05 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by amannionI think we are working towards such a society, amannion, and have been since anything that could rightly be called civilization first surfaced. But it's a long, difficult journey to move from the mud to the stars. Many slips and falls, many setbacks, many twists and turns between the primeval soup and the astral dessert.
No, the best option is to work towards a society where sociopathic behaviour is not encouraged. That is, a society where we respect people, where we fight poverty, and where everyone has a chance to succeed.
Killing people doesn't really make such a society possible now, does it?
05 May 06
Originally posted by DelmerI agree.
I think we are working towards such a society, amannion, and have been since anything that could rightly be called civilization first surfaced. But it's a long, difficult journey to move from the mud to the stars. Many slips and falls, many setbacks, many twists and turns between the primeval soup and the astral dessert.
But I see a fundamental problem with any society looking towards progression or advancement and still executing their citizens - no matter what they've done.
Look, I understand the impulsion towards revenge, as much as anyone else. If my wife or kids were murdered, I'd want blood for sure,a nd as much of it as I could.
But that's exactly why I'm not and shouldn't be involved in the judicial process to decide someone's punishment.
05 May 06
Originally posted by princeoforangeWeren't you all up for killing home invaders too? Man, you'd have yourself killed for murdering the guy that breaks into your house - too cool!
Which makes execution a fitting punishment for a cruel and unusual crime - murder ring any bells?
Seriously though, are you suggesting the detah penalty only for murder? What about manslaughter? How about people convicted of death by dangerous driving?
05 May 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NagePrisons are supposed to be facilities for rehabilitation of an errant citizen, not as a mechanism of vengence against an individual. The fact that they are overcrowded merely stems from a lack of sufficient investment.
Hence, overcrowded prisons. Is it all just a big joke?
05 May 06
Originally posted by slappy115Fine, provided they are incarcerated in a safe manner, undergoing rehabilitation then I'll happily have them in my house.
All I can say is, let the man/woman on death row come stay with you for a night and this is for the anti death pentalty people. I'm talking about Ted Bundy, John Gacy, Nickoli Chickotilo (spelling is not right), Jeffrey Dalhmer, etc. and after they kill you then we will excute them.
05 May 06
Originally posted by amannionhow consistent are you? .... if the govt should be the one to decide what happens to whoever murders your loved ones, where should it stop? why not grant them the power to decide what you do with your money (ALL of it, not just what they can grab), where you live, your occupation, who you marry, and all the rest?
... Look, I understand the impulsion towards revenge, as much as anyone else. If my wife or kids were murdered, I'd want blood for sure,a nd as much of it as I could.
But that's exactly why I'm not and shouldn't be involved in the judicial process to decide someone's punishment.
i'm sure the govt's decisions in those cases would be entirely dispassionate, and much better than your own decisions would be, so why shouldn't we give them that power?
(ok, i am kidding on the last point.)
05 May 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzhow about income tax evasion?
Weren't you all up for killing home invaders too? Man, you'd have yourself killed for murdering the guy that breaks into your house - too cool!
Seriously though, are you suggesting the detah penalty only for murder? What about manslaughter? How about people convicted of death by dangerous driving?
05 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnztoo bad, Kenneth McDuff's already been reconvicted and executed, would have been interesting to see how he turned out as a housemate.
Fine, provided they are incarcerated in a safe manner, undergoing rehabilitation then I'll happily have them in my house.
apparently, he was one of those innocents on death row we hear so much about (note last paragraph).
-------
http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/112496/mcduff.htm
"McDuff likely to take grisly secrets to grave
By MIKE COCHRAN
Associated Press
HUNTSVILLE - When Bethany Sneed first laid eyes on Kenneth McDuff, she screamed: "I hate him! I hate him! He's evil! I want to see him fry!''
When Lori Bible learned McDuff could be dying of liver disease, her response was: "Good!'' From Emily Northrup: "How unfortunate.''
A Texas Ranger: "Good riddance.''
Such is the emotion surrounding Kenneth Allen McDuff, 50, the most notorious sexual predator in modern Texas history and the only one condemned to die by three Texas juries.
....
McDuff likewise sidesteps questions about the 1966 shooting deaths of two boys and the vicious rape-strangulation of their 16-year-old female companion. A Fort Worth jury ruled that McDuff should die in the electric chair, a sentence commuted to life in prison in 1972 after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the death penalty as then imposed.
At the trial, Falls County sheriff Brady Pamplin, a former Texas Ranger, described McDuff as the most remorseless and sadistic killer he had ever met.
Twenty-seven years later, Pamplin's son Larry, the current sheriff of Falls County, appeared at McDuff's Houston trial for the 1992 abduction and murder of Melissa Northrup.
"Kenneth McDuff is absolutely the most vicious and savage individual I know,'' he told reporters. "He has absolutely no conscience, and I think he enjoys killing.''
If McDuff had been executed as scheduled, he said, "no telling how many lives would have been saved.''
At least nine, probably more, Texas authorities suspect.
....
"None of the cases independently should have been convictions. The news media accused me of having tie-ins in all of them.''
Are you saying that you've been convicted in three separate murder cases, that you're a suspect in half a dozen more, that you've been given three death penalties, and that in fact you're as innocent as the fresh fallen snow?
"No,'' he spat back. "I'm telling you what the evidence is. ... There wasn't sufficient evidence in any of these cases for a conviction.''
"
05 May 06
Originally posted by zeeblebotYeah, but unfortunately I don't have the facilities in my home to deal with people in need of serious rehabilitation (or psychiatric help, which many of these people actually need).
too bad, Kenneth McDuff's already been reconvicted and executed, would have been interesting to see how he turned out as a housemate.
apparently, he was one of those innocents on death row we hear so much about (note last paragraph).
-------
http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/112496/mcduff.htm
"McDuff likely to take grisly secrets to grave
...[text shortened]... evidence in any of these cases for a conviction.''
"
05 May 06
Originally posted by scottishinnznobody would expect that ... you could send them in for regular visits with their psychiatrists.
Yeah, but unfortunately I don't have the facilities in my home to deal with people in need of serious rehabilitation (or psychiatric help, which many of these people actually need).
05 May 06
Originally posted by zeeblebotyes, I'd also need a bloddy big cage to keep them in until they were suitably rehabilitated. having someone else in my house always bugs me anyway, so i think they;d get on my nerves a bit.
nobody would expect that ... you could send them in for regular visits with their psychiatrists.
05 May 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzwell, jeez, look at it from their point of view ... who do you think'd crack first?
yes, I'd also need a bloddy big cage to keep them in until they were suitably rehabilitated. having someone else in my house always bugs me anyway, so i think they;d get on my nerves a bit.
05 May 06
Originally posted by VargGiven that any execution of an innocent is a serious moral error, and that it's logically possible for a jury to convict someone who's obviously not guilty (this is like an upper bound on the fallibility of the judicial system), I should think the condemned would be entitled to as many appeals as xe wishes.
Surely even a very thorough trial and appeal should not stretch out for so long.
05 May 06
Originally posted by zeeblebotI never said the government should be involved in those decisions. Rather I think the judiciary should be involved - an independent judiciary as part of an independent judicial system.
how consistent are you? .... if the govt should be the one to decide what happens to whoever murders your loved ones, where should it stop? why not grant them the power to decide what you do with your money (ALL of it, not just what they can grab), where you live, your occupation, who you marry, and all the rest?
i'm sure the govt's decisions in those ...[text shortened]... would be, so why shouldn't we give them that power?
(ok, i am kidding on the last point.)