It's Hard Not To Favor The Death Penalty [Archive]

Suddenly

6th February 2004, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by Crossbow
It can be very easy for one to support the death penalty when the crime is particularly heinous and the evidence of guilt is so clear. However, the death penalty is often applied where the standards are far lower and that is a real problem.

That is the big problem with the system, one that the death penalty highlights. The system is supposed to ensure guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" before anyone is punished in any way, be it probation or getting the needle.

However, it doesn't work that way. There is a common perception that to kill we need to be "really really sure," which is a problem as that should have been the criteria all along. How can one go beyond "reasonable doubt?" Do we not kill people if our doubt is unreasonable? That doesn't seem quite right...

Anyway, what it boils down to is that our justice system largely ignores or is actively hostile to science that casts doubt on long held assumptions used to obtain convictions. For example great value is placed on eyewitness testimony, (I.E. She saw him do it!!) even though there is much reason to believe such evidence is not only not as reliable as assumed, but is also easily corruptable by suggestion. Also interesting is the current battle over certain forensic evidence techniques, techniques that could be based in science, but doing so would admit to a possible invalidation or at least reassessment of things like fingerprinting and toolmark evidence, and the present practitioners want to continue a facade of infallability.

That's the logical problem with death penalty cases. We want to actually apply a reasonable doubt standard without admitting we have retreated from that standard in other cases, or at least have ignored problems with long accepted means of proof.

Suddenly

6th February 2004, 07:52 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.

Not a problem. They should have a lottery for the privelege. They'd make millions. It would pay for his trial.

I've often thought that the jury recommending the death penalty should also be the ones to carry out the sentence. It would give a jolt of reality to what can possibly otherwise be an abstract decision. It wouldn't make much of a difference in this case, but it would in some of the more sketchy cases.

This would be completely unworkable in practice, of course, given the length of the appeals process, but it seems to me a decent test in these situations.

Mr Manifesto

6th February 2004, 07:54 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.

I hope they fry the guy. He should be tortured first. Then gassed. Then revived with paddles. Then electrocuted. Then revived again. Then slowly lowered by his neck on a rope for an hour or two while he flails and struggles. Then lethally injected. Then chopped up into little pieces and dropped in the ocean.

There's a bit of a problem with this sort of thinking. The message seems to be that it's okay to torture and kill in some circumstances. It's this sort of thinking that devalues a human life. It might be why you have such a high murder rate in the US- Americans seem to think that killing someone who has wronged you is a legitimate response.

Crossbow and others have discussed degree. Yeah, cool, people like this deserve to die and be broken on the wheel and whatever, but this sort of punishment inevitably gets meted out to people who have committed lesser crimes (or people who have diminished responsibilty. That phrase might be a swearword to some here, but it best describes the circumstances of, for example, a retarded person who might easily commit the crime Luke has detailed). It seems to have wider social effects as well: If someone does wrong by you (say, you catch your best friend screwing your wife and giggling when you walk in the room... What can be worse than that?) it's a reasonable response to kill them. Or maybe someone owes you $2000 and says they will never pay you back, ha-ha. Or you saw someone stealing your Harley-Davidson.

I know this is a slippery slope argument, but nevertheless it is very interesting to see people think that killing for revenge for wrong-doing is something reasonable to do. As far as I'm concerned, the only time the death penalty is ever appropriate is for the crime of genocide, and only if the perpetrator has been tried by an international court.

See? Even I'm prone to 'killing-is-kewl-for-revenge'. ;)

Screw the little lost puppies!

:confused: Uh... what?

E.J.Armstrong

6th February 2004, 07:55 AM

The problem with the death penalty is fundamental and ever present. Innocent people get murdered by the state. You cannot say sorry to an innocent man or his family afterwards.

Luke T.

6th February 2004, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly

That is the big problem with the system, one that the death penalty highlights. The system is supposed to ensure guilt "beyond a reasonable doubt" before anyone is punished in any way, be it probation or getting the needle.

However, it doesn't work that way. There is a common perception that to kill we need to be "really really sure," which is a problem as that should have been the criteria all along. How can one go beyond "reasonable doubt?" Do we not kill people if our doubt is unreasonable? That doesn't seem quite right...

Anyway, what it boils down to is that our justice system largely ignores or is actively hostile to science that casts doubt on long held assumptions used to obtain convictions. For example great value is placed on eyewitness testimony, (I.E. She saw him do it!!) even though there is much reason to believe such evidence is not only not as reliable as assumed, but is also easily corruptable by suggestion. Also interesting is the current battle over certain forensic evidence techniques, techniques that could be based in science, but doing so would admit to a possible invalidation or at least reassessment of things like fingerprinting and toolmark evidence, and the present practitioners want to continue a facade of infallability.

That's the logical problem with death penalty cases. We want to actually apply a reasonable doubt standard without admitting we have retreated from that standard in other cases, or at least have ignored problems with long accepted means of proof.

Suddenly, you have no idea how grateful I am for your presence on these forums for just this kind of stuff.

I agree about the infallibility image problem our justice system currently has. It is hard for one person to admit mistakes, and when the mistake is inherent in an entire system, well, that is nearly insurmountable and takes a real hero who has real power to turn it back. A Governor, for example.

When some state governors decided to place a moratorium on the death penalty when science began to show that some convictions were in error, I felt really proud of them. And as much as I like Bush, I was disappointed he did not follow suit in Texas.

As far as I know, though, no one has proven with science that someone on death row in Texas was wrongly convicted. And I think it is safe to assume there are death penalty opponents who are working very hard trying to find evidence on this matter to embarass Bush.

Another problem you didn't mention is the belief that the death penalty is a deterrent. We need to give up that idea if we are going to take great pains to ensure we are killing the right guy and for only the most heinous crimes and only after a very long judicial process. The only deterrent the death penalty serves as in this case is that it deters the guy we kill from ever committing a crime again.

Tony

6th February 2004, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

The message seems to be that it's okay to torture and kill in some circumstances.

But it is ok to kill in some circumstances. Torture, that's something different altogether and a (just a very) little subjective.

Or you saw someone stealing your Harley-Davidson.

In Texas it's legal to use deadly force to stop someone from stealing from you.

Hexxenhammer

6th February 2004, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

:confused: Uh... what? About the puppies...The tactics of kidnappers have been on the news a lot. One of the methods is telling the kid that they lost their puppy or dog and they need help looking for it.

HarryKeogh

6th February 2004, 08:10 AM

sure are a lot of calls here for this guy's blood without a fair trial.

we can't bypass the law to satisfy our want of revenge just because a case is particularly heinous.

as for torturing this guy before we execute him, yes, that will show criminals how we deal with monstrous behavior:rolleyes:

when we saw footage of the taliban whipping and executing people we called them barbarians. it's all relative i guess.

Luke T.

6th February 2004, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

There's a bit of a problem with this sort of thinking. The message seems to be that it's okay to torture and kill in some circumstances.

It is okay to kill in some circumstances. World War Two would be an example I think we can all agree upon.

It's this sort of thinking that devalues a human life. It might be why you have such a high murder rate in the US- Americans seem to think that killing someone who has wronged you is a legitimate response.

So not only do you not believe the death penalty is a deterrent (I don't either), but you think it actually increases the murder rate?

Whoa.

Crossbow and others have discussed degree. Yeah, cool, people like this deserve to die and be broken on the wheel and whatever, but this sort of punishment inevitably gets meted out to people who have committed lesser crimes (or people who have diminished responsibilty.

<snip>

I know this is a slippery slope argument, but nevertheless it is very interesting to see people think that killing for revenge for wrong-doing is something reasonable to do. As far as I'm concerned, the only time the death penalty is ever appropriate is for the crime of genocide, and only if the perpetrator has been tried by an international court.

See? Even I'm prone to 'killing-is-kewl-for-revenge'. ;)

I believe the death penaly should be reserved for only the most heinous crimes. Crimes which are specifically identified. For example, killing a minor or a policeman.

:confused: Uh... what?

One of the lessons you teach your kid is not to go with a stranger who asks you to help him find his lost puppy. It's a modern day version of "don't take candy from strangers."

Some monsters apparently will approach a young girl and tell them he is a photographer for a magazine and thinks she is the kind of model he is looking for.

In the abduction video in this little girl's case, it doesn't look like he used these approaches. He walks up to her, says something, grabs her by the arm, and walks off with her. He may have threatened to hurt her if she screamed or something. Who knows. But I'm telling my kids to kick, scratch, bite and scream anyway.

Girl 6

6th February 2004, 08:12 AM

Early this morning when I went to work out, someone in the gym had the TV on and the news was being broadcast. The first thing they talked about in the news was the murder of this little girl.

I sat down and tears were coming down from my eyes. I'm still quite upset as I write this at work. :( This is horrifying beyond my imagination and I can't comprehend it.

I cannot even think about the pain that the family must be going through. What is going through the minds of men that need to hurt, maim, and kill innocent children? Is it a gene gone bad? If it is, we need to be spending money tracking this down. :mad:

Despite all this, I'm still against the applying the death penalty. However, it's cases like this and the many others that seem to pepper the news broadcasts that make me seriously question my stance regarding this. But, then, all I have to do is recall all of the people on death row that have died wrongfully.

Until the death penalty can be applied evenly across the board, I can't even consider it as an option. Even if we come to a point in history where we can pin the blame without any questions in our minds, will the death of the murderer really do anything?

Restitution is a hard thing. Killing the person or even torturing them hardly stops others from committing these crimes. We are kidding ourselves to think that revenge will resolve the feelings of inadequacy that murder brings.

Instead, I'm for trying to figure out what leads a person to do such heinous things to other people.

In the meantime, we need to arm our kids with awareness and allow them to act in their own self defense. Don't force them to kiss strangers or even relatives if they don't want to. RESPECT their feelings and teach them to trust their instincts.

I always hope that something like this won't happen again. But, it will until we figure out what is leading these criminals to do this and actually DO something BEFORE it can happen again.

G6

CFLarsen

6th February 2004, 08:13 AM

Luke,

Don't you think you should at least wait with the punishment until the guy is actually found guilty?

I am also a bit concerned with your willingness to resort to extreme cruel punishment.

If he is guilty, then throw him in jail for the rest of his life. Do you think he will lead a very quiet existence there?

No, he'll be hunted by every sister in the slammer. Child killers/molesters are below the lowest rung of the ladder in jails.

Mr Manifesto

6th February 2004, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
About the puppies...The tactics of kidnappers have been on the news a lot. One of the methods is telling the kid that they lost their puppy or dog and they need help looking for it.

Gotcha. I know of the tactic, but I don't have kids and it's been a while since I've had to worry about being abducted, so the reference didn't gel with me.

Originally posted by Tony
In Texas it's legal to use deadly force to stop someone from stealing from you.

I wasn't quite clear. I was talking more about, someone steals your Harley-Davidson so you go over to their house and kill them, not shooting someone in the process of committing a crime (something else I don't agree with, but isn't really the topic of this thread).

Luke T.

6th February 2004, 08:15 AM

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
sure are a lot of calls here for this guy's blood without a fair trial.

we can't bypass the law to satisfy our want of revenge just because a case is particularly heinous.

Oh, I want him tried. I want as much publicity around this case as possible. I want every kid in the country to hear about it.

as for torturing this guy before we execute him, yes, that will show criminals how we deal with monstrous behavior:rolleyes:

when we saw footage of the taliban whipping and executing people we called them barbarians. it's all relative i guess.

Moral relativism?

Punishing someone for preaching a Christian faith is not the same thing as punishing someone for killing a little girl.

6th February 2004, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Luke,

Don't you think you should at least wait with the punishment until the guy is actually found guilty?

I am also a bit concerned with your willingness to resort to extreme cruel punishment.

If he is guilty, then throw him in jail for the rest of his life. Do you think he will lead a very quiet existence there?

No, he'll be hunted by every sister in the slammer. Child killers/molesters are below the lowest rung of the ladder in jails.

SO< CLAUS< KNOWING THIS YOU WOULD SUBJECT HIM TO A LIFETIME OF TORTURE?

(MY KEYBOARD ID F"ED UP> SORRY)

Girl 6

6th February 2004, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Luke,

Don't you think you should at least wait with the punishment until the guy is actually found guilty?

I am also a bit concerned with your willingness to resort to extreme cruel punishment.

If he is guilty, then throw him in jail for the rest of his life. Do you think he will lead a very quiet existence there?

No, he'll be hunted by every sister in the slammer. Child killers/molesters are below the lowest rung of the ladder in jails.

Claus,

Luke is reacting as a father. It's quite understandable.

Sure, the guy will be hunted by every sister in the slammer, but that's not what you think about when you have lost your child.

G6

Luke T.

6th February 2004, 08:18 AM

Originally posted by Girl 6
But, then, all I have to do is recall all of the people on death row that have died wrongfully.

Okay. That's the second time someone has mentioned innocent people on death row. And this time it has been said innocent people have been killed. I'm going to need to see some evidence, please.

Tmy

6th February 2004, 08:18 AM

Death Pentalty topics always reminds me of one person. Susan Smith! The bizzatch drowned her 2 little kids an invented a whole lie and bullshatted the whole country with her croc tears. She even invented a fake suspect. She couldve sent an innocent man to the chair for HER crime. Yet she escaped the DP???? How much worse can you get.

Shows you how screwed up the system is.

Tony

6th February 2004, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

(something else I don't agree with, but isn't really the topic of this thread).

Of course not. You'd probably spread your cheeks and let someone fuk you in the ass if they demanded it. Anything to keep from "killing someone".

Luke T.

6th February 2004, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Luke,

Don't you think you should at least wait with the punishment until the guy is actually found guilty?

I've addressed that in my response to HarryKeogh.

I am also a bit concerned with your willingness to resort to extreme cruel punishment.

If he is guilty, then throw him in jail for the rest of his life. Do you think he will lead a very quiet existence there?

No, he'll be hunted by every sister in the slammer. Child killers/molesters are below the lowest rung of the ladder in jails.

Well, as a person who has been a counselor in prisons and jails for the last eight years, I can tell you this is just not true. What you see on OZ just doesn't happen.

Mr Manifesto

6th February 2004, 08:22 AM

Originally posted by Tony

Of course not. You'd probably spread your cheeks and let someone fuk you in the ass if they demanded it. Anything to keep from "killing someone".

Geez, what happened to you, Tony?

Tony

6th February 2004, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Geez, what happened to you, Tony?

Nothing, I just find it hard to respect spineless cowards. I'll try though. :)

Mr Manifesto

6th February 2004, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.

Okay. That's the second time someone has mentioned innocent people on death row. And this time it has been said innocent people have been killed. I'm going to need to see some evidence, please.

If you put 'death penalty names innocent' in Google, you'll get a list of links, but here's one to get you started:

The 23 Innocent People Who Died (http://archive.aclu.org/issues/death/23executed.html)

Girl 6

6th February 2004, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.

Okay. That's the second time someone has mentioned innocent people on death row. And this time it has been said innocent people have been killed. I'm going to need to see some evidence, please.

Hmmmm... Here's a link about Illinois:

http://www.stopcapitalpunishment.org/coverage/160.html

Here we go about some people that were found innocent and released.

http://www.fadp.org/news/jan15.html

http://www.truthinjustice.org/deathrow.htm

http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n061202b.html

I'm sure there are other instances but it wasn't until the advent of DNA testing that people have exonerated.

G6

Luke T.

6th February 2004, 08:27 AM

Okay, it's my fault the emotional level of this topic is getting out of hand. Let me apologize right now and say I don't honestly feel the guy should be tortured (after being found guilty!).

Girl6 is right. I am a dad, and this kind of stuff gets to me. That's why I named the topic the way I did.

I still think, if guilty, the guy should fry.

Luke T.

6th February 2004, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

If you put 'death penalty names innocent' in Google, you'll get a list of links, but here's one to get you started:

The 23 Innocent People Who Died (http://archive.aclu.org/issues/death/23executed.html)

Did you notice the dates on the ones that had dates?

Girl 6

6th February 2004, 08:30 AM

Besides, that's not even the point...

Let's say you were somehow convicted wrongly for a crime and sentenced to the death penalty. ANY time that you serve behind bars is an injustice.

It's apparent to me that we are not applying the death penalty equally across the board.

Here's link about Death Penalty statistics:

http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/dp/dp.html

G6

Luke T.

6th February 2004, 08:31 AM

Originally posted by Girl 6

Hmmmm... Here's a link about Illinois:

http://www.stopcapitalpunishment.org/coverage/160.html

Here we go about some people that were found innocent and released.

http://www.fadp.org/news/jan15.html

http://www.truthinjustice.org/deathrow.htm

http://archive.aclu.org/news/2002/n061202b.html

I'm sure there are other instances but it wasn't until the advent of DNA testing that people have exonerated.

G6

From your first link:

Former Gov. George Ryan continued his campaign for a major overhaul of Illinois' capital punishment system Monday, saying it remains so broken that it's ''very possible'' the state has executed an innocent person.

Possible. Not definite. And it was Illinois I was thinking of in my response to Suddenly. I respect the governor very much for putting a moratorium on executions.

A moratorium. Once the system is fixed, carry on.

Luke T.

6th February 2004, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by Girl 6
Besides, that's not even the point...

Let's say you were somehow convicted wrongly for a crime and sentenced to the death penalty. ANY time that you serve behind bars is an injustice.

Absolutely. The system has problems that scream for solution. I am glad something is finally being done. Much debt is owed to science. Up until now, religion has been the lone voice in the wilderness crying out against the death penalty. In particular, the Catholic Church.

It's apparent to me that we are not applying the death penalty equally across the board.

How do you feel about the disproportionate number of blacks in prison?

Girl 6

6th February 2004, 08:34 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.
Possible. Not definite. And it was Illinois I was thinking of in my response to Suddenly. I respect the governor very much for putting a moratorium on executions.

A moratorium. Once the system is fixed, carry on.

So, you admit that the system is flawed? :) If that is the case, can you still back the death penalty?

G6

HarryKeogh

6th February 2004, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.
Moral relativism?

Punishing someone for preaching a Christian faith is not the same thing as punishing someone for killing a little girl.

so the Taliban was only barbaric when they were using corporal and capital punishment on "infidels" and not when they used it on rapists or murderers?

Luke T.

6th February 2004, 08:36 AM

Originally posted by Girl 6

So, you admit that the system is flawed? :) If that is the case, can you still back the death penalty?

G6

If great care is taken to prove a man guilty of killing a little girl, hell yes.

Tony

6th February 2004, 08:37 AM

I think the "innocent people could be killed" argument against the death penalty is one of the best. An argument, which I sympathize, if not, agree with. However, if that is an argument against the death penalty, shouldn’t also be an argument again imprisonment?…Perhaps an argument against punishment altogether?

Is it better for an innocent person to spend a lifetime in jail than it is for an innocent person to be executed?

Girl 6

6th February 2004, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.
How do you feel about the disproportionate number of blacks in prison?

Good... You caught that. :)

I don't want to say that it points to racism because I don't feel that I have ANY real evidence to back that up. And, I totally hate using the "race card."

What I can say is that it contributes to the destabilization of black families. I did hear a stat earlier this year stating that 1 out of 5 black men between the ages of 16 and 30 were incarcerated or had criminal records.

Can you blame a black man for thinking that he is persecuted in the United States? I can't.

If that statistic is true (and I haven't been able to find evidence for it, so it's anecdotal), you can only imagine what that means for the community as a whole.

G6

Hexxenhammer

6th February 2004, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.

Possible. Not definite. And it was Illinois I was thinking of in my response to Suddenly. I respect the governor very much for putting a moratorium on executions.

A moratorium. Once the system is fixed, carry on. This is my feeling too. I was pretty dissapointed when that former illinois gov was charged with corruption because I had been so impressed.

I don't know the answer to fixing the death penalty but if it can be done fairly, I'm all for it.

6th February 2004, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.

How do you feel about the disproportionate number of blacks in prison?

How do you feel about the disproportionate number of women in prison?

How do you feel about the disproportionate number of Chinese and Japanese in prison?

Luke T.

6th February 2004, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by HarryKeogh

so the Taliban was only barbaric when they were using corporal and capital punishment on "infidels" and not when they used it on rapists or murderers?

I have retracted my stance on torture. Heat of the moment.

As for captial punishment for rapists, I am undecided.

For murderers, in some cases.

The Taliban was barbaric for punishing "infidels," but not so barbaric for executing rapists and murderers, even though I would not favor executing all rapists and all murderers.

But their acts of barbarism went beyond these matters.

Luke T.

6th February 2004, 08:45 AM

Originally posted by Ed

How do you feel about the disproportionate number of women in prison?

How do you feel about the disproportionate number of Chinese and Japanese in prison?

I'm getting to that. Stay tuned. :)

Tmy

6th February 2004, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Tony
I think the "innocent people could be killed" argument against the death penalty is one of the best. An argument, which I sympathize, if not, agree with. However, if that is an argument against the death penalty, shouldn’t also be an argument again imprisonment?…Perhaps an argument against punishment altogether?

Is it better for an innocent person to spend a lifetime in jail than it is for an innocent person to be executed?

But you can letthe guy out if you later find out hes innocent. You cant bring someone backto life if you realize its a mistake.

"Better to let a gulity man go free, then to chase after him."-Chief Clancey Wiggum

6th February 2004, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.

I'm getting to that. Stay tuned. :)

I say lock more of 'em up!!!

Won-ton's not crispy enough? To the pen. Shirts too starchy? A bit of the lash. Chick slow with that drink order? Solitary.

We cannot have disproportionatism, now can we? That would be Un-PC and uncool.

Mr Manifesto

6th February 2004, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.

Did you notice the dates on the ones that had dates?

I did notice that most of them were before 1950. Interesting, that. Even if you say, "we've got our act together now", there's still the issue of the punishment being used inappropriately, such as in the case of the mentally retarded. HRW (http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/deathpenalty/mr.htm) estimates at least thirty-five people with mental retardation have been executed since 1976, and that as many as two to three hundred may be awaiting execution. The issue is also discussed by Amnesty, ACLU, and similar organisations.

Then, there is the issue of the death penalty being applied to those who committed the crime as a minor (click [url=http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0127/p03s02-usju.htm]here for a Christian Science Monitor article discussing a review of the death penalty for minors. Google seems to indicate that some websites have a list of executed minors, but my connection is crap at the moment, so I didn't have time to look through them all. The search terms I used were "death penalty minors"). It baffles me how any reasonable society can hold a minor equally accountable for their actions as an adult. But, that's the US for you, I guess.

Girl 6

6th February 2004, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Ed

I say lock more of 'em up!!!

Won-ton's not crispy enough? To the pen. Shirts too starchy? A bit of the lash. Chick slow with that drink order? Solitary.

We cannot have disproportionatism, now can we? That would be Un-PC and uncool.

:rolleyes:

G6

Luke T.

6th February 2004, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by Girl 6

Good... You caught that. :)

I don't want to say that it points to racism because I don't feel that I have ANY real evidence to back that up. And, I totally hate using the "race card."

What I can say is that it contributes to the destabilization of black families. I did hear a stat earlier this year stating that 1 out of 5 black men between the ages of 16 and 30 were incarcerated or had criminal records.

Can you blame a black man for thinking that he is persecuted in the United States? I can't.

If that statistic is true (and I haven't been able to find evidence for it, so it's anecdotal), you can only imagine what that means for the community as a whole.

G6

If innocent blacks were being imprisoned, we'd have a serious problem. If guilty blacks were being imprisoned while whites guilty of the same crimes were being imprisoned for less time or not at all, we'd have a serious problem.

But if blacks were committing crimes more than whites, we'd have a completely different sort of problem.

I think we are somewhere in the midst of all three problems. What proportion of each, I have puzzled over for quite some time.

I spent a lot of time debating this issue on Stormfront, as you can imagine.

The first two problems I mentioned can be directly traced to racism. The second problem can be partially traced indirectly to racism, but I believe the reasonable period for that excuse is close to expiration. I think the time for accepting responsibility within the black community has come. I think the time for a close self-examination of the type of leadership the black community chooses is way past due. I think the black community needs to step back and realize that some people who claim to be their friends are their worst enemies, and some people they believe are their enemies are their best friends.

edited for grammar

6th February 2004, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by Girl 6

:rolleyes:

G6

Scarcasimism? To the hoosegow with you my pretty. Chalk up one more chick in the clink.

Luke T.

6th February 2004, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

I did notice that most of them were before 1950. Interesting, that. Even if you say, "we've got our act together now", there's still the issue of the punishment being used inappropriately, such as in the case of the mentally retarded. HRW (http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/deathpenalty/mr.htm) estimates at least thirty-five people with mental retardation have been executed since 1976, and that as many as two to three hundred may be awaiting execution. The issue is also discussed by Amnesty, ACLU, and similar organisations.

Then, there is the issue of the death penalty being applied to those who committed the crime as a minor (click [url=http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0127/p03s02-usju.htm]here for a Christian Science Monitor article discussing a review of the death penalty for minors. Google seems to indicate that some websites have a list of executed minors, but my connection is crap at the moment, so I didn't have time to look through them all. The search terms I used were "death penalty minors"). It baffles me how any reasonable society can hold a minor equally accountable for their actions as an adult. But, that's the US for you, I guess.

There certainly does seem to be a slippery slope in play. I don't deny that. I do not favor the death penalty for minors. That much I'm certain of. But neither do I favor their being set free when they turn 18 if they committed a heinous crime.

For the mentally challenged, I guess I feel the same way. We need to iron out a lot of wrinkles there, though. How deeply mentally challenged before they are excused from the death penalty, for example.

HarryKeogh

6th February 2004, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by Ed

Scarcasimism? To the hoosegow with you my pretty. Chalk up one more chick in the clink.

ok, this made me laugh out loud.

6th February 2004, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.

The first two problems I mentioned can be directly traced to racism. The second problem can be partially traced indirectly to racism, but I believe the reasonable period for that excuse is close to expiration. I think the time for accepting responsibility within the black community has come. I think the time has come for a close self-examination of the type of leadership the black community chooses is way past due. I think the black community needs to step back and realize that some people who claim to be their friends are their worst enemies, and some people they believe are their enemies are their best friends.

And back to my pet peeve. Black illegitimacy rates and single parent hopuseholds. This was spoken about by Moynahan in the 60's and he foretold the long term problems. He was, naturally, branded a racist. White liberals will throw money at the problem and at least one idiotic conservative president will put people in school. BS. It comes down to a recognition of responsibility and until we stop treating blacks as educatable critters that allowences have to be made for, this problem will go on.

We need to call a spade a spade.:D

Girl 6

6th February 2004, 09:00 AM

Kodiak

6th February 2004, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.
I don't know if you guys have been following the story about the abducted little girl in Florida. Her abduction was caught on a surveillance camera. It is chilling to watch. The guy (in a mechanic's uniform) just walks up and grabs her and walks her away.

A mechanic was arrested a few days ago, and now they have found the body of the girl.

Story here. (http://www.nynewsday.com/news/ny-licarlie0206,0,7846745.story?coll=nyc-topnews-short-navigation)

The link has photos of her abduction.

I tell you, my stomach knots up looking at it. I have kids, and it scares me witless to know there are monsters out there grabbing kids off the street in broad daylight.

I hope they fry the guy. He should be tortured first. Then gassed. Then revived with paddles. Then electrocuted. Then revived again. Then slowly lowered by his neck on a rope for an hour or two while he flails and struggles. Then lethally injected. Then chopped up into little pieces and dropped in the ocean.

I'm going to teach my kids to kick, bite, scratch and scream if anyone comes anywhere near them. Screw the little lost puppies!

(In a truly just world)

Take him to a log cabin.

Nail his baby-maker to the floor and cover the cabin in gasoline.

Give him a dull butter knife, light the cabin on fire, and tell him "Choose"...

Girl 6

6th February 2004, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by Ed

Scarcasimism? To the hoosegow with you my pretty. Chalk up one more chick in the clink.

:p

I'll deal with you later... ;)

G6

6th February 2004, 09:04 AM

Originally posted by Girl 6

The time for EVERYONE to act responsbily has come and gone. There is enough blame to spread here.

I agree with your statements regarding the black community. But the fact is that the effects of a long period of racism do NOT disappear just overnight. And, you know well about my continued confrontations with people that have "problems" about the way I look. This is another century that we are in, Luke. And I'm STILL encountering racism directed at me.

G6
Yes, fine and good but illegitimacy rates of 85% yield poverty. Poverty yields crime. And so on. It is a dirty little secret and one whose remedy is simple and personal. The blame here is completly centered.

6th February 2004, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Kodiak

(In a truly just world)

Take him to a log cabin.

Nail his baby-maker to the floor and cover the cabin in gasoline.

Give him a dull butter knife, light the cabin on fire, and tell him "Choose"...

.... lock the door

6th February 2004, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by Girl 6

:p

I'll deal with you later... ;)

G6

So much for your internet privledges.:D

Kodiak

6th February 2004, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by Ed

.... lock the door

;)

Girl 6

6th February 2004, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by Ed

Yes, fine and good but illegitimacy rates of 85% yield poverty. Poverty yields crime. And so on. It is a dirty little secret and one whose remedy is simple and personal. The blame here is completly centered.

You want to take a look at my statement about 1 in 5 black men being incarcerated or with criminal records?

G6

Luke T.

6th February 2004, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by Girl 6

The time for EVERYONE to act responsbily has come and gone. There is enough blame to spread here.

There sure is. But it is more acceptable these days for anyone to attack racism openly. Start criticizing blacks, though, and you are messing with a hornet's nest if you ain't black.

I agree with your statements regarding the black community. But the fact is that the effects of a long period of racism do NOT disappear just overnight.

You need a new "Why We Can't Wait."

And, you know well about my continued confrontations with people that have "problems" about the way I look. This is another century that we are in, Luke. And I'm STILL encountering racism directed at me.

G6

And I still run across white people who assume its okay to tell a racist joke because there are no people of color around. That tells me a lot.

Girl 6

6th February 2004, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by Ed

So much for your internet privledges.:D

:roll:

God doesn't rule the internet... So much for your self-importance! ;)

Anyway, let's *try* to stick to the main topic at hand, shall we?

G6

P.S.
And, lest you fear that I don't love you any more, you can lay that rumor to rest. :D

6th February 2004, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by Girl 6

You want to take a look at my statement about 1 in 5 black men being incarcerated or with criminal records?

G6

And much higher rates 18-35, I recall. But that has nothing to do with out of wedlock births. Point is that one should not have a child until it can be cared for, that includes providing options for a livlihood beyond selling crack (isn't that the offence that many of those guys are in for?)

Tony

6th February 2004, 09:14 AM

Originally posted by Girl 6

And I'm STILL encountering racism directed at me.

I encountered racism throughout Jr. High and High School. No matter what century it is, there will always be small-minded ********. The best thing to do is ignore such people and laugh.

Girl 6

6th February 2004, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.

There sure is. But it is more acceptable these days for anyone to attack racism openly. Start criticizing blacks, though, and you are messing with a hornet's nest if you ain't black.

Yeah, tell me about it. I routinely call out racists remarks from ANYWHERE they originate. I do get quite a bit of hostility from my people, though. :D

You need a new "Why We Can't Wait."

I'm as tired as you are with the "tired" excuses. :)

And I still run across white people who assume its okay to tell a racist joke because there are no people of color around. That tells me a lot.

Yes, what it tells you is that racism is NOT dead. We still ahve a LOT of fallout from that and it's inherent in many of our social structures.

I think what will happen is the population of mixed people will tilt everything on its head. Then, perhaps, we will see some progress concerning this issue.

G6

Tony

6th February 2004, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.

And I still run across white people who assume its okay to tell a racist joke because there are no people of color around.

What's wrong with a "racist" joke?

Luke T.

6th February 2004, 09:18 AM

Originally posted by Girl 6

You want to take a look at my statement about 1 in 5 black men being incarcerated or with criminal records?

G6

I know that you directed this statement to Ed, but I believe the current figure for single parent households in the black community is hovering around an astonishing 80 percent.

richardm

6th February 2004, 09:21 AM

One thing I thought interesting about the news story was that it says:

In the 1997 false imprisonment case, a 20-year-old woman in Bradenton said a man grabbed her as she walked by and tried to pull her away, according to records released by the Manatee County Sheriff's Office.

"He got on top of me and told me to shut up or he would cut me," she told authorities. After a struggle, she said, she managed to run into the street, and passengers in an approaching van stopped and rescued her.

Smith, found hiding behind a house by a police tracking dog, was acquitted by jurors after telling them he was trying to keep the woman from running into the street and she misunderstood.

Smith is the bloke who has been charged with this murder.

I'm surprised to see the above report. In the UK the newspapers wouldn't be allowed to report that, I think, because previous form might be thought to influence a jury, and thus be a lever for the defence to rule a mistrial.

It also wouldn't be allowed to be brought up in court.

Obviously things are different in the US.

rikzilla

6th February 2004, 09:24 AM

G6,

I'd love nothing more than to be able to indulge in what you yourself exemplify; "Bleeding Heart Liberalism" at it's most pure. I'm not saying this to insult you, what I'm saying is that I admire your faith in, and love for, humanity itself.

I also admire Buddhists and Taoists for their rational approach to religion, and their adherrence to strictly non-violent solutions to humanity's problems.

I have tried,....oh how I've tried!,....to accept and adherre to these tenets myself. (I know you don't believe that, but it's true) But the ugly realities of this world keep creeping in, and I am not strong enough to refrain from adopting violent solutions to said problems. Not only that, I have become convinced through my experiences that violent solutions such as war, or the death penalty are sometimes the most reliable.

Sometimes, G6, there are people that simply need killing. This child-murderer, should he be convicted, is one of them. It is in the objective best interests of larger society that this individual, and all others like him, be removed. Period. This is my opinion, and if my opinion is in the majority in my state or country,...(and I bet it is),....then that should inform the law of the land....(and for the most part it does).

"Bleeding heart liberals" while upstanding and wonderful people individually, are woefully naive as a group. They tend not to acknowledge that "evil" exists. They tend to look for "root causes". Well evil does exist, we see it up close in the person of the pedophile-murderer Smith. (if indeed he is the guilty party) I, and others do not care for the "root causes" of his evil. He's a grown man who chose to murder an innocent child....there is no root cause that will ever justify such an act.

Some people, G6, are just sociopaths. They exist with no sense of conscience such as you or I have. They feel nothing for their victims. Sociopaths are born that way,...like the "bad seed". It doesn't matter if they are never abused or live in poverty...it is evil that exists independent from "root causes". (unless of course you wish to portray the sociopath as an innocent victim of his own brain chemistry, but that's reaching)

Perhaps in a perfect world we could study such people and seek to eliminate their "root causes"...but we don't live there....and I doubt we ever will. There will always be bad people, the crooked CEO, the biased cop, the lying politician....that will polute society forever. But the truly evil we do not, and should not ever, have to put up with.

There is nothing more that inspires me to buy a gun, more than the thought that society's attempt to find justice for me or mine, will be preverted by some well meaning "bleeding heart". If justice cannot be guaranteed by the state, then what is to stop the rise of vigilantism in larger society? If wrongs will not be redressed by the state in the manner that the majority expects, then the people will ultimately seek justice elsewhere.

-z

Girl 6

6th February 2004, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.

I know that you directed this statement to Ed, but I believe the current figure for single parent households in the black community is hovering around an astonishing 80 percent.

WHOA! Is it as bad as that? For real? :eek:

Sheesh... Talk about a problem just waiting to explode!

I'm not going to hijack this thread with any of my speculations on the effect this has.

G6

6th February 2004, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by Girl 6

WHOA! Is it as bad as that? For real? :eek:

Sheesh... Talk about a problem just waiting to explode!

I'm not going to hijack this thread with any of my speculations on the effect this has.

G6

I have raised this numerous times here. I believe it is hovering around 85%. Talk of "programs" and "equal opportunity" and the black incarceration rate and all of that stuff is irrelevent if the beast keeps getting fed, which it is.

"Black leaders" and those candy assed white liberals never ever address this core problem and cause the black population to confront it. It is as bad as not adressing aids because it has to do with "sex" and might make some people uncomfortable.

You take that rate and everything, I mean everything else follows.

Suddenly

6th February 2004, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.

If innocent blacks were being imprisoned, we'd have a serious problem. If guilty blacks were being imprisoned while whites guilty of the same crimes were being imprisoned for less time or not at all, we'd have a serious problem.

But if blacks were committing crimes more than whites, we'd have a completely different sort of problem.

I think we are somewhere in the midst of all three problems. What proportion of each, I have puzzled over for quite some time.

I spent a lot of time debating this issue on Stormfront, as you can imagine.

The first two problems I mentioned can be directly traced to racism. The second problem can be partially traced indirectly to racism, but I believe the reasonable period for that excuse is close to expiration. I think the time for accepting responsibility within the black community has come. I think the time for a close self-examination of the type of leadership the black community chooses is way past due. I think the black community needs to step back and realize that some people who claim to be their friends are their worst enemies, and some people they believe are their enemies are their best friends.

edited for grammar

As far as crime goes I think you can substitute "poor" for "black" and come up with the same answers, but it makes the "poor community" part a little illucid. There are certain cultural problems among the "black community" regarding glorification of crime, to be sure, but there are likewise problems among the poor "white" people as well, strikingly similar problems.

I mean, if you and I go hang out in Matewan or Welch, and see young kids slinging drugs and violence and gunplay and all the same crap we hear about in Watts or Harlem except the kids being white, are we going to conclude that the "white community" needs to "realize" things about it's "leadership?"

The only difference is that a larger percentage of the black population live in situations where "gangsterism" (to make up a word) seems a reasonable path for youth to take. Sling rock, and live rich for a while and risk prison or death is better to some than finding a $7 an hour dead end job. Actual realistic opportunity for a better life is often taken for granted when it just doesn't exist for some people.

There are biases in the system based on economics and race, and those biases will exist in the justice system as long as they exist in other walks of life. I would opine that your second point, about blacks being convicted and sentenced more than whites to be the most important factor. This is mainly a factor of increased police scrutiny, blacks being more likely to undergo searches when stopped for routine traffic violations and so forth.

Luke T.

6th February 2004, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by richardm
Smith is the bloke who has been charged with this murder.

I'm surprised to see the above report. In the UK the newspapers wouldn't be allowed to report that, I think, because previous form might be thought to influence a jury, and thus be a lever for the defence to rule a mistrial.

It also wouldn't be allowed to be brought up in court.

Obviously things are different in the US.

It may very well not be allowed to be brought up in court. However, it can be brought up in the papers because he was put on trial before, and that is a matter of public record. For instance, Michael Jackson's arrest is common knowledge even though he hasn't even been tried yet. And every detail of his trial will be public as well, even before his guilt or innocence is determined.

Globert

6th February 2004, 09:40 AM

Death for the Fla. psycho perp.
Death for murder
Death for pedophile rape.

That or be sure to tell the victims families when the scum walks free. (don't be surprised at the sound of gunfire.)

Personally I don't agree with diminished capacity as a defence or mitigating circumstance.
that one doesn't know it's wrong makes the offence worse.

Luke T.

6th February 2004, 09:43 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly

As far as crime goes I think you can substitute "poor" for "black" and come up with the same answers, but it makes the "poor community" part a little illucid. There are certain cultural problems among the "black community" regarding glorification of crime, to be sure, but there are likewise problems among the poor "white" people as well, strikingly similar problems.

I mean, if you and I go hang out in Matewan or Welch, and see young kids slinging drugs and violence and gunplay and all the same crap we hear about in Watts or Harlem except the kids being white, are we going to conclude that the "white community" needs to "realize" things about it's "leadership?"

The only difference is that a larger percentage of the black population live in situations where "gangsterism" (to make up a word) seems a reasonable path for youth to take. Sling rock, and live rich for a while and risk prison or death is better to some than finding a $7 an hour dead end job. Actual realistic opportunity for a better life is often taken for granted when it just doesn't exist for some people.

There are biases in the system based on economics and race, and those biases will exist in the justice system as long as they exist in other walks of life. I would opine that your second point, about blacks being convicted and sentenced more than whites to be the most important factor. This is mainly a factor of increased police scrutiny, blacks being more likely to undergo searches when stopped for routine traffic violations and so forth.

I made these exact same points on Stormfront. Claus would have been proud. They wanted evidence for every sentence that came out of my computer, and I provided it. Particularly the part about police scrutiny. I provided a link to a study which found New Jersey cops were guilty of that very thing. I think it was New Jersey, anyway.

I also made the point about poverty.

If you accept that cops scrutinize blacks more, and therefore they are arrested more often, this is the seed that blooms into recidivism rates. You take a white guy on trial for theft who has never been convicted of anything before, and put him next to a black guy on trial for the same theft who has been convicted of a crime before, which one is going to jail the longest?

epepke

6th February 2004, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.
Okay. That's the second time someone has mentioned innocent people on death row. And this time it has been said innocent people have been killed. I'm going to need to see some evidence, please.

It's hard to provide evidence of innocent people being executed, as cases where someone is dead have a low probability of getting investigated. Nevertheless, there have been an awful lot of people on death row who were released as innocent: http://www.aclu.org/DeathPenalty/DeathPenalty.cfm?ID=9316&c=65 http://www.internetcampus.com/fog41.htm

This definitely belongs in my "skepticism is stupid" thread, since, being a moderator and all, you probably count as an Official Randi Skeptic.

You seem to have decided an awful lot based upon having seen some pictures on the teevee. But you're not going to be skeptical about that, nosiree, Bob! The violence of your emotional reaction must necessarily mean that you are right.

No; it's only the possibilities that would be emotionally troubling, that would mean that the True Authorities aren't always doing their jobs, that deserve skepticism. Skepticism is like a Swiss Army Knife, only to be whipped out at certain times.

Since we have teevee, what need is there even for trial by jury? So much for Emmett Till.

I'm probably in the minority here, but the photos of the guy in the mug shot did not look to me much like the video. The face in the mug shot looked to me a lot fatter and heavier, big like a tomcat's, while the face in the video looked thinner and younger.

But in the context of what I've been able to make of the current justice system, it doesn't seem to matter at all whether they get the right guy. All that seems to matter is that they get someone plausible enough to satisfy everybody.

Mechanic with a long criminal record, check! Let's fry him. Everyone will feel all warm inside. Too bad he isn't a Negro.

Hey, maybe he did it. I don't know. I do know that I wouldn't trust the Sarasota police as far as I could throw them, and I doubt if I could lift too many of them. I don't have much problem with killing people when they are committing a crime. I would have no problem pumping a few rounds into someone in the process of committing a violent felony. However, there are entirely too many "Jamaicans with pager" incidents for my taste.

In any event, neither do you know. Nor do you have more than the slightest of ideas. For all you know, really, the whole thing could have been staged on a set in Orlando. You have not met a single one of the participants in this face-to-face. All of your perceptions in this case are based on the accuracy of reporters. Which must mean, at the minimum, that you have never been interviewed by a reporter in your life, because if you had, you wouldn't have such a degree of trust in their reporting. Certainly not enough to enable you to make opinions about dealing out death.

Yet the majority of this thread is about the idea that emotional outrage somehow makes every judgement right and proper and OK, and how you don't have to think any more about reality so long as you're righteously ticked off enough, and how it somehow magically passes under the radar of skepticism.

Man, this is irritating. I have to swallow my gorge every time I hear about the need to balance victims' rights against the rights of the accused. The whole point of the rights of the accused is to reduce the probability that the wrong person will be convicted. Nobody with two neurons to rub together could ever possibly imagine that the rights of victims has anything to do with whether the first person that Joe Cop, who had to score low on an intelligence test to get on the force, brought in is the actual perpetrator. There is no logical connection whatsoever. The assertion that there is necessarily involves a case of the emotions driving out the ability to think, leaving little but a supercilious attitude.

Tmy

6th February 2004, 09:44 AM

"Blacks commit most crime". How is this defined? There are lots of crimes. For example tax evasion is a crime, wife beating is a crime. But it rarely are they discovered or prosecuted. Tax stuff all most never results in jail time. Does that mean a crime was not commited?

Look at who ends up in jail. Some schlub who rights a bunch of bad checks. Yet Mr. Shirt n tie who embezzzles tens thousands of dollars wont see any jail time. WHos the bigger criminal??

Bottle or the Gun

6th February 2004, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
That and I wonder about the familys of the killers. What about their feelings?

I' d remind them about what the victim was probably feeling in their last moments.

Bottle or the Gun

6th February 2004, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
That and I wonder about the familys of the killers. What about their feelings?

I'd remind them about what the victim was probably feeling in their last moments.

6th February 2004, 09:54 AM

Luke T.

6th February 2004, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly
I mean, if you and I go hang out in Matewan or Welch, and see young kids slinging drugs and violence and gunplay and all the same crap we hear about in Watts or Harlem except the kids being white, are we going to conclude that the "white community" needs to "realize" things about it's "leadership?"

I should comment on this separately.

The problems of the black leadership is more encompassing than just on the issue of crime or the death penalty.

But like I said, I believe the disproportionate ratio of blacks in our prisons is a combination of problems, of which racism and black leadership are responsible for. Sorting out the "blame," as G6 put it, is the hard part. And I don't know if you can work out the solution if you haven't correctly identified the problem.

Suddenly

6th February 2004, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla
G6,

(unless of course you wish to portray the sociopath as an innocent victim of his own brain chemistry, but that's reaching)

Just a thought, but doesn't this statement cut straight to the heart of the disagreement?

Most sociopaths are likely products of something wrong on some genetic or developmental level or some combination of the two. They are largely what they are not by choice, except by many measures they do awful things by choice, in that they freely decide to do so. Problem is, the defect that makes them think such actions are a good idea isn't, in the long run, something they choose.

I think the "victim of brain chemistry" isn't so much a reach as it is the results of a different worldview w/r/t freewill.

As far as what to do with these people I'd think that keeping them locked up and studying them creates more benefit to us as a whole than does killing them. When you add to that the more deterministic viewpoint that their acts, while evil, were on some level caused by upbringing or genetic factors, a comprehensive anti-death penalty position seems very reasonable.

Girl 6

6th February 2004, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by rikzilla
G6,

I'd love nothing more than to be able to indulge in what you yourself exemplify; "Bleeding Heart Liberalism" at it's most pure. I'm not saying this to insult you, what I'm saying is that I admire your faith in, and love for, humanity itself.

Wow! Your praise is quite unexpected. :) Thank you.

I also admire Buddhists and Taoists for their rational approach to religion, and their adherrence to strictly non-violent solutions to humanity's problems.

Yes, I admire them too. I studied those religions quite a bit. I studied Japanese to understand Zen and the culture a lot more. I do admit that a lot of the philosophy has rubbed off on me. I know it's a little grating for all of you to continually have me spout the "bleeding heart liberalism" stance. :D

I have tried,....oh how I've tried!,....to accept and adherre to these tenets myself. (I know you don't believe that, but it's true) But the ugly realities of this world keep creeping in, and I am not strong enough to refrain from adopting violent solutions to said problems. Not only that, I have become convinced through my experiences that violent solutions such as war, or the death penalty are sometimes the most reliable.

Actually, I do believe that you have tried. There is nothing in your demeanor to indicate otherwise. No one comes to this point about the darkness of humanity without asking hard questions of oneself. And, worse, many people have had to experience the worst of humanity.

So, no. I don't blame you or anyone else for having lost faith in the goodness of people.

Sometimes, G6, there are people that simply need killing. This child-murderer, should he be convicted, is one of them. It is in the objective best interests of larger society that this individual, and all others like him, be removed. Period. This is my opinion, and if my opinion is in the majority in my state or country,...(and I bet it is),....then that should inform the law of the land....(and for the most part it does).

Yes, they can be removed. But, I don't think killing them really resolves anything. Yes, it may bring "closure" to the victims. And, I don't want to disrespect any aspect of the pain that any victim goes through. They should be the ones to dictate what punishment is to be executed.

"Bleeding heart liberals" while upstanding and wonderful people individually, are woefully naive as a group. They tend not to acknowledge that "evil" exists. They tend to look for "root causes". Well evil does exist, we see it up close in the person of the pedophile-murderer Smith. (if indeed he is the guilty party) I, and others do not care for the "root causes" of his evil. He's a grown man who chose to murder an innocent child....there is no root cause that will ever justify such an act.

I know full well that "evil" exists. I just don't want to become evil in the process or no better than the prepetrator of the heinous crimes.

Some people, G6, are just sociopaths. They exist with no sense of conscience such as you or I have. They feel nothing for their victims. Sociopaths are born that way,...like the "bad seed". It doesn't matter if they are never abused or live in poverty...it is evil that exists independent from "root causes". (unless of course you wish to portray the sociopath as an innocent victim of his own brain chemistry, but that's reaching)

I don't quite buy the fact that sociopaths are born that way. Have you ever looked at a baby's face or been in a kid's playground? MANY things are learned behaviors. MANY things contribute to a sociopath's inclination to act out.

I contend that we NEED to find a way to correct the imbalance. It's been introduced somewhere in the chain. WE can only benefit as a society to learn how this happens.

Perhaps in a perfect world we could study such people and seek to eliminate their "root causes"...but we don't live there....and I doubt we ever will. There will always be bad people, the crooked CEO, the biased cop, the lying politician....that will polute society forever. But the truly evil we do not, and should not ever, have to put up with.

We CAN get to a perfect world. But, we are not there yet. Will we ever be there? I don't know. I doubt that will be the case in my lifetime.

We don't have to put up with evil. We can do something about it. I just disagree with the methodology. I have NEVER advocated that we put up with evil wherever it rears it's head.

There is nothing more that inspires me to buy a gun, more than the thought that society's attempt to find justice for me or mine, will be preverted by some well meaning "bleeding heart". If justice cannot be guaranteed by the state, then what is to stop the rise of vigilantism in larger society? If wrongs will not be redressed by the state in the manner that the majority expects, then the people will ultimately seek justice elsewhere.

I can only say that your motivation is driven by the the fact that you love someone just as much as Luke does. To have to go through the untimely death of someone you love WILL make you want blood. It WILL drive you to seek revenge and restitution. Again, these are things that I do understand.

But, when you take a chance to breath and look at the possible consequences of a mistake, won't that compound the horrific nature of it all? I think so.

I'm quite sure that there is a form of vigilanteism starting to rise now. If you see how much injustice is doled out on different levels, you see that people are taking things into their own hands. From the little things to the big things. It's all there.

I still think the death penalty is wrong. But, I do respect the intent behind it.

G6

renata

6th February 2004, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.

I have retracted my stance on torture. Heat of the moment.

As for captial punishment for rapists, I am undecided.

For murderers, in some cases.

Just wanted to comment on history of capital punishment for rapists. A few months ago AmateurScientist and I were having a somewhat uncharacteristically heated discussion about rape laws in the US. We talked a little about how feminists revolutionized rape laws in the 60s and 70s.

I used this article as a source New Yorker, September 1, 2003 Jeffrey Toobin, Annals of Law: The Consent Defense pp. 40-44- it is not available on the net, so I summarized some of it.

The part you might find pertinent is this, from my summary:

"It then goes in to the shadow of mixing of race and rape, and the fact that in the 50's and 60's liberals stayed away from the issues because they did not want to make the convictions easier, to avoid more lynchings. It says of the 455 men executed for rape in the US between 1930 and 1976, 405 where black, and almost all where charged with rape of white women. However, liberal feminists made alliances with victim's right movements, which was a conservative organization. In 1977 Supreme Court prohibited the use of death penalty in rape cases, lessening the stakes."

This was my post in full (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870147935&highlight=yorker#post1870147935)

I found the simple numbers quoted startling- I think it is very telling the capital punishment for rape was used arbitrarily and to punish black men. Scottsboro boys case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottsboro_Boys) is one of the more infamous examples.

Since your discussion turned to issues of race, I thought it would be appropriate to mention this.

Luke T.

6th February 2004, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by epepke

It's hard to provide evidence of innocent people being executed, as cases where someone is dead have a low probability of getting investigated. Nevertheless, there have been an awful lot of people on death row who were released as innocent: http://www.aclu.org/DeathPenalty/DeathPenalty.cfm?ID=9316&c=65 http://www.internetcampus.com/fog41.htm

That is not the same thing as actually executing an innocent person, which is what was claimed. Also, I have commented extensively on being grateful a moratorium was enacted on the death penalty.

This definitely belongs in my "skepticism is stupid" thread, since, being a moderator and all, you probably count as an Official Randi Skeptic.

You seem to have decided an awful lot based upon having seen some pictures on the teevee. But you're not going to be skeptical about that, nosiree, Bob! The violence of your emotional reaction must necessarily mean that you are right.

This entire post of yours is a violent emotional reaction. ;)

Also, I am getting the feeling you haven't read this entire topic, especially all of my posts. Or your own emotions have prevented you from seeing I am being far more reasonable than you seem to think. I admitted my first few posts in this topic were emotionally overcharged and apologized for that. Is that not good enough?

No; it's only the possibilities that would be emotionally troubling, that would mean that the True Authorities aren't always doing their jobs, that deserve skepticism. Skepticism is like a Swiss Army Knife, only to be whipped out at certain times.

Since we have teevee, what need is there even for trial by jury? So much for Emmett Till.

I have said at least twice no punishment should be meted out unless he is found guilty by trial.

I'm probably in the minority here, but the photos of the guy in the mug shot did not look to me much like the video. The face in the mug shot looked to me a lot fatter and heavier, big like a tomcat's, while the face in the video looked thinner and younger.

The angle of the camera makes a big difference. Also, we are seeing a copy of a copy of the abduction. I am sure the original tape is much clearer. And the abductor has a tatoo and is wearing a mechanics uniform. Perhaps the arrestee, who is a mechanic, has the same tatoo.

And did you read this part in the article?

Investigators found the body after negotiations with Smith, said a law enforcement source who spoke on condition of anonymity. Earlier, authorities had said Smith was not cooperating.

Sounds like he told them where to find the body. That's pretty damning.

But in the context of what I've been able to make of the current justice system, it doesn't seem to matter at all whether they get the right guy. All that seems to matter is that they get someone plausible enough to satisfy everybody.

And that is your skeptical opinion, eh?

For all you know, really, the whole thing could have been staged on a set in Orlando.

Ahhh. That's right. This is Florida. The old lunar landing movie set would have done nicely.

Yet the majority of this thread is about the idea that emotional outrage somehow makes every judgement right and proper and OK, and how you don't have to think any more about reality so long as you're righteously ticked off enough, and how it somehow magically passes under the radar of skepticism.

Interesting interpretation of what has occurred in this topic!

Man, this is irritating. I have to swallow my gorge...

Violent emotional reaction?

rikzilla

6th February 2004, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by epepke

In any event, neither do you know. Nor do you have more than the slightest of ideas. For all you know, really, the whole thing could have been staged on a set in Orlando. You have not met a single one of the participants in this face-to-face. All of your perceptions in this case are based on the accuracy of reporters.

Epepke, if this is how you really feel then tell me how we can know ANYTHING at all about places and times we haven't been?

How could I know the Holocaust happened? I wasn't there.

Look, I know that Tokyo, Japan exists....I have never been there though. Wouldn't it be silly of me to suspend all logic and be skeptical of the existence of Tokyo against all evidence?

If so, then isn't your above assertion just as silly?

There is such a thing, Epepke, as Occam's razor,...look it up. The type of "skepticism" that you talk about is not skepticism at all, it's a woo-woo's penchant for conspiracy theory.

All things being equal Epepke, the simple solution is the more likely one. Is it more likely that this crime is being reported faithfully?

Or is it more likely that the entire thing has been staged in an elaborate conspiracy to freak out the populace?

-z

SRW

6th February 2004, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly

Just a thought, but doesn't this statement cut straight to the heart of the disagreement?

Most sociopaths are likely products of something wrong on some genetic or developmental level or some combination of the two. They are largely what they are not by choice, except by many measures they do awful things by choice, in that they freely decide to do so. Problem is, the defect that makes them think such actions are a good idea isn't, in the long run, something they choose.

I think the "victim of brain chemistry" isn't so much a reach as it is the results of a different worldview w/r/t freewill.

As far as what to do with these people I'd think that keeping them locked up and studying them creates more benefit to us as a whole than does killing them. When you add to that the more deterministic viewpoint that their acts, while evil, were on some level caused by upbringing or genetic factors, a comprehensive anti-death penalty position seems very reasonable.

Along the same line as studying this I would bet that this is not his first abduction and murder. I would have no problem at all putting this monsters lights out. However, he needs to come clean on any other abductions and murders he may have commited.

Revenge is one thing but if we can solve some other cases and bring closure to other families...

American

6th February 2004, 10:20 AM

I can already hear Richard Gere and Susan Sarandon giving empassioned speeches and leading a candle-light vigil against the execution of her killer.

This is the time to be most angry, not just at criminals but at those who enable them and want to block justice.

Luke T.

6th February 2004, 10:21 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly

Just a thought, but doesn't this statement cut straight to the heart of the disagreement?

Most sociopaths are likely products of something wrong on some genetic or developmental level or some combination of the two. They are largely what they are not by choice, except by many measures they do awful things by choice, in that they freely decide to do so. Problem is, the defect that makes them think such actions are a good idea isn't, in the long run, something they choose.

I think the "victim of brain chemistry" isn't so much a reach as it is the results of a different worldview w/r/t freewill.

As far as what to do with these people I'd think that keeping them locked up and studying them creates more benefit to us as a whole than does killing them. When you add to that the more deterministic viewpoint that their acts, while evil, were on some level caused by upbringing or genetic factors, a comprehensive anti-death penalty position seems very reasonable.

Just as there is a slippery slope with the death penalty leading to us executing minors and mental defectives, there is a slippery slope the other way whereupon we release menances to society back onto the streets. Saying someone is a victim of brain chemistry doesn't make me feel any safer when you release him. Quite the opposite. And like you said. It's all about free will. I, for one, don't buy that a person can't help themselves from killing a little girl.

edited for grammar

Luke T.

6th February 2004, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
"Blacks commit most crime". How is this defined? There are lots of crimes. For example tax evasion is a crime, wife beating is a crime. But it rarely are they discovered or prosecuted. Tax stuff all most never results in jail time. Does that mean a crime was not commited?

Look at who ends up in jail. Some schlub who rights a bunch of bad checks. Yet Mr. Shirt n tie who embezzzles tens thousands of dollars wont see any jail time. WHos the bigger criminal??

This is why I like you, Tmy. I made this same point on Stormfront. At the time, I mentioned that the CEO of Enron will probably get away with his crimes. That doesn't look as likely today, but I doubt he will get what he really deserves.

Interestingly, and totally off topic, many White Nationalists are anti-capitalism, so they hate the Enron guy just as much as the black community.

Globert

6th February 2004, 10:37 AM

Suddenly

6th February 2004, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.

Just as there is a slippery slope with the death penalty leading to us executing minors and mental defectives, there is a slippery slope the other way whereupon we release menances to society back onto the streets. Saying someone is a victim of brain chemistry doesn't make me feel any safer when you release him. Quite the opposite. And like you said. It's all about free will. I, for one, don't buy that a person can't help themselves from killing a little girl.

edited for grammar

Who is releasing these people? The question of brain chemistry really isn't a question of making people seems safer or letting people go because they on some level "couldn't help it."

These people stay locked up. Ones that are capable of killing (or molesting) children stay locked up for good. We try to address the causes of less serious crimes and do what can be done to prevent future occurances The only difference would be that we wouldn't emphesize punishment as much as keeping such people away from innocents. There is going to be an element of punishment inherent in this, but we can chalk that up to part of the psychology of the whole thing. Plus, we study these people, and maybe figure out how not to create more of them.

It isn't that they can't help themselves as much as they don't see anything wrong with what they are doing. That's the big difference. They just don't think like most people.

I've yet to see an admitted child molester that would really believe that what he did was wrong. Some give lip service to that effect, as they understand what others (parole board, etc.) wants them to say, but sooner or later they slip back into acting how they really feel about the whole thing. They just don't get it. Some wind up killing victims, some don't. The killing sometimes brings a hint of understanding, but usually the cognative dissonance kicks in and there is a good reason for that as well. Or maybe that part just didn't happen.

From this point of view capital punishment looks more like eugenics than justice, as people are being killed for being defective.

To be clear, I really don't fully subscribe to this point of view. It's just that most people in my office are big on this sort of thing, so I've spent some time trying to figure it out. Some of the evidence I have seen really does support this sort of thing, as far as those people being a victim of some sort of circumstance. However, it just isn't that simple. At a bare minimmum, the illusion of free will exists and that alone prevents us from removing blame from the appraisal of human behaviour.

Globert

6th February 2004, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly

From this point of view capital punishment looks more like eugenics than justice, as people are being killed for being defective.

I would think they would recive capital punishment for committing capital crimes. Irrespective of mental capacity, no crime no punishment. there are legions of mentally challenged people who have not murdered, there is no impetus to drag them to the chair. the ones that kill should be held to the same sentence as the rest of death row.

Larspeart

6th February 2004, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly

I've often thought that the jury recommending the death penalty should also be the ones to carry out the sentence. It would give a jolt of reality to what can possibly otherwise be an abstract decision. It wouldn't make much of a difference in this case, but it would in some of the more sketchy cases.

This would be completely unworkable in practice, of course, given the length of the appeals process, but it seems to me a decent test in these situations.

You and Tmy crack me up.

Make me the juror, and I'll show you 'conviction of purpose' and dedication to cause'. I'd have no problem issuing a guilty verdict AND a death sentence with the knowledge that I would have to carry it out.

Reason?

Simple. If I felt THAT strongly that the person deserved it, that would mean that the person found guilty had managed to turn my stomache enough and revolt me enough that I would be eagerly waiting my chance.

I also believe that anyone found to be guilty of an act so heinous as to deserve the death penalty should be exempt from any kind of 'no cruel and unusual punishment' safetly net. Reason? Because to be found so guilty, they certainly had no problem being cruel and unusual to their victem.

This guy is going to sit in a cell for decades appealing with his jerk-off lawyer, eating 3 squares, getting a warm bed, reading material, TV, exercise, etc, and THEN, when it is finally time to put the SOB down. . . a quick injection, and he slips unconcious. BIG punishment (/gag!).

Luke T.

6th February 2004, 11:21 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly

Who is releasing these people? The question of brain chemistry really isn't a question of making people seems safer or letting people go because they on some level "couldn't help it."

What I meant was that brain chemistry problems don't just get applied to people on death row. They get applied to people who have committed violent and other crimes. If we can go too far one way with punishment by exceedingly harsh punishments, we can go too far the other way by excusing the criminal and releasing him back into society before paying the full measure of his just punishment. And that does not make us feel any safer.

These people stay locked up. Ones that are capable of killing (or molesting) children stay locked up for good.

I think that is untrue. Lots of child molesters and murderers are set free to molest and murder again. Surely, you hear the words "repeat offender" applied to your clients.

Plus, we study these people, and maybe figure out how not to create more of them.

Why not study the people who have "suffered" the same, or worse, experiences as a child molestor and yet didn't molest any children? You will have a much larger pool of subjects, too.

After all, if these monsters were "created," that implies it has nothing to do with brain chemistry.

If it does have to do with brain chemistry, then we can't prevent their being "created."

I think you can study them all you want, and slice and dice their brains all you like, and you won't be able to explain why some identical people with identical brain chemistry kill kids and most don't.

It isn't that they can't help themselves as much as they don't see anything wrong with what they are doing. That's the big difference. They just don't think like most people.

So? If they know it is illegal to kill a kid, and they do anyway, that's all I need to know to lock them up or execute them.

From this point of view capital punishment looks more like eugenics than justice, as people are being killed for being defective.

People are being executed for doing wrong. We are all defective. We just don't act on it. Or we act to get help for our defectiveness if it is bad enough.

This kind of thinking seems to me to believe that every killer can't help himself. "The Devil made me do it" for the modern age: "Brain chemistry made me do it."

No personal responsibility at all. Defending a killer on those grounds borders on aiding and abetting.

Skeptical Greg

6th February 2004, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly
...Who is releasing these people? The question of brain chemistry really isn't a question of making people seems safer or letting people go because they on some level "couldn't help it."

These people stay locked up. Ones that are capable of killing (or molesting) children stay locked up for good. ......

Who is releasing them?

This guy perhaps... At least one of them, anyway....
..A state Department of Corrections official said Thursday that a probation officer had asked a judge on Dec. 30 to declare Smith in violation of his probation because he had not paid all his fines and court costs.

Probation official Joe Papy said Circuit Judge Harry Rapkin declined to find Smith in violation, which could have returned him to jail. I started a new topic..
Here.... (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35069)

P.S. Suddenly, I recognize in the context of your post, this guy was not a convicted child molestor, so I am not taking exception to the spirit of your comments..

Tmy

6th February 2004, 11:25 AM

Im glad I can amuse you Lars,

You mentioned punishment. How do you know death is punishment?? Instead of living a lifetime rooting in some cell we may be giving him the gateway to eternal bliss!

Larspeart

6th February 2004, 11:30 AM

Suddenly said. . .

"These people stay locked up. Ones that are capable of killing (or molesting) children stay locked up for good. We try to address the causes of less serious crimes and do what can be done to prevent future occurances "

Well, lets look at that, and our current topic at hand (the dead girl in Florida).

The man believed to have done it had been ARRESTED 13 TIMES IN THE LAST 10 YEARS ALONE, INCLUDING TWO TIMES FOR KIDNAPPING!!! TWO TIMES FOR KIDNAPPING?!?!

Now, how does that fit into your plan? This multi-convicted demon has been arrested, convicted and RELEASED mulitple times, including TWICE for the VERY crime he just commited. (yes, I am saying he is guilty already, because they everything but DNA and a confession already in terms of evidence, INCLUDING video of the kidnapping, thank God). Suddenly, do you just spout out stuff to piss people off? Do you ever think before posting 'hmm, I wonder if what I am about to post is utterly stupid and will be proved wrong by half the forum within 5 minutes?' Or, do you just post to get people angry, and you get off on that kind of passive-aggressive behavior?

Suddenly

6th February 2004, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by Globert

I would think they would recive capital punishment for committing capital crimes. Irrespective of mental capacity, no crime no punishment. there are legions of mentally challenged people who have not murdered, there is no impetus to drag them to the chair. the ones that kill should be held to the same sentence as the rest of death row.

Why? If someone can't really control or lacks the capacity to see what he is doing is wrong, why do you want to kill them? That is the question this point of view asks. Since from this point of view criminal behaviour is simply a symptom of some kind of defect, killing murderers is simply killing people for being defective.

The fact that people with defects for which criminal behaviour is not a symptom are not executed is not relevant.

Larspeart

6th February 2004, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
Im glad I can amuse you Lars,

You mentioned punishment. How do you know death is punishment?? Instead of living a lifetime rooting in some cell we may be giving him the gateway to eternal bliss!

Well, I can take this from two approaches. The Athiest one, and the religious one.

An Athiest approach says that when we die, there is nothing. Our body dissolves into the Earth, and the mind ceases. This means that the murderer is dead, gone, and won't 'know' it, right? THE PLUS SIDE IS THAT NONE OF US THAT ARE STILL LIVING WILL EVER HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT PERSON AGAIN, and there is at least some form of a deterant (however small) for others against such behavior. Kidnap/rape kid = die.

A religious approach tells us that this man is evil and will likely go to some form of Hell, where his soul will burn and suffer for eternity. I'd say that's punishment.

Either way, the world, society, and the family/friends of the victem win.

Tmy

6th February 2004, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by Larspeart
Suddenly said. . .
).

The man believed to have done it had been ARRESTED 13 TIMES IN THE LAST 10 YEARS ALONE, INCLUDING TWO TIMES FOR KIDNAPPING!!!ARRESTED 13 TIMES IN THE LAST 10 YEARS ALONE, INCLUDING TWO TIMES FOR KIDNAPPING!!! TWO TIMES FOR KIDNAPPING

ARRESTED dont mean squat. If divorced dad picks up kid at school when he wasnt supposed too, hed be arrrested for "Kidnapping".

I wanna know the stuff he was convicted of.

Tmy

6th February 2004, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by Larspeart

Well, I can take this from two approaches. The Athiest one, and the religious one.

An Athiest approach says that when we die, there is nothing. Our body dissolves into the Earth, and the mind ceases. This means that the murderer is dead, gone, and won't 'know' it, right? THE PLUS SIDE IS THAT NONE OF US THAT ARE STILL LIVING WILL EVER HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT PERSON AGAIN, and there is at least some form of a deterant (however small) for others against such behavior. Kidnap/rape kid = die.

A religious approach tells us that this man is evil and will likely go to some form of Hell, where his soul will burn and suffer for eternity. I'd say that's punishment.

Either way, the world, society, and the family/friends of the victem win.

Ah but we want to punish, not just get rid of him. Oblivion may not be any kind of punihsment.

As for religion. What if he gets all weepy-sorry Sean Penn Dead Man Walking-like.?? Lots of religious have a "im sorry" get out of hell free card. A couple of hail marys and his slate is clean.

I myslef have a plan to recant my agnostic ways on my deathbed. Just to hedge my bets on the afterlife.:p

Deterent??? The guy did this in Florida! THe Disneyland of Capitol Punishment (Texas being Disneyworld). Wheres the deterent?

Larspeart

6th February 2004, 11:48 AM

Um, if you bothered to read more then the 1st few lines, you'd see I clearly put 'and convicted' in the body of my post.

Larspeart

6th February 2004, 11:51 AM

You mistake my intentions (and those I what I am guessing most people feel on a topic like this).

I am most concerned with making the world safer, and preventing future abuses like this. Punishment is just a secondary 'perk'. I'm happier that the piece of ***** will never harm another kid. You're taking the vengeful route. Hey, i am all for him suffering and writhing in pain too, but my intent is safety for the millions of other kids/adults out there.

IF THEY ARE DEAD, THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING TO ANYONE.

Tmy

6th February 2004, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by Larspeart
Um, if you bothered to read more then the 1st few lines, you'd see I clearly put 'and convicted' in the body of my post.

BAH!!! Quit trying to ruin my selfrightiousness with your silly facts. And get the hell off my high horse!:p

Suddenly

6th February 2004, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by Larspeart
Suddenly said. . .

"These people stay locked up. Ones that are capable of killing (or molesting) children stay locked up for good. We try to address the causes of less serious crimes and do what can be done to prevent future occurances "

Well, lets look at that, and our current topic at hand (the dead girl in Florida).

You do realize I am speaking of a hypothetical reality where the "radical deterministic worldview" is followed with regard to criminal justice do you not? I thought that part was obvious.

The man believed to have done it had been ARRESTED 13 TIMES IN THE LAST 10 YEARS ALONE, INCLUDING TWO TIMES FOR KIDNAPPING!!!ARRESTED 13 TIMES IN THE LAST 10 YEARS ALONE, INCLUDING TWO TIMES FOR KIDNAPPING!!! TWO TIMES FOR KIDNAPPING How many convictions? If he was never convicted, then releasing convicted felons isn't much of an issue. Sounds like a few law enforcement outfits may have dropped the ball, or this one of the costs of living in a free society as there simply wasn't proof to convict in these prior occasions.

Now, how does that fit into your plan? This multi-convicted demon has been arrested, convicted and RELEASED mulitple times, including TWICE for the VERY crime he just commited. (yes, I am saying he is guilty already, because they everything but DNA and a confession already in terms of evidence, INCLUDING video of the kidnapping, thank God).

I see you have convicted him now. If so the state he was convicted in has stupid laws and I have no idea whatsoever how that touches the larger determinism question. No state has the death penalty for kidnapping, so maybe you should go rant about the sentencing?

What I said in the above quote that you are having a fit over is, if you take the deterministic point of view then this person would be locked up for the rest his life. You are flying off the handle at my response to Luke's assumption that such a viewpoint requires release. It doesn't. In fact, in many cases such as those involving children a deterministic viewpoint would require a longer sentence, as the defect would have to be remedied rather than a simple punsihment served.

Suddenly, do you just spout out stuff to piss people off? Do you ever think before posting 'hmm, I wonder if what I am about to post is utterly stupid and will be proved wrong by half the forum within 5 minutes?' Or, do you just post to get people angry, and you get off on that kind of passive-aggressive behavior? I do wonder often if half the forum lacks the comprehension to follow my arguments, and will launch into weird assumptions and strawmen. I don't worry too much though. I worry more about people that can actually follow a complex discussion.

Some of those people may realize that I am explaining a certain point of view, and not claiming that the system works the way that view would dictate. They may also have caught the part about how I don't really suscribe to that viewpoint.

The only people I "piss off" in general are people that get mad about having beliefs questioned. I really don't lose a lot of sleep over that...

SRW

6th February 2004, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly

Who is releasing these people? The question of brain chemistry really isn't a question of making people seems safer or letting people go because they on some level "couldn't help it."

These people stay locked up. Ones that are capable of killing (or molesting) children stay locked up for good. We try to address the causes of less serious crimes and do what can be done to prevent future occurances The only difference would be that we wouldn't emphesize punishment as much as keeping such people away from innocents. There is going to be an element of punishment inherent in this, but we can chalk that up to part of the psychology of the whole thing. Plus, we study these people, and maybe figure out how not to create more of them.

I am all for keeping them from the Innocent, but how do you prevent them from killing fellow inmates? Can you ever garentee that they will never kill again? Or is it ok if they kill some "drug offender".

If you want a good example of someone how has enjoyed his time in prison look at Richard Speck, who Murdered 8 women. He may not have killed again however he had a grand time in prison.

speck (http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/speck/story_4.html?sect=19)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 1996, Bill Curtis, news anchor at CBS in Chicago, received a videotape. The video, shot in Statesville Correctional Institute, showed a bizarre, boastful Speck with women’s breasts–obviously from some hormone treatment–wearing blue silk panties and having sex with an inmate. Before the sexual exploit, he casually tells an off camera interviewer about the murders.
When asked why he killed the women he said, "It just wasn’t their night." He was asked how he felt about the killings, "Like I always feel. Had no feelings." He added he did not feel sorry. Throughout the video, he ingested and smoked drugs with bravado. At one point he said, "If they only knew how much fun I was having, they’d turn me loose." He described in detail how it felt to strangle someone "...it’s not like TV.... It takes over three minutes and you have to have a lot of strength."

----------------------------------------------------------

Here is a good article on the subject.

Natural born killers (http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/tick/killers_9.html?sect=1)

Edited to add correct link.

Skeptical Greg

6th February 2004, 12:03 PM

Suddenly,

I for one, am glad you are here to put your perspective on things..

It makes me think a lot...

Girl 6

6th February 2004, 12:15 PM

I know I will be lambasted for this, but determinism, free will, etc... are small comfort to the victims of criminals.

I like to place my philosophy in an underwear drawer and only wear it for special occasions.

G6

Skeptical Greg

6th February 2004, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Girl 6
I know I will be lambasted for this, but determinism, free will, etc... are small comfort to the victims of criminals.

I like to place my philosophy in an underwear drawer and only wear it for special occasions.

G6

I think you're safe.. I suspect everyone who might lambast you is hanging out over at R&P or RaptureReady.com...;)

6th February 2004, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly

Why? If someone can't really control or lacks the capacity to see what he is doing is wrong, why do you want to kill them? That is the question this point of view asks. Since from this point of view criminal behaviour is simply a symptom of some kind of defect, killing murderers is simply killing people for being defective.

The fact that people with defects for which criminal behaviour is not a symptom are not executed is not relevant.

I am not in favor of the DP but the type of person that you describe is the type of person that should be put down. A person that cannot control their deadly impulses is simply a threat to all around them, including prisoners. Sure, if the defect is bad enough, kill them. You would abort a horribly defective fetus wouldn't you?

Suddenly

6th February 2004, 12:42 PM

Originally posted by SRW

I am all for keeping them from the Innocent, but how do you prevent them from killing fellow inmates? Can you ever garentee that they will never kill again? Or is it ok if they kill some "drug offender". In the universe where we follow this deteministic worldview, drug offenders and other non-violent offenders wouldn't be anywhere near murderous sociopaths. The security needs and treatments would be completely different and there would be no reason to intermingle the two. Plus, prison security would still be important, and perhaps taken more seriously because the idea that poor security is part of the punsihment would not exist. Violence on the inside may still exist, but it would no longer be condoned in the tongue in cheek manner it is today in most places. The general idea being that prison would be about necessary isolation of violent people rather than a form of punishment.

If you want a good example of someone how has enjoyed his time in prison look at Richard Speck, who Murdered 8 women. He may not have killed again however he had a grand time in prison. Looking at this from the severe deterministic viewpoint, Speck's enjoyment is not really relevant. That is the point, from that viewpoint the whole concept of making other people suffer is barbaric. He should be locked up for the purpose of our safety, and he should be studied. His happiness or lack thereof would not be an issue. Recreation and perks would be used as a cost-effective method to control behavior.

The issue of what he can do in prison is a whole different story. It sounds like Illinois has some serious prison security issues. I visit our max security prision often, and that sort of thing as described doesn't go on there. I have recieved precisely one complaint from an inmate about that place (other than the typical "the food sucks" and "the medical care is terrible" complaints), and that one complaint was that particualr prison was boring because there weren't enough fights. "It's like a boys school" he explained.

Globert

6th February 2004, 12:57 PM

Suddenly,

I get that you are merely positing a p.o.v. yet I do not see where a defect that causes harm is required/ enabled to breath the rest of everyone else's air.
what is irrelevant is not the defect but the action of said defective that puts them at societies risk.

we put fences around holes so no one falls in, better yet to get the backhoe and fill it.

lethal injection, societies backhoe.

Globe

Suddenly

6th February 2004, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by Ed

I am not in favor of the DP but the type of person that you describe is the type of person that should be put down. A person that cannot control their deadly impulses is simply a threat to all around them, including prisoners. Sure, if the defect is bad enough, kill them. You would abort a horribly defective fetus wouldn't you?

I would agree under certain circumstances. There are several reasons to not kill these people. (Again, speaking for the determininist viewpoint, and I responded to the "safety of other prisoners" above)

1) Study them, see if we can't prevent future wrongs.

2) Possibility of the defect being remidied.

3) Other utility, be it making license plates or (humane) scientific testing.

But, if there was a shortage of resources or some other practical problem, then there would be grounds to go ahead and kill them as a practical necessity. Just not as punishment.

SRW

6th February 2004, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly In the universe where we follow this deteministic worldview, drug offenders and other non-violent offenders wouldn't be anywhere near murderous sociopaths. The security needs and treatments would be completely different and there would be no reason to intermingle the two. Plus, prison security would still be important, and perhaps taken more seriously because the idea that poor security is part of the punsihment would not exist. Violence on the inside may still exist, but it would no longer be condoned in the tongue in cheek manner it is today in most places. The general idea being that prison would be about necessary isolation of violent people rather than a form of punishment.

The issue of what he can do in prison is a whole different story. It sounds like Illinois has some serious prison security issues. I visit our max security prision often, and that sort of thing as described doesn't go on there. I have recieved precisely one complaint from an inmate about that place (other than the typical "the food sucks" and "the medical care is terrible" complaints), and that one complaint was that particualr prison was boring because there weren't enough fights. "It's like a boys school" he explained. [/B]

I doubt that Speck ever complained about anything other than the quality of food.

You can never totally isolate prisoner's, if you are studying them someone has to interact with them. Even if you isolate them from the general prison population, you still run the risk of them killing a fellow violent offender. (who may even be innocent). Not to mention court appearances and other travel times which could result is escape, for example Ted Bundy.

Suddenly

6th February 2004, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Globert
Suddenly,

I get that you are merely positing a p.o.v. yet I do not see where a defect that causes harm is required/ enabled to breath the rest of everyone else's air.
what is irrelevant is not the defect but the action of said defective that puts them at societies risk.

we put fences around holes so no one falls in, better yet to get the backhoe and fill it.

lethal injection, societies backhoe.

Globe
Right. Lets for a second leave aside general moral objections about killing other people for being different when such people can be simply contained.

However, it is even better if we fill that hole with water and make a pool, or find some positive use for the hole.

That is the point. Since punishment is not an issue, and modern security (if we moderize prisons) can make escape pretty close to impossible, the question becomes what is in our long term interests as far as disposition. Keeping them around to study why they act as they do can possibly help reduce future violent crime can yield serious benefits.

I could then say "and if in the future it saves one little girl from rape and torture, it would all be worth it," but that is the kind of emotional pandering I hate from anyone but me in front of a jury...

Add that to other possible benefits, and mix back in a general reluctance to kill defective people, and the position while not absolutely against the death penalty, seems pretty disposed against it.

Globert

6th February 2004, 01:22 PM

Suddenly,

like Visa says" ..but we don't live anywhere near Perfect. for the rest of us there's Visa."

Lethal Injection," it's everywhere you want to be.":p

Suddenly

6th February 2004, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by SRW

I doubt that Speck ever complained about anything other than the quality of food.

You can never totally isolate prisoner's, if you are studying them someone has to interact with them. Even if you isolate them from the general prison population, you still run the risk of them killing a fellow violent offender. (who may even be innocent). Not to mention court appearances and other travel times which could result is escape, for example Ted Bundy.

Yeah. Security is by definition an evolving art. As far as killing other violent offenders, the idea that we are protecting them by killing them all just seems a bit strange. The odd security mishap will involve an occasional death or injury, but since in determoland we are only jailing violent dangerous people we have enough money for proper security, so we will cut down on these incidents.

The problem with your "escape during travel" objection is that the death penalty usually results in more court trips than does a life sentence, with all those mandatory appeals and such.

Suddenly

6th February 2004, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Globert
Suddenly,

like Visa says" ..but we don't live anywhere near Perfect. for the rest of us there's Visa."

Lethal Injection," it's everywhere you want to be.":p

So in 2044 when a drooling lunatic butchers a family of five with a rusty chainsaw, a crime we could have prevented had we followed the deterministic worldview, are you going to pay for the flowers for the funeral with your visa card?

:halo:

SRW

6th February 2004, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly

Yeah. Security is by definition an evolving art. As far as killing other violent offenders, the idea that we are protecting them by killing them all just seems a bit strange. The odd security mishap will involve an occasional death or injury, but since in determoland we are only jailing violent dangerous people we have enough money for proper security, so we will cut down on these incidents.

The problem with your "escape during travel" objection is that the death penalty usually results in more court trips than does a life sentence, with all those mandatory appeals and such.

I did not say we should kill all violent offenders, just that there is no way to protect them from each-other unless you are talking lobotomy.

Of course if you kill off the most vile of them, at least that group will not kill again.

As for the odd security mishap this could also be said of the occasional legal mishap where an innocent man is sentenced to death.

As long as we are in a determoland, I think we can do away with many of the appeals at some point.

Luke T.

6th February 2004, 02:08 PM

Suddenly, my brain chemicals want the brain chemicals that extinguished the little brain chemicals to be extinguished in turn, and a whole stew of other brain chemicals agree with my brain chemicals.

So your brain chemicals have no choice in the matter. :D

edited to add smiley in case I ever need a defense lawyer.

Luke T.

6th February 2004, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly
In fact, in many cases such as those involving children a deterministic viewpoint would require a longer sentence, as the defect would have to be remedied rather than a simple punsihment served.

So this is what the modern age looks like. "The Devil made me do it" is now "My brain chemicals made me do it," and "Rehabilitated" is "Remedied."

And the idea of "rehabilitation" has resulted not in longer sentences and locking up killers for good, but releasing them instead.

edited for grammar

Luke T.

6th February 2004, 02:18 PM

I foresee a day when prison inmates will no longer find Jesus, but Zoloft.

ssibal

6th February 2004, 02:42 PM

The problem is the lax justice system that we have here in the U.S.. I am amazed that such a thing as a "career criminal" can even exist here (which the guy was). Whether or not this guy killed the girl he should have been executed (preferably) or locked up doing slave labor for life a long time ago, he has a long criminal history.

Luke T.

6th February 2004, 02:52 PM

Originally posted by ssibal
The problem is the lax justice system that we have here in the U.S.. I am amazed that such a thing as a "career criminal" can even exist here (which the guy was). Whether or not this guy killed the girl he should have been executed (preferably) or locked up doing slave labor for life a long time ago, he has a long criminal history.

I think his convictions were for drugs. I don't think that warrants the death penalty, unless you believe in the three strikes rule, and even then, that only warrants life imprisonment. He should have been back in jail for parole violations, though, as Diogenes pointed out.

ssibal

6th February 2004, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.

I think his convictions were for drugs. I don't think that warrants the death penalty, unless you believe in the three strikes rule, and even then, that only warrants life imprisonment. He should have been back in jail for parole violations, though, as Diogenes pointed out.

Some were, others were for violent offenses. And yes I do believe in the three strikes rule. Three strikes for commiting crimes, and three strikes for appeals for death row inmates.

schplurg

6th February 2004, 03:09 PM

I don't want my government to have the power to apply a death sentence over any of its citizens, period. Seems like a dangerous power for them to have.

I don't want my government, by applying the death penalty, saying that it's okay to kill in certain situations. "Killing is wrong, therefore, we must kill you."

Putting someone to death is an emotional judgement (revenge). I don't want my government using revenge to apply punishment.

Some people in this thread began by saying that this guy should be drawn and quartered, then later admitted that that was an emotional reaction and that it may be a bit over the top. That's one reason we have a legal system of laws rather than lynch mobs. The death penalty IS an emotional reaction.

If rehabilitation seems possible, then put em in jail and try and rehabilitate the person (whether or not prison can actually rehabilitate is another story). If rehab is deemed impossible, they get a life sentence.

I think it is wrong for a "civilized" nation to condone a death penalty. It solves no problem that a "life without parole" sentence would not solve, it's barbaric. And don't say it's cheaper in the long run...here's one link:

http://www.uscourts.gov/dpenalty/1COVER.htm

My 2nd cousin was murdered last week (by her ex), so I'm not completely insensitive to the issue.

Tony

6th February 2004, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by schplurg
I don't want my government to have the power to apply a death sentence over any of its citizens, period. Seems like a dangerous power for them to have.

I agree, that's why I think the family of the victim should ultimately decide if the killing gets life in prison of the death penalty.

Suddenly

6th February 2004, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.

So this is what the modern age looks like. "The Devil made me do it" is now "My brain chemicals made me do it," and "Rehabilitated" is "Remedied."

And the idea of "rehabilitation" has resulted not in longer sentences and locking up killers for good, but releasing them instead.

edited for grammar

Actually I used "remedied" as I was too lazy to type "rehabilitated."

Other than that, yeah. Welcome to the brave new world. I'm not sure how I feel about this absurd position I've been describing. However, it's hard to make a real clear refutation of it besides something along the lines of:

Huh?

or

Are you joking?

I guess the main comfort is that it really doesn't change anything except buzzwords...

Suddenly

6th February 2004, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.
I foresee a day when prison inmates will no longer find Jesus, but Zoloft.

Already here. Been here for a few years now.

Personally I'll take the inmate describing his meds to me over one telling me about his giving his life to the lord.

But not by much.

6th February 2004, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly
That is the point. Since punishment is not an issue, and modern security (if we moderize prisons) can make escape pretty close to impossible, the question becomes what is in our long term interests as far as disposition. Keeping them around to study why they act as they do can possibly help reduce future violent crime can yield serious benefits.

I could then say "and if in the future it saves one little girl from rape and torture, it would all be worth it," but that is the kind of emotional pandering I hate from anyone but me in front of a jury...

Good security costs $
Study costs $
a bullet costs cents

In the real world, I don't see the dollars, regardless of any benefit. Criminey, if the education of a generation is not a top priority, I can't see much mony siphoned off for what you are suggesting.

Add that to other possible benefits, and mix back in a general reluctance to kill defective people, and the position while not absolutely against the death penalty, seems pretty disposed against it.

We kill defective people all of the time. "Pull the plug" is just a euphamism for the type of murder that we sorta close our eyes about. So don't suggest that when the human machine goes awry we won't dispose of the problem. One might also argue we kill for convienience with abortion, and sometimes there, to get rid of defective humans. I really don't think that that argument holds much water.

Luke T.

6th February 2004, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by schplurg
And don't say it's cheaper in the long run...here's one link:

http://www.uscourts.gov/dpenalty/1COVER.htm

Death penalty is costlier than life sentence. That makes perfect sense. A life sentence is costlier than setting them free. So?

Luke T.

6th February 2004, 08:31 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly

Actually I used "remedied" as I was too lazy to type "rehabilitated."

Other than that, yeah. Welcome to the brave new world. I'm not sure how I feel about this absurd position I've been describing. However, it's hard to make a real clear refutation of it besides something along the lines of:

It is easy to refute. Just look at history and how succesful rehabilitation has been up to now. I don't think anyone takes it seriously any more. It has only resulted in killers not being locked up for good.

I guess the main comfort is that it really doesn't change anything except buzzwords...

I don't take any comfort in it at all. It's a bad idea with a new dress on.

Crime and punishment is all there is. Nothing more.

Luke T.

6th February 2004, 08:33 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly

Already here. Been here for a few years now.

Personally I'll take the inmate describing his meds to me over one telling me about his giving his life to the lord.

But not by much.

What if religion actually works for some people and makes them law abiding citizens as well as a pill does? I am in A.A., I see a belief in a Higher Power work wonders all the time. It even works for me, and I tried the pills, which didn't work for me.

peptoabysmal

6th February 2004, 09:30 PM

The ACLU keeps raising the point of death row inmates who were released after DNA tests proved their innocence. I have two questions about these cases. First question; were these inmates defended in their court trial by a public defender? Second question: was this the first offense for these inmates?

As to the original post:
Teach your children that if ever a stranger grabs them, to lie down, keep their feet towards the attacker and kick as if pedaling a bicycle until they are freed. Then run like Hell. Teach them to never, ever let themselves be taken to another location. If they do, they are dead.

If an attacker has a gun, the odds that the attacker will use it are 50-50. The attacker will fire or will not fire. Your odds are now 50% chance of surviving. If you let yourself be taken anywhere, the odds are 99.9% that you will die. If the attacker fires the gun, the bullet will hit you or it won’t. What is 50% of 50%? Twenty five percent! Your odds are now 75% chance of surviving. If you let yourself be taken anywhere, the odds are 100% that you will die. If the bullet hits you, you will die or you won’t. What is 50% of 25%? Your odds are now 87.5% chance of surviving, but, if you let yourself be taken to another location, the odds are really about 110% that you will die.

This is what I drill my kids on. I learned it from a former deputy sheriff whom I had much respect for.

Suddenly

7th February 2004, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.

It is easy to refute. Just look at history and how succesful rehabilitation has been up to now. I don't think anyone takes it seriously any more. It has only resulted in killers not being locked up for good.

That's the assumption you are making about this that I'm not making. If looked at from the deteministic point of view these people are locked up until we can establish that the defect is remedied to some extent. Presently, people are let go with the idea that "they learned their lesson" or "they did their time."

Under the hard deterministic viewpoint we just wouldn't let these people go until the "defect" is gone. In severe cases, such as pedophilia, this would likely be a functional life sentence rather than the 10 to 20 year sentence we use now. Some other criminal behaviour patterns are found to disappear into latter middle age (commonly referred to as the "stupid kid" syndrome). Perhaps those types of patterns could be studied and formalized, supported or debunked.

For example, I know of several hard core pedophiles that are getting out in the next 10 years as their sentences expire. From a "punishment" perspective they have "paid their debt to society."

I think that's nuts. It is a matter of when, not if, these people strike again, and yes, registration or not, there are and will be parents that will allow this to happen, be they naive or just stupid. It makes me sick just thinking about it as I type this, and I don't even have kids. Some states have put the ideas I am describing into effect under the title of "civil confinement."

On the other hand ther are people that technically commit similar crimes (say an 18 year old with a 13 year old partner) that, while deserving of a few slaps to the head, likely are just a waste of tax money if we lock them up for good.

The theory is hard to argue with. Practical application on the other hand is really easy to argue with, based on prior debacles in the area and the fact that the "punishment" model is so ingrained in our country that any serious movement towards what I describe would be political suicide anyway.

Suddenly

7th February 2004, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.

What if religion actually works for some people and makes them law abiding citizens as well as a pill does? I am in A.A., I see a belief in a Higher Power work wonders all the time. It even works for me, and I tried the pills, which didn't work for me.

I'm not disparaging the possible positive effects. Especially as it goes towards A.A., as I have seen some pretty positive results from that kind of program. I've posted about this before; I think it is wrong to go out of your way to criticize these types of beliefs if these beliefs have real utility in a persons life. My mom can now ride in a car because she believes the magnets she wears keeps her from being carsick. I'm not going to argue with her, and I'm not going to argue with someone with an addiction or anger problem that finds real utility in a higher power.

I'm more tongue in cheek referring to the side effects, one of which in prisoners is a desire to constantly spread the word. Sometimes it can get uncomfortable. Like when God and I give opposite advice. While the Lord is all fine and good, from what he tells my clients he's not much of a lawyer and I think I may have a decent case for client interference.

For example, I was trying to work out a strategy for post-convivtion work with a client. Client won't discuss the case with me, because the Lord told him that if he shows no doubt, he will get parole at his next hearing, and working with me would be a showing of doubt. He wanted me to bury his file and not work on it at all. Now, in his situation roughly zero percent were granted parole; it was his first try after serving the minimmum for a very serious crime, a minimmum recently raised by the legislature (but my client was under the old minimmum). My client could have been Jesus, much less found him, and he wasn't getting out.

That's a heck of a double bind.

Then we get into those that get into Jesus only because they know the parole board likes that sort of thing. Those guys can be hillarious in a sick sort of way. I can see through them, but I'm not sure the board can. That's the nastier side effect of encouraging religion in prison, stone violent crazies that get paroled because they convince the board that they have found Jesus and want to get out so they can better spread the word...

Mr Manifesto

7th February 2004, 10:07 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly

Then we get into those that get into Jesus only because they know the parole board likes that sort of thing. Those guys can be hillarious in a sick sort of way. I can see through them, but I'm not sure the board can. That's the nastier side effect of encouraging religion in prison, stone violent crazies that get paroled because they convince the board that they have found Jesus and want to get out so they can better spread the word...

Geez, some people will do anything to get out of jail...

Suddenly

7th February 2004, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
The ACLU keeps raising the point of death row inmates who were released after DNA tests proved their innocence. I have two questions about these cases. First question; were these inmates defended in their court trial by a public defender? Second question: was this the first offense for these inmates? What is the relevance of either? Some public defenders (me for example ;) ) have strong credentials and strong track records. Others couldn't get Santa acquitted of B&E. Same with the private sector. There are areas and cases where people are much better off with a PD, and areas and cases where the PDs are worth every penny they charge.

While I think I get the gist of the first, I really have no idea where you are going with the second. Plus, I think we are dealing with a varied set of people, so there isn't going to be a clear answer, I'd guess that most did have a history of some sort. I'm curious as to why this really matters though.

As to the original post:
Teach your children that if ever a stranger grabs them, to lie down, keep their feet towards the attacker and kick as if pedaling a bicycle until they are freed. Then run like Hell. Teach them to never, ever let themselves be taken to another location. If they do, they are dead.

If an attacker has a gun, the odds that the attacker will use it are 50-50. The attacker will fire or will not fire. Your odds are now 50% chance of surviving. If you let yourself be taken anywhere, the odds are 99.9% that you will die. If the attacker fires the gun, the bullet will hit you or it won’t. What is 50% of 50%? Twenty five percent! Your odds are now 75% chance of surviving. If you let yourself be taken anywhere, the odds are 100% that you will die. If the bullet hits you, you will die or you won’t. What is 50% of 25%? Your odds are now 87.5% chance of surviving, but, if you let yourself be taken to another location, the odds are really about 110% that you will die.

This is what I drill my kids on. I learned it from a former deputy sheriff whom I had much respect for.

I give you a "A" for general reasoning, but you get an "F" for the math.... :)

Suddenly

7th February 2004, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto

Geez, some people will do anything to get out of jail...

Yeah. Really think about that next time you hear of some preacher who "found the Lord" in prison and now who makes a decent income spreading the word...

ssibal

7th February 2004, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by schplurg
I don't want my government, by applying the death penalty, saying that it's okay to kill in certain situations. "Killing is wrong, therefore, we must kill you."

But you are fine with them saying it is okay to imprison people in certain situations? "Imprisoning people is wrong, therefore we must imprison you."

Badger

7th February 2004, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by ssibal

But you are fine with them saying it is okay to imprison people in certain situations? "Imprisoning people is wrong, therefore we must imprison you."

I'm fine with saying "You are a detriment to society, so we must keep you from society." A society makes the rules that must be abided by in order to be a part of that society.

By the way, Karla Homolka gets out in the summer of 2005. (if you don't know who she is, or why she's in the slammer, do a Google search)

Luke T.

7th February 2004, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by Suddenly
That's the assumption you are making about this that I'm not making. If looked at from the deteministic point of view these people are locked up until we can establish that the defect is remedied to some extent. Presently, people are let go with the idea that "they learned their lesson" or "they did their time."[/b]

They are let go because they received counseling. Because they show remorse. Because they have been "remedied." I mean, what's the basic idea behind parole then? They haven't served the full sentence. They get out early because it is believed they are fixed.

The problem is the sentences aren't severe enough for murder. We even have degrees of murder.

SAILOR:
You aint gonna begin worryin about
whats bad for you at this hour, are
you, sugar? I mean, here you are
crossin state lines with a A-
Number One certified murderer.

LULA:
Manslaughterer, honey, not murderer.

Wild at Heart

Suddenly

7th February 2004, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.

They are let go because they received counseling. Because they show remorse. Because they have been "remedied." I mean, what's the basic idea behind parole then? They haven't served the full sentence. They get out early because it is believed they are fixed.

That's the thing. We can theorize all day about "why they get out" in the present system, which is a weird mix of theories. Are they in to punish, to remove from population, to fix in an affirmative (therapy, etc.) or passive (hope they grow up) way? Maybe they are there to provide jobs for guards and cheap labor for big buisness under the guise of "rehabilitiative occupational training" while carrying out a program of racial and economic class based oppression?"

(Whoops - I think I channeled Michael Moore on that last one - sorry about that)

The basic idea behind parole, depending on the jurisdiction and the makeup of the board could be one of the above, or maybe they are only worried about what Jesus would do.

"He suffered enough"
"He's better now"
"The jail is too crowded"
"He's still dangerous but he says he's moving to California. We hate California. Let's let him go"
"He's been "saved" so now he won't rape toddlers anymore"

We are getting weirdly general about this whole thing. I think we can agree that putting people in jail forever for any crime whatsoever is a bad idea. Likewise is just shrugging and letting people go. The question is what we do with them and for how long and why. How do we taylor this to the situation.

Based on a pure free will/punishment idea where the crime is seen as simple "evil" or "wrongdoing" we want to punish and protect. Rehabilitation is ignored, as it is not recognized that there is anything wrong. These criminals need to stop being bad. We let them go after a set period of time as they have "paid their debt" or similar.

A deterministic viewpoint is where the crime is seen as a symptom of a sickness. We want to protect the public against the sickness and also seek to treat if possible.

The problem with the second view is that those that up to now that have tried to apply it appear to not take to seriously the "protection" part of the response, and have appeared to care primarily about the "treatment" and "the rights of the prisoner." It seems we can agree that such an approach is really stupid.

What I am saying is that the deterministic viewpoint when properly applied should have its priorites as thus:

1) Safety of the public
2) Rehabilitation
3) Study for future prevention

as opposed to the 60's hippyish version that went more like 2-3-1. Thus people were/are released as "cured" with scarce and/or questionable evidence mainly due towards people being naive about the capacity for deception on the part of long time cons.

Bottle or the Gun

7th February 2004, 11:39 AM

Originally posted by Tmy
That and I wonder about the familys of the killers. What about their feelings?

I have more empathy towards what that girl was feeling in her last moments. Of course, in crimes like this there are more than one victim. Families, friends all are affected in some degree.

And don't get me started on 'nature versus nurture'.

nightwind

7th February 2004, 03:39 PM

Well, I am not a fan of the death penalty. But if this guy is found guilty, and there is absolutely no doubt about it, then he would be a prime candidate. It's hard to imagine what his defense may be, as I have heard there is forensic evidence, etc. linking him.

I guess if he were a female like the Texas "killer moms" who drown their own children, and bash their heads in with rocks, he could claim PMS, hormone problems, etc. But to me there is little doubt as to what this monster had on his mind.

I have a feeling, with this guy being in Florida, that he will meet death, especially if his DNA shows up on the little girl. Unfortunately, it will probably be a much more pleasant death than was perpetrated on the little girl.

I often wonder what makes someone like this all of a sudden go crazy, and kill a child. But then, who knows, this may not be the first. Just the one that he got caught on. Scary.

The Fool

7th February 2004, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by Tony

Of course not. You'd probably spread your cheeks and let someone fuk you in the ass if they demanded it. Anything to keep from "killing someone".
wow...your weekends sound like fun.

peptoabysmal

7th February 2004, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by Suddenly
What is the relevance of either? Some public defenders (me for example ;) ) have strong credentials and strong track records. Others couldn't get Santa acquitted of B&E. Same with the private sector. There are areas and cases where people are much better off with a PD, and areas and cases where the PDs are worth every penny they charge.[/B]
Do you think someone has a better chance of being aquitted with a PD or Johnny Cochran?

While I think I get the gist of the first, I really have no idea where you are going with the second. Plus, I think we are dealing with a varied set of people, so there isn't going to be a clear answer, I'd guess that most did have a history of some sort. I'm curious as to why this really matters though.

I give you a "A" for general reasoning, but you get an "F" for the math.... :)
I wasn't doing any reasoning, just asking questions.

Now here's my possible line of reasoning. I don't have the stats to back it up yet, so let's say it's my line of questioning.

It is at all possible that the people who were imprisoned for crimes they did not commit before DNA testing was available were defended by the type 2 public defender you mention above, the ones who don't care and that they were suspected in the first place because they had a rap sheet as long as your arm?

To me the penalty itself is irrelevant to a failure of the system to bring justice. I.e, because people have been put on death row for crimes they don't commit, it doesn't point to a failure of the death penalty, but a failure of the justice system.

Whether or not people should be executed for certain crimes is a separate issue from whether or not the justice system is working at all.

epepke

7th February 2004, 10:04 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.
This entire post of yours is a violent emotional reaction. ;)

Sure. I'll freely admit to that.

Also, I am getting the feeling you haven't read this entire topic, especially all of my posts. Or your own emotions have prevented you from seeing I am being far more reasonable than you seem to think. I admitted my first few posts in this topic were emotionally overcharged and apologized for that. Is that not good enough?

Sure; it's fine. You've calmed down, and I've calmed down, which are both probably good things. But I was reacting in kind to what you said at first.

Sounds like he told them where to find the body. That's pretty damning.

Maybe. It's better than the videos, certainly. But there's a reason we have trials, and part of the reason is that people lie. I'm from Sarasota, know the police well, and dated and then married an ER nurse there. I know of quite a few substantial whoppers that the Sarasota police have perpetrated.

epepke

7th February 2004, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by rikzilla
Epepke, if this is how you really feel then tell me how we can know ANYTHING at all about places and times we haven't been?

Look, the comment that you are responding to was a reductio ad absurdum that is, I think, not less plausible than the conclusions people were making based on a very fuzzy piece of surveillance camera tape.

There is good reason that in criminal cases people testify based on personal knowledge rather than what they think they saw on the teevee whilst listening to a voice that told them what they were supposed to see.

Kevin_Lowe

7th February 2004, 10:49 PM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
To me the penalty itself is irrelevant to a failure of the system to bring justice. I.e, because people have been put on death row for crimes they don't commit, it doesn't point to a failure of the death penalty, but a failure of the justice system.

Whether or not people should be executed for certain crimes is a separate issue from whether or not the justice system is working at all.

No it isn't.

If you know the system gives false positives, you don't execute people. You confine yourself to punishments that can be reversed and compensated for.

This is a general question, not directed at Pepto. What conceivable mental failure leads people to question the claim that innocent people have been executed? We know that innocent people have been convicted and sentenced to death on the basis of eyewitness testimony (dodgy), and released on the basis of a negative DNA test (highly reliable). We know that we have only had DNA testing technology come into play recently, but that people have been convicted and sentenced to death on the basis of eyewitness testimony for centuries. What's wrong with people who can't do the math on this one?

epepke

7th February 2004, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
If you know the system gives false positives, you don't execute people. You confine yourself to punishments that can be reversed and compensated for.

To play with the devil's avocado, how is it ever, in any meaningful sense, possible to "reverse" and "compensate for" 40 years of imprisonment? Do they get, like, new young bodies or something?

I am uncomfortable with the death penalty on those grounds, but I am also uncomfortable with long prison sentences on the same grounds.

Even worse, I cannot entirely quench the suspicion that, without the death penalty, courts might be more cavalier about life sentences, on the grounds of that they can always release them later, giving them a suit and $20, and no harm done.

So I remain terribly conflicted and still can't make up my mind.

This is a general question, not directed at Pepto. What conceivable mental failure leads people to question the claim that innocent people have been executed? We know that innocent people have been convicted and sentenced to death on the basis of eyewitness testimony (dodgy), and released on the basis of a negative DNA test (highly reliable). We know that we have only had DNA testing technology come into play recently, but that people have been convicted and sentenced to death on the basis of eyewitness testimony for centuries. What's wrong with people who can't do the math on this one?

Denial? A casual statistical analysis of the people freed from DNA testing leads to the conclusion that about 20 innocent people have been executed over the past 30 years. Now, of course, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics, and of course statistics are always up for grabs. But, still, 20 is fairly significant, and it seems almost perverse to insist on 0.

Another frightening thing is the studies on behavioral and cognitive psychology done in the 1950s (many of which would be considered unethical now). These seem to indicate that the extent to which a crime is considered heinous is positively related to the probability of judging guilt. So it's a positive feedback kind of thing.

Furthermore, there is clear bias against releasing convicted people due to new evidence. Judges have egos like everybody else.

Suddenly

8th February 2004, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal

Do you think someone has a better chance of being aquitted with a PD or Johnny Cochran? Depends on the case. Plus that is a different question. I can likely find a particular PD that can run rings around the typical hired attorney, just as Cochran can likely outperform the mass of PDs. If we consider the best against the best from each class, who knows. Largely it is a question of resources. A complete moron with an unlimited budget for experts and consultants is going to likely outperform even the best attorney with no such resources.

There are issues as to the quality or representation, but it really doesn't turn on whether the attorneys are PDs or not.

I wasn't doing any reasoning, just asking questions.

The math was funny though.

Now here's my possible line of reasoning. I don't have the stats to back it up yet, so let's say it's my line of questioning.

It is at all possible that the people who were imprisoned for crimes they did not commit before DNA testing was available were defended by the type 2 public defender you mention above, the ones who don't care and that they were suspected in the first place because they had a rap sheet as long as your arm?

Depends on the jurisdiction. Texas is famous for apponting dolts to capital cases, there is one notorious attorney (not a PD, BTW) who admitted to sleeping during some cases. I see where you are going with this now...

To me the penalty itself is irrelevant to a failure of the system to bring justice. I.e, because people have been put on death row for crimes they don't commit, it doesn't point to a failure of the death penalty, but a failure of the justice system. You would be correct. I made this point a few pages ago in this thread, about how do you go beyond reasonable doubt blah blah blah.

Whether or not people should be executed for certain crimes is a separate issue from whether or not the justice system is working at all.

True. The general squeamishness about killing people versus tossing them in prison highlights the fact that "reasonable doubt" is not taken seriously in non-death cases.

Beyond that epepke's comments w/r/t how 40 years of prison can be "compensated" for are very relevant, as is the cavalier attitude towards life sentences.

West Virginia has no death penalty, but it is possible that a person can get life without parole without there being a full review of the case by any other court. So a judge could contrary to law let in or keep out evidence thus causing a wrongful conviction, and out single appellate court can simply refuse to review the case on appeal. Then, the established practice is for any post conviction attacks (habeas corpus) to be heard by the original trial court. Then the appelate court can refuse to consider the denial. Since in non-death cases you don't automatically get appointed counsel for any Federal habeas attacks, good luck avoiding being barred on a technicality since most people that get this far on the railroad aren't our better educated citizens.

Death penalty cases on the other hand have mandatory appeals that must be considered.

ssibal

8th February 2004, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by Badger

I'm fine with saying "You are a detriment to society, so we must keep you from society." A society makes the rules that must be abided by in order to be a part of that society.

Killing someone would keep them from society.....
Now, a question for those who oppose the death penalty who say people on death row have been found to be innocent because of DNA evidence. Would you support the death penalty if someone was convicted based on DNA evidence? If it is good enough to set someone free it is good enough to put someone to death.

epepke

8th February 2004, 11:44 AM

Originally posted by ssibal
Now, a question for those who oppose the death penalty who say people on death row have been found to be innocent because of DNA evidence. Would you support the death penalty if someone was convicted based on DNA evidence? If it is good enough to set someone free it is good enough to put someone to death.

That's a good question. It has to be pointed out that the last sentence is false. While DNA evidence is very strong in disconfirming, it is nowhere near as strong as confirming. There are a lot of reasons for this, but possibly the easiest to understand is that any given person has about a 2% chance of having an identical twin. There are also many instances where DNA evidence can put someone at the scene of the crime but not show guilt or even shown when the person is at the scene of the crime. It's not always the semen in a vagina case. As investigations often start with people known to have habited the scene of the crime, a piece of DNA evidence confirming this might be entirely nugatory. Also, IMO, there hasn't been enough study of allele frequency in various populations, certainly not enough to justify the ludicrously low claims of the probability of a fasle positive.

Whether this would constitute a reasonable doubt would probably depend on the case and what the other evidence there is.

ssibal

8th February 2004, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by epepke

That's a good question. It has to be pointed out that the last sentence is false. While DNA evidence is very strong in disconfirming, it is nowhere near as strong as confirming.

That all depends on the situation. If someone in a house is killed and one of the family members killed them, the DNA evidence might not help much. But if someone claims to have never seen a murder victom in their life and their DNA is found in his house, that is a different story.....

epepke

8th February 2004, 01:18 PM

Originally posted by ssibal

That all depends on the situation. If someone in a house is killed and one of the family members killed them, the DNA evidence might not help much. But if someone claims to have never seen a murder victom in their life and their DNA is found in his house, that is a different story.....

It may be a different story, but it's still not the same degree. Disconfirming evidence you can reasonably put into the one in millions category. Confirming evidence, you can't--at best it's one in thousands.

schplurg

8th February 2004, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by schplurg
And don't say it's cheaper in the long run...here's one link:

http://www.uscourts.gov/dpenalty/1COVER.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luke...
Death penalty is costlier than life sentence. That makes perfect sense. A life sentence is costlier than setting them free. So?
Soooooo that was the weakest of all my reasons that I am against a death penalty. But, since you brought it up, I mentioned the cost as a "pre-emptive arguement" against those who will say that life prison terms are too costly. They aren't when compared with capital punishment.
It is easy to refute. Just look at history and how succesful rehabilitation has been up to now. I don't think anyone takes it seriously any more. It has only resulted in killers not being locked up for good.
That doesn't strengthen the arguement that we should simply take their lives instead. We need to fix the system in a big way. We need to forget the rehab part at some point and just keep them away from the public period.

The death penalty makes no sense in so many different ways.
We say we don't want the government gaining too much power, yet we want to give them the ability to kill its own citizens?

Other reasons against:

- possibility of innocents being put to death
- message that killing is wrong unless the government sanctions it
- capital punishment is revenge, which is an emotional response
- it solves no problem that life imprisonment would not, except prison overcrowding.
- expensive

Capital punishment does not appear to be a deterrent either. So where's the logic? We only use it because it makes us feel better, some of us anyways. Is our system and society so hopeless that we still need to rely on archaic practices such as this?
A casual statistical analysis of the people freed from DNA testing leads to the conclusion that about 20 innocent people have been executed over the past 30 years. Now, of course, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics, and of course statistics are always up for grabs. But, still, 20 is fairly significant, and it seems almost perverse to insist on 0.
Not so perverse if your family member is one of the falsely accused. Even one innocent death is too many. We're talking about killing people here!

BTW, I am not a religiouis person at all. Gawd and the bible have nothing to do with my feelings on this.

Dictionary.com...
Murder:
The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

So capital punishment is not murder because it is "lawful". What other types of lawful killing are there? Self defense is all I can come up with. Even in war, it is HOPED that we are defending ourselves (ha ha I know). There is no self defense in capital punishment (prison would yield the same results), therefore I'd consider it closer to murder. Government sanctioned murder.

Maybe we here in the U.S. like murder and killing. It's in our movies, our top news stories, our video games, our music. Maybe if we weren't so violent a society our thirst for capital punishment would disappear, along with murder itself? And no, I'm not saying games and TV are the cause, just the result. The same can be said about the death penalty...it is a result of an already violent society.

epepke

8th February 2004, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by schplurg
The death penalty makes no sense in so many different ways.
We say we don't want the government gaining too much power, yet we want to give them the ability to kill its own citizens?

At the same time, it's like, perfectly OK and of no consequence to give the government the power to imprison its own citizens, subject them to rape, and take away their lives?

schplurg

8th February 2004, 04:17 PM

Where in U.S. law is it stated that part of imprisonment is to be subjected to rape? yes that can happen in prison and as I said, the system needs fixing.

And sorry if I draw a distinction between imprisoning someone and killing them.

Like, nice try.

epepke

8th February 2004, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by schplurg
Where in U.S. law is it stated that part of imprisonment is to be subjected to rape? yes that can happen in prison and as I said, the system needs fixing.

And sorry if I draw a distinction between imprisoning someone and killing them.

Like, nice try.

Nice try at what?

Pyrrho

8th February 2004, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Tony
Of course not. You'd probably spread your cheeks and let someone fuk you in the ass if they demanded it. Anything to keep from "killing someone".
<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=4 bgcolor=#660066 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=#660066><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=1>Posted by Pyrrho:</font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=black size=2>This post has been reported. Technically, it does not violate Forum rules. However, if I were to invoke the "jerk" rule, I'd be tempted to invoke it in this case.

As always, this decision may be appealed to Hal Bidlack (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/private.php?s=&action=newmessage&userid=1753)[/i]</font></td></tr></table>

Zep

8th February 2004, 06:13 PM

It's always interesting reading threads like these that there remains an unspoken acceptance of "staying inside the box" with regard to punishment of heinous crimes such as this young girl's murder.

By that I mean that there are only two options considered: (a) the murderer gets killed by the state - death penalty, or (b) he goes to jail for a very, VERY long time. In both cases, what is REALLY being said to the murderer is "You have severely violated our society's rules and killed one of our people, so you are going to be punished by being permanently separated from our society." In fact, the options being discussed above are simply working out what that "separation" punishment is, and how it is meted out. Unfortunately, it is also staying limited to "let's do more of what we do now".

Given the more broad definition of what is required here - separation of the criminal from society - surely there are OTHER solutions besides just DP/jail. Let me toss in a few more ideas to spark thinking: banishment, deportation, remote isolation, slave labour, physical punishment. Not that I advocate any of these particularly, btw.

Let me take one of these by example: physical punishment. We all know that some societies still administer severe whippings or beatings as punishment for various henious crimes. In fact, flogging was a regular punishment in various "advanced" western navies until recent times, and was a day-to-day social event in many western country's histories. And yet we now consider such actions "cruel and unusual" - why?

With regard to the death penalty, consider the thinking of potential child killers. They often don't have much regard for life anyway, least of all their own, so the DP doesn't even appear to enter their thinking when committing their crimes. So it's deterrent value is effectively nil. And further, by killing the killer you are simply giving them a quick and often painless release from this earthly plane - as you would a badly wounded animal. So is that a punishment in any way? It sounds more like a release, to me. In effect, we are simply satisfying our own (strong, animalistic) urge for revenge, and punishing no-one.

PS. I'm incredibly sorry for the girls' family in this case - it's just so awful when stuff like this happens. And I agree with Luke T - teach your children to defend themselves. This is a major reason why the Zeplette learns karate - it gives her a fighting chance instead of none.

epepke

8th February 2004, 06:37 PM

Originally posted by Zep
Let me take one of these by example: physical punishment. We all know that some societies still administer severe whippings or beatings as punishment for various henious crimes. In fact, flogging was a regular punishment in various "advanced" western navies until recent times, and was a day-to-day social event in many western country's histories. And yet we now consider such actions "cruel and unusual" - why?

Whippings and beatings seem mostly to be used for fairly minor crimes.

Of course, one big problem with whippings and beatings is that they aren't so effective if the person likes it. Neither, for that matter, is imprisonment. However, whenever I go to the UK and see all the spanking and bondage magazines that are mainstream over there, I wonder it public lashings might not be largely considered a reward in the context of that culture.

With regard to the death penalty, consider the thinking of potential child killers. They often don't have much regard for life anyway, least of all their own, so the DP doesn't even appear to enter their thinking when committing their crimes. So it's deterrent value is effectively nil. And further, by killing the killer you are simply giving them a quick and often painless release from this earthly plane - as you would a badly wounded animal. So is that a punishment in any way? It sounds more like a release, to me. In effect, we are simply satisfying our own (strong, animalistic) urge for revenge, and punishing no-one.

Indeed. It's kind of hard to imagine the mind of a casual killer, but I don't have any a priori reason to think that having those drives is a whole lot of fun. Some might be complete sociopaths, like Ted Bundy, but probably a lot are tortured by their drives and have probably had a lot of suicidal ideation of their own. I've never in the past wanted to harm or kill anybody, but I have experience with suicidal ideation, and in my experience it's trickiest and most dangerous when one sees the rest of society as one's enemy but empathizes with the rest of society at the expense of oneself. Under these conditions, I imagine that the idea of being executed at the hands of society might seem like winning the Superbowl.

Zep

8th February 2004, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by epepke
Whippings and beatings seem mostly to be used for fairly minor crimes.

Of course, one big problem with whippings and beatings is that they aren't so effective if the person likes it. Neither, for that matter, is imprisonment. However, whenever I go to the UK and see all the spanking and bondage magazines that are mainstream over there, I wonder it public lashings might not be largely considered a reward in the context of that culture.I was not thinking of plain old spanking (which doesn't actually interest me but I can imagine some people do like it). I was thinking of such punishments as cat-o-ninetails floggings where the skin and flesh was often removed down to the bone. Floggings of up to 300 lashes dealt out over a number of days were common in convict times here - being "put to the triangle". It was not a pretty punishment and often incapacitated or even killed a man. Personally I don't like the thought of it at all, and I doubt it was in Heidi Fleisch's repetoire.

Originally posted by epepke
Indeed [death punishment]. It's kind of hard to imagine the mind of a casual killer, but I don't have any a priori reason to think that having those drives is a whole lot of fun. Some might be complete sociopaths, like Ted Bundy, but probably a lot are tortured by their drives and have probably had a lot of suicidal ideation of their own. I've never in the past wanted to harm or kill anybody, but I have experience with suicidal ideation, and in my experience it's trickiest and most dangerous when one sees the rest of society as one's enemy but empathizes with the rest of society at the expense of oneself. Under these conditions, I imagine that the idea of being executed at the hands of society might seem like winning the Superbowl. Would you perhaps characterise this type of thinking as "death wish" thinking? Where a person may deliberately put themself in harm's way in order to "tempt fate", perhaps even to gain notoriety? Even to the extent of performing a vile deed in order to draw society's wrath?

epepke

8th February 2004, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by Zep
I was not thinking of plain old spanking (which doesn't actually interest me but I can imagine some people do like it). I was thinking of such punishments as cat-o-ninetails floggings where the skin and flesh was often removed down to the bone.

Well, in a world of nullos and Michael Jackson's plastic surgery, who's to tell?

Would you perhaps characterise this type of thinking as "death wish" thinking? Where a person may deliberately put themself in harm's way in order to "tempt fate", perhaps even to gain notoriety? Even to the extent of performing a vile deed in order to draw society's wrath?

I don't know. But "tempt fate" and "gain notoriety" seem to me a lot like "gee, that's weird, what could that possibly mean--I know, even though I don't feel like that, I'll find something that makes sense to me."

I don't know what it's like to be in the brain of a killer. I imagine it's really dusty with a lot of cobwebs and things and doesn't get much light. Beyond that, I haven't a clue.

I'm just suggesting that, from what I know of suicidal ideation, being the bad guy who is justly destroyed by society might be some people's greatest dream.

Life is not just an endless bubble of joy for some people, you know.

Zep

8th February 2004, 07:17 PM

Originally posted by epepke
I don't know. But "tempt fate" and "gain notoriety" seem to me a lot like "gee, that's weird, what could that possibly mean--I know, even though I don't feel like that, I'll find something that makes sense to me."

I don't know what it's like to be in the brain of a killer. I imagine it's really dusty with a lot of cobwebs and things and doesn't get much light. Beyond that, I haven't a clue.

I'm just suggesting that, from what I know of suicidal ideation, being the bad guy who is justly destroyed by society might be some people's greatest dream.

Life is not just an endless bubble of joy for some people, you know. I wonder if it's because some people think they are such non-entities that this is the "ultimate" look-at-me provocation they can think of in a society full of look-at-me's... Gee, I hope not.

epepke

8th February 2004, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by Zep
I wonder if it's because some people think they are such non-entities that this is the "ultimate" look-at-me provocation they can think of in a society full of look-at-me's... Gee, I hope not.

Again, that seems to me like kind of a facile translation.

A lot of this stuff serves the worldview, values, and emotions of the judger-of-criminal, which is not necessarily the same worldview, values, and emotions of the criminal.

There's enough variety in worldviews, etc. amongst ordinary people that I'm uncomfortable with settling on a facile assumption.

Skeptic

8th February 2004, 07:38 PM

Of course, one big problem with whippings and beatings is that they aren't so effective if the person likes it.

...as in castle anthrax, for instance...

Zep

8th February 2004, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by epepke

Again, that seems to me like kind of a facile translation.

A lot of this stuff serves the worldview, values, and emotions of the judger-of-criminal, which is not necessarily the same worldview, values, and emotions of the criminal.

There's enough variety in worldviews, etc. amongst ordinary people that I'm uncomfortable with settling on a facile assumption. I wasn't trying to be facile, just phrase stuff more succinctly than a few hundred words of unreadable psychology.

In order to understand the "criminal" mind, one obviously needs to see if one can decipher its motives and worldviews, as you put it. The intention would be to attempt to prevent potential problems from becoming actual problems, which are significant to society as the subject of this thread so unfortunately demonstrates. There are issues also of what we mean by a "criminal" mind, e.g. are Luke T and Rikzilla potential criminals because of their outbursts at the top of the thread where they would like to visit death and destruction on an as-yet untried person? Or are they simply being highly sympathetic to the case?

In other words, think of the grief that could have been saved if there was some way to distinguish a killer's predelictions and intentions such that they could be defused in advance instead of being acted on.

peptoabysmal

8th February 2004, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

No it isn't.

If you know the system gives false positives, you don't execute people. You confine yourself to punishments that can be reversed and compensated for.

This is a general question, not directed at Pepto. What conceivable mental failure leads people to question the claim that innocent people have been executed? We know that innocent people have been convicted and sentenced to death on the basis of eyewitness testimony (dodgy), and released on the basis of a negative DNA test (highly reliable). We know that we have only had DNA testing technology come into play recently, but that people have been convicted and sentenced to death on the basis of eyewitness testimony for centuries. What's wrong with people who can't do the math on this one?

Why stop there? Why not stop giving out traffic tickets because some radar devices have been proven to give faulty readings? Let's not fix the problem, let's just not give it any teeth, so it can't do any real harm.

Kevin_Lowe

8th February 2004, 11:38 PM

Originally posted by Zep
PS. I'm incredibly sorry for the girls' family in this case - it's just so awful when stuff like this happens. And I agree with Luke T - teach your children to defend themselves. This is a major reason why the Zeplette learns karate - it gives her a fighting chance instead of none.

Pepto's spiel upthread gave far, far better advice for children's self defence that you will ever get out of a karate class: lie on your back and kick.

Unarmed martial arts are for fun and not for self defence. If you want a safe Zeplette she should wear sneakers, watch out for bad situations, train for medium distance running, and when/if she is responsible enough she should carry the deadliest legal knife you can get and know how to access it quickly and use it.

If she must do unarmed MA, Brazilian jiu-jitsu can teach her how to lie on her back and kick much more effectively. BJJ fighters have won no-holds-barred televised matches by doing so, in fact. But it's still no substitute for a knife, or for running away.

Kids should be taught this in school. While I have a great deal of respect for the police, they are no damn use to the victims of violent crime until after the event when it can be too late. In cases like this the only possible solution is to train the children in how not to be victims. That, combined with life sentences for attempted kidnapping, might actually stop some child kidnappers from killing children.

Kevin_Lowe

8th February 2004, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
Why stop there? Why not stop giving out traffic tickets because some radar devices have been proven to give faulty readings? Let's not fix the problem, let's just not give it any teeth, so it can't do any real harm.

Bad hair day? I know you're normally more rational than this.

If the best measuring device you have gives false positives now and then, then a better device would be great. But if that's really all you have at the moment then you forge ahead with your life taking into account the fact that your gizmo gives false positives.

You certainly don't bet your life or anyone else's on your gizmo's accuracy, unless you're really up against a wall. Because it's not completely accurate.

We need some kind of criminal justice system, because otherwise an antisocial minority would run amok. But until it's somehow made perfect, we don't have the right to gamble other people's lives on it. Especially when doing so is simply a hideously expensive exercise in sadistic revenge, rather than a form of punishment that has any actual benefits.

Reread the first few posts in this thread if you've forgotten the animalistic hate that possessed normally sane and kind members of this forum. Gratifying that desire to inflict pain is the only motivation for the death penalty. It doesn't prevent crime, deter criminals, or save a penny.

In the USA execution is simply a way for politicians to scrape up votes by pandering to a hateful religion that demands ritual human sacrifice.

Mr Manifesto

9th February 2004, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

Unarmed martial arts are for fun and not for self defence. If you want a safe Zeplette she should wear sneakers, watch out for bad situations, train for medium distance running, and when/if she is responsible enough she should carry the deadliest legal knife you can get and know how to access it quickly and use it.

It's illegal to carry a knife if you're under 16 in NSW, and under Herr Carr, there's a good chance the pigs will search the Zeplette if she does anything 'suspicious' (hanging out in malls, walking with more than two people, giggling, stuff like that). Probably better to concentrate on kicking/screaming/running than carrying a knife.

If anyone wants to know, I happen to think the NSW knife laws are ridiculous and pointless. If anyone then thinks this is a contradiction to my stance on gun ownership, and wants to talk about it, start another thread or dig up one of the other threads on the subject of gun control.

Luke T.

9th February 2004, 07:11 AM

Originally posted by Zep
With regard to the death penalty, consider the thinking of potential child killers. They often don't have much regard for life anyway, least of all their own, so the DP doesn't even appear to enter their thinking when committing their crimes. So it's deterrent value is effectively nil.

How do you know "least of all their own?" That doesn't necessarily follow that because they are willing to kill, they don't value their own life.

I agree the DP is not a deterrent but not for that reason. It is not a deterrent because of the infrequency of its occurence and the long time lag between capture and execution.

And further, by killing the killer you are simply giving them a quick and often painless release from this earthly plane - as you would a badly wounded animal. So is that a punishment in any way?

If that were true, then why do people on death row fight tooth and nail to stay alive? Very few would rather die than serve life in prison.

A killer values his life, but not yours.

Luke T.

9th February 2004, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by nightwind
I often wonder what makes someone like this all of a sudden go crazy, and kill a child. But then, who knows, this may not be the first. Just the one that he got caught on. Scary.

Apparently, it wasn't his first. The news article says he was arrested for attacking an adult woman in a similar fashion, but she managed to fight him off and escape. That must be why he went after a kid this time.

Same mindset as a pedophile. Not man enough to handle a real woman. ;)

Tmy

9th February 2004, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.

If that were true, then why do people on death row fight tooth and nail to stay alive? Very few would rather die than serve life in prison.

A killer values his life, but not yours.

Its natural to fear death because no one knows what happens afterwards. But that still doesnt change the potential that death is a blessing and not a punishment.

I cant imagine this guys life in prison to be very pleasent. The guards and inamtes will be looking to make him miserable. Hed probably have to spend his life in solitary. Id think thats worse than death.

Jaggy Bunnet

9th February 2004, 07:39 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.

Apparently, it wasn't his first. The news article says he was arrested for attacking an adult woman in a similar fashion, but she managed to fight him off and escape. That must be why he went after a kid this time.

Same mindset as a pedophile. Not man enough to handle a real woman. ;)

Does it say anything about him being convicted for it?

Luke T.

9th February 2004, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by schplurg
The death penalty makes no sense in so many different ways.
We say we don't want the government gaining too much power, yet we want to give them the ability to kill its own citizens?

Do you recommend taking away its power to wage war? That's about as much power as it gets.

Other reasons against:

- possibility of innocents being put to death

That possibility is getting smaller and smaller. And maybe I am a mental defective, as someone else said, but I don't think that just because innocents have been found on death row that that translates to innocents being executed. How as it they were found to be innocent if they were on death row?

Additionally, the day the possibility of executing innocents will disappear is a lot closer than the day we will "fix" killers before they strike. When the possibility to execute an innocent person is so remote as to be all but impossible, will you support the death penalty then?

- message that killing is wrong unless the government sanctions it

And what is wrong with that message?

- capital punishment is revenge, which is an emotional response

And what is life imprisonment?

- it solves no problem that life imprisonment would not, except prison overcrowding.

It solves the problem of having a kid killer alive. Some people just aren't worth the trouble of keeping around.

- expensive

So is any form of imprisonment.

Capital punishment does not appear to be a deterrent either. So where's the logic? We only use it because it makes us feel better, some of us anyways. Is our system and society so hopeless that we still need to rely on archaic practices such as this?

As soon as you figure out how to stop people from the archaic practice of killing kids, then we can talk about eliminating hopelessness.

Not so perverse if your family member is one of the falsely accused. Even one innocent death is too many. We're talking about killing people here!

Yeah. We are talking about killing people here. An 11 year old girl. The death penalty is not so perverse if your family member was the kid that was killed by a monster.

So capital punishment is not murder because it is "lawful". What other types of lawful killing are there? Self defense is all I can come up with. Even in war, it is HOPED that we are defending ourselves (ha ha I know).

Weird. Did you forget that in war we aren't just trying to stay alive? We are trying to KILL people.

Luke T.

9th February 2004, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet

Does it say anything about him being convicted for it?

The jury let him go. Somehow, they believed his story that he thought she was about to jump into traffic. He had threatened her with a knife and tried to get her to come with him. She fought him off and stopped a passing van, and they took her to the police.

If I was that woman, I would be calling each juror and congratulating them on their discernment today.

Tmy

9th February 2004, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by Luke T.

Yeah. We are talking about killing people here. An 11 year old girl. The death penalty is not so perverse if your family member was the kid that was killed by a monster.

This is gonna sound cold but...........do we really care what the family thinks should happen?? What if they are against the DP, would that change your mind. What if victims forgive the perps, do we then let them go?

It seems that people only care about what the family thinks when it supports their opinions. Sort of like when 911 was being used as an excuse tio invade Iraq. There were 911 families against invasion, but they were ignored by the hawks using that excuse.

Hell, if someone stole my car Id be so mad that Id want them tossed in jail for life. Im sure everyone not emotionally involved would think thats too harsh a punishment.

Luke T.

9th February 2004, 08:23 AM

Originally posted by Tmy

This is gonna sound cold but...........do we really care what the family thinks should happen?? What if they are against the DP, would that change your mind. What if victims forgive the perps, do we then let them go?

It seems that people only care about what the family thinks when it supports their opinions. Sort of like when 911 was being used as an excuse tio invade Iraq. There were 911 families against invasion, but they were ignored by the hawks using that excuse.

Hell, if someone stole my car Id be so mad that Id want them tossed in jail for life. Im sure everyone not emotionally involved would think thats too harsh a punishment.

That is why the family should not figure into the punishment. When you break the law, you break the law, and the law will determine your punishment. Because if the family wanted to form a lynch mob, we could not have it.

It is just that I am sick of hearing about the perp's feelings and his family's feelings. I feel for the perp's family. But I also feel for the victim and the victim's family a little more.

Tmy

9th February 2004, 08:31 AM

THe reason i bring up perp families is cause they are just as innocent than anyone else. Why put them through the pain of watching their love one be killed? What good does that do. Ive heard many times that the DP doesnt really help the victims families either cause they dont get that closure that they expect.

While it does get the jerkoff our of our hair ( not a bad thing) I think theyre are just too many flaws in the system. perhaps having a really high certainty of guilt for the DP would help. But you still have the bias in DP cases. How do you get rid of thoes?

Luke T.

9th February 2004, 09:48 AM

Suddenly, I have been thinking about my conversation with you on this topic all danged weekend. I have concluded you are one hell of a defense lawyer.

Most of us only experience the horrific crimes such as the one in my opening post through the media. You meet the monster perpetrators of these crimes face to face on a regular basis. And yet you are somehow able to maintain your humanity. I know a lot of people don’t understand how, and some people despise defense lawyers precisely because they are better informed of just how evil their clients are and still defend them. But I have a little better insight as I have spent a lot of time as A.A.’s man on the scene in our jails and prisons.

I see the inmates who are trying to atone for their sins. Sure, some are totally scamming, and there is nothing we can do about it except to call them on it. And some are totally sincere until the second they are back on the street, and then old habits kick in immediately. That is why I tell every inmate, “Your disease (alcoholism, addiction, whatever) is out in the parking lot doing pushups while you are in here. It is getting stronger, so you must, too.” I’ve seen too many come through the system again after being freed that I know this to be a truism.

I have the luxury, unlike you, of not asking or wanting to know why they are there, what their particular crime was. I also have the luxury of not having to deal with the monsters who don’t want to do a thing about improving themselves and who blame all their problems on everybody else. I am also all too familiar with the “prison is a business conspiracy” theory.

So I see guys who are building a spiritual way of life. I see guys that I actually like. Yes, folks, like.

But sometimes one of the inmates will talk about his crimes. Sometimes they are very bad crimes. In those cases, I find my head is full of spiders for days afterwards. I try my best not to let it influence my home life, but I can’t deny there haven’t been times when I have held my wife firmly and said something like, “If a guy holds you up, and all he wants is your possessions, then for god’s sake, give them to him!”

Even though some of these guys have told me their crimes, I must continue to help them find their way to a life of sobriety and right thinking. Because if every addict kicked the habit for good, I believe the crime rate would drop to a tiny fraction of what it is today. So even getting one addict/alcoholic clean will eliminate a number of crimes.

Some of my fellow A.A.’s who go to the prisons burn out after a while. All they can see are the ones who keep coming back to prison. They see the high number of failures and get discouraged. But I have been doing this a while, and I focus on the successes. I probably get to see more of those than you do, and it is a real joy to witness.

I am realistic, though. Of the prison population, there is a small minority that wants to get better, or even recognize they have a problem. And in that small minority are a minority that actually do get better.

We are a long way from “curing” crime. I do whatever small part I can. But the fact remains that heinous crimes are going to be with us for a long time to come.

I’ve never been to a prison that has a death row. I do know that if a guy who was going to be executed wanted to go to A.A. meetings, I would welcome him with literal open arms. I honestly do not know that if I believed he was “cured,” that I would want his execution to go forth. I have to be honest and say probably not. But even after all these years doing this work, I can’t tell who is cured and who isn’t when they walk out the prison gates.

Suddenly

9th February 2004, 12:14 PM

The thing about working with serious felons is that it is, no matter how clever we may think we are, a process of imperfect information. Cons are a mixed bag of those that really want help and can be turned around, and those that know that the only way out is to appear like they really want help and then be turned around.

Usually there is no way to tell the difference. You or I may be better at it than most, from sheer experience, but we are going to get it wrong quite often. Some of these guys are pretty bright, and they have quite a bit of time and motivation to plan fooling people like us. I've seen more approaches to this than I can imagine, from the popular "I found Jesus" to the more obscure method of seeming overly anxious about all news, or perhaps acting very depressed and resigned. All this in the hope that I will try harder on their cases. Or maybe they are just acting honestly. Hard to tell on a case by case basis.

All we can do is the best with the information we have. Luckily for me this is in a technical sense irrelevant, as I'm supposed to just present a case, not morally judge. However, being human and all it is hard not to try to decide who is guilty, who is trying to manipulate me, and so on.

I can't even begin to imagine what this would be like if there were a death penalty here. Hard enough when we are dealing with life sentences, but most long timers seem to have moved into acceptance of that fate and it lacks the horrible drama of actual impending death, a death that the client believes that you alone as his attorney has the power to prevent, and wouldn't the judges want to know that he is really sorry so please don't kill me...

I do sympathize with how you feel after hearing some of these guys talk about their crimes. I've had that feeling. The stories, the crime scene photos, and "trophy" pictures and videotapes that for some reason or another certain pedophiles keep are enough to cause me the occasional emotional flame-out.

Murders aren't so bad, maybe all the violence and trends towards realism in American entertainment prepares you a bit for that, although not nearly as much as one would think. Nothing prepares you for the kinds of videotapes pedophiles make though.

I guess that is how I figured out I don't really believe in pure evil anymore. Anyone that can do what I saw to a child is beyond comprehension. I used to think that some people were evil, but seeing that crap I realized that this just wasn't human. This wasn't meanness, or rancor, this was just ... sick, wrong, and sad. Beyond comprehension. I fully understand why many want these people killed, as what they do is so awful that the first reaction is to just try to erase it. Kill the guy, erase the tape, make the child's nightmares go away, drink until you forget, or maybe act like nothing ever happened.

Doesn't work though. It still is there, and no threats are big enough to keep these people from acting that way. It's really creepy when they are aware of that fact, that they will do it again if they get the chance, gun to their head or no.

Kevin_Lowe

9th February 2004, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
It's illegal to carry a knife if you're under 16 in NSW, and under Herr Carr, there's a good chance the pigs will search the Zeplette if she does anything 'suspicious' (hanging out in malls, walking with more than two people, giggling, stuff like that). Probably better to concentrate on kicking/screaming/running than carrying a knife.

In that case, yes, no knives.

I am aware some people choose to push the boundaries of legal conduct by carrying borderline objects that they intend to use as weapons, scofflaws that they are, but which are probably not provably offensive weapons.

This is illegal, of course. I'm also not convinced such things are terribly practical for a child's self defence.

Medium distance track training and BJJ it is, then. Not karate!

epepke

9th February 2004, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Luke T.
If that were true, then why do people on death row fight tooth and nail to stay alive? Very few would rather die than serve life in prison.

A killer values his life, but not yours.

There must be a few, because suicide watches are fairly common in prison. Even with the watches, actual suicides aren't all that uncommon.

epepke

9th February 2004, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by Zep
I wasn't trying to be facile, just phrase stuff more succinctly than a few hundred words of unreadable psychology.

I called it facile because (presumably) you're not a violent criminal, and like all of who aren't violent criminals, don't really know what it's like to be inside the brain of a violent criminal.

There are issues also of what we mean by a "criminal" mind, e.g. are Luke T and Rikzilla potential criminals because of their outbursts at the top of the thread where they would like to visit death and destruction on an as-yet untried person? Or are they simply being highly sympathetic to the case?

That's a good question. I think that most of us have pretty good impulse control around here. Perhaps there exist criminals with poor impulse control. and perhaps they simply act out what most people would confine to fantasy and words.

On the other hand, perhaps they are motivated by something I don't understand. I can see the value in some criminal behavior. Like, if somebody left a big bag of gold bullion unattended, I might at least feel tempted to snatch it, because I could then buy stuff, and the only thing stopping me would be ethics, plus the fact that I wouldn't feel very proud about spending money I didn't earn.

But kidnapping, killing, and burying an 11-year-old girl? It doesn't make sense to me on the face of it. I can't twist my brain in such a way that it remotely resembles my idea of fun or personal gain.

peptoabysmal

9th February 2004, 09:07 PM

Has the topic of Kevin Cooper (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/02/05/MNG5I4PF381.DTL) been brought up in this thread?

He's the one in California to whom the 9<sup>th</sup> Circuit granted a stay of execution to after Arnold Schwarzenegger refused to grant clemency.

The above link had more information than others I have found.

Personally, I think he's guilty and the DNA tests that he wanted so badly proved it. Your mileage may vary.

The only reason I have to question the death penalty is I don't think it has the effect it is supposed to have, which is to be a deterrent to violent crimes of this magnitude.

edited due to an incomplete sentence. :(

espoirpaz

10th February 2004, 05:03 AM

i'm glad someone has brought up the case of kevin cooper. I've just been informed the supreme court has let stand the appeals court's stay.

http://www.thekcrachannel.com/news/2835192/detail.html

In its ruling Monday, the appeals court said Cooper must get a chance to refute evidence that only recently has come to light or was not disclosed at trial.

For example, authorities at the time said the bloody footprint could have come only from a prison-issued tennis shoe. But a former prison warden says such shoes were commonly sold at retail stores.

The court also noted that Joshua Ryen, (the son of the victims present at the scene of the crime) initially said three or four men committed the murders, and that when he saw a picture of Cooper on television, he said Cooper was not the killer. Ryen has since said he believes Cooper was the killer.

Fortunately, our system of law is beng responsible with this case in allowing for further evidence to be brought forward. It is, however, rather unfortunate that our system of law was not as responsible in the cases where the innocent were wrongly executed.

I personally am against the death penalty as i, the UN, and all other western democracies see it as a violation against human rights.