Death Penalty Version 2.

I think it's about time we had a revamping of the death penalty in this country.

For one, it takes too damn long. Why should my (or your) tax dollars go to "taking care of" someone who has lumped themselves in with the scum of the earth? We spend countless thousands of dollars yearly so that inhuman monsters can be fed, cleaned, clothed and doctored while even more hardworking and decent American citizens struggle every single day of their life just to make sure their children have food in their mouths. WHY? Wouldn't those tax dollars better suited helping those that NEED help and not those who don't deserve the help they are given? I say, if you are convicted of an offense punishable by death, you should get 1 appeal hearing that should take place very soon after your initial sentencing. If you fail to establish reasonable doubt at your appeal, execution should take place within a month. Not only does this save us tax payers a bit of money in the long run, but it may actually act as a deterrent to new crimes.

Two, it is unpractical. Why do we go out of our way to make sure that those that are less than human get a "humane" death? I say, do away with lethal injection. Do away with the electric chair and the gas chamber and all that other crap. Go back to the rope. A 10 foot length of rope can be purchased for around 2 dollars in most areas and I'm sure the prison system would get them for next to nothing if buying them in bulk. And, you have no secondary costs. Knot rope, place on neck, remove footing, DONE. It's very cheap and effective and gives those bastards (in some cases) a few moments to think about why they are hanging there.

Another thing that needs to be heavily looked at is what exactly constitutes a "capital" crime punishable by death. The following are some crimes I feel should be death worthy.

Murder/Attempted Murder for ANY motive. (Murder = killing another ON PURPOSE - not including self/family defense)

Conspiring to Have Someone Murdered.

Reckless Homicide (IE: Drunk driving fatalities or any other fatality that could have been EASILY avoided)

Rape. This ranks easily with murder, even if you don't kill someone physically, you can easily kill them emotionally which I feel is even worse. Yes, drugging someone and raping them while they are passed out should fall into the "punishable by death" category.

Child Molestation. In this instance, death should be preceded by at least a month's worth of torture at the hands of the victim's family if the family so chooses.

Severe Cases of Child Abuse. (IE: kids locked in cages, not fed, beaten relentlessly).

Severe Cases of Spousal Abuse. (see IE: to SCoCA above)

Maliciously Endangering the Lives of Others. (IE: Knowing you have HIV and trying to infect others with it out of malice)

I know some of you are of the "human rights" persuasion when it comes to capital punishment. However, I am of the opinion that once ANYONE takes the rights of another human away from them (I'm looking at you Federal Government Officials), their rights immediately become null and void. When these monsters that commit these crimes do so, they not only take away the rights of their victim, but they take the rights of those that were close to the victim as well. If someone kills your daughter, have they just hurt your daughter? Did they not also take away your right to watch her grow? Your right to have her in your life?

It saddens me how many people in this country fight for the criminal's "rights" in such cases. The only rights that a criminal that has committed a capital offense (such as those listed) SHOULD have are those that he/she allowed their victim to have. The whole philosophy of "two wrongs don't make a right" certainly has it's place in civilized society, however, that place in not to protect someone who was callous and brazen enough to step all over the rights of another INNOCENT human being.

When it comes to the human garbage that take it upon themselves to ruin another human's life FOREVER, the philosophy of "an eye for an eye" holds a much stronger position than "two wrongs don't make a right". Sure, killing the piece of trash doesn't undo their wrongs, but it DOES prevent them from doing those wrongs again while at the same time punishing them for their previous wrongs.

I am of the opinion that these "human rights" types in this country would be much better off to focus on the innocents of this country that have their rights fringed upon than those who have already made their own choice that they can and will do as they please regardless of who they hurt in the process.

Whenever you intentionally take away the right to "Life, Liberty and The Pursuit of Happiness" of another human being, you are automatically relinquishing your own right to those same things.



Jasn

i agree especially with the abuse and molestation part

Originally posted by coryblood
i agree especially with the abuse and molestation part

Malicious abuse and molestation are, in my opinion, worse than murder in some instances. What can be sicker than taking away the rights to happiness of an innocent and defenseless child?

What is truly sad is, there are actually some of these ACLU types out there that think it is UNJUST for the molesters to even have to REGISTER with the sex offender database. I think it would be far easier to spot the molesters and rapists if we through them back into society sans genitals.


Jasn

I understand what you are saying, but I think that it's important to not rush the issue of killing someone, regardless of how brutal they may be. We need to verify through possible re-trials that this person is truly guilty of the crime. Let the courts sort it out. If your that concerned about your tax dollars than I would make a fuss over gas or income before you worried about the couple of bucks a year the correctionals system takes. I would say that any life, regardless of how evil, is worths a few dollars.

no one has the right to take anyones life..

if anyone decides to disobey this i'm sure they will get something in their return, naturally

Originally posted by kleverone
I would say that any life, regardless of how evil, is worths a few dollars.

I understand what you are saying. That's why I feel that there should be NO REASONABLE DOUBT whatsoever.

If there is, then of course they have a right to show that they were wrongfully imprisoned. Take for example the case of the WM3. WM3.ORG
I certainly feel these guys have established reasonable doubt since the very beginning and should NOT be executed under any circumstances unless that reasonable doubt can be cleared.

However, someone who is guilty 100% hands down. Hang em' high.

And an evil life that is indeed evil, isn't worth the torn off corner of a dollar.

And that's coming from someone that has Otis. B. Driftwood as his avatar...hahahaha. "I am the devil, and I'm here to do the devil's work"



Jasn

EDIT: Just as not kleverone, I know what you are saying about rushing to judgement on someone's life. However, someone sitting on death row for 40 years (or even 5) is a bit ridiculous. A convicted murder, in our current system of "punishment" can prolong their lives by simply killing another inmate and having to go to trial again. That is, in the VERY LEAST, flawed.

[edit on 23-8-2007 by SimiusDei]

Originally posted by The Phantom
no one has the right to take anyones life..

if anyone decides to disobey this i'm sure they will get something in their return, naturally

I agree with the first statement in regards to standard living. However, if you have made the decision that you have the right to kill another INNOCENT person, your life should be deemed worthless at that point.

Unfortunately, there are many people that have profited and lived happy lives off of the suffering of others only to die in their bed with a smile on their face of old age. That natural (karmic?) punishment doesn't always seem to catch the ones that it should.

Jasn

Originally posted by SimiusDei
.

And that's coming from someone that has Otis. B. Driftwood as his avatar...hahahaha. "I am the devil, and I'm here to do the devil's work"

Well, you got me there! There's not much I can say to that

Originally posted by kleverone

Well, you got me there! There's not much I can say to that

HAHAHAH, he was indeed a BAMF. However, I must admit to getting a certain pleasure out of the Unholy Two and Sheriff Wydell making him their bitch for a bit.


Jasn

I agree with you. I've said pretty much the same thing for years.

Cases like this are all too common, though this one is extreme.

www.cnn.com...

However, it is the cases like these that will keep things headed in the same direction they are going in now.

www.innocenceproject.org...

The main problem in America today is not so much the criminal justice system, although it is being strained to the breaking point. The problem is with socialization that leads so many to believe that criminal behavior is okay and that prison time is just a common rite of passage, the way high school graduation and college and service to one's nation used to be considered rites of passage.


[edit on 2007/8/24 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by SimiusDei
The whole philosophy of "two wrongs don't make a right" certainly has it's place in civilized society, however, that place in not to protect someone who was callous and brazen enough to step all over the rights of another INNOCENT human being.

"Two wrongs don't make a right" --- The point is to curb the vengeance factor, to stop people from re-/acting based solely on their knee-jerk reactions. It is morally incorrect to steal from a thief -- what are you teaching them? (other than to hide their goods in a better place...)


"The law prohibits you [citizen] from taking anyone else's life. But we [the law] are allowed... So don't do it..."

If the government/law is to a parent who beats their children to stop them from beating other children... what are they teaching the child? ...wait until you're older and bigger and stronger and then it's magically okay??

....but if it's wrong to hit other people... but the law hit me... but it's wrong...

It becomes "Do as I say, not as I do" -- and that 'philosophy' is not only immoral, but completely hypocritical. (Frankly, it should not be allowed in a civilization.)

reply to post by Diseria


Vengeance and Justice are two different things. Personally, I'm all for a bit of vengeance when it's called for.

The justice system of this country killing a murderer/rapist/molester for what they did and for taking away the rights and life of their victims, that's justice.

The family of the victim taking the life of the murderer/rapist/molester for what they did, that's vengeance.


IF the government would enforce a bit of JUSTICE instead of letting these ************* sit in jail and live their life to a ripe old age. Perhaps that would curb a bit of the vengeance factor.

Perhaps.


Jasn

Originally posted by SimiusDei
Vengeance and Justice are two different things. [snip]

The justice system of this country killing a murderer/rapist/molester for what they did and for taking away the rights and life of their victims, that's justice.

The family of the victim taking the life of the murderer/rapist/molester for what they did, that's vengeance.

Some would argue that the justice system is enacting the 'need' for vengeance felt by its citizens.

Some would argue that the family is enacting 'Boondock Saints'-style justice.

By definition, 'Vengeance' and 'Justice' are different. But in practice, the lines are gray at best, and are very easily blurred by our emotions.

The part that I am most against with regards to capital punishment is the knee-jerk reactions -- that people allow themselves to be ruled by emotions, and allow those emotions to overrule their rationality. THAT, in and of itself, makes us more like beasts than humans... (...which really makes me second-guess the statement that criminals are nothing more than rabid animals that need to be put down... Afterall, if we're all acting like animals, how are we any different than those "rabid criminals"?)

Edited for clarification and missspelling.

[edit on 24-8-2007 by Diseria]

It's a cliche, but two wrongs don't make a right.

Capital punishment is VENGEANCE, unless it is impossible to properly contain the subject of punishment. There is no way to justify most death penalty punishments, other than barbarism.

If someone kills another person, this person should be punished to the full extent of the law, but to say it is justice for the government to kill a person, but never justice for a citizen to kill a person unless in defense is ludicrous.

I think in 90 percent of cases, murderers have a mental disability anyway. So, logically, considering if A=B and B=C, wouldn't the legalized death penalty compute to the government having a mental disability?

Well, we all know the government as a whole has severe mental problems.

However, like I said, if there is a case where the person cannot be contained (I'm not sure why a person could not be contained in prison, but that's beside the point) capital punishment is a fair action.

Even further (and maybe a little out-there for the life-obsessed), I think if a criminal in prison wishes to have his life ended instead of enduring a long or life sentence, they should be granted their wish.

What I'm saying is, humans should NEVER be in charge of who is allowed life and who is not. We can't even figure out our own darn lives, so it's just DUMB to try and control other people's lives...the outcome is generally pretty bad (NAZIs, KKK, United States of America). If the person wants death, give it to them; otherwise let them keep what should never be taken away and keep the human race above barbarism, even if we're only floating a few inches from it.

Originally posted by iceofspades

I think in 90 percent of cases, murderers have a mental disability anyway. So, logically, considering if A=B and B=C, wouldn't the legalized death penalty compute to the government having a mental disability?

Would you care to provide some evidence that such is true?

Is it enough for you to think that something is true and that that is sufficient for you to draw logical conclusions from that?

What's wrong with vengeance?

[edit on 2007/8/26 by GradyPhilpott]

It is not my place to kill another person, no matter the wrong I perceive
It is not yours.
It is not your neighbor's, it is not my grandmothers.

But it is the place of a privately-owned extension of the one unelected branch of our government?

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

Would you care to provide some evidence that such is true?

Is it enough for you to think that something is true and that that is sufficient for you to draw logical conclusions from that?

What's wrong with vengeance?

I simply think that in order to murder another person in cold blood, there is something inherently wrong with that person. I mean, I think there are very few "sane" killers out there. The two just don't mix.

Such a thought is not even necessary to my argument.

What's wrong with vengeance? Is that really a question? Justice is what separates man from barbarism, and there is a difference between that and vengeance. Justice is taking a morally superior road and rewarding or punishing without reference to irrational emotions. Vengeance is doing back to a person assumed guilty of a so-called crime what a person's emotions dictate is best. Vengeance makes the person who commits it no better than their offender.

[edit on 27-8-2007 by iceofspades]

Wouldn't be better to die, than be incarcerated for a life time?
So where is the punishment?

Originally posted by Conosimiento.
Wouldn't be better to die, than be incarcerated for a life time?
So where is the punishment?

In theory:

The punishment is cast from society onto the criminal in the anticipation/fear of death.

However, if the criminal is not afraid of dying, or is, perhaps, looking forward to it, then there's no punishment inflicted.

At best, capital 'punishment' is more a threat to those alive than a punishment for the wrong-doers.

Thus enters the debate over vengeance and justice -- why people feel/think it necessary to put these people to death.

Is life-long incarceration a punishment? ...and who is really being punished?



Every society has had to deal with 'what to do with the rule-breakers', and each created its own solution based on what was available. The two traditional methods were:

Exile: Push the wrong-doer out of society (shaming them on the way out), and if they make it on they own (since they acted on their own, and against the society) after X amount of time, then we'll try it again.

Payment: Depending on the crime, the wrong-doer had to give all their material possessions, as well as their time and efforts, to the family that he/she wronged. It was up to the family to decide whether, or not, they paid their debt, and when they forgave them.

These are my preferred options (not by any means the entire list, mind you), but they are unfeasible for, primarily, one reason: Our culture is not a shame culture. We are a guilt culture.

Instead of the individual feeling ashamed for their actions against the society (that raised, cared for, and taught them), we, in essence, force the wrong-doer to atone for their actions. The question then: Does the wrong-doer actually 'repent' their actions? ...still up for debate.

Besides that -- there's no place to exile these people to (where they'd be able to survive completely and entirely on their own), and there's a lack of compassion (and, I'd argue, moral character) to give the wrong-doers a second chance to prove themselves truly changed.