It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How come inmates with life sentences are not killed?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2007 @ 03:39 AM
link   
"Be careful when hunting monsters that you do not become a monster."

I am pretty much split on the death penalty, strange for a cop I know, but I have several reasons..

Not because of the Bible, as the literal definition is "Thou shall not commit murder." The Bible makes allowances for a death penalty in "Romans."

Not really about the money although that is a big factor...

No, more about our souls. About becoming that which we hate. The Chinese said, "When ones seeks vengeance, one should first dig two graves."

I also think it is better we free 100 guilty people, before we execute one innocent...

Semper



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by earth2
That would make you a killer also. Which would take you to there level.

I bet youve heard that before.


Or maybe you believe in ten commandments, 'thou shalt not kill'.

Personally I think they should be stuffed in a factory and used as forced labor.


True but if they followed that commandment in the first place, they wouldn't be in jail. Old laws killing someone with out just cause out of anger or malice then they get put to death.

Earth2 your thoughts of them working itsn't a bad idea. Murder is serious and never should be taken lightly.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   
To house an inmate for 40 years, it would cost roughly $750,000. To execute one, it would cost much, much, much more. The court proceedings are much more costly, the appeals process, etc., are all huge burdens on the system. All for some mythological vengeance that doesn't change a damn thing. There are states that have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on the capital punishment system over the last few decades, but have yet to execute a single individual.

It is a joke.

How many lives could have been saved with that money? How many hungry children could have been offered a warm meal? How many teenagers in poverty could have been awarded the ability to go to college?

As a society, we are happier to spend money on executing a murderer than we are saving the victim.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 01:14 PM
link   
To everyone who says that killing is wrong:


What about the people these guys killed in the first place to get there (not all of them), or how about the guards these guys kill, the drugs these guys deal that could kill, is all of this ok to? They should not be punished for killing and drug dealing while inside the prison?


Because of these veterans in jail who are serving life or more they recruit the new guys, then those new guys turn into those veterans. It will never stop, but ok lets just let it happen because killing them would be wrong. But drug dealing, killing innocent guards, intimidating younger inmates who may be on the right path until they HAVE to get associated with a race/gang-thats all ok and should not be punishable by death.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Rabuck went into prison that November a full-blown addict. And he stayed that way. He never went through withdrawal inside, Stealey says. He was able to use heroin at least every few days to stave it off.

“He used to call me on the phone,” Stealey remembers. “‘Ma, you can’t get away from it in here. You go to the bathroom—it’s there. You go to the shower—it’s there. It’s inescapable.’”

On Nov. 19, 2005, Rabuck, an athletic, handsome 29-year old, died of a heroin overdose. He was found on a shower floor in the Maryland House of Correction in Jessup.

www.citypaper.com...


Wisconsin inmates who served time at the privately operated prison repeatedly told monitors from their home state that drugs were widely available there. Former prison employees told The Advertiser that the Oklahoma prison staff seemed unable or unwilling to cope with the drug problem.

the.honoluluadvertiser.com...


Inmates and former staff members at an Oklahoma prison where some female prisoners from Hawai'i are housed say illegal drugs are abundant there.

the.honoluluadvertiser.com...


“But the frustration is loud and clear, they say the gangs are now running the prisons and using intimidation and stand over tactics to get what they want.”

www.scoop.co.nz...


The list just goes on, if I wanted I could find several more articles like these probably 1 for every state.

[edit on 5/28/2007 by racerzeke]



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by racerzeke
What about the people these guys killed in the first place to get there (not all of them),


They are punished by being imprisoned, apart form the point that killing makes you as
bad or worse than them, killing them only shortens there punishment.




or how about the guards these guys kill,


I really doubt very many of them actually kill guards. maybe one every few years,
but I doubt it's very many.

Anyways, the guards know there is a risk of being hurt or killed in there profession, just as police do.




the drugs these guys deal that could kill, is all of this ok to? They should not be punished for killing and drug dealing while inside the prison?


Selling drugs should'nt be a crime in the first place, so for me that point is moot.

I really doubt that very many actually kill in prison, and am relatively sure 99.99% don't
deal drugs in prison.




Because of these veterans in jail who are serving life or more they recruit the new guys, then those new guys turn into those veterans. It will never stop, but ok lets just let it happen because killing them would be wrong. But drug dealing, killing innocent guards, intimidating younger inmates who may be on the right path until they HAVE to get associated with a race/gang-thats all ok and should not be punishable by death.


While there are definitely gangs in some of the larger, more crowded prisons,
gangs are not prevalent in all prisons, and apart from that I seriously doubt that they
create a new generation of killers.

You can't teach someone to kill if they don't want to.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Ok, I respect your opinions on those, but should we be let prisons become over crowded? and whats the solution for this?



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by racerzeke
Ok, I respect your opinions on those, but should we be let prisons become over crowded? and whats the solution for this?


The solution is to stop putting people in prison for 5 years for having some pot on them,
or more specifically at least decriminalize drugs.

Apart from that we need to focus more on rehabilitation, rather than just having them
sit there doing nothing, which only furthers the negativity which makes them more
likely to become multiple offenders.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   
But someone going to prison for a petty crime has no incentive to act out to get a long sentence, where as a lifer has nothing to lose, so he would not be afraid to act out.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   
If some one has been convicted of a crime and the maximum sentence for that crime is death, and that is the sentence handed down, why do we allow them to go to court to over turn that sentence.

We have elected Government with a mandate for the death sentence and a duly elected or appointed judge has heard the court, and the jury has delivered a guilty verdict and the sentence is death. That should be accepted.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 03:34 PM
link   
And in a world of perfect people, it would be.

However, our system is one made by people and enforced by people, thereby making it imperfect and subject to mistakes...

Those mistakes are better caught prior to the death penalty being carried out would you not say?

At least for any wrongly convicted person..

Semper



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by chissler
How many lives could have been saved with that money?


But that money is possibly taking very dangerous people off this earth, and saving more innocent lives.

What about (just for an example) the money sports players get. Like baseball players, or football players. Roger Clemens. He is getting what? 20 something million dollars for playing baseball, and he already has millions and millions of dollars. Why could that money go to the poor and homeless?

With the amount of money those people get for playing 3 hours of baseball they could feed an entire town. So why would you want to take away money that is helping keep innocent people safer when there is tons of money being given to people who already have more money than most of us will ever see? There is far better places to take money away from then the money being used to execute criminals.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 03:57 PM
link   
I do agree that sports players do get too much money, but thats the owners money and he can do whatever he wants with it. If you cut bill gates in half he could probably feed the entire world for a day.


But-keeping the lifers alive wastes money and oh wow some needle costs 500 grand, well I can go in my backyard and find 20 black widows, wow a free death penalty.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Yes, I understand it is the owners money. But it was said that the money that is used to execute criminals could be used to help the poor. I was saying that there is better places to take money from.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   
As a society, our statement and values say that "because you have taken that which is precious-life-you must pay for that life with something equally precious-another life. Since you have no right to anyones life but your own, you can only pay with your own life".

I work as a nurse in a prison. There are all types and all walks of life behind bars. Doctors, ghetto druggies, bag boys, PhD's. Some people learn their lesson and still have 20 years left of their sentence to serve. Some started out with a one year sentence and couldn't behave themselves long enough to keep from getting 10 more years added to it. We have plenty of rehabilitation programs in our prison and some avail themselves of the programs, working towards worthwhile goals and others just use the programs as an excuse to get out of their cells and see their prison buddies for an hour or so.

My observation has been that murderers are usually law-abiding and otherwise decent human beings who had a one time fit of rage and killed another person. (Cheating spouse, occasional drunk drivers, etc.) These people could probably be reintegrated into society with enough anger management classes and AA programs. (Not all but most) Child molesters have a very high recidivism rate and an almost zero rehabilitation rate. The national average is 67 children molested per offender before the maggot gets thrown in jail. It doesn't matter how long they spend behind bars, they will never change. They are a true menace to society. Do you really want them outside the fence working on your roads where they have a chance to escape? 67 children had their innocence stolen and their lives permanently scarred before the molester was caught the first time. How many more before he gets caught after escaping?

There is the aspect of slave labor going on in prisons right now. I wonder if that isn't why we HAVE so many people in prison-for the products of their labor? With passage of the Reagan-Udall bill last month and its wording to deprive everyday citizens of their access to vitamins, I wonder how many of us will be caught with illegal vitamin C and sentenced to a prison term where we can work off our debt to society?

There are some people who can use recreational drugs responsibly and some who can not. Just like alcohol. There are certain behaviors that are not conducive to an orderly society and drug use (heroin, etc.) is but one of them which is why it's illegal. Do you want your dentist, surgeon, pilot, lawyer, etc. to just have one drink or one joint before dealing with your little problem (like performing your root canal, arguing in court for custody of your kids, etc.)?

I am in favor of the death penalty and it should not cost anywhere near the amount it does. One wants to be certain the guilty party is the one executed but if there was any doubt at all then they shouldn't have been sentenced in the first place. If there's no doubt as to their guilt, why wait?



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I'll try to get facts and figures on this topic later this week. Right now we are pretty busy.
By the by I'm a Correctional Officer NOT a guard. To be referred to as a guard is considered an insult that frankly I don't appreciate.


[edit on 28-5-2007 by gallopinghordes]

[edit on 28-5-2007 by gallopinghordes]



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   
GH,

Let me be the first to apologize for I may have offended in that manner..

I had no idea..

Now I will not make that mistake again..

Semper



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 08:57 PM
link   
I also apologize, but if you dont mind me asking why is it such a offense? Just so I know why to not make the mistake later on.
Sorry.


So why does it cost so much to have someone executed? it isnt the injection itself is it? just the court costs? Doesnt it cost the same to get the death penalty and life sentence?

Please explain.



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by racerzeke


So why does it cost so much to have someone executed? it isnt the injection itself is it? just the court costs? Doesnt it cost the same to get the death penalty and life sentence?

Please explain.


It's the appeals process. The money is spent on court, trials, judges, attorneys, etc.

I think the remark about the slave-labor that prisons provide is accurate. That is one incentive for keeping many people behind bars.

If we stopped legislating morality and imposing the government in people's private lives (what a consenting adult does in the privacy of his or her own home is nobody else's business), and quit imprisoning people such as non-violent minor drug offenders and prostitutes, the prisons would not be so full. It makes more sense to tax drugs and prostitution and regulate them than to make them illegal.

According to the DOJ, over a quarter million prisoners in 2003 were there on drug charges. That is the second largest group of prisoners, about half the size of the violent crimes population.




"In 1995, 23% of state prisoners were incarcerated for drug offenses in contrast to 9% of drug offenders in state prisons in 1986. In fact, the proportion of drug offenders in the state prison population nearly tripled by 1990, when it reached 21%, and has remained at close to that level since then. The proportion of federal prisoners held for drug violations doubled during the past 10 years. In 1985, 34% of federal prisoners were incarcerated for drug violations. By 1995, the proportion had risen to 60%."

Source: Craig Haney, Ph.D., and Philip Zimbardo, Ph.D., "The Past and Future of U.S. Prison Policy: Twenty-five Years After the Stanford Prison Experiment," American Psychologist, Vol. 53, No. 7 (July 1998), p. 715.


I don't see the difference between legal alcohol and legalizing "soft" drugs. Alcohol is far more damaging and dangerous than cannabis. Responsible people don't go to work high or drunk. Irresponsible people will go drunk or high even if it's illegal, if that's what they are into.

It makes no sense to keep people caught for possessing cannabis (especially for medical reasons) in jail when they keep letting out the murderers, rapists and child molesters early because there isn't enough room for them.




According to ONDCP, federal spending to incarcerate drug offenders totals nearly $3 Billion a year -- $2.525 Billion by the Bureau of Prisons, and $429.4 Million by Federal Prisoner Detention.

Source: Office of National Drug Control Policy, "National Drug Control Strategy: FY 2003 Budget Summary" (Washington, DC: Office of the President, February 2002), Table 3, pp. 7-9.


Think of the money we'd save on prisoners, and think of the tax revenue that could be created!



posted on May, 28 2007 @ 11:06 PM
link   
OK guys sorry I was so short. I'm coming off a 16 hour shift and we've been on lock down due to a collapsed sewer line and needing to evacuate a unit. We don't like being called guards because guards watch over buildings and stuff. We on the other hand take care of people with all their myriad needs. My initial training was 6 weeks with over 48 hours of refresher training yearly. To even be considered for a job you must have college and experience supervising people. As one of my co-workers said one is noun Correctional Officer and one is a verb as in to guard. Yes, we guard public safety but we manage inmate lives. We've fought long and hard to gain some semblance of respect for what we do from the public we protect so it really boils down to an issue of respect which most don't understand because they haven't been treated as a non-entity by the public solely because of where they work.

As a note we have officers with Masters Degree and several Phds we aren't uneducated knuckle dagger's. Check out the Correctional Peace Officer's Foundation website. I believe it is CPOF.org you might find it interesting. Again sorry for snapping at you all not an excuse but a reason I'm just tired it's been rough.




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join