Terminalcoffee discussion
date
newest »
newest »
No. You're convicted and sentenced to death, you give up those rights. Holy fucking hell, why would anyone even ask that question?
Oh, wait...I thought you meant choose the actual members of the firing squad.
Nevermind.
::hides in corner, red faced::
No, because the firing squad's psychology will change with the killing.
Mod
which way is the cheapest? i know that sounds crass but hey, if the deal is decided why cost more money?
Sally wrote: "I kind of adore you, Phil."::blushes shyly::
I'm afraid I am totally opposed to the death penalty, no matter how it is carried out. Do you want to deter serious crime? Catch more criminals. If criminals are certain they will be caught, they will be much less likely to commit the crime.
i'm with anthony, the death penalty is not a solution whether it's firing squad, hanging, electrocution, lethal injection or any other method. quartered? cooked in mint sauce? the breaking wheel?
Hmm... well, respectfully.... (I know I'm going to stir up a hornets nest here, but I can't help it) if you haven't seen the criminal state up close or been a victim (or family of victim) of a voilent crime, as many of us haven't, I don't believe you can really make that judgement for every single case. I'm all for the death penalty when it's warranted (and I mean very warranted), and as long as the how doesn't cost the public extra money, why not let them choose? Give em three choices - electric chair, firing squad or hanging (maybe throw in a guillotine now & then).
Lethal injection is just too humane for someone that actually has made it through the entire rigamarole of appeals and delays and red tape and BS, for years on end that WE are paying for, where chances are they are more than 95% guilty of some heinous, violent crime to someone extremely innocent like a child. There are some people that truly deserve to be off of our planet. If you're going to kill them, then scare the snot outta the criminals and let them know the death will be painful and drawn out. There's your deterrant right there.
Catching more criminals is not the solution. Our country has proven this method does not work for decades now. We have more so-called criminals in our prisons than any other country, and many of them are for petty crimes that aren't related to voilence. A good portion of these criminals end up right back in the system because they have grown up in it and they either a) don't care that much or b) don't know how to survive on the outside. This is clearly not a deterrant for most of them. Our penal system is one of the most screwed up dirty secrets we have. If you haven't worked in a prison, (down in the bowels where you interact with the inmates every single day) just try it and see if you might change your mind about it. It changed mine.
If the death penalty were a deterrent, that it would seem that countries without the death penalty would have higher murder rates. That does not appear to be the case.Encland, which is about the size of Texas, certainly has crimes and murders, too--but on the wholes is just as safe to visit as Texas.
Another reason, like Anthony and Janine that I oppose the death penalty is the disparity in how it is applied.The majority of death row prisoners are minorities or poor. Especially poor. If you commit a murder and your defense lawyer is a public defender--no matter how good the intentions are of that person--that public defender can only spend so much time on one case--he not doubt has several.
If on the other hand, you are at least moderately well off, and can afford a top notch legal firm, your chances of beating the death penalty improve.
We have the best legal system money can buy.
thank you, misha, that is exactly how i feel about the death penalty, i just didn't have the knowlegde and words to back it up.
Thank heaven we never had the death penalty here in Northern Ireland. In 1916, the Irish rebels who captured the post office in Dublin were executed for their crime. The resulting outcry made Irish independence unstoppable. When the blessed Mrs Thatcher allowed IRA hunger strikers to die, the IRA got so much local support, they nearly won their terrorist campaign. Even the government’s “shoot to kill” policy rebounded on them, and built up support fot their political opponents.
The sensible thing with crime – be it political or otherwise – is to under-react: to temper justice with mercy; to show that caring for others extends to wrongdoers and not just to the virtuous. It is a way of demonstrating one’s values.
The death penalty should not be used as a deterrent. It should be used as a cleanser. It can also be used for bargaining, like it was with the Green River killer. An additional 41 murders were "solved," allowing 41 families to know that the killer of their loved ones had been caught.
Phil wrote: "The death penalty - - - should be used as a cleanser." That's an interesting idea, treating execution as a kind of sacrifice.
I suppose the difference between us is that I feel society is defiled by executions, while you feel it has been cleansed.
There is perhaps a corresponding opposition of views. Personally, if somebody I loved were to be murdered, and if the murderer was then executed, I would similarly feel tht my memory of that victim would again have been defiled. I know others take a different view, and would feel that the wrong had been (in part) assuaged. But many people share my opinion too.
Huh, I never thought of the death sentence as a cleanser. I'm more in Anthony's boat, it defiles us, makes us killers.But when I hear of someone so very vile, I have started to think we'd all be better off without him. It's usually a him, come to think of it. At least in my mind right now, but I know that may be factually off base, there have of course been vile woman.
Lori wrote: "But when I hear of someone so very vile, I have started to think we'd all be better off without him...."Frankly, it is tempting to want to kill people when they have done appalling things. My secretary's husband was murdered by the IRA, and we were all pretty sickened at the time. This very evening, some youth decided to torch a house with a woman and baby inside in the upstairs bedroom - the kind of sectarian attack that we are used to. Such things do get you annoyed.
All the same, executions are cold-blooded affairs.
personally I think they should have the right to choose between the methods of the; time firing squad then, lethal injection now, or black hole in the future (maybe you never know)but only the methods of the time they were sentenced to death.
Also if we are supposed to be more humane then let them have a last wish and choose their method of death whatever it may be
"Yes, our penal system very much is a shameful secret, but not for the reasons you describe. It's broken precisely because it fails to provide people pathways out of a life of crime."I don't disagree with this statement at all, and I think in my night-time rambling I came across as "just kill them all" kind of attitude. That was not my intention. I truly believe that many, many of the people in prison should not be there, that they should be shown a different path. I simply don't think that "catching more criminals" is any kind of answer.
I also believe the death penalty has an important function and should be used when appropriate - for excessively violent repeating criminals (yea, there's one of those vague phrases). The system is screwed up through & through, and I don't believe that all the people on death row are necessarily warranted in being there either. There is certainly a heavy hand in convicting the young, poor & ethnic, and that is an area that is sorely needed in change.
Compassion has its place in the penal world, and it should be a common method, but not in such an extreme as to allow those who would not respond to reabilitation or compassion to use it as a loophole. I wish there was a better method in determining a person's guilt or innocence, because so much hinges on the biases, emotional or monetary or whathaveyou, of the prosecutors &/or judgers.
I truly believe there are too many people labelled as criminals that should not be. I believe that those who are criminals should be educated and given a chance to reform (I have seen this and it is amazing), but I also believe that for those few individuals who have no conscience, have tripped over that invisible line of 'no return' and are harmful & hateful to others, they should be eliminated from our society. A cleansing of the psychopathic fringe element is a good way to describe it.
Good thinking.Altho I usually hate the slippery slope rationale since it's used for gay marriage. etc. I've heard people say that gay marriage is a slippery slope to legally lead to polygamy.
Bun, I always heard the opposite about the expense. That most of the expense occurs with the length of time incarcerated plus appeals, etc that makes death row inmates more expensive. But that to care for life-term inmates, especially the ones that require special accomodations because of their violent nature, will rack up the money faster than any normal inmate. I don't have concrete facts, just what was told to us while I worked for the correctional institution.
Okay, I get that. I don't think it's right, but I get it.
I agree with all the anti-death penalty comments above. I cannot find a rationale viable enough to support our modern death penalty system. I believe there are certain criminals that are deserving of death, but because the system itself is too flawed to ensure that only those individuals are the ones killed, then I think the system should be altered.Besides, I fail to see lifetime incarceration as a lesser penalty - I think they'd have to keep me on suicide watch if that were my fate.
Further contributing to the massive problems in our system are the drug sentencing laws. We have way too many people serving sentences that are way too long for a problem that requires treatment not incarceration. And think about what these people have to look forward to when they get out of prison - a lifetime of not getting jobs they apply for because they can't clear the background checks [Have you noticed how prevalent background checks, including criminal and credit, have become these days? Many medical and allied health professions, legal, court system, education system, and financial jobs require a clear background check - because most employers don't want to have to make a decision about what's "clear" they just reject candidates that have a record. [Some states are working to fix that kneejerk reaction.:]]
Ugh, I'm feeling very despondent now.
I'm with Youndy on all of that -- everything she just said matches my philosophy exactly.
Youndyc wrote: "I agree with all the anti-death penalty comments above. I cannot find a rationale viable enough to support our modern death penalty system. I believe there are certain criminals that are deservin..."I second that. Verbatim, minus the despondent part.
Yeah I meant to leave that part out, too.
I believe they are related in that the popular political stance overwhelmingly seems to be a tough on crime persona that drives both.
We got rid of the death penalty in the UK in the mid-1960s (I forget the date), and I don't think we have had a massive increase in murder in consequence. When there is a particularly horrific child murder, the tabloid press will mention it, but generally there is no appetite to bring it back. There was a radio programme today about the Dunblane massacre (late 1990s), when a nutter took several guns into a primary school in a small Scottish town both killing and wounding large numbers of young children and several schoolteachers. The programme brought together several of those directly involved - bereaved parents etc.
It seems that several of the bereaved became involved in a campaign to restrict ownership and access to guns, a campaign that led to a change in the law making guns very difficult to get in the UK. But nobody mentioned any desire to bring back the death penalty.
If you were to ask the general populace if they thought the death penalty was a good idea, then about half would say yes. But there is no great drive to bring it back. And politicans, judges and lawyers, who would have to take responsibility for the procedure, are pretty universally opposed.
One problem with prison reform is there is a feeling among many....1)If crime rates are low, what we are doing must be okay so why change it?
2) If crime rates are high, no politician wants to see seen as "soft " on crime.
Therefore, major penal reform is unlikely to occur because it is a divisive politcal issue. Very very few politicans and officials want to take the risk.
Until we have the political "will" to make the changes, major change is very unlikely to occur.
For example, the notion of less drug sentencing to clear up space has been proposed for years; yet very little has been done.
Mary JL wrote: "One problem with prison reform is there is a feeling among many....1)If crime rates are low, what we are doing must be okay so why change it?
2) If crime rates are high, no politician wants to be seen as "soft on crime"..."
Elegantly put. In fact, you capture the dilemma in a nutshell.
I don't know how we in the UK managed to abolish hanging and the birch (yes, we had the birch!) in my lifetime, for precisely the same pressures existed, and in modified form, still exist. But somehow we did.
And most of the gangs are incubated in prisons so that when inmates are released they propagate the problems that arise from gang activity.
I have a feeling that our incarceration rate compares favorably (and I mean that sarcastically) with Iran's - or perhaps the Suharto regime's. Oh, or maybe that of Idi Amin's regime. :: still feeling despondent about state of American criminal justice system, despite double mimosa at brunch earlier, fabulous book group meeting at brunch, and gorgeous sunny afternoon. On more cheerful note, reminds self that at least we must be doing better than the penal record of Stalinist Russia. ::
Jeez, this is DEEPressing. Does anybody have a picture of puppies or mercats or something? :: goes off in search of cute animals thread, I know it's around here somewhere.... ::
BunWat wrote: "the rate in England and Wales was 148 per 100,000..."These figures are even worse than I thought. 1.4 in every 1,000 people in gaol is a sign that society is failing.
And as everybody knows, the proportions among young, poor, male working class people are much much higher. And they are even higher among Afro-Carribeans in these same categories.
The implication is that huge swathes of the population can see no way of achieving satisfaction in their lives except through crime.
What a waste.
AwESOME!!! I love meerkats. They are so cute!::perks up considerably::
Thank you, Misha.
And for the record, my cracks about other countries were hyperbole (I hope!) and in no way intended to demean or ridicule the people who have been, are being, or will be abused/mistreated/disappeared/tortured/murdered in those countries or any others not mentioned.
Well, that law degree comes in handy sometimes.
Ek. I think I'll go back to gardening. The smell of dirt is infinitely more welcome.
i might appear naive to some people, but i don't think it is up to humans to decide whether or not another human deserves to die. not just because it is not possible to know for certain what a person has done, but also because i don't think humans have the right to make this sort of decission. i leave those decissions up to God. there are of course criminals that should not be around other people anymore, but for them there is life in prison.in the netherlands the death sentence was abolished in 1870, except for war crimes, and in 1983 for all crimes.
Comments?