they were all in publishing? :D

[idkew]

THe prison society advocates education and treatment for prisoners.

There is a program called Ready Willing and Able that does some good work.

So criminals should now be sent to school, at the taxpayer's cost? Sounds good to me. Where do I sign up. I paid a heck of a lot for my schooling, and to think, all I had to do was get sent to prison and it could have been free.

While I do believe that rehabilitation should be PART of the prison system, the fact still remains that people who commit crimes need to be punished for what they did, not just forced to go to school.

And, the reason I am not arguing against/for capitol punishment, is that I am against it (and I haven't seen any arguments for it yet). Not because there could be a mistake, not because it is cruel, not because it is wrong/immoral... I am against it because I think someone who has committed such a crime should have to rot in prison for the rest of their life. Not a prison with cable lots of fresh air and sun, a prison where you are punished for your deeds. I am not for giving these criminals a better life than what they might have had in the real world.

I don't care if you were on drugs or not. You can't blame actions on the drugs and let the perpetrator off scott free. No one forced the actions upon these people. (well, in 99.9% of the cases)

[zimv20]

What, they were all in publishing? :D
smartass

they were all astrophysicists

:-)

[skunk]

While I do believe that rehabilitation should be PART of the prison system, the fact still remains that people who commit crimes need to be punished for what they did, not just forced to go to school.
I think that possibly the punishment bit is where you lose your liberty by being banged up in jail. Or am I missing something?

[blackfox]

isn't it generally accepted that he was killed because he was the leader of the northern alliance, and bin laden knew that the inevitable reprisals would (otherwise) have massoud, newly funded and equipped, at the head of that reprisal?
Yes, I was just reminiscing about Massoud and giving somewhat plausible reasoning in the context of this thread...often iniative is backed by several causes...the point remains that the use of violence as a tool has been a hallmark of humanity...I do feel that unless we start treating violence w/ more non-violent means, we will remain in a vicious cycle, despite the obvious problems and inequity that would initially result...guess I am a pacifist. I have been subject to violent crime, but no matter how vigorously punished my offender(s) were, It does nothing to erase the crimes(s)...I have no interest in vindictiveness...

[wwworry]

So criminals should now be sent to school, at the taxpayer's cost? Sounds good to me. Where do I sign up. I paid a heck of a lot for my schooling, and to think, all I had to do was get sent to prison and it could have been free.

While I do believe that rehabilitation should be PART of the prison system, the fact still remains that people who commit crimes need to be punished for what they did, not just forced to go to school.

And, the reason I am not arguing against/for capitol punishment, is that I am against it (and I haven't seen any arguments for it yet). Not because there could be a mistake, not because it is cruel, not because it is wrong/immoral... I am against it because I think someone who has committed such a crime should have to rot in prison for the rest of their life. Not a prison with cable lots of fresh air and sun, a prison where you are punished for your deeds. I am not for giving these criminals a better life than what they might have had in the real world.

I don't care if you were on drugs or not. You can't blame actions on the drugs and let the perpetrator off scott free. No one forced the actions upon these people. (well, in 99.9% of the cases)

You should read what I said (even though my typing is terrible today).
"THe prison society advocates education and treatment for prisoners."
not "instead of prison". Education for people in prisons. Because all the studies show that people that take classes in prison are less likely to commit crimes when they get out. That saves you money! There are, in a few cases, parenting classes so that the prisoner can teach his children to stay OUT of jail. etc.

Plus you talk like all the people in prisons are murderers. It's not true. There are far too many people in prison for low level drug offences. But this may be getting mixed up in a previous conversation about capital offences. I was not talking about that.

[Frohickey]

And others can afford a good defense attorney! :eek:

(Or team of defense attorneys.)

The backbone of our jury-based criminal justice system is the jury.

[Frohickey]

I think that possibly the punishment bit is where you lose your liberty by being banged up in jail. Or am I missing something?

3 hots and a cot. Exercise yard with full equipment. Library book delivery. Sometimes cable tv. Yeah, sure sounds like punishment to me.

Punishment should be making small rocks out of big rocks. There are lots of big rocks around. Lets start with the Colorado Rockies and Sierra Nevadas. :eek: :D

[Frohickey]

Yes, I was just reminiscing about Massoud and giving somewhat plausible reasoning in the context of this thread...often iniative is backed by several causes...the point remains that the use of violence as a tool has been a hallmark of humanity...I do feel that unless we start treating violence w/ more non-violent means, we will remain in a vicious cycle, despite the obvious problems and inequity that would initially result...guess I am a pacifist. I have been subject to violent crime, but no matter how vigorously punished my offender(s) were, It does nothing to erase the crimes(s)...I have no interest in vindictiveness...

Where do you live? Wanna tell me. Oh, and go to the bank and withdraw $300 first. ;) :p :eek:

[pseudobrit]

3 hots and a cot. Exercise yard with full equipment. Library book delivery. Sometimes cable tv. Yeah, sure sounds like punishment to me.

Ass rape. Fun times indeed.

[IJ Reilly]

3 hots and a cot. Exercise yard with full equipment. Library book delivery. Sometimes cable tv. Yeah, sure sounds like punishment to me.

Don't forget to write.

[Steven1621]

Remember prior to the Sept 11 attacks, the Afghan resistance fighter Masood was killed under the orders of Osama bin laden.

Now, with prior to the recent attacks on US forces, an Iraqi cleric al-Khoei was killed, maybe under the order of al-Sadr.

Seems that there is no stigma to ordering the killing of the competiting ideology.

I think it was a Peter Franklin, Ben Franklin's son that was arrested for aiding the British crown during the American Revolution, but he wasn't killed on the spot, in fact, after the war, he was released, and even had a chance to reconcile with his father.

one could say that this isn't so much about religion as it is simply about power and politics...

[blackfox]

Where do you live? Wanna tell me. Oh, and go to the bank and withdraw $300 first. ;) :p :eek:
There is a difference between forgiveness and idiocy/naivete...

[idkew]

3 hots and a cot. Exercise yard with full equipment. Library book delivery. Sometimes cable tv. Yeah, sure sounds like punishment to me.

If you build it, they will come.

[mactastic]

OJ was an exception. You should easily see that.

AEIOU are vowels. Sometimes Y is a vowel. That doesn't mean it is always a vowel.

Now what was your argument again?

Do you deny that money can skew justice?

[idkew]

Do you deny that money can skew justice?

in fact, i unfortunately accept it. well, not accept. more like live with the fact. i wish it weren't true, but if you can afford the bog guns, you will be using them, even if your foe is being represented by a rock. but, there is no reason that the rock can not take down goliath.

[amnesiac1984]

there is no reason that the rock can not take down goliath.

i guess the chances of that happening vary widely with each individual case, and on the evidence. But if the rock were to slay Goliath he/she would soon be snapped up by another Goliath and offered a big pay-rise, and become the enemy. The moral of the story? Good rocks are hard to find.

[Frohickey]

i guess the chances of that happening vary widely with each individual case, and on the evidence. But if the rock were to slay Goliath he/she would soon be snapped up by another Goliath and offered a big pay-rise, and become the enemy. The moral of the story? Good rocks are hard to find.

You forgot, a guest appearance with Oprah. :D

[Frohickey]

Since some have posted their articles saying that the Death penalty doesn't have a deterrence effect, here are a few that say otherwise.

ARTICLES ON DEATH PENALTY DETERRENCE (http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm)

Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul H. Rubin, & Joanna M. Shepherd
Department of Economics, Emory University
Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Postmoratorium Panel Data
American Law & Economics Review, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 344-376 (Fall 2003)
http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DezRubShepDeterFinal.pdf

Abstract:* Evidence on the deterrent effect of capital punishment is important for many states that are currently reconsidering their position on the issue.* We examine the deterrent hypothesis using county-level, post-moratorium panel data and a system of simultaneous equations.* The procedure we employ overcomes common aggregation problems, eliminates the bias arising* from unobserved heterogeneity, and provides evidence relevant for current conditions.* Our results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect; each execution results, on average, in 18 fewer murders—with a margin of error of plus or minus 10.* Tests show that results are not driven by tougher sentencing laws, and are also robust to many alternative specifications.

Hmm... average of 18 murders are deterred for each death row inmate put to death... plus or minus 10. So, thats a minimum of 8 innocents saved, to a maximum of 28 innocents saved.