Does Stanley Tookie Williams deserve clemency??

Originally posted by nativeokie
I have a question. MSNBC is now running ads that Rita Cosby

I can't stand that woman..nothing to do with your comment but i needed to say it.

will not only be there to report she is a witness to the execution. Is that normal? Are reporters invited to view the execution?

Typical practice from what i understand.

Just wondering as she will surely describe it in graphic detail what occurs.

No graphic detail to describe from what i understand he'll be, more or less, put to sleep. the witnesses are there to ensure there's no "cruel and unusual" punishment i think.

It's a shame it's death by lethal injection. They should import "Old Sparky" to Cali to get the job done. ........... and while they're at it, have Mike Farrell sit on Tookie's lap wearing a wet sponge on his head.

I wouldn't want to be crass or coarse about anyone's death.

The Spanish Inquisition (which was run by the Spanish Crown, and had nothing to do with the Catholic Church, actually) used to paint up their victims like clowns, so that no one would have sympathy for them. That's pretty horrid, IMO. Especially for the kids.


If I were being executed, I'd pick hanging. The "long drop" done correctly, is instantaneous and practically painless, since the C2 vertebra severs the spinal cord and eliminates the sensation of pain. Far more humane than electrocution; far less wasteful as well.


I know that the current PC attitude is to view our ancestors as rubes and barbarians. I believe that they understood basic human drives and needs far better than we. They would let the condemned address the public, and say whatever he wanted. Cuss the King, or beg for forgiveness, or protest that he really didn't do it. That was a lot freer speech than Tookie will be allowed.

Here's an excellent site: Tyburn Tree concerning the historical practice of hanging in Medieval to Renaissance England. Check out the "dying speeches." Even the criminals had style back then.

We can call them barbarians. Yet it must be admitted that hanging fulfilled a societal need, and it did so world-wide until quite recently.

Only nowadays, we are supposed to pretend that society doesn't really have those same needs that had existed for thousands of years.

Has human nature changed so much in the last 100 years, that we no longer have the same psychological needs that our great-grandparents did?

How are we changed? Less violent? Less greedy? More spiritual? More creative or tolerant or humane? really?

If you say yes without hesitation, then I accuse you of ignorance regarding your forbears.

Punishment of criminals re-affirms the propriety of law and order. When criminals are punished, we affirm the rightness of those who obey the laws. There is something deeply atavistic about the public rebuke of criminals. You may deny it, but it explains the fascination with "cops" and prison movies on HBO. As well as the Tookie Williams execution.

It is not enough to know that police are patrolling. you only take them seriously when you see them writing tickets to other drivers before you take the law seriously. In the same way, open and honest execution for major crimes is more than a deterrent, it reaffirms the rest of society. By being embarrased about our punishments, Americans have stopped affirming law and order.

Take a look at Singapore. While I don't choose to live there, and don't agree with some of their laws, it is also true that they have the lowest crime rate of any developed nation, and the cleanest state as well--a quality that matters greatly to them.

How do they achieve this? In part, through public punishments: from civil service work crews to pick up garbage, to public canings, right up to public hanging.

Now, we in America will never choose to live that way. But one of the effective ways to lower the crime rate is to make punishment a credible threat.

Julianni acheived a similar feat in New York City. Of course, he was able to do it without using spectacular punishments. Instead, he put beat cops on foot patrol, and had them enforce the littering and graffiti laws. It turns out that pimps and drug dealers don't LIKE clean neighborhoods, with lots of police walking around.

So, it's not that capital punishment is the ONLY way to return to a civil society. But it's certainly an effective start.

.

Bravo on that last post! Some call it bloodlust...in reality it's justice. Our society needs to see particularly vicious killers denied what they denied to their victims.

I've been listening to the local Liberal talk station, and the best argument they got is, "Well, he was convicted by an all white jury!".

Yeah....and...

Either you believe we're all equal and deserve equal standing or you don't! If you truely believe in equality, then the fact he was convicted by an all white jury should be beside the point. Afterall, what would his excuse be if he were convicted by an all black jury?? (Or asian jury which could happen out here!)

By the way, I've done some checking...of the twelve people executed in California since the reinstatment of the death penalty....only ONE other person was black. ( A fellow named Abbot.)

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
And I'm not going to give you the ammo. If I'm wrong and you are right, convince me. Or better yet, convince the lurkers who are making up their own minds by reading our exchange.

Would my views be invalidated by my age or political affiliation?

39. non-republican.

Actually I was not asking your age for any other reason than curiosity, certainly not to attack you, since sometimes when one reads what someone thinks you feel like you can get a read on that person, Unfortuntely my read on your age and political leanings were wrong.
To be true to my word, I'm 49 and have a birthday this month, the big 5, 0. What I want to do on that day is just stay in bed and drink wine but no one here will allow me the luxury of well earned misery.

It is now 3:11am, I am assuming at this moment they are killing Stanley Tookie Williams. I have been hoping for Governor Scharzaneggar to do the right thing but I see he has not. For those who rejoice in Stanley Tookie William's death, I feel disgust and a sense of pity for them at the same time. .

Of course the sad thing is unless one takes the time to look up anything about this case the mainstream media has been over backwards not to tell all the reasons this man could be innocent. They only provided the details they wanted to show and hardly any details that might lead one to wonder about his innocence. I hope people who have read here and all over the internet the details consider this and start looking more and more to alternative media and realize that the media leaves out some very important facts. Facts that shape our opinion about the world around us.

The lateset word- Dead

Originally posted by plague
why do people not believe in the death penelty????

It's my personal belief that we shouldn't stop another person's
heart from beating. That's God's job. The only time it is justified,
in my eyes, is in self defense. We shouldn't stop the unborn
child's heart from beating. We shouldn't stop the convicts heart
from beating. Leave it to God.

I understand all that you said. Honestly, the disgust at what
these people do pulls at me to support the death penalty. The
thought of my tax money supporting them pulls at me too.
The thought of people like Scott Peterson killing his pregnant
unsuspecting wife whom he also had multiple adulterous
affairs against makes me want to be the one to flip the
switch at times. However, it is my personal conviction that
we should leave the killing to God unless it is absolutely
necessary to do otherwise.


Oh .. and for those who called for his clemency because he
wrote kids books to keep kids out of gangs ... his books sold
exactly 330 copies. Just some FYI -

www.newsmax.com...

[edit on 12/13/2005 by FlyersFan]

If you read up on the federal and state prison systems, you'll see that "locking them away forever" doesn't really happen.

First, there is no "away." There are so many hard core criminals that no institution can promise every single one of them a solitary cell. In many states, lawyers have successfully sued that solitary, except for misbehavior, is inhumane.

The "lifers" have nothing to lose. Even in most death-penalty states, an inmate generally cannot be executed for murders they commit once they are in prison.

Second, hard-core inmates continue to abuse people. They abuse lesser criminals they are housed with. A little HBO or "American Justice" with Bill Curtisse will show you all of the rapes, the prison-yard killings, the drug smuggling and gang activity.

Hard-core criminals abuse the public. Each one costs between 50 and 100k per year. More tellingly, they control gang activity on the outside; they can order hits, pay off henchmen, threaten witnesses, and plan crime from the comfort and security of their cells. Every single major gang is headquartered from a major prison. Crips. Bloods. Sur-13. Mexican Mafia. The People. Disciples. Crimelords. Latin Kings. White Peoples Party. Every one of them is run from a major prison.

Hard-core criminals abuse the guards. Throwing urine and feces at them. Raping and killing them during riots. Threatening their families. Bribing them.

Escape is a whole sepearte problem.

Third, there's the whole issue of "re-classification." Where prisoners are released without serving their whole sentence. Or where the sentence is toned down. Someone else already mentioned Charles Manson, who in 1974 was sentenced to "Life without possibility of parole." He started getting regular parole hearings in the 80's, and then about 5 years ago was moved to a "more comfortable prison." This guy ordered the deaths of 10 people that we know about, and claims to have done or ordered a total of 31 killings. The last footage I saw of him on the news was of him playing ping-pong with one of his guards.

When you hear a death-penalty opponent say "they should be locked away for the rest of their lives," they are glossing over the fact that they are advocating keeping the criminal active as a force of evil for the rest of their lives. And giving them chances to increase human misery for the rest of ALL our lives.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
.
When you hear a death-penalty opponent say "they should be locked away for the rest of their lives," they are glossing over the fact that they are advocating keeping the criminal active as a force of evil for the rest of their lives. And giving them chances to increase human misery for the rest of ALL our lives.

Let me tell you who is doing the glossing over and that is the politicians who sell you people a bill of goods called the death penalty. They tell you their for it and you guys go running to vote for them. They forget to mention a few facts, very few murderers receive the death penalty, a few get life and the rest walk and you all are pacified, with all of your self righteous undignified gluttony for someones death.

I believe if you commit a murder and it is not self defense then yes you should receive life with no parole and no chance of parole, you should only be allowed freedom if you prove your innocence.

I once had a friend whom I met and dated but it was clear we just liked one another as friends, he introduced me later on to my husband who was also a friend of his. Years later while camping out at a nearby lake with his wife and two children (age 6 ane 8) he was forced into the lake at gunpoint by three people, two men and a woman. They apparently had some problem with him and had followed him to the lake. My friend could not swim, he grabbed onto a boat and the man inside was trying to rescue him but he had two teenage girls in the boat (his daughter and her friend) the people on the shore threatened to kill him but he was still trying to help my friend, they then threatened to shoot the girls and the man had to prise my friends hands away from the boat. (the man later had a nervous breakdown)
A crowd had gathered since they heard the screaming and came to help but they were also held at gunpoint and their lives threatened. They shot my friend in the head twice. They shot him in front of his children and wife and all the families who had gathered. These people got 12 years and walked out of prison after 6.

If you really do some reaearch most murderers do not even stay in prison for their full sentences. If the laws were changed to life with no parole for the crime of murder, that would change. Most murderers get out of prison and go to work, maybe where you work and many probably live in your neighborhoods. But you all are pacified feeling all warm and snug in your beds because you live where the death penalty exists.

[edit on 13-12-2005 by goose]

Originally posted by goose
...... with all of your self righteous undignified gluttony for someones death. [edit on 13-12-2005 by goose]

Self righteous? I would say that someone is self-righteous when he or she doesn't believe other peole are entitled to their own opinions.

Gluttony? Because I think that a murderer's own life ought to be forfeit, so that he cannot continue to victimize society? Or am I a glutton because I am as hungry for my particular vision of justice as you are for your own?

As far as "undignified" goes,

-The quality or state of being unworthy of esteem or respect

-unrefined, indecorous, unseemly, inappropriate, foolish, unladylike, ungentlemanly, unbecoming, petty.



Just because you posted after me does not mean you addressed anything in my comments.

Did you see the part where I said that there are other problems besides parole? I pointed out how criminals, ESPECIALLY lifers, continue to commit crimes while behind bars.

Did you read that part???

I conclude, based on the fact that you didn't argue with any of it (or even address it), that you agree with the substance of my remarks.

.

as i stated before im for the death penalty in certain situations and not in others.

i just have one question regarding those that are firmly against it..and i dont mean this in a sarcastic way at all.

why should i have to pay from some heinous criminal to be put away for -life? especially under the conditions they get to leave in. yes of course..i wouldnt want to live the way it is in there...but think about it. they can have Tv's, create paintings, read books, get viagra (remember the case in new york of sex offenders getting to use federal insurance to get viagra while they were in prison), have sex, get married, get an education, get nominiated for prizes, and the list goes on. i think more people would side for the life in prison over the death penalty if the criminals didnt have the right to participate in these things.

If some nasty petafile rapes and kills some young child and chops them up into little pieces and eats them i sure as heck dont want to pay for him to be in prison for the rest of his life when he gets gets free room and board, tv, music, etc.... if he were to go to prison and literally be kept in a cell all damn day then life in prision would seem alot harsher of a punishment than the death penalty. i know i would rather die that be locked in a room for 50 years with nothing to do but eat and stare at a wall.

but to me and to most of the people that are for the death penalty when heinous crimes are commited it is harder for them to choose the life in prison sentence because frankly they still get to live a good life in some respects with alot of the freedoms that we have and so to the victims families it seems like they arent getting punished at all.

so i think that if the people that are against the death penalty for all cases, want there to be a stronger case opting for life in prison we need to start talking about reforming the prison system because it is ridiculous how it is set up now.

now im not saying that someone who steals a car should be in a prison with as strict of conditions. im talking about murders, psycopaths, etc...
i mean look at tookie, he killed people, yet he got to watch tv, write books, get nominated for prizes, talk to celebrities, hear music. people starving in third world countries are treated with less luxuries than he was.


Kind Regards,
Digitalgrl

Originally posted by DigitalGrl
why should i have to pay from some heinous criminal to be put away for -life?

look at tookie, he killed people, yet he got to watch tv, write books, get nominated for prizes, talk to celebrities, hear music. people starving in third world countries are treated with less luxuries than he was.

Kind Regards,
Digitalgrl

You shouldn't have to pay for anything that you dont want too DigitalGrl,
just as i wouldn't want to pay for a process that takes the life of a human being, nobody as the right to do such things, niether you nor I.

I agree that we need to to change the process of privelegies, ppl who commit evil and horrible crimes, should be made too pay for these crimes,
they need to workout a way to make these criminals benifit scociety, without benifiting themselves, also we need to ask questions about how scociety can produce monsters like this,

On the question of notariety and awards, the blame lies with the vultures that lend there name too him, just to benifit from his.

We should be wiser in our approach, we have the capability to solve all solutions without putting ourselves to the level of taking a life,
statistics do suggest that they dont get in right all the time,

All the best... ian

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft

Originally posted by goose
...... with all of your self righteous undignified gluttony for someones death. [edit on 13-12-2005 by goose]

Self righteous? I would say that someone is self-righteous when he or she doesn't believe other peole are entitled to their own opinions.

Gluttony? Because I think that a murderer's own life ought to be forfeit, so that he cannot continue to victimize society? Or am I a glutton because I am as hungry for my particular vision of justice as you are for your own?

As far as "undignified" goes,

-The quality or state of being unworthy of esteem or respect

-unrefined, indecorous, unseemly, inappropriate, foolish, unladylike, ungentlemanly, unbecoming, petty.

Self righteous as in, we are good people we have the right to murder a murderer but oh yeah that does not make us one, because we are good people. We just scream for their blood and make sure we elect politicians who will always carry out those executions after all if they don't we vote them out of office. But yeah we good law abiding people and we have the right to kill.

You have the right to your opinion but I also have the right to mine.
You talk about how the people inside kill one another and I am supposed to see this as a good reason for maintaining the current system, sorry it is not a good reason.
You people who would choose to murder a few, oh I am sorry I mean you people who choose to continue the death penalty and say oh but life without parole does not work. Well guess what the death penalty is not working too well either, along with the guilty, innocent people are also being murdered in your name and the best you can say is it is an imperfect system. And you never mention or even think about how many murdereers are walking free after serving only a few years, when if we had life without parole for all, the innocent ones would have time to prove thier innocence and the guilty ones would stay locked up forever instead of out walking amongst you.

What you people who are all for the death penalty keep missing is the big picture and the big picture is as the system stands right now most people convicted of murder get released eventually and get out into society and many kill again. If new laws were made to life without parole ever then that would change.

I have yet to read through this whole thread (which I eventually will), but IMO a large number of loud proponents of capital punishment commonly form and debate their vewpoints based largely (if not solely) on ignorance – dismissing actual particulars of costs, deterrence value and consequences of retaining capital punishment as a means of combating rampant crime.

I'll return with a more contributive post once I've come home from work and read all the posts in this thread. In short though, and as can probably be assumed by my post - I'm against this particular form of punishment.


[edit on 14-12-2005 by Durden]

Well, I've read through this thread only to find there is little new to be found under the sun. I've picked a number of quotes that I've addressed and I can't help but finding myself repeating - even quoting - what I've written quite a few times before on this very website. Oh well..

Originally posted by Boatphone
The families of those he killed would really suffer if his sentance was not carried out, and they have said so.

Surely the feelings of the victims of any crime should be considered. But the manner of punishment can never be based solely on this. Unless we're suddenly going to accept a state that arbitrarily punishes its criminals - completely abandoning the idea of a consistent legal system.

Originally posted by NinjaCodeMonkey
I hope he gets fried, kill and be killed.

The problem with the idea that the manner of punishment should equal the crime for it to be fair, is that it could never be considered acceptable nor be consistently carried out. For we would then have to steal from thieves, rape the rapists, have torturers tortured etc. Such manner of punishment can never be seriously practiced nor accepted in a civilized society.

Originally posted by Toelint
Tex, the only problem with your theory of Life Without The Possibility Of Parole, is that a "Lifer" sentence doesn't really exist.

If the problem we're facing is a failing prison system where dangerous individuals are released - when they really shouldn't be - then wouldn't it be more sensible to make sure this doesn't happen, rather than kill the inmates?

Originally posted by thermopolis
Christ could have saved the two thieves he was with but did not.

This comment is rather disturbing. I'm assuming you'd also condone executions through crucifixion?

Originally posted by Toelint
It's interesting how some around the world consider the United States as the premier killer of it's inmates. The fact is, the death penalty thrives in Africa and the Mideast, and also in Asia.

The following countries carried out executions last year (2004): Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Belarus, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Jordan, North Korea, Kuwait, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan, United States of America, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and Yemen. 97 percent of known executions took place in China, Iran, Vietnam and the USA.

Now, If we were to only look at the OECD countries of the world permitting capital punishment; aside from the U.S. there is only Japan, and executions there can only be considered to be infrequent.

The death penalty is NOT about slowing crime. It's not about redeeming a soul. It's not about revenge for the dead. It's about JUSTICE. As long as Williams lives, there's a chance for him to get out, after which he most certianly WILL return to his old ways, but now with a free hand to run his gangs.

Life without the possibility of parole would be just as effective taking care of this problem but far more fitting in a civilized society.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Punishing the guilty is ALWAYS good for society.

Not accepting capital punishment has nothing to do with not punishing convicted criminals. It's about not accepting a government committing abhorrent acts through legalized killings.

Liberalism always focuses on the perpetrators instead of the victims...

(snip)But again, the shrieks of outrage only come when the guilty are about to die. When the innocent were slaughtered, there are never any liberals around to complain.

Abolishing capital punishment has nothing to do with any misplaced sympathy for convicted killers but about the reasoning behind not accepting immoral methods of punishment in a society that considers the act of murder to be abhorrent.

We have high crime because we have low justice. And no retribution.

I'm assuming you're suggesting that a larger number of executions would equal fewer acts criminal homicide? Such notions simply doesn't bare scrutiny and aren't supported by facts; actually (quoting what I've written in a previous thread), the vast preponderance of available evidence does in fact, not support capital punishment to be more effective than imprisonment in deterring murder. In some cases, the death penalty may even be an incitement to criminal violence. There is also evidence pointing to death-penalty states having an increased rate of homicide when executions are carried through. In New York, between 1907 and 1964, 692 individuals were executed. In this 57-year period, one or more executions on a given month resulted in an increase of two homicides being commited the following month (1).

And even if they kill him, they'll try to be humane, and use a lot of dangerous chemicals or put him to sleep. Again, spending thousands on the guilty, while the families of the victims buried their own.

A common misconception among proponents of the death penalty is that it's a cheaper solution than life imprisonment. The truth is that life imprisonment is less costly. The reason for this are the crucial safeguards which are required in death penalty cases so as to make sure we're not executing innocents. Something that has been shown to happen even so. Surely these costs can be cut, but only with the consequence of an even larger number of innocents killed. It would also mean a situation where you would go against your own constitution (2).

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Justice and Mercy are two sides to the same coin. Justice without mercy is villainy. But Mercy without justice is perfidy; since it is a betrayal of the government's duty to defend the victims.

The government absolutely has a duty to defend the victims. Just as it has the responsibility to make sure crime is kept at a minimum while not doing so in an immoral manner. Government also has the duty of a role model which also means not accepting nor practicing the abhorrent act of murder. Agreeing with all of the above also means arguing against a practice that fails as a deterrent - even resulting in a larger number of criminal homicide as well as executed innocents.

People who feel he deserves clemency don't really care about justice, they care about defeating the death penalty.

It could just as easily be argued that people who would like to have this individual executed don't really care about justice, they only care about retaining the death penalty in favor of quenching their blood thirst and need for violent retribution.

So what, does this mean that we should do away with the death penalty, merely because it is imperfectly applied????

What about speeding tickets? if I can find 100 people that were innocent, but who got tickets anyway, are you then prepared to do away with all traffic violation penalties?

Oh, my. This reasoning carries little logic nor does it take the consequences of said punishments into consideration. Who argues that convicted murderers should be set free; completely without punishment in a situation where the death penalty is abolished as a practice? That simply doesn't make any sense. The idea that we should be willing to accept innocents killed to be able to keep a barbaric relic such as capital punishment is simply disturbing.

I agree that it is horrible to see an innocent person lose his life; that's why I'm bothered by the FOUR people tookie seems to have killed.

And this justifies killing an even larger number of innocents?? How does this make any sense?

My point was (and continues to be) this: The fact that we imperfectly apply a law is not sufficient reason to NEVER enforce the law.

On the contrary - practicing a manner of punishment causing a number of executed innocents should never be accepted in a civilized society.

If there are problems with the law's application, with the ADMINISTRATION of justice, then by all means, let's improve those facets of the process.

I agree. Let's make sure dangerous individuals convicted to life without parole are not released into our society. Let's also make sure we abolish all manner of punishment that only repeats the heinous crimes we deem abhorrent.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
The fact that this is even discussed is even more evidence that the society is nearing moral bankruptcy; when right and wrong are indistinguishable in the minds of so many...(snip)

I actually agree with you on this one, TC.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Cicero, in his book On Rhetoric, talked about the question of whether it is worse for some innocents to be punished along with the guilty, or for a few of the guilty to go unpunished.


For my part, I think it is worse for the guilty to go unpunished. This state of affairs only encourages more heinous crime, and allows the guilty to have more chances at perpetrating it.

Considering the consequence of punishing innocents in capital cases, that opinion is truly troubling. How can a civilized society with an ounce of credibility ever proclaim to argue the immorality of murder while it considers state authorized killings of innocents acceptable?

In the 50's and 60's many states began outlawing capital punisment, because the public felt it was not appropriate. But beginning in the 1990's, the states began re-instituting it. Why, because the general feeling has become that there is not enough punishment to keep our society civil and safe..

The important problem here being, that evidence show this particular method of punishment to be ineffective as a deterrent and as means of combatting rampant crime.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
I know that the current PC attitude is to view our ancestors as rubes and barbarians. I believe that they understood basic human drives and needs far better than we....

I love how you argue the death penalty by painting this picture of how well it used to work; referring to medieval England. Tell me, would you also feel torture should be reinstated? Why not witch hunts while we're at it?

Punishment of criminals re-affirms the propriety of law and order. When criminals are punished, we affirm the rightness of those who obey the laws.

Sure. And again, the abolishion of capital punishment is not a discussion about not punishing convicted criminals.

Take a look at Singapore. While I don't choose to live there, and don't agree with some of their laws, it is also true that they have the lowest crime rate of any developed nation, and the cleanest state as well--a quality that matters greatly to them.


How do they achieve this? In part, through public punishments: from civil service work crews to pick up garbage, to public canings, right up to public hanging.


Now, we in America will never choose to live that way. But one of the effective ways to lower the crime rate is to make punishment a credible threat.

It's interesting how you use Singapore, a nation that holds some of the most extreme laws and punishments (many of which are considered cruel and unusual) in the world to argue why capital punishment should be retained. Only to end up saying that you wouldn't support some of their more extreme laws and punishments. Wouldn't it make more sense to compare countries with more similar conditions when reviewing whether the death penalty can be considered effective? Doing so would be a good start and should provide some valuable insight. According to data released by the British Home Office, US murder rate greatly exceeds European non-death penalty nations; being three times as high. (3) And why not compare states within the US? Evidence reveal the following: average of murder rates among death penalty states per 100,000 population in 2003: 5.91. Average of murder rates among non-death penalty states in 2003: 4.10 (4).

Julianni acheived a similar feat in New York City. Of course, he was able to do it without using spectacular punishments. Instead, he put beat cops on foot patrol, and had them enforce the littering and graffiti laws.

Now, this would be closer to something that could actually be considered as well as proven effective - without being immoral or cruel and unusual.

So, it's not that capital punishment is the ONLY way to return to a civil society. But it's certainly an effective start.

The facts simply doesn't support this notion. Capital punishment is very much ineffective.

If you read up on the federal and state prison systems, you'll see that "locking them away forever" doesn't really happen.

And this should be solved by executing the inmates? Amazing.

Second, hard-core inmates continue to abuse people. They abuse lesser criminals they are housed with. A little HBO or "American Justice" with Bill Curtisse will show you all of the rapes, the prison-yard killings, the drug smuggling and gang activity...(snip)

(snip)...Hard-core criminals abuse the guards. Throwing urine and feces at them. Raping and killing them during riots. Threatening their families. Bribing them.

And this is a common problem among prisoners on death row..? I just don't follow you now. The answer to a failing prison system is more executions? It seems to me that what you're actually arguing here is arbitrary killings of "hard-core" criminals. As to what can be shown concerning violent inmates and its correlation with capital punishment, according the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics (1990), prisoners and prison personnel does in fact not suffer a higher criminal assault/homicide rate from prisoners serving life-term sentences in states having abolished capital punishment than they do in death-penalty states. Between the years 1984 and 1989, there were 17 murders of prison staff perpetrated by prisoners in 10 states. 88% of these killings occurred in death-penalty states. Evidently, the actual threat of capital punishment "does not even exert an incremental deterrent effect over the threat of a lesser punishment in the abolitionist state."

Escape is a whole sepearte problem.

Again, let's address and solve the actual problem.

Third, there's the whole issue of "re-classification." Where prisoners are released without serving their whole sentence. Or where the sentence is toned down. Someone else already mentioned Charles Manson, who in 1974 was sentenced to "Life without possibility of parole." He started getting regular parole hearings in the 80's, and then about 5 years ago was moved to a "more comfortable prison." This guy ordered the deaths of 10 people that we know about, and claims to have done or ordered a total of 31 killings. The last footage I saw of him on the news was of him playing ping-pong with one of his guards.

It seems what you really have a problem with here, is that said punishments aren't properly handled. You seem very frustrated with a failing legal system and criminals getting their sentences shortened etc. What has that really got to do with capital punishment? Shouldn't the actual problem be addressed instead of resorting to "lets just kill all 'dem bad people and let God sort it out"?

When you hear a death-penalty opponent say "they should be locked away for the rest of their lives," they are glossing over the fact that they are advocating keeping the criminal active as a force of evil for the rest of their lives. And giving them chances to increase human misery for the rest of ALL our lives.

So let's do something about this problem. Let's make sure life without the possibility of parole means just that (in cases where it should) and make sure these dangerous individuals aren't released in a state where they can do more harm.

I've said this in earlier threads and I'll say it again.

Aside from all that can be shown using statistics, this is essentially a question concerning the moral ethics of a society and its government as well as the negative implications of using a punishment that's (quoting Howard Simon, Executive Director of the ACLU of Florida) inconsistent with the fundamental values of the democratic system; something that greatly lessens the value of human life in a society and legitimizes the act of murder. And while we absolutly shall make sure we do all that can possibly be done to properly help and take care of the victims of heinous crimes as well as properly punish the perpetuators, this shouldn't include repeating the very offence committed in the first place.

---------------
1. "Deterrence of Brutalizaition," by Bowers and Pierce in Crime & Delinquency
2. Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280
3. New York Times, May 11, 2002
4. FBI Uniform Crime Statistics for 2003

Edit: sp


[edit on 20-12-2005 by Durden]