Death Penalty?

[bhunted 887]

Sorry, that is meaningless. I can make a self defense case fit that category. Watch me:

 

 

So Mr B. Hunted, you are saying that the choir boy broke into your house, was trying to have sex with daughter against her will and you shot him?

Why sir! That is MURDER MOST FOUL!

Mr Choir did not deserve to die.

I can even prove that you have done with malice and forethought and that you have premeditated this crime most vicious. Why else would have purchased a gun, practiced with it fastidiously, stored loaded in your house hold with bullets specifically designed for killing? Those are signs of premeditation, sir!

Further, we can prove that you acted out of malice. I present to you this forum postings from 2 years where you advocated ritual mutilation as valid punishment. You have expressed hate and malice towards people who may or may not be guilty of a crime.

You sir have taken it upon yourself to be judge, jury and executioner! You sir are a murderer!

In closing we also note that you supported the death penalty for all murderers, with no lengthy waits or appeals!

Bailiff, take Mr Hunted out and hang him, if it may please the court.

 

 

Words have no meaning when they are controlled by a corrupt system.

Now that's a real bad analogy.....

Are we talking man slaughter? Murder? What degree? Why are we talking about a killing with intent as to be related to crimes of passion or misuse?

Why are we not referring to a liqueur store robbery where the clerk hands over the goods, makes no false moves and the thug shoots him dead anyway just for kicks? How about murders just for initiation into gangs? Or any other gang related murders?

 

I'm not talking about every case or different degrees, I'm talking, as I said, heinous crimes. So let's not stretch this out the wrong way.

Cause what you are saying is Mr Dad that killed some twit is the same as the thug in the liquor store scenario and like any other maniac out there that thinks killing is a joke. Again, I did say heinous crimes.... Crimes/murders of lesser degrees may not warrant the death penalty... But either we use them or don't. I'm sure that there are mixed feelings. These are mine and in the extreme, it should be used.

In the mean time, if we made more room, maybe we wouldn't have to let them out early because of over crowding or whatever, just to commit crimes again. We can leave them in there to rot as they should. The revolving doors would not function as often as they do now.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad 2 using T2 Pro

[Vlad G 345]

Dear lord, you keep missing my point. You don't get to decide what murder means. The state does. Stop thinking there is a working justice system and stop giving the state any power

[bhunted 887]

Dear lord, you keep missing my point. You don't get to decide what murder means. The state does. Stop thinking there is a working justice system and stop giving the state any power

Maybe I am misunderstanding you.

I know our system is flawed. No doubt. But the question was should there be, blah blah. Under the correct conditions, it can work. My simple analogy could be flawless if the correct conditions are met.

 

So answer me this? In my scenario, what would you like to see happen to those thugs? Otherwise, what was the whole point of this thread?

Maybe it should have just been a yes or no poll....

 

 

Sent from my iPad 2 using T2 Pro

[Vlad G 345]

I don't care about your scenario. I'm not being a dick, I just don't trust the government with this power. I can come up with all sorts of scenarios where you might want someone dead, but you either have the right do it right fracking now, by yourself, or it doesn't need to happen.  You don't delegate non-emergency killing power to a government because it will abuse them. It is that simple. 

 

I also don't think talking about "correct conditions" because those are things that don't happen. Whenever you have a power structure, some twit who thinks she knows better claws here way to the top and start offing people. The history of the world if nothing but a long strings of examples of this. The only thing you can do is delay that as long as possible and you do that by jealously keeping power in the hands of the individual and not handing it to the state.  For that reason alone, you don't hand the state the power to legally kill its citizens, specially in a non-emergency. 

[bhunted 887]

I'm not trying to be a dick either, but you sound as if the DP doesn't exist? It may not in NJ... But there is elsewhere.

Then by what you say, you do not believe in it at all....???

 

Again, I ask you.... Use my thug scenario. While I'm using it as a scenario, does it not happen in real life? Do you really feel murder for fun or without meaning should be handled by a life sentence with no parole?

 

Ok, I'll bend to your thinking. Under one condition. Start up another prison island like Australia was, build a big Eff-ing wall around it, post guards atop the towers and throw every slime ball there for good. Call it the Super Super Super Super Max Island Retreat.

Because, there are a lot of people who use the Nimby term like our lovable George Carlin depicts. We have barren wasteland that we are too fooking stupid to use and instead, they house the worse of the worse close to where our children play, where are love ones sometimes are forced to walk, and when they don't, the scum of the earth traverses outside their ravaged domains to infiltrate ours. And I'm tired of it.

 

The most dangerous of criminals like murderers of the worse kind will not reform. And we sure as hell should not be wasting our tax money on them forever.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad 2 using T2 Pro

[raz-0 1,259]

As amoral and ethical issue, yes I think there is grounds for a death penalty. However, given the state of our "justice" system, no I don't think we should have one. Everyone has metrics to hit, and screw you if your life gets in the way of them. From the investigator who "knows" who did it an makes up a case, or even worse fakes up evidence and frames someone for something they didn't do, to the cops trying to make quota, to the DAs who live and die by their win loss ratio, to judges that get appointed that haven't been to law school, to a hundred other things. Just no.

 

My version of it is to seek the ability for everyone to hold the right to defend themselves from harm as vigorously as necessary and using effective means. I'd rather trust a random stranger than my legal system. 

[bhunted 887]

 

My version of it is to seek the ability for everyone to hold the right to defend themselves from harm as vigorously as necessary and using effective means. I'd rather trust a random stranger than my legal system.

Yea, and while I agree, I fear that even if we had the right to defend ourselves with just enough force to fend off the crime, we ourselves would be butchered.

 

Bad enough the court would break us financially just to prove we were right, but all the while saying, "we are the ones that are guilty till proven innocent while the criminals are innocent till proven guilty"... Remember where the burden of proof lies. Look what is going on right now?

 

 

Sent from my iPad 2 using T2 Pro

[Vlad G 345]

I'm not trying to be a dick either, but you sound as if the DP doesn't exist? It may not in NJ... But there is elsewhere.

Then by what you say, you do not believe in it at all....???

 

Again, I ask you.... Use my thug scenario. While I'm using it as a scenario, does it not happen in real life? Do you really feel murder for fun or without meaning should be handled by a life sentence with no parole?

 

Sent from my iPad 2 using T2 Pro

 

Are you even reading what I'm typing? You scenario is irrelevant. Let me use simple words 

 

I DO NOT TRUST THE GOVERNMENT WITH THE POWER TO KILL PEOPLE

 

 

I don't care if we don't have it now, I don't care if other states have it. I don't have a problem with the ideas of death penalty in a idealized non-existant world, I just know that world doesn't exist, won't exist, can't exist, so given reality I don't want to hand the state the power to kill people it doesn't like

 

Yes I am aware they can already do that. If there is any angle by which I can reduce the amount of power they have on the subject, then I'll take it. 

[bhunted 887]

Are you even reading what I'm typing? You scenario is irrelevant. Let me use simple words

 

I DO NOT TRUST THE GOVERNMENT WITH THE POWER TO KILL PEOPLE

 

 

I don't care if we don't have it now, I don't care if other states have it. I don't have a problem with the ideas of death penalty in a idealized non-existant world, I just know that world doesn't exist, won't exist, can't exist, so given reality I don't want to hand the state the power to kill people it doesn't like

 

Yes I am aware they can already do that. If there is any angle by which I can reduce the amount of power they have on the subject, then I'll take it.

Of course I'm reading it. But you are evading my questions too. It's obvious we have different mind sets and my head really hurts, (migraine on the way), so I'll concede for now.

 

 

Sent from my iPad 2 using T2 Pro

[Vlad G 345]

To answer your question, yes, I think 99% of the time the correct punishment is hard time for life. And I mean hard time. And I mean for life. 

 

How sure are you that you never wrong? How sure are you that the state is never wrong? If those answers are not 100% but you want to impose a 100% penalty then I have a issues with that. The state is wrong a lot, on every damn topic. The juries are made of idiots. The judges take paybacks to put people in jail (actually to put children in private for profit prisons, look it up). The State is using every bureaucracy and power to intimidate and harass its opponents.  

 

So no, I don't think the death penalty should practically exist. 

 

If I put on my utopia hat, I have no issues with some people being put to death for their actions, but in the world we live in, I have a problem with the death penalty. 

[bhunted 887]

First there is no such animal as hard time in most areas. Especially with these bleeding hearts that think multi murderous scum can be rehabbed. Closest thing imho of hard time is what Arpaio does in AZ and I think even he is too easy, but it's a start.

 

I never said 100%... Not everything is rock solid, but if there is rock solid evidence, why not?

 

Another similar example. (I know you hate scenarios). Known gang banger murders a clerk. Dead guy on floor. Forensics match bullet, yadda yadda. It's all on tape. There are multiple witnesses. All cell cams match. What else would we need to justify the DP? Please tell me.

 

This is what I mean, without a shadow of doubt.... Where if it were any closer....it would bite you. We do not need to worry about corruption. That extreme cannot be corrupted. We use to have s saying, a cliche' if you will. "You can run, but you can't hide"... That goes for everyone these days when everyone sees....

 

Realize that our society has changed. Corruption is getting harder to do in the outside real world where everyone has cell/cams and in big cities where people good and bad, run rampant all hours of the day and night.

 

When the evidence is so overwhelming, there is no reason to not use the SP... And my head still really hurts.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using TT 2 Pro

[Vlad G 345]

What? Corruption is harder? What world is that in? Corruption is easier and cheaper then ever.

 

And yet you still are stuck on your "but what about this case". You simply are not listening to my big red letters. I don't care what case you come up with, just because you think today that is all it is going to be used for, tomorrow the state will use it for something else.

 

The only answer is not to hand it to the state.

 

Also lets think of it this way. What if you had to do it, not delegate it to the state, but if you personally had to be the dude weighing the evidence, pass the sentence, and press the trigger. How sure would you be that you were right? If you aren't willing to do it yourself, you sure as hell shouldn't have the state do it.

[bhunted 887]

Who said I wouldn't? I'll supply the ammo if it proves out.

 

No matter. I'm done. Let's just agree to disagree.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using TT 2 Pro

[Vlad G 345]

So do be clear, you would be willing to kill some who is not an active threat to anyone?

 

That is nothing but revenge.

[bhunted 887]

So do be clear, you would be willing to kill some who is not an active threat to anyone?

 

That is nothing but revenge.

Now I'm really done. You are putting words in my mouth. Read your previous last paragraph. I interpreted that if I was made Judge Dredd and all evidence was beyond a shadow of a doubt, 100% fact and enough was shown, yes, I'd pass sentence.

 

Like I said, this WILL be my last post regarding this. It's getting too twisted.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using TT 2 Pro

[Vlad G 345]

Well ok then. Its just that as far as I can tell we are back to the whole eye for an eye thing and other 4000 year old ideas.  I'm trying to understand why you think killing someone who is not a threat (after all you have them in custody) is a good idea. I'm not even passing moral judgement on the notion, I'm trying to understand the logic of it.

 

To be clear, I have no problem with eliminating an active threat, just trying to understand the logic of taking a even 0.001% chance you are wrong if an active threat is not eminent.

[Hops 0]

Well ok then. Its just that as far as I can tell we are back to the whole eye for an eye thing and other 4000 year old ideas.  I'm trying to understand why you think killing someone who is not a threat (after all you have them in custody) is a good idea. I'm not even passing moral judgement on the notion, I'm trying to understand the logic of it.

 

To be clear, I have no problem with eliminating an active threat, just trying to understand the logic of taking a even 0.001% chance you are wrong if an active threat is not eminent.

 

Improving the gene pool?

[Vlad G 345]

They are in custody. If you can't figure out how to keep them from reproducing, I can't trust you to make a judgement that they need killing

[silverado427 10,756]

[wink-_-wink 1]

Wow, that escalated!  Which is exactly why I posted this.  These type of topics get so controversal and I love seeing the different views of people.   

 

A few problems I have is that there is no such thing as "hard time".  Prison life is the easiest thing one could have to do.  It may not be convenient and it may not be luxurious but theres nothing about it that is HARD. 

 

The purpose for this was more to see what you guys think of this guy attaching a car jack to his 2 year old baby car seat "like a ball and chain", leaving her in a river kissing her saying i love you and leaving this baby to die in the river!  At 2 years old all that baby can do is scream... I have a 2 year old, she can't call 911, she doesn't scream that loud and just typing this thinking about the events make my stomach churn.  I don't think that there is punishment good enough to make justice for that innocent child.  He even admitted to attaching the jack, and leaving her in the river... he said " se was not deceased when I left her"... Sick SOB! 

 

I do agree that our gov can't help themselves shouldn't be trusted with power to kill but we already have it... We go to other peoples countries and kill their people.... when we have no shortage of scumbags here... I dunno maybe I have a skewed view but some people just do things that IMO forfeit their right to live here.... I would be 100% ok with shipping said people to South Africa and let them survive there.... Althought that didnt work out well with Australia

[deerpark 83]

Are you even reading what I'm typing? You scenario is irrelevant. Let me use simple words 

 

I DO NOT TRUST THE GOVERNMENT WITH THE POWER TO KILL PEOPLE

 

 

I don't care if we don't have it now, I don't care if other states have it. I don't have a problem with the ideas of death penalty in a idealized non-existant world, I just know that world doesn't exist, won't exist, can't exist, so given reality I don't want to hand the state the power to kill people it doesn't like

 

Yes I am aware they can already do that. If there is any angle by which I can reduce the amount of power they have on the subject, then I'll take it. 

 

I would tend to agree. 

 

Citizen assassinations aside, there are too many innocent people that are stripped of their freedom, let alone executed. 

 

By too many, I mean any, even 1 person.  Being stripped of your freedom is no trivial matter, not to mention your life. 

 

The system is simply broken.  Dishonest cops, overzealous prosecutors and the fact that most people cant afford a “quality” defense.

 

Again, with regards to the Innocence Project, some of the people who were exonerated, actually confessed…

 

And this is only a tiny % of the prison population.  They simply cant afford to help everyone whos asking for help.

 

Things are way effed up.

[raz-0 1,259]

Yea, and while I agree, I fear that even if we had the right to defend ourselves with just enough force to fend off the crime, we ourselves would be butchered.

 

Bad enough the court would break us financially just to prove we were right, but all the while saying, "we are the ones that are guilty till proven innocent while the criminals are innocent till proven guilty"... Remember where the burden of proof lies. Look what is going on right now?

 

 

Sent from my iPad 2 using T2 Pro

So you don't trust them to conduct an investigation into self defense fairly, but you do trust them to be infallible when prosecuting a capital crime?

 

Your reasoning boggles my mind.

[bhunted 887]

Wouldn't boggle anyone if you read my first post.

 

I said heinous crimes that leave nothing to be desired. All proof is 100% available, definitive and accurate. I never said anything less than 100% should require the DP... But this thread has gone so far out of whack, I give up. Because it's irrelevant at this point. All these posts are a matter of opinion. I am no expert in these matters and neither are any of you. Because if there were any experts here, we'd have a perfect system and we don't....

So before this really gets out of hand, just let's all agree we have opinions an ya'll know how that goes.

 

Bhunted, regarding this thread. OUT!

 

 

Sent from my iPad 2 using T2 Pro

[Vlad G 345]

Well, I'm kinda curious what benefit the death penalty provides. I mean besides making some people feel better, what actual benefit does society draw from the death penalty, compared with lets say life time incarceration.

[silverado427 10,756]

http://www.balancedpolitics.org/death_penalty.htm

[HBecwithFn7 296]

Well, I'm kinda curious what benefit the death penalty provides. I mean besides making some people feel better, what actual benefit does society draw from the death penalty, compared with lets say life time incarceration.

 

I don't believe it's there to be of benefit to anyone/anything. It's not a matter of benefit. It's a matter of right vs.wrong. It's there because, where warranted, it's the "right/just" thing to do. The taking of a life (under certain conditions) warrants the forfeiture of life for the one who does it under those conditions. The victim (and his/her survivors)  deserves to have the perpetrator pay the full price for that crime. Does it benefit the victim? No. Nothing will benefit that kind of victim. The victim has suffered an irreparable loss. The only thing we can do as a society is ensure that the perpetrator pays the full price for that loss.

 

I guess it then comes down to whether or not you feel the forfeiture of life is the "fair/full" price for the offense committed. I'm gathering you don't.  I do, for certain offenses/circumstances.  In the case the OP originally present, I most certainly do. Imagine if you were that 2 y/o girl floating to your death down that river with no way to rescue yourself or no one in sight to help you. If this defendant is truly guilty of the offense, I can't think of a better case to warrant the forfeiture of life than this.

[wink-_-wink 1]

Well, I'm kinda curious what benefit the death penalty provides. I mean besides making some people feel better, what actual benefit does society draw from the death penalty, compared with lets say life time incarceration.

Just playing a bit of devils advocate here... even tho I am for capital punishment.

 

Do you personally think that us killing Osama Bin Laden, Timothy McVeigh, John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy were not warranted? 

[Vlad G 345]

It isn't really a matter of what I feel about it. The question I'm leading to here is do the benefits outweigh the negatives.

 

If you can list some tangible benefits of the death penalty then we can weigh them against the negatives, like handing power to the government, risking abuse, risking killing the wrong person, etc.  If the only reason is "because it is right" with no quantifiable benefits to society I have no choice but to say the negatives outweigh the non-existent positives.

 

I don't think the "fair" argument holds water because it boils down to the eye for an eye argument and as I said before, that is a concept selected from a code of laws we would view as barbaric if we examine it.  I don't think there are many other Hamurabic or Old Testament legal ideas we really still follow.  If you really want to discuss fair, we can go back to the notion that it is better that 9 guilty man walk free then one innocent man be incarcerated, which would think it would be doubly so for death penalty.

 

In full disclosure, when I was younger I was definitely in the pro-death penalty camp. As I've grown older I've started asking myself what does it actually accomplish and how sure am I that the people we put to death actually deserve it. How sure am I that system doesn't fail people? How many example of the system failing does one need?

 

 

As for specific killings .. I'm sure we would have rather arrested Bin Landen, but the moment he picked up a gun he was fair game. That goes under self defense and immediate danger which I've already said I have no issues with.  The other ones, I ask again, what have we gained from it? For example Manson being still alive is harming us how? Or Ted Kaczynski? Berkowitz? Are they any different then the other 3?  Why the different treatment? Does the different treatment lead to different results? Did Kuklinski dying of old age in prison is somehow different in end result then if we hung him?

[magnawing 5]

I've had several friends/acquaintances who are/were CO's who have stated...when prisoners discover that someone is serving time for hurting a child, they rarely serve their entire sentence.

 

 

This signature is AWESOME!!!

[wink-_-wink 1]

I've had several friends/acquaintances who are/were CO's who have stated...when prisoners discover that someone is serving time for hurting a child, they rarely serve their entire sentence.

 

 

This signature is AWESOME!!!

In what prisons?  because yes those guys get jumped on a lot, that is it.  That is a common misconception much like you will be raped if you go to prison...  There are so many of them in prisons that nothing happens to them.  They get bullied a bit and their stuff gets taken a lot but thats really about it. 

 

Vlad,

I completely understand your view.  I have always been on the fence with the topic.  I have wrote papers for college on this topic both for and against it (both for the same class which was awesome).  Those 3 being alive doesn't really make a difference.  But people like McVeigh was (who lived a few cells away from Kaczynski) are housed at ADX  Florence in Colorado.  Those people require a lieutenants hold (4 officers plus a LT).  These people cause more burden on the system than the typical day to day inmate.  requiring much more direct hands on time than any other type of inmate.  Granted they don't get to leave the cells often. 

 

If not life or death, what alternatives would you guys be ok with?  Again stipulating 100% certainty, beyond any shadow of doubt, DNA proven violent crimes such as murder, treason, or as someone put above dealing with children, elderly, or mentally handicapped ( as a group I would cal the defenseless)