Close Window Court bans death penalty for child rape Wednesday, June 25, 2008 WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court declared Wednesday that executions are too severe a punishment for child rape, despite the "years of long anguish" for victims, in a ruling that restricts the death penalty to murder and crimes against the state.
The court's 5-4 decision struck down a Louisiana law that allows capital punishment for people convicted of raping children under 12. It spares the only people in the U.S. under sentence of death for that crime - two Louisiana men convicted of raping girls 5 and 8.
The ruling also invalidates laws on the books in five other that allowed executions for child rape.
However devastating the crime to children, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion, "the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child." His four liberal colleagues joined him, while the four more conservative justices dissented.
There has not been an execution in the United States for a crime that did not also involve the death of the victim in 44 years, a factor that weighed in Kennedy's decision.
Rape and other crimes "may be as devastating in their harm, as here, but 'in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public,' they cannot be compared to murder in their 'severity and irrevocability,'" Kennedy said, quoting from earlier decisions.
The victim in the case decided Wednesday was an 8-year-old girl raped by her stepfather at their home in Harvey, La., outside New Orleans.
Angry Louisianans who backed the law said the court was out of touch.
"The opinion reads more like an out-of-control legislative debate than a constitutional analysis," said Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Republican. "One thing is clear: The five members of the court who issued the opinion do not share the same 'standards of decency' as the people of Louisiana."
With the court already on record this term reaffirming the constitutionality of capital punishment in a case dealing with lethal injection, Kennedy dwelt at length on the need to limit the death penalty to the most heinous killings.
The decision allows death sentences to continue to be imposed for crimes such as treason, espionage and terrorism, which Kennedy labeled as crimes against the state.
The Supreme Court banned executions for rape in 1977 in a case in which the victim was an adult woman.
Forty-four states prohibit the death penalty for any kind of rape, and five states besides Louisiana have allowed it for child rapists. Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas allow executions in such cases if the defendant had previously been convicted of raping a child. Georgia's statute is broader, Kennedy said.
The court struggled over how to apply standards laid out in decisions barring executions for the mentally retarded and people younger than 18 when they committed murder. In those cases, the court cited trends in the states away from capital punishment.
In this case, proponents of the Louisiana law said the trend was toward the death penalty, a point mentioned by Justice Samuel Alito in his dissent.
"The harm that is caused to the victims and to society at large by the worst child rapists is grave," Alito wrote. "It is the judgment of the Louisiana lawmakers and those in an increasing number of other states that these harms justify the death penalty."
But Kennedy said the absence of any recent executions for rape and the small number of states that allow it demonstrate "there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape."
Kennedy acknowledged that the decision had to come to terms with "the years of long anguish that must be endured by the victim of child rape."
Still, he concluded that in cases of crimes against individuals, "the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victim's life was not taken."
The author of the Louisiana law, former Republican state Rep. Pete Schneider, said even opponents of the death penalty told him they would kill anyone who raped their children. "When are you going to have the courage to stand up for what's right for all of the people - but especially the children under 12 that have been brutally raped by monsters?" Schneider demanded, directing his comments to the justices in Wednesday's majority.
The last executions for crimes other than murder took place in 1964, according to a database maintained by the Death Penalty Information Center.
Ronald Wolfe, 34, died in Missouri's gas chamber on May 8, 1964, for rape. James Coburn was electrocuted in Alabama on Sept. 4 of that year for robbery.
The case before the court involved Patrick Kennedy, 43, who was sentenced to death for the rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter in Louisiana.
Kennedy was convicted in 2003. The girl initially told police she was sorting Girl Scout cookies in the garage when two boys assaulted her.
Police arrested Kennedy a couple of weeks after the March 1998 rape, but more than 20 months passed before the girl identified him as her attacker.
His defense attorney at the time argued that blood testing was inconclusive and that the victim was pressed to change her story.
The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the sentence, saying that "short of first-degree murder, we can think of no other non-homicide crime more deserving" of the death penalty. State Chief Justice Pascal Calogero noted in dissent that the U.S. high court already had made clear that capital punishment could not be imposed without the death of the victim, except possibly for espionage or treason.
The girl's mother was reached by The Associated Press following the court's decision Wednesday. "We don't talk about that," she said and hung up.
A second Louisiana defendant, Richard Davis, was given the death penalty in December for repeatedly raping a 5-year-old girl in Caddo Parish.
Local prosecutor Lea Hall told jurors: "Execute this man. Justice has a sword and this sword needs to swing today." Both men will get new sentences.
The case is Kennedy v. Louisiana, 07-343.
---
Associated Press writer Janet McConnaughey contributed to this report from New Orleans.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008 WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court declared Wednesday that executions are too severe a punishment for child rape, despite the "years of long anguish" for victims, in a ruling that restricts the death penalty to murder and crimes against the state.
The court's 5-4 decision struck down a Louisiana law that allows capital punishment for people convicted of raping children under 12. It spares the only people in the U.S. under sentence of death for that crime - two Louisiana men convicted of raping girls 5 and 8.
The ruling also invalidates laws on the books in five other that allowed executions for child rape.
However devastating the crime to children, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion, "the death penalty is not a proportional punishment for the rape of a child." His four liberal colleagues joined him, while the four more conservative justices dissented.
There has not been an execution in the United States for a crime that did not also involve the death of the victim in 44 years, a factor that weighed in Kennedy's decision.
Rape and other crimes "may be as devastating in their harm, as here, but 'in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public,' they cannot be compared to murder in their 'severity and irrevocability,'" Kennedy said, quoting from earlier decisions.
The victim in the case decided Wednesday was an 8-year-old girl raped by her stepfather at their home in Harvey, La., outside New Orleans.
Angry Louisianans who backed the law said the court was out of touch.
"The opinion reads more like an out-of-control legislative debate than a constitutional analysis," said Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Republican. "One thing is clear: The five members of the court who issued the opinion do not share the same 'standards of decency' as the people of Louisiana."
With the court already on record this term reaffirming the constitutionality of capital punishment in a case dealing with lethal injection, Kennedy dwelt at length on the need to limit the death penalty to the most heinous killings.
The decision allows death sentences to continue to be imposed for crimes such as treason, espionage and terrorism, which Kennedy labeled as crimes against the state.
The Supreme Court banned executions for rape in 1977 in a case in which the victim was an adult woman.
Forty-four states prohibit the death penalty for any kind of rape, and five states besides Louisiana have allowed it for child rapists. Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas allow executions in such cases if the defendant had previously been convicted of raping a child. Georgia's statute is broader, Kennedy said.
The court struggled over how to apply standards laid out in decisions barring executions for the mentally retarded and people younger than 18 when they committed murder. In those cases, the court cited trends in the states away from capital punishment.
In this case, proponents of the Louisiana law said the trend was toward the death penalty, a point mentioned by Justice Samuel Alito in his dissent.
"The harm that is caused to the victims and to society at large by the worst child rapists is grave," Alito wrote. "It is the judgment of the Louisiana lawmakers and those in an increasing number of other states that these harms justify the death penalty."
But Kennedy said the absence of any recent executions for rape and the small number of states that allow it demonstrate "there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape."
Kennedy acknowledged that the decision had to come to terms with "the years of long anguish that must be endured by the victim of child rape."
Still, he concluded that in cases of crimes against individuals, "the death penalty should not be expanded to instances where the victim's life was not taken."
The author of the Louisiana law, former Republican state Rep. Pete Schneider, said even opponents of the death penalty told him they would kill anyone who raped their children. "When are you going to have the courage to stand up for what's right for all of the people - but especially the children under 12 that have been brutally raped by monsters?" Schneider demanded, directing his comments to the justices in Wednesday's majority.
The last executions for crimes other than murder took place in 1964, according to a database maintained by the Death Penalty Information Center.
Ronald Wolfe, 34, died in Missouri's gas chamber on May 8, 1964, for rape. James Coburn was electrocuted in Alabama on Sept. 4 of that year for robbery.
The case before the court involved Patrick Kennedy, 43, who was sentenced to death for the rape of his 8-year-old stepdaughter in Louisiana.
Kennedy was convicted in 2003. The girl initially told police she was sorting Girl Scout cookies in the garage when two boys assaulted her.
Police arrested Kennedy a couple of weeks after the March 1998 rape, but more than 20 months passed before the girl identified him as her attacker.
His defense attorney at the time argued that blood testing was inconclusive and that the victim was pressed to change her story.
The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld the sentence, saying that "short of first-degree murder, we can think of no other non-homicide crime more deserving" of the death penalty. State Chief Justice Pascal Calogero noted in dissent that the U.S. high court already had made clear that capital punishment could not be imposed without the death of the victim, except possibly for espionage or treason.
The girl's mother was reached by The Associated Press following the court's decision Wednesday. "We don't talk about that," she said and hung up.
A second Louisiana defendant, Richard Davis, was given the death penalty in December for repeatedly raping a 5-year-old girl in Caddo Parish.
Local prosecutor Lea Hall told jurors: "Execute this man. Justice has a sword and this sword needs to swing today." Both men will get new sentences.
The case is Kennedy v. Louisiana, 07-343.
---
Associated Press writer Janet McConnaughey contributed to this report from New Orleans.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Sorry, Bond. Didn't see this thread before I started mine.
Posted by Relentless. on :
Does this ruling really matter? If anything a life sentence is worse than a death sentence for a kiddie rapist.
Posted by glassman on :
i think that child rapists get to live in a special hell in prison before they die...
i'm somewhat ambivalent about the death penalty..
i don't reall think it is justice...
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Special hell in prison? They're kept in a secure area so that THEY don't get raped. Tell me how that is fair and just!
As for the death penalty being just, it's not about justice at that point. It's about protecting the rest of us...and our children. Nothing that we can do to these beasts will equal the damage they have done. There is no way to cure them because it's not a disease, it's a sick preference. The recidivism rate is absolutely insane with sexual predators of any kind.
Killing them just makes sure another child won't pay for our burdened conscience.
It may not be justice...but it's more than just.
Posted by glassman on :
Special hell in prison? They're kept in a secure area so that THEY don't get raped. Tell me how that is fair and just!
i dunno about Utah, but down here in the south? we don't have none o'them thar' country club prisins bubba... ever hear of Angola?
Posted by glassman on :
interesting:
June 25, 2008, 6:21 pm Obama Condemns Supreme Court Decision in Child Rape Case
Susan Davis reports on the presidential race.
Barack Obama criticized the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision today striking down the use of the death penalty in cases of child rape.
June 25, 2008, 6:21 pm Obama Condemns Supreme Court Decision in Child Rape Case
Susan Davis reports on the presidential race.
Barack Obama criticized the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision today striking down the use of the death penalty in cases of child rape.
i suppose next people will say he's just lying to win the Conservative vote Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i think that child rapists get to live in a special hell in prison before they die...
i'm somewhat ambivalent about the death penalty..
i don't reall think it is justice...
I agree with you Glass... it's not justice it's revenge... plus I think a life sentence is a worst punishment for such people and it's a living hell they will live for decades if they are young... and they will always be a target from other prisoners... but other then that I am anti death penalty in this case because a rapist is a rapist and to only say certain rapists cases get the death penalty and not other types of rapipsts (women rapists, men on men rapists etc.) is not right in my book...
Posted by glassman on :
i am for life without parole in almost every child sexual abuse case..
there is a problem when you get into these teenage 18 and 16 year old cases tho... too much grey area...
when i was 16 i was in love with every 18 year old woman i ever met Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman:
when i was 16 i was in love with every 18 year old woman i ever met
me too lol Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
So, let me get this strait...you're both willing to lock these 'things' away forever (on the taxpayers dime) but you're not willing to put them out of both their and our misery?
As for a rapist is a rapist is a rapist, Mach...you're right and wrong imo. To rape anyone is heinous beyond understanding, but any crime when directed at a child is doubly wrong because is takes EVERYTHING that is innocent from them. They will live their entire lives with those scars because they never had the chance to form a base from which they might have made some form of healing.
Unless they are repeat offenders none of these guys get life. They serve their time and then go back out and yet another innocent pays for our "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."
Read into this a little further and you'll get another load of liberal bull...states can no longer assign their own punishments to crimes that occur within their borders. The Supreme Court has as much as said that if we don't agree with the State...sucks to be you. It is one matter for them to say that something is unconsitutional, it's quite another to take the states' right to punish an offender based on a constitutional law.
Glass...none of these perverts gets put in general population. Their lifespan could be measured in days if they were (if only). As for the Obama note...should make one take notice when everyone (almost) even including the socialist presidential candidate doesn't agree with a ruling.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: So, let me get this strait...you're both willing to lock these 'things' away forever (on the taxpayers dime) but you're not willing to put them out of both their and our misery?
So to you it's more about the money then the just thing to do...
quote:As for a rapist is a rapist is a rapist, Mach...you're right and wrong imo. To rape anyone is heinous beyond understanding, but any crime when directed at a child is doubly wrong because is takes EVERYTHING that is innocent from them. They will live their entire lives with those scars because they never had the chance to form a base from which they might have made some form of healing.
I disagree with you. ALL rape victims regardless of age or innocence will have scars the rest of their lives emotionally and perhaps physically. Let's throw you in prison in a area where there is homosexual rapists to let you get raped then tell me you do not have the same emotional scars as all other rape victims.
quote:Unless they are repeat offenders none of these guys get life. They serve their time and then go back out and yet another innocent pays for our "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."
Yes, sometimes true but i think it depends on the state. Some do get life whether life without parole or 30 + years depending on the offenders age which could be construed as a life sentence. But anyways wouldn't you agree that rapists of adults pose the same threat to our society when they are released yet you are only advocating death to child rapists. Aren't your female loved ones whether your mom, sister, cousin or other family members as well as friends or girlfriends and wives just as important as a child? If not then your valuing one loved one more then another one based on age.
quote:Read into this a little further and you'll get another load of liberal bull...states can no longer assign their own punishments to crimes that occur within their borders. The Supreme Court has as much as said that if we don't agree with the State...sucks to be you. It is one matter for them to say that something is unconsitutional, it's quite another to take the states' right to punish an offender based on a constitutional law.
It is unconstitutional and the Court did the right thing while you on the other hand are making a decision based on your emotions and not impartiality and the law.
quote:Glass...none of these perverts gets put in general population. Their lifespan could be measured in days if they were (if only). As for the Obama note...should make one take notice when everyone (almost) even including the socialist presidential candidate doesn't agree with a ruling.
Actually some do get put in general population eventually if they are serving a life sentence or long sentence even if it takes years to do so.Again it depends in what state they are in or whether they are in a Federal prison or State Prison since they all have different rules. And even if they are not put in general population, someone will always get to them eventually. We'll not always but sooner or later some of them will get their day though not all of them but dieing of old age in such a Hell is a worst punishment then death itself even if you disagree. Jeffrey Dahmer is a perfect example of the former.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
It is unconstitutional and the Court did the right thing while you on the other hand are making a decision based on your emotions and not impartiality and the law.
Don't lecture me on the constitutionality of this law until you have a lot more information under your belt, Mach. Judge Kennedy's appeal to the 8th ammendment is hollow as the courts have upheld for years, and still do, that capital punishment IS completely constitutional.
With the court already on record this term reaffirming the constitutionality of capital punishment in a case dealing with lethal injection, Kennedy dwelt at length on the need to limit the death penalty to the most heinous killings.
If you read the story posted, Judge Kennedy fails to do anything but say "hey, we don't think that the majority of people want rape to be punished by the death penalty."
But Kennedy said the absence of any recent executions for rape and the small number of states that allow it demonstrate "there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape."
National Consensus?
The court struggled over how to apply standards laid out in decisions barring executions for the mentally retarded and people younger than 18 when they committed murder. In those cases, the court cited trends in the states away from capital punishment.
Trends in the states?
There has not been an execution in the United States for a crime that did not also involve the death of the victim in 44 years, a factor that weighed in Kennedy's decision.
So, noone has been executed in a while so that makes it unconstitutional...
And to top off the hypocrisy...
The decision allows death sentences to continue to be imposed for crimes such as treason, espionage and terrorism, which Kennedy labeled as crimes against the state.
So, it's not ok to execute them where no death occurred unless it's a BIG crime...good to know that rape isn't a big crime, Mach.
Everything he cites is based on changing standards that the Court claims exists. The article even cited the previous cases where capital punishment had been used in non-murder cases. Where was the Court then? Judge Kennedy and the Liberal Judges are simply saying we don't like capital punishment and this is our way of limiting it.
But anyways wouldn't you agree that rapists of adults pose the same threat to our society when they are released yet you are only advocating death to child rapists
Yet again, Mach, you are putting words in my mouth. I never once said that one rapist should be given the needle and not another based on victim. I am in favor of extending the death penalty to far more crimes than it is. I believe that anytime a crime is such that society has decided to lock the perpetrator away for the rest of their natural existance that we should impose the death penalty and be done with the mess. Sentancing them to a long drawn out death in prison (which you advocate apparently) is in no way more humane than simply sedating them and while they are under paralyzing the heart and lungs. Which sounds more like torture and revenge to you?
As for the cost element you chided me on? Consider this:
Lets use 1994 stats:
On a given day in 1994 there were approximately 234,000 offenders convicted of rape or sexual assault under the care, custody, or control of corrections agencies; nearly 60% of these sex offenders are under conditional supervision in the community.
So, we have about 93600 of these perverts incarcerated. At an average cost of nearly $23,000 each (2001 stat, latest I could find) that's $2,152,800,000 that you and I and every other taxpayer are forking out to house this scum of the earth each year. Remember as well that this is only for the sexual offenders. This doesn't count the other myriad of convicts at all.
2.1 billion dollars, Mach! Every year! So that these guys can get 3 meals a day, shelter, cable television, healthcare and a chance to get a college degree.
Yeah, that's justice.
Posted by bond006 on :
I have seen people so sick it makes a child molester look like a boy scout. The Government state and federal plus private doctors and organizations can't figure what to do I have been in on this at the hard end for years and not the brain end and I anm beside myself I use to feel that force and brutality were the only answers but no more because that did not work either
Maybe you guys are right,But it is not in me anymore.
I do know one thing I have known the type of con that does his time for child rape and begs not to be let out because he says he can,t stop its in the head not the balls, and the joint is the only place where he can be away from childern
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: It is unconstitutional and the Court did the right thing while you on the other hand are making a decision based on your emotions and not impartiality and the law.
Don't lecture me on the constitutionality of this law until you have a lot more information under your belt, Mach. Judge Kennedy's appeal to the 8th ammendment is hollow as the courts have upheld for years, and still do, that capital punishment IS completely constitutional.
With the court already on record this term reaffirming the constitutionality of capital punishment in a case dealing with lethal injection, Kennedy dwelt at length on the need to limit the death penalty to the most heinous killings.
If you read the story posted, Judge Kennedy fails to do anything but say "hey, we don't think that the majority of people want rape to be punished by the death penalty."
But Kennedy said the absence of any recent executions for rape and the small number of states that allow it demonstrate "there is a national consensus against capital punishment for the crime of child rape."
National Consensus?
The court struggled over how to apply standards laid out in decisions barring executions for the mentally retarded and people younger than 18 when they committed murder. In those cases, the court cited trends in the states away from capital punishment.
Trends in the states?
There has not been an execution in the United States for a crime that did not also involve the death of the victim in 44 years, a factor that weighed in Kennedy's decision.
So, noone has been executed in a while so that makes it unconstitutional...
And to top off the hypocrisy...
The decision allows death sentences to continue to be imposed for crimes such as treason, espionage and terrorism, which Kennedy labeled as crimes against the state.
So, it's not ok to execute them where no death occurred unless it's a BIG crime...good to know that rape isn't a big crime, Mach.
Everything he cites is based on changing standards that the Court claims exists. The article even cited the previous cases where capital punishment had been used in non-murder cases. Where was the Court then? Judge Kennedy and the Liberal Judges are simply saying we don't like capital punishment and this is our way of limiting it.
But anyways wouldn't you agree that rapists of adults pose the same threat to our society when they are released yet you are only advocating death to child rapists
Yet again, Mach, you are putting words in my mouth. I never once said that one rapist should be given the needle and not another based on victim. I am in favor of extending the death penalty to far more crimes than it is. I believe that anytime a crime is such that society has decided to lock the perpetrator away for the rest of their natural existance that we should impose the death penalty and be done with the mess. Sentancing them to a long drawn out death in prison (which you advocate apparently) is in no way more humane than simply sedating them and while they are under paralyzing the heart and lungs. Which sounds more like torture and revenge to you?
As for the cost element you chided me on? Consider this:
Lets use 1994 stats:
On a given day in 1994 there were approximately 234,000 offenders convicted of rape or sexual assault under the care, custody, or control of corrections agencies; nearly 60% of these sex offenders are under conditional supervision in the community.
So, we have about 93600 of these perverts incarcerated. At an average cost of nearly $23,000 each (2001 stat, latest I could find) that's $2,152,800,000 that you and I and every other taxpayer are forking out to house this scum of the earth each year. Remember as well that this is only for the sexual offenders. This doesn't count the other myriad of convicts at all.
2.1 billion dollars, Mach! Every year! So that these guys can get 3 meals a day, shelter, cable television, healthcare and a chance to get a college degree.
Yeah, that's justice.
So let me get this straight... MAJORITY RULES??
Plus i didnt put words in your mouth, you basically implied it ONLY child rapists should be put to death. You never said all rapists or rapists in general should be. I'm not the only one to see this in your posts.
As for you wanting the death penalty expanded to all crimes that require life imprisonment. That is why we have Supreme Court decisions, to limit uncontrolled lunacy from people like you. Rapists today and then eventually you will move on down the list to include bank robbers, gun assaults, some ass getting a life sentence for stealing a piece of pizza (3 strikes your out laws in California and other states etc.) etc. Where would it end? I'm glad for separation of Church and State. If not for it we would be in serious trouble from religious zealots like you.
The death penalty is nothing more then revenge. If people would admit that and stop disguising it with the word "justice" I would respect you more on this issue. Fortunately we live in a society where were not suppose to be getting "revenge". If we did then we should go back to the old days of Wild West vigilantism and no Law & Order.
As for the $2 billion per year we spend on these criminals to keep them incarcerated. That is a drop in the bucket compared to the $12 billion PER MONTH your esteemed President spends on a unpopular war. That is where you should be directing your energies and outrage at if you want to make a issue monetary because that hits our pockets more in the form of taxes then the money we spend on the Penal system ever will which at least our money is put to good use trying to separate us from the dregs of society.
And if you were really a religious person, you would be against taking any life regardless if they are wanted in this society or not. If not then you are nothing but a hyprocrite disguised as God's follower like PM is a hyprocrite for taking money in the Section 8 system he despises so much.
It's unfortunate that we are the last Western power to have the Death Penalty yet we preach human rights to the world & other nonsense preachings that we do not practice ourselves.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
Btw "Seeking Freedom" (ironic name imo), if you think prison is a picnic, walk in the park country club. You should try it sometime. Might do wonders for your way of thinking.
Posted by bond006 on :
Death penalty don't work it never has and never will.
Especially on crimes of sex offence the malfunction of the brain to satisfy the addiction overides the punisment of committing the crime. In other words these guys are sick and no matter what the legal punishment there is, won't stop them from doing what they do.
Cure or an Island some place where they all can go is the only way of treating them If you are a Christian.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
I think your right Bond... as far as i know i have never seen a study that says the Death Penalty reduces such crimes that are punishable by it. It's suppose to be a deterrent but I just don't see it. What most people who do this is a mental disease imo that won't make the next potentional child rapist, killer, terrorist, spy etc. stop from committing the crime. They don't think about the DP.
Posted by glassman on :
they don't seem to care much whether they live or die either.
MSNBC does some weekend shows inside prisons... i've never seen anybody sitting on their fat azzes watching Nascar on cable pinching thier wifes butts when they bring 'em another Bud... it ain't pretty.
i don't know how the guards do it... i couldn't.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Plus i didnt put words in your mouth, you basically implied it ONLY child rapists should be put to death. You never said all rapists or rapists in general should be. I'm not the only one to see this in your posts.
Quote me anywhere in this thread, Mach. Nothing I've posted can be honestly construed in such a manner.
But wait, that's never stopped you before has it?
Rapists today and then eventually you will move on down the list to include bank robbers, gun assaults, some ass getting a life sentence for stealing a piece of pizza (3 strikes your out laws in California and other states etc.) etc. Where would it end?
The three strikes and you're out laws are based on 3 FELONY CONVICTIONS, Mach. That means that someone has commited and been convicted of three seperate major offenses. It means they have demonstrated a pattern of not only not being able to be a productive member of society, but are choosing to deliberately act against the common good. That's when they get life. That's when they truly become nothing more than a drain on society because they will continually drain tax payer dollars until they die.
And if you were really a religious person, you would be against taking any life regardless if they are wanted in this society or not. If not then you are nothing but a hyprocrite disguised as God's follower like PM is a hyprocrite for taking money in the Section 8 system he despises so much.
Nice try, Mach, but yet again you merely show your ignorance of what you claim to know. Religious does not mean foolish no matter how many jokes you may make. As a religious man, my duty is to protect my fellow man, woman, and child. If these sick individuals have chosen to harm others rather than peacefully coexist then it behooves us to prevent them from doing so.
It's unfortunate that we are the last Western power to have the Death Penalty yet we preach human rights to the world & other nonsense preachings that we do not practice ourselves.
What about the human rights of their victims, Mach?
I think your right Bond... as far as i know i have never seen a study that says the Death Penalty reduces such crimes that are punishable by it.
Deterrant or not, capital punishment is the ONLY punishment that makes sure the individual will NEVER hurt anyone again. One can escape from prison or even hurt others while in prison. Dead is dead.
Yeah, it sure looks like incarceration worked here.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
Quote me anywhere in this thread, Mach. Nothing I've posted can be honestly construed in such a manner.
But wait, that's never stopped you before has it?
"As for a rapist is a rapist is a rapist, Mach...you're right and wrong imo. To rape anyone is heinous beyond understanding, but any crime when directed at a child is doubly wrong because is takes EVERYTHING that is innocent from them. They will live their entire lives with those scars because they never had the chance to form a base from which they might have made some form of healing." That post to me means only child rapists should get the DP so these are your words.
quote:The three strikes and you're out laws are based on 3 FELONY CONVICTIONS, Mach. That means that someone has commited and been convicted of three seperate major offenses. It means they have demonstrated a pattern of not only not being able to be a productive member of society, but are choosing to deliberately act against the common good. That's when they get life. That's when they truly become nothing more than a drain on society because they will continually drain tax payer dollars until they die.
I guess your not aware that 3 Strikes laws have flaws especially in California. Or at least it used to. I have not kept up with it. But perhaps you remember the famous "pizza thief" who stole a slice and was going to get life for it among other cases in Cali such as drug addicts, homeless people etc. I guess by your definition we should put all these people to death because they are a drain on our wallets and because they are petty thieves and addicts who cannot function in society? ... here's one article about the case(s): http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0126-01.htm
quote:Nice try, Mach, but yet again you merely show your ignorance of what you claim to know. Religious does not mean foolish no matter how many jokes you may make. As a religious man, my duty is to protect my fellow man, woman, and child. If these sick individuals have chosen to harm others rather than peacefully coexist then it behooves us to prevent them from doing so.
Ignorance? Ever hear the quote: Thy Shall NOT Kill.
It did not say Thy Shall not kill only nice people.
It's funny how you and others can say something about the right to bear arms and intrepret it literally and say it's as plain as english but when it comes to other issues such as this , all of a sudden it's not "plain english" and doesn't mean what it says. Next you will quote me " A Eye for a Eye" and say that the 10 commandments are irrelevant because that quote was first or something lol
quote:What about the human rights of their victims, Mach?
Again if you do not practice what you preach and give human rights to all people including bad people then don't expect other countries to do the same especially with Americans abroad who might get wrongfully accused. The Constitution much like the Bible are not only for "nice people".
quote:Deterrant or not, capital punishment is the ONLY punishment that makes sure the individual will NEVER hurt anyone again. One can escape from prison or even hurt others while in prison. Dead is dead.
Yeah, it sure looks like incarceration worked here.
Hell why dont we put to death people who constantly get into fights and get arrested for assault. They hurt people as well. Or drunk drivers. Wife beaters. and on and on. He'll why not everyone in prison since really the only thing you care about is your wallet being drained even though your God Bush spends more money per month/year on the Iraq War then all the prisons put together imo. $12 Billion per month my friend. Think about that instead.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
That post to me means only child rapists should get the DP so these are your words.
No, that post means that any crime against a child does more harm than to an adult. I said nothing about punishing them differently.
I guess your not aware that 3 Strikes laws have flaws especially in California. Or at least it used to. I have not kept up with it. But perhaps you remember the famous "pizza thief" who stole a slice and was going to get life for it
Right...he hadn't done ANYTHING prior to this to warrant jail time and he suddenly got life in prison...
Pardon me if I don't believe it.
Your link all but gives me my rebuttal.
Shortly after 4am one morning in 1997, Taylor decided he could not wait for the friendly priest and pried open the church's kitchen door. A security guard spotted him and the police were called. He is now serving 25 years to life because the break-in was his third felony.
Breaking and entering...his THIRD FELONY...yeah, huge miscarriage of justice.
Her friend, Joey Buckhalter, was jailed for 75 years to life for stealing a wallet with $24 in it.
What were his prior two felonies?
And your pizza guy?
Probably the most famous is still that of Jerry Dewayne Williams, who at the age of 27 was sentenced to 25 years to life for stealing a slice of pepperoni pizza.
What were his prior two felonies?
Each and everyone hit with the three strikes laws have at least 3 FELONY convictions. Whatever their final offense is (understanding that it's a felony), they are preceded by two other felonies to qualify.
That's a pattern of not being able to live in harmony with your fellow man.
Hell why dont we put to death people who constantly get into fights and get arrested for assault. They hurt people as well. Or drunk drivers. Wife beaters. and on and on.
Well...why don't we?
As my posted links show; jail isn't stopping them from hurting people, is it.
Posted by bond006 on :
I am under the opinion punishment has never stopped crime we read that in history. The law only exists because of the evil in mens hearts. I see that evry day. If we are not going to kill people there is only a few choices. Confinement isolation, or death.
I my self think we should have isolation a big island some where. Keep the D.P. on the books but make it a federal law decided by the supreme court for any offender in any state. Any act of treason death penalty fast. And thats all I have to say. Except all of you that are not in jail or spent any time in don't know we are just sending our criminals to criminal college what we do now don't work period and who suffers is the American public they have to live with what gets out.
Posted by glassman on :
Well...why don't we?
As my posted links show; jail isn't stopping them from hurting people, is it.
well SF, there is actually one good reason not to.
if you just kill people that do ANY violent crime? they will just kill everybody they do any crime "to"... they got nothing to lose... they ain't gonna quit being sociopaths.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
well SF, there is actually one good reason not to.
if you just kill people that do ANY violent crime? they will just kill everybody they do any crime "to"... they got nothing to lose... they ain't gonna quit being sociopaths.
While there is some validity to that arguement, Glass, the inverse is also true. If the punishment, real or perceived, is sufficiently lax then there is no real incentive NOT to commit the crime. That's where we are currently I believe.
So, since we agree that these few are going to commit crimes regardless, why AREN'T we doing more to make sure they don't do it again?
Posted by glassman on :
i think more is being done to deal with short eyed perves.
as for soshapaths in general? we'll always have 'em. some are even functional, heck we even have a few that post here.
killing people shouldn't be easy. here's another good reason:
some sociopaths end up being District Attorneys...
Dallas has already released 12 men convicted of sexual assault, and that was with the previous DA fighting it every step of the way. That's more than any other county in the nation, and more than all but two states.
"And when you tested 36 people and 12 of them came up to be not guilty as a result of DNA testing, then, yes, a red flag is raised," Watkins says. "So we need to look at what we've been doing in the past and try to right those wrongs."
James Lee Woodard walked out of a Texas prison last week after 27 years behind bars. The state now agrees that Woodard was wrongfully convicted in 1981 of killing a girl he had been dating.
Woodard is the 17th man from Dallas to be exonerated by DNA evidence. Nearly all are black. And the district attorney's office is predicting that Woodard won't be the last.
there's even some people who say we have 'em leading the government...
Posted by bond006 on :
your so very wrong you are talking about the criminal world with no knowlege of it. You for all I know are an honest man how do you know how a criminal thinks or operates,bottom line is you don't.
Yet you tell those that deal with it day in and day out that you know all about it and what to do and how to punish SF and PM go to a jail as a visitor and talk to some of the correction officers thats all
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i think more is being done to deal with short eyed perves.
as for soshapaths in general? we'll always have 'em. some are even functional, heck we even have a few that post here.
killing people shouldn't be easy. here's another good reason:
some sociopaths end up being District Attorneys...
Dallas has already released 12 men convicted of sexual assault, and that was with the previous DA fighting it every step of the way. That's more than any other county in the nation, and more than all but two states.
"And when you tested 36 people and 12 of them came up to be not guilty as a result of DNA testing, then, yes, a red flag is raised," Watkins says. "So we need to look at what we've been doing in the past and try to right those wrongs."
James Lee Woodard walked out of a Texas prison last week after 27 years behind bars. The state now agrees that Woodard was wrongfully convicted in 1981 of killing a girl he had been dating.
Woodard is the 17th man from Dallas to be exonerated by DNA evidence. Nearly all are black. And the district attorney's office is predicting that Woodard won't be the last.
there's even some people who say we have 'em leading the government...
What's the old saying? : It's better to let 10 guilty men go free then to condemn one innocent man.
I wonder what SF's concious would be if he learned a innocent man he helped put to death turned out to be totally innocent.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Bond, I know you didn't mean to give offense so I don't take any from your comment. That being said, my cousin and one of my neighbors both work as correctional officers here in Utah. My neighbor is also a mother of four and served in the prison while she was pregnant with the last two (twins).
I know that you have more first-hand knowledge of this subject than I ever want to have and I give your opinion the weight that you've earned. However, I would ask you one question...
Do you REALLY think that long prison terms 'fix' sociopaths and those who willfully choose to act against the good of the nation\community?
If you can honestly tell me yes then I will reconsider my approach and maybe even my position. Otherwise, I don't see any other alternative.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
What's the old saying? : It's better to let 10 guilty men go free then to condemn one innocent man.
I wonder what SF's concious would be if he learned a innocent man he helped put to death turned out to be totally innocent.
Horrified, Mach.
Now how about yours when you find out you let 10 men go that went on to murder, rape and molest because you were too afraid that they 'might' be innocent.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
Right...he hadn't done ANYTHING prior to this to warrant jail time and he suddenly got life in prison...
Pardon me if I don't believe it.
Your link all but gives me my rebuttal.
Shortly after 4am one morning in 1997, Taylor decided he could not wait for the friendly priest and pried open the church's kitchen door. A security guard spotted him and the police were called. He is now serving 25 years to life because the break-in was his third felony.
Breaking and entering...his THIRD FELONY...yeah, huge miscarriage of justice.
Her friend, Joey Buckhalter, was jailed for 75 years to life for stealing a wallet with $24 in it.
What were his prior two felonies?
And your pizza guy?
Probably the most famous is still that of Jerry Dewayne Williams, who at the age of 27 was sentenced to 25 years to life for stealing a slice of pepperoni pizza.
What were his prior two felonies?
Each and everyone hit with the three strikes laws have at least 3 FELONY convictions. Whatever their final offense is (understanding that it's a felony), they are preceded by two other felonies to qualify.
That's a pattern of not being able to live in harmony with your fellow man.
Hell why dont we put to death people who constantly get into fights and get arrested for assault. They hurt people as well. Or drunk drivers. Wife beaters. and on and on.
Well...why don't we?
As my posted links show; jail isn't stopping them from hurting people, is it.
No one is disputing they did prior crimes. What is in dispute is being given a life sentence due to a non violent "felony" if you can call it that. That is why those cases were/are being fought in court. That is not justice (nor would it keep your precious wallet fat since your money concious) to give someone a life sentence due to a non violent felony such as stealing a slice of pizza, simple burglary, stealing a wallet with $24 in it etc... The 3 strikes should be for violent crimes and not petty thievery. Because if not then my friend you will paying through the roof in taxes to keep 3 strikers for life in prison for all non violent crime. Now you wouldn't want that now would you? lol
As for not putting all to death, well I already said just above: It is better to let 10 guilty men go free then to condemn 1 innocent man.
If you condemn that 1 innocent man to death SF then you have no conscience and are no better then the sociopaths of society and perhaps you should be put to death for it. God (no pun intended) I'm glad for separation of Church and State because of religious zealots like you. Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: What's the old saying? : It's better to let 10 guilty men go free then to condemn one innocent man.
I wonder what SF's concious would be if he learned a innocent man he helped put to death turned out to be totally innocent.
Horrified, Mach.
Now how about yours when you find out you let 10 men go that went on to murder, rape and molest because you were too afraid that they 'might' be innocent.
That will never ever outweigh a innocent person being put to death which has happened in this country and more times then none is always a minority who is the condemned one. Who knows SF, you might be that 1 innocent man put to death then you really will justify calling yourself "Seeking Freedom". Posted by bond006 on :
No I cannot honestly tell you that that is why I am for Isolation and seperation from society.
some people can make that leap to Joe citizen but 80% can't.
Nobody has the answer but like I said 80% of thoes released are back in prison again after they have most likley caused hurt and damage again.
So would not it be easier to send most criminals to there own town in the middle of the pacific give them the freedom of the Island and TV most of them would never leave turn guarding them over to the militay like MP'S and have done with it.
Posted by glassman on :
So would not it be easier to send most criminals to there own town in the middle of the pacific give them the freedom of the Island and TV most of them would never leave turn guarding them over to the militay like MP'S and have done with it.
i've often wondered why we don't do that too...
i believe there's some perverse need to feel as though we are collecting our due (as if that's actually possible).
Posted by Upside on :
Rape commited against a child is without question worse than rape commited against an adult. Don't know if the penalties should be any different but the harm to a child is much greater than to an adult.
I'm by no means defending either but a child is simply that, an innocent child that has not developed the coping skills to deal with a horrific situation that an adult has. Granted it's going to leave horrible scars on the adult as well but a child? They would most likely walk through life with terible feelings of self loathing, guilt, low self esteem and an inward hatred that would eventually destroy them. In that one instant they lose everything that defines the joys of childhood
Child predators? If convicted should be met with a sentence unlike any other, no idea what but it should be something painful, prolonged and preferably for the remainder of their natural life.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
I respect your opinion Upside but i still disagree and think that the physical and emotional scars are the same for both adult and child. Both have feelings of self loathing, guilt, low self esteem, inward hatred, blame etc... I have had friends who have been raped and have known people who weren't friends as well. Trust me when I say that adults also do not deal or cope with rape like you think they do. Perhaps it depends on the person or child. Some are stronger to deal with it and others aren't.
As for punishment for convicts and especially murders and rapists.I think they should all be segregated accoring to their crime. Murderers with murderers, rapists with rapists, thieves with thieves etc. Plus the most heinous of crimes should be a minimum of 30 years without parole and preferably life imprisonment if more then a one time violent criminal.
Posted by Upside on :
I certainly can't say that I disagree with you, my post was based on my feelings as I've never known an adult or a child in that situation. It just seems to me that an adult, while still horrible, could somehow find a way to come to terms with it as opposed to a kid.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
No I cannot honestly tell you that that is why I am for Isolation and seperation from society.
So, how is this different from prison? Sooner or later the island will fill up. Then what? We move to another island? And another? And another?
We're going to run out of islands sooner or later. Then what?
At least England used an entire continent for their malcontents.
Even if you want to believe that this is more humane that prison, what are you going to tell the families of their victims?
"Yes, we finally got justice for your loved one. We shipped the perpetrator off to a tropical island where they will never have to work again. We showed them the iron hand of the law by giving them free food and shelter and healthcare for the rest of their lives while you try and cope with the scars of their crimes. Glad we could help."
I'm sure they'll take that as justice being served.
I'm sorry for the sarcasm as this is a serious subject but I don't see how that actually deters future criminals.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
As for not putting all to death, well I already said just above: It is better to let 10 guilty men go free then to condemn 1 innocent man.
If you condemn that 1 innocent man to death SF then you have no conscience and are no better then the sociopaths of society and perhaps you should be put to death for it. God (no pun intended) I'm glad for separation of Church and State because of religious zealots like you.
You know, Mach, I really can't tell sometimes if you're actually as dense as you come accross or if you're just playing devil's advocate.
Your statements like this are based on the assumption that we KNOWINGLY put an innocent man or woman in jail. While I won't argue with you that there is corruption in the system that needs to be addressed, most of the time it comes down to human error.
Until you can provide a way to read minds that will make sure that there is never a case of 'wrong place, wrong time,' mistakes will be made in our system. And to refuse to punish the guilty for FEAR of making a mistake is to paralyze those who are trying to protect the innocent from the predators.
As for punishment for convicts and especially murders and rapists.I think they should all be segregated accoring to their crime. Murderers with murderers, rapists with rapists, thieves with thieves etc.
And then what? Let then do unto each other as they will? That's sure humane of you.
Plus the most heinous of crimes should be a minimum of 30 years without parole...
And after 30 years what? They simply come out and want to do right by the society that locked them in hell for three decades? Surely even you don't believe that, Mach.
...and preferably life imprisonment if more then a one time violent criminal.
So, you're not in favor of the three strikes you're out...but you are in favor of TWO strikes you're out.
Makes sense to me.
Really.
Posted by glassman on :
We shipped the perpetrator off to a tropical island where they will never have to work again. We showed them the iron hand of the law by giving them free food and shelter and healthcare for the rest of their lives while you try and cope with the scars of their crimes. Glad we could help."
i wasn't proposing that they don't get real prison sentences FIRST.
secondly? i beleive that you have a very odd notion of what will happen if you throw say 5000 men together on an island with no resources. very odd things happen when sociopaths begin having to deal with just each other.
sociopaths are basically only happy when they have people of conscience to prey on. once you set up a community of sociopaths with only each other to depend on? they tend to minimally reform themselves, with of course, the meanest in charge. they still have no conscience, but they conform to their new societal norm because the risk-reward scenario becomes unthinkable.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.
Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil,
IMO, there are a few people that can be reformed if we bothered to try. short-eyed perves? mostly not.
Posted by bond006 on :
There is an added plus to an Isand where they live by themselves. Obsevation in a more normal setting just think of what we can learn.
I bet in 50 or 100 years we might be able to cure the criminal mind
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
i wasn't proposing that they don't get real prison sentences FIRST.
So, it's 30 years in prison, THEN tropical island get away. That's much better and just.
secondly? i beleive that you have a very odd notion of what will happen if you throw say 5000 men together on an island with no resources. very odd things happen when sociopaths begin having to deal with just each other.
My very odd notion?
Canabalism.
Social and literal.
sociopaths are basically only happy when they have people of conscience to prey on.
No. By definition sociopaths have most of the same needs and wants as the rest of us. They just don't care who gets hurt in order to get those needs\wants met. They aren't going to simply decide to work together beyond what's absolutely needed to get their needs met.
they tend to minimally reform themselves, with of course, the meanest in charge. they still have no conscience, but they conform to their new societal norm because the risk-reward scenario becomes unthinkable.
They revert to the basic animal. That much we can agree on. And in an animal scenario the beasts will feed on eachother till only one rules and that is only until another beast kills him. So much for the human rights elements.
IMO, there are a few people that can be reformed if we bothered to try. short-eyed perves? mostly not.
You find a sure-fire way to distinquish the 'saveables' from the 'don't bothers' and we'll get started seperating them right away.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
quote:Originally posted by bond006: There is an added plus to an Isand where they live by themselves. Obsevation in a more normal setting just think of what we can learn.
I bet in 50 or 100 years we might be able to cure the criminal mind
Normal setting? They still only interact with fellow scum of the earth in either one of two settings.
1) Fully paid for vaction scenario: We provide everything they need and they simply exist to consume what we give them while living in a tropical paradise.
2) Survival scenario: We simply dump them on this island and watch who kills who to make use of the limited resources on the island.
I don't see either one helping us understand the criminal mind any better, Bond.
As for a 'cure'...I don't believe it's a desease in the typical sense of the word. It's simply a choice by individuals to put their wants ahead of societies needs.
You can't cure that.
Posted by glassman on :
It's simply a choice by individuals to put their wants ahead of societies needs.
so, you are saying that you are basically no different from sociopaths except you aren't as "greedy" as they are?
that's hilariuos...
are you for socialism or are you for capitalism?
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: You know, Mach, I really can't tell sometimes if you're actually as dense as you come accross or if you're just playing devil's advocate.
I'm about as dense as you so you decide then what our density is.
quote:Your statements like this are based on the assumption that we KNOWINGLY put an innocent man or woman in jail. While I won't argue with you that there is corruption in the system that needs to be addressed, most of the time it comes down to human error.
Actually I did not say KNOWINGLY so stop putting words in my mouth. Innocent people since the death penalty was imposed in this country officially have been executed KNOWINGLY or UNKNOWINGLY due to human error. And that is precisely why the death penalty should not exist, because of HUMAN ERROR. You have been throwing it in our face about what do we say to rape victims or a murdered victims families. And you know what your are right and wrong in that regards. There is nothing that can be said to them whether the death penalty is imposed or not. Putting someone to death will not bring back that murdered loved one and you are making someone's mother feel the same way you are. And perhaps not at that moment but down the line you may feel regret you let the state take another one's life in the name of your loved one and by then it's too late. But here's one for you, what do you tell the family of a innocent man/woman who has been executed? OOPS SORRY? WAS HUMAN ERROR? WON'T HAPPEN AGAIN? Again that is why it should be abolished because of that human error that does happen and much less should not be expanded to include other crimes that are not murder.
quote:Until you can provide a way to read minds that will make sure that there is never a case of 'wrong place, wrong time,' mistakes will be made in our system. And to refuse to punish the guilty for FEAR of making a mistake is to paralyze those who are trying to protect the innocent from the predators.
Read my above quote because I can see you don't think that far. Anyways DNA is the key though there could be corruption in that because of over zealous prosecutors or cops. IMO DNA should be mandatory in any capital case if there is DNA at the crime scene.
quote:And then what? Let then do unto each other as they will? That's sure humane of you.
Wouldn't you say that is a living hell and not as easy as death? Some of these convicts would prefer the death penalty then 30 years to life in prison with other animals. Anyways we already do this, I merely suggesting we get the non violent ones out of those areas like thieves, drug addicts, drunk drivers on manslaughter convictions etc.
quote:And after 30 years what? They simply come out and want to do right by the society that locked them in hell for three decades? Surely even you don't believe that, Mach.
Depending on their age when they are convicted and incarcerated, most will be OLD men or women and not much of a threat then though their are exceptions. I saw a program years ago on 60 minutes or some similar show about the convicts who are elderly in the prisons doing 30 years or more and trust me most of them were physically incapable of committing violent crimes anymore.
quote:So, you're not in favor of the three strikes you're out...but you are in favor of TWO strikes you're out.
Makes sense to me.
Really.
I never said i wasn't in favor of the 3 strikes your out... if I was PLEASE QUOTE ME... What I am in favor of is 2 or 3 strikes with all being VIOLENT FELONY CRIMES... key word Mr. Readitall: VIOLENT. Not pizza thieves, drug addicts, pickpockets etc.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
I'd expect that one from Mach, Glass. But from you it's a little surprising.
Religion has always done more harm then good.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: I'd expect that one from Mach, Glass. But from you it's a little surprising.
Contrary to belief your not the end all be all and not everyone agrees with you on everything you say. Glass imo does not let his religion or emotions cloud his judgement or beliefs. He and a few others on this board know how to reason much more then you will ever be able to do.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Socialism isn't charity. It's FORCED wealth redistribution. There is no virtue in actions that are not voluntary.
It's not Socialism nor forced. You VOLUNTARINGLY pay your taxes. You don't have to if you don't want to. Plus most but not all people on here saying they give to charity or people of wealth saying that is laughable and is mostly done because of feelings of guilt or for public relations then because they believe in whatever cause it may be.
Posted by glassman on :
actually that's a very weak definition of a sociopath.
most people in jail are sociopaths... there's a few in jail for things like negligence that are not...
all con men are sociopaths and many charities are run by, you guessed it , con men...
as for your charity figures? i think the definitions there are so loose it's a meaningless article. for instance? 90% of Americans consider themselves religious anyway...
as for my question? you didn't answer it. it was not rhetorical.
you do, or do not see yourself as different from sociopaths? there is a distinct difference between people who don't commit crimes because they might get caught, and those people that don't commit crimes becuase they have empathy.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by Upside: I certainly can't say that I disagree with you, my post was based on my feelings as I've never known an adult or a child in that situation. It just seems to me that an adult, while still horrible, could somehow find a way to come to terms with it as opposed to a kid.
At least you admit your posting are based on emotions unlike others like SF who won't admit it.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Innocent people since the death penalty was imposed in this country officially have been executed KNOWINGLY or UNKNOWINGLY due to human error.
Ok, so we've been executing people that we KNOW are innocent...wow. Must have missed that story. I was under the apparently naive misconception that we have a MANDATORY appeal process for capital punishment cases. You would think that at least one of those judges\juries would have a qualm about executing a KNOWN innocent person.
There is nothing that can be said to them whether the death penalty is imposed or not. Putting someone to death will not bring back that murdered loved one
Oh, but there is. You can say "He will never hurt anyone else again."
There is alot of value in that sentance to the victim\their family.
But here's one for you, what do you tell the family of a innocent man/woman who has been executed? OOPS SORRY? WAS HUMAN ERROR?
With far less sarcasm? Yes. If multiple juries looked at the evidence and came the same conclusion, what were they supposed to do? Ignore what they see and hear and let the man go?
IMO DNA should be mandatory in any capital case if there is DNA at the crime scene.
At least we can agree on one point in all of this.
Wouldn't you say that is a living hell and not as easy as death?
It's not about easy. It's not about what's worse for them. It's about protecting those of our society who need protection from these monsters.
I never said i wasn't in favor of the 3 strikes your out... if I was PLEASE QUOTE ME... What I am in favor of is 2 or 3 strikes with all being VIOLENT FELONY CRIMES... key word Mr. Readitall: VIOLENT. Not pizza thieves, drug addicts, pickpockets etc.
Fair enough. So let me ask you this:
Someone is convicted of one violent felony, say rape. What do we do?
Ok, now they get a second violent felony conviction, maybe, oh, rape again. Now what?
Well, they still aren't dead and they are convicted of yet a third violent felony, say, what are the odds...rape AGAIN.
What do we do?
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
as for your charity figures? i think the definitions there are so loose it's a meaningless article. for instance? 90% of Americans consider themselves religious anyway...
If you don't like that article I'll find some more for you when I get home. I stand by the premise though. When one believes it's a God given duty, one is more willing to give to their fellow man.
as for my question? you didn't answer it. it was not rhetorical.
you do, or do not see yourself as different from sociopaths? there is a distinct difference between people who don't commit crimes because they might get caught, and those people that don't commit crimes becuase they have empathy.
Of course I see myself as being different from sociopaths, Glass. As one who actually practices what I believe I don't act against my neighbor based on 'what I can get away with.' I see each fellow man as a being of intrinsic value. As such, my actions toward them are based on the fact that they are seen as brothers, not strangers or competition or in the case at hand, prey.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
It's not Socialism nor forced. You VOLUNTARINGLY pay your taxes. You don't have to if you don't want to.
Try not paying your taxes, Mach.
See what happens.
It's not voluntary by any stretch of the definition.
Posted by glassman on :
Of course I see myself as being different from sociopaths, Glass. As one who actually practices what I believe I don't act against my neighbor based on 'what I can get away with.' I see each fellow man as a being of intrinsic value. As such, my actions toward them are based on the fact that they are seen as brothers, not strangers or competition or in the case at hand, prey.
sociopaths do not see any intrinsic value in other people. they lack the capability. it is generally considered impossible to train them to do this after they have matured (15-18 yrs)...
competition is the reason i brought up socialism and capitalism, because we do in fact compete with each other but we agree on rules. socialists have much stricter even repressive rules.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
sociopaths do not see any intrinsic value in other people. they lack the capability. it is generally considered impossible to train them to do this after they have matured (15-18 yrs)...
I agree. That's not where the arguement is.
competition is the reason i brought up socialism and capitalism, because we do in fact compete with each other but we agree on rules. socialists have much stricter even repressive rules.
The socialists, by definition, take the value away from the individual and assign it to the State. You have NO VALUE apart from what you can do for the State. Competition is discouraged unless it benefits the State.
Get the running theme?
...the State...
Posted by glassman on :
and society is not the state?
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
No. Society is the people. The State (capital 'S') is the institution.
I support helping people, not helping the Institution repressing the people.
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: No. Society is the people. The State (capital 'S') is the institution.
I support helping people, not helping the Institution repressing the people.
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
The State is not the People.
Government exists SOLELY to serve the people. When it no longer does so it behooves good men to rise up and change it.
Posted by glassman on :
The State is not the People.
yes it is. everybody in the govt was elected from the People or were appointed/hired by those elected
Government exists SOLELY to serve the people. When it no longer does so it behooves good men to rise up and change it.
agreed. how long do you figure the state has not been "of the people"?
take the Iraq war: the people wanted to invade Iraq. of course they were lied to, but they did want to...
as another oddity? i would point out that the Chinese call their govt People's Republic of China even tho we all know it isn't of the people or a true Republic (like we are)...
just who does the US govt represent these days anyway? corporations?
Posted by bond006 on :
The state is the people in america if enough people get off there butts and scream for change it does.
Viet Nam for instance when the war changed to 80% of america saying no and there was a draft that was making people very pissed. the military was starting to get men that refused to go on missions.
The government pulled out very unglorius to may I add
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Texas Man Sentenced to 4,060 Years in Prison for Sexual Assault of Teen Girls
And THIS is why need to expand capital punishment. This guy will NEVER see the light of day as a free man. Even better, you and I will pay for his 'care' for the rest of his natural existance.
How is that justice?
Posted by Machiavelli on :
Because he will probably get the sh*t kicked out of him for the rest of his life and/or raped and yes i know they probably will isolate him but not forever.
As for why it is justice? Would you like to die a old man in such a place and never be able to roam freely in this world again? not be able to take a flight to a vacation spot? To be in a cell with a cell mate and one toilet practically 24 hours a day in a cell that barely registers as above the size of a carboard box? To only be allowed out of your cell for a certain amount of time per day or week? etc. etc.
You, my friend, only care about your wallet and not justice. There are certain things worst then death and he's about to find out. Death is too easy.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
There are certain things worst then death and he's about to find out. Death is too easy.
And yet Death is considered the 'cruel and unusual' punishment? Glad that makes sense to you, Mach.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
I never said it was cruel and unusual... just that it's wrong to take a humans' life in the name of another human being and call it justice...
what is cruel and unusual is the method not the act... if i had agreed with the death penalty, which i don't, but if i did and i'll humor you... i would choose injection over any other methods... i find that the LEAST cruel and unusual method of putting someone to death...
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
But that's IS what Judge Kennedy claimed in his opinion. He appealed to the 8th amendment as if it applied.
As to the capital punishment vs. incarceration for life...which is 'kinder?' Which is more humane? You answered that already...
There are certain things worst then death and he's about to find out. Death is too easy.
You tell me who is advocating cruelty.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
I'm not advocating cruelty. I am advocating punishment. Death is the easy way out for the condemned and your wallet. Again you only care about your wallet about this matter.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Because he will probably get the sh*t kicked out of him for the rest of his life and/or raped and yes i know they probably will isolate him but not forever.
Good to know that this is punishment...not revenge or anything cruel like that.
Posted by glassman on :
OK, so you admit that not all leftists are pantywaists? Posted by Machiavelli on :
You could never get him to admit anything Glass...
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: OK, so you admit that not all leftists are pantywaists?
Of course not all leftists are pantywaists, Glass.
Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Chavez, Castro.
They were all tough.
Insane. But tough.
Posted by glassman on :
Hitler was not a leftist.
Posted by bond006 on :
So right Hitler was a Fascist thats when the corporations become the state.
There was not a bigger anti communist than Hitler.
As a matter of fact it was the anti communist mind set that was the common ground for the Chamberlin Hitler pact that got the British and French in trouble.
Hitler promised to go east and wipe out the Russians as long as Britian and France could be counted on for material support and a peaceful co existance.
Guess what he lied.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
A politician lie? nahhh lol
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Hitler was not a leftist.
Point conceded.
Exchange his name for Chariman Mao.
Posted by glassman on :
good choice; Mao killed 10's of millions.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
Don't forget the U.S. Glass (article i PM'd you).. responsible for just as much deaths directly or indirectly regardless of whose Prez...
Anyways here's some food for thought "Seeking Freedom" (sorry just reading that name makes me laugh lol):
New York should never have a death penalty BY DAVID KACZYNSKI | David Kaczynski is executive director of New Yorkers Against the Death Penalty. July 10, 2008
A judge this month is expected to close the books on the case of Martin Tankleff, who served 17 years in prison for the 1988 murder of his parents. While lawyers working for Attorney General Andrew Cuomo stopped short of saying that Tankleff was innocent of the crime, it is clear that his conviction on shaky, contradictory evidence - including an apparently coerced confession - is not an aberration in our state.
As Tankleff said in an interview with the news channel New York 1: "I wouldn't be here if New York had a death penalty in 1988."
You have to wonder why anyone would support the death penalty knowing that innocent people could be convicted and put to death. But that is exactly what the State Senate, now led by Sen. Dean Skelos (R-Rockville Centre), insists on trying to do.
Last month, senators voted again to reimpose the death penalty, knowing full well the measure had no chance of passing the Assembly or being signed into law by Gov. David Paterson.
And what the senators did before voting to restore capital punishment demonstrates just what an empty gesture they were making: They voted down an amendment that would have created a commission to study the kinds of commonsense reforms to the criminal justice system that would minimize the plague of wrongful convictions.
A report released late last year by the Innocence Project found that New York leads the nation in murder convictions overturned by DNA evidence since 2000. Since then, seven New Yorkers have walked free after doing hard time for murders that were committed by other people.
One of those cases freed Jeffrey Deskovic, who served 16 years in prison for a Peekskill murder he did not commit. Deskovic was convicted after he gave a false confession to police investigators who had pressed him for hours without a lawyer present - even though DNA evidence presented at trial pointed to another perpetrator, who eventually confessed to the murder after Deskovic's release.
DNA evidence is present in less than 15 percent of homicides, according the Innocence Project. One of the proposed reforms that the Senate rejected would have required the videotaping of custodial interrogations, which would have allowed juries to pass judgment after seeing the precise conditions under which defendants like Deskovic and Tankleff were questioned.
Wrongful convictions result from a variety of causes, including eyewitness mistakes and inadequate defense. Jose Garcia, for example, spent 15 years in prison after being convicted of a Bronx homicide based on an eyewitness identification, even though the murder was committed a day after he had been arrested in the Dominican Republic - a seemingly ironclad alibi that his lawyer did not check out.
Thanks to DNA, we know that the criminal justice system is fallible. Although the proposed reforms would help, even the best reforms cannot create a foolproof system as long as human beings are in charge. Unlike the death penalty, a sentence of life imprisonment without parole - which is favored by a majority of New Yorkers - can always be corrected once a mistake has been uncovered.
Capital punishment is a system that buries its worst mistakes. That's why Skelos and his colleagues should turn their attention to the kind of reforms that would reduce the number wrongful convictions.
And as a first step toward reform, they should let the death penalty rest in peace.
Posted by SeekingFreedom on :
Parole Officer Recommended Release of Vermont Girl's Sex Offender Uncle
Now a 12 year old is raped (repeatedly for many years according to one report) and dead.
Good thing the prison system works and our kids are safe.
Posted by bond006 on :
It don;'t work but all we do is watch them and keep control.
Its up to the whole criminal justice system to make it work.
And the ctizens of this country vote,vote,vote
I will be the first one to ask for funds for rehab and expansion got to work on over crowding first the the rest will follow.
If you are going to get tough don't btch when when we run out of room and when we run out of room don't btch when criminals get put back out on the street.
The only time when nations got rid of anti social types and did it effectivly is when they established out of the way colonies for them it worked most of the time.
Posted by Machiavelli on :
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: Good thing the prison system works and our kids are safe.
Like I said in previous posts they should get a MINIMUM of 25 years without parole and not this short prison sentences. All violent crimes such as rape, murder, child molestation, bank robberies etc. I do not agree with sentencing guidelines in this country excluding the Death Penalty.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Were Up]](graemlins/wereup.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)