ive had a few run-ins with bad cops. i spent thanksgiving day in jail several years ago because an officer was having a power surge. but i got off better than the guy he shot in jail.
having said that, the vast majority of cops are good people doing a tough job. you couldnt pay me enough to deal with the sorts of things they deal with all day, every day: domestic disputes, scraping innocent victims off the pavement, child molesters, all of that. besides, eventually, i'd kill someone, or get killed because i cut some miscreant too much slack.
but back to topic. i'm not a big fan of the death penalty. i doubt many criminals think of the consequences when they commit their crimes, so i doubt it has much deterrent value. but repeat offenders should be stopped, and putting them out of our misery is a sure way to do that. if we must get some value from them, turn them into dog food.
no, i'm pointing out a common gambit of yours, to present often over-generalized opinion as fact. giving you more credit than i usually think is due in your case, i believe it is within your power to modify your utterances. "i don't think it's a deterrent" isn't that much harder to type, now is it?
No, but as my High School English Teacher used to say, "Don't write 'I think' before every sentence. If you are writing it then I can assume the rest".
Hence, to say, "It is not a deterrent" is not only the same as saying "I think it is not a deterrent" but easier. And for someone commenting about otehr people over-generalizing you sure do seem to be doing it yourself with an insistence on me...and apparently me alone...adding the words "I think" before every sentence. You raise redundancy to new heights my dear...or is that deer?
I'll tell you what, in future, before reading my posts, preface anything I post by first looking at my avatar, then read. Problem solved.
No, but as my High School English Teacher used to say, "Don't write 'I think' before every sentence. If you are writing it then I can assume the rest".
Hence, to say, "It is not a deterrent" is not only the same as saying "I think it is not a deterrent" but easier. And for someone commenting about otehr people over-generalizing you sure do seem to be doing it yourself with an insistence on me...and apparently me alone...adding the words "I think" before every sentence. You raise redundancy to new heights my dear...or is that deer?
I'll tell you what, in future, before reading my posts, preface anything I post by first looking at my avatar, then read. Problem solved.
Your posts rarely give the impression that your expressing an opinion, you just about always come across as if your stating undeniable facts... often even state that when it is just your opinion. You just love using sweeping statements like "It's inarguable", "It's undeniable", "Everyone knows", etc. when your stating your opinion on a matter
Your teacher would have been referring to stating opinions in an essay and would be right... not every sentence, but you also do need to state when your diving off into opinion or conclusions rather than stating researched fact. You went overly broad again, no one asked you to put it before every sentence, that was your leap to absurdity used in an attempt to discredit Euterpe.
Reason people 'follow' you around... you are annoying with your ego trip, and your avatar says it all... your thick as a rock and have taken to many hits from a hammer, looking good but no flexibility. A better representation would be a doll with the string in the back and a couple of phrases that you play over and over.
No, but as my High School English Teacher used to say, "Don't write 'I think' before every sentence. If you are writing it then I can assume the rest".
considering that you don't think before you write - or at all, evidently - but only pontificate, in your case making the explicit statement that you are at least attempting to do so would probably be advisable.
IP: Logged
11:18 PM
blackrams Member
Posts: 31842 From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA Registered: Feb 2003
Just wondering if it would be possible to get back on topic. I've read thorugh this whole thread and it's degenerated into another personal pissing contest. The issue was the death penalty and it's expanding application. Personally, in thinking about it, I'm not sure I want the use expanded but the debate is good. If just one child is saved from some sexual predator, then it worth considering.
------------------ Ron Land of the Free because of the Brave. Most gave some, some gave all. Some ran the other way.
Personally, in thinking about it, I'm not sure I want the use expanded but the debate is good. If just one child is saved from some sexual predator, then it worth considering.
with respect to the initial question: personally, i am not in principle opposed to the expansion of the death penalty for variants of murder, especially the murder of children. i would like to see, however, a much more stringent requirement for proof of guilt in capital cases. the fact that many people have been exonerated - often by DNA evidence, i believe - after spending years on death row, strongly suggests to me that innocent people have in fact murdered by the state. and as much as i want remedy, i am not willing to pay for that vengeance with the wrong person's life.
finally, i feel that imposing the death penalty in cases short of murder is barbaric, and would put us on a par with the very same societies we most revile. and my ethics are not determined by my pocketbook, so i am more than willing to pay the cost, through taxes, of keeping people locked away, who shouldn't ever be freed again.
IP: Logged
12:04 AM
PFF
System Bot
sostock Member
Posts: 5907 From: Grain Valley, MO Registered: May 2005
agreed. but 1st kudos to you Vonov. if i'd read your statemensts 8 yrs ago i might have put my CJ degree to use. somewhere between the start of my sr year and graduation i lost the ability to fight the good fight.
ok on topic.
what's more expensive: convicted murder on death row awaiting execution or convicted murder sentenced to life?
now while i agree that any crimes against a child should be delt with most seriously, i can't see executing a person for it. lock them up, throw away the key. or send them to a nice island in the artic. i say that, but if anybody hurt my kids, yeah i'd f##kin kill them.
true child molesters sure sent them directly to jail
BUT the thing that bothers me is what is a child??
date type sex between a 18 year old and a 15 year old is NOT a child molester, or a crime in my oppinion but people are charged with crime in cases like that
back to what is a child in Fla we have jailed a 12 year old as a adult for life now at that same age the kid has no rights we need clearer age rules and less random laws
esp if people want stronger laws btw death is too much for most crimes even killers most times
------------------ Question wonder and be wierd are you kind?
IP: Logged
08:46 AM
blackrams Member
Posts: 31842 From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA Registered: Feb 2003
Hmm, OK, The expense of keeping a person in prison for life versus executing him/her is not included in my equation as to the appropriate punishment. What I "believe" the question is, what punishment is appropriate if it was your child that was sexually abused or assaulted? Not that kid across town on in the next state but your own child. When approached from that position, there is no way the death penality doesn't apply, especially if it's a repeat offender. Some may not agree with me on this but, I assure you, if it were my child, someone is going to pay and the state would not have to worry about feeding or security for the offender, just me.
------------------ Ron Land of the Free because of the Brave. Most gave some, some gave all. Some ran the other way.
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 02-10-2007).]
Hmm, OK, The expense of keeping a person in prison for life versus executing him/her is not included in my equation as to the appropriate punishment. What I "believe" the question is, what punishment is appropriate if it was your child that was sexually abused or assaulted? Not that kid across town on in the next state but your own child. When approached from that position, there is no way the death penality doesn't apply, especially if it's a repeat offender. Some may not agree with me on this but, I assure you, if it were my child, someone is going to pay and the state would not have to worry about feeding or security for the offender, just me.
my apologies if i over-reached the boundaries of the question. i added the part about pocketbook ethics because so many of these kinds of discussions do eventually bring up something like "i'm not paying my tax dollars for..." and i wanted to state my position on that at the outset.
my objection to the death penalty for "lesser" cases is basically a "slippery slope" argument. i think of murder as a clean threshold condition. if that threshold is erased, then death becomes a conceivable penalty for all sorts of crimes against people, society and, i think, eventually against property, which is something of a fetish for some people.
as for the death penalty in what i still think of as capital cases... well, my current position on that is something of an accomodation. i actually don't like the idea of handing that power over to the state at all. my vengeance is mine, not the lord's or the state's. my deepest feeling is that if someone kills my own, the instrument of final remedy ought to be in my hands, not in the hands of an anonymous, disinterested agent. and if for some reason i choose not to pull the trigger or the switch... well, then that's between me and my ghosts.
but i recognize that such a feeling cannot operate in a modern civil society. i recognize that i have a contract, in the same way as i described the transferred authority of police. so while i do believe that some crimes warrant death, i know that the penalty must be managed by a less than satisactory, but nonetheless necessary, social machinery.
that set of responses is what informs my thoughts in the instance of non-murderous child abuse. in fact yes... if a child of mine were badly abused, i would be very likely to take matters into my own hands. i would also recognize that in doing so, i was risking my own freedom, in effect trading my life for the life of my child. my family. my blood. my life.
for which reason, i advocate significant consideration being given in capital cases to motivations such as protection. i have a friend in prison right now, who shot and killed a man because that person serially threatened and abused my friend's sister. he took on the responsibility, and he's doing the mandated time... but at least the circumstance was taken into account, and he was not assigned the death penalty.
IP: Logged
09:38 AM
Mike Marden Member
Posts: 432 From: Fernandina Beach, FL Registered: Aug 2006
Originally posted by Euterpe: that set of responses is what informs my thoughts in the instance of non-murderous child abuse. in fact yes... if a child of mine were badly abused, i would be very likely to take matters into my own hands. i would also recognize that in doing so, i was risking my own freedom, in effect trading my life for the life of my child. my family. my blood. my life.
I do not believe that, in a large majority of capital crimes, the death penalty is a deterence. If it is, why are they still being committed? I also agree with Euterpe that abusive action against mine would result with an equally abusive reaction.
------------------ 86 SE 2.8 4-Speed
edited to add: for which I would "do the time" if so deemed necessary.
[This message has been edited by Mike Marden (edited 02-10-2007).]
IP: Logged
11:59 AM
blackrams Member
Posts: 31842 From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA Registered: Feb 2003
Not too long ago, a man walked into an Amish school house and murdered several girls and young ladies. The murderer then turned the gun on himself. I think most would agree that this was a sick man. But, here's my question, had he not committed sucide, knowing he committed the crime, would he deserve the death penality? There is absolutely no doubt in my mind. Emotionally off, you bet, does that make it alright, no way.
------------------ Ron Land of the Free because of the Brave. Most gave some, some gave all. Some ran the other way.
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 02-10-2007).]
IP: Logged
05:23 PM
blackrams Member
Posts: 31842 From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA Registered: Feb 2003
But, here's my question, had he not committed sucide, knowing he committed the crime, would he deserve the death penality?
in my opinion, yes. premeditated mass slaughter would certainly be one of those things that qualify for capital punishment.
paradoxically, though, according to the ethic i tried to express earlier, had he not committed suicide he would almost certainly not be executed, given the amish worldview. as things are, however, in this case the state's interest would have superceded the mercy of the aggrieved.
IP: Logged
06:32 PM
Mike Marden Member
Posts: 432 From: Fernandina Beach, FL Registered: Aug 2006
But would his execution deter anyone from commiting the same crime? If not, then what is the purpose of capital punishment other that revenge or the attempted elimination of a certain class of criminals?
edited to add "attempted". I don't think that, short of identifying the 'homicide' gene and selectively culling those unborn children with the gene, the human race will ever be able to stop homicide. And no, I most definately do not advocate gene screening and/or proactive elimination.
[This message has been edited by Mike Marden (edited 02-10-2007).]
IP: Logged
08:39 PM
sostock Member
Posts: 5907 From: Grain Valley, MO Registered: May 2005
But would his execution deter anyone from commiting the same crime? If not, then what is the purpose of capital punishment other that revenge or the elimination of a certain class of criminals?
very good point. if a person is stupid enough (or crazy) enough to commit murder, do you think they even know if their state has capital punishment? do you think that guy that killed those Amish kids or the guy that let his two year old freeze was worried about the death penalty?
monsters yes, deserve a bullet in the head yes, but i really don't think it deters anyone.
IP: Logged
08:48 PM
PFF
System Bot
DemonDriver1 Member
Posts: 51 From: Millsboro,DE but Salisbury is better Registered: Oct 2006
Hmm, OK, The expense of keeping a person in prison for life versus executing him/her is not included in my equation as to the appropriate punishment. What I "believe" the question is, what punishment is appropriate if it was your child that was sexually abused or assaulted? Not that kid across town on in the next state but your own child. When approached from that position, there is no way the death penality doesn't apply, especially if it's a repeat offender. Some may not agree with me on this but, I assure you, if it were my child, someone is going to pay and the state would not have to worry about feeding or security for the offender, just me.
Im with you on this. The bastard would die. Id make sure of that.
I know the cost isnt part of the equation. It should be.
Another idea I had (have tons for drags of society) was harvesting the organs of the condemed. That way they could be of some use.
Trash is trash.
You have to act like a human being to be treated like one, correct?
IP: Logged
08:58 PM
Mike Marden Member
Posts: 432 From: Fernandina Beach, FL Registered: Aug 2006
But would his execution deter anyone from commiting the same crime?
honestly, i don't know. in many cases, i wouldn't think so, but i notice that most public advocates for a widened death penalty primarily invoke deterrence. do they know something we don't? or is it simply impossible to be honest about the death penalty? and if the latter is the case, why are we implementing a lethal policy that we can't even honestly address? that strikes me as insane.
on second thought, though (or third, really), i think it's quite possible that for that larger group of people that we might normally think of as "law abiding" - all those sad, desperate shmucks with such a wide variety of pent-up angers and beaten egos - the death penalty does provide a deterrent to acting out.
quote
If not, then what is the purpose of capital punishment other that revenge or the attempted elimination of a certain class of criminals?
i think the idea of classificatory elimination - the "purifying of the social body" sort of thing - is too abstracted and intellectualized. it feels like a rationalization to me. revenge, then? perhaps. i know that, if i were in the position i've tried to describe, revenge would be the first motivation. but in the end i would see it simply as "the price." face price for offense. blood price for murder. you lose what you have taken.
IP: Logged
09:23 PM
Mike Marden Member
Posts: 432 From: Fernandina Beach, FL Registered: Aug 2006
Im with you on this. The bastard would die. Id make sure of that.
..............................
You have to act like a human being to be treated like one, correct?
OK, not contending your "hinted at" capabilities of killing someone and getting away with it, where does that place you in the above equation? "You have to act like a human being to be treated like one, correct?" How does that make you any different from any other capital murderer?
IP: Logged
09:32 PM
blackrams Member
Posts: 31842 From: Hattiesburg, MS, USA Registered: Feb 2003
Originally posted by Euterpe: i think the idea of classificatory elimination - the "purifying of the social body" sort of thing - is too abstracted and intellectualized. it feels like a rationalization to me. revenge, then? perhaps. i know that, if i were in the position i've tried to describe, revenge would be the first motivation. but in the end i would see it simply as "the price." face price for offense. blood price for murder. you lose what you have taken.
I believe you have hit the nail on the head.
------------------ Ron Land of the Free because of the Brave. Most gave some, some gave all. Some ran the other way.
IP: Logged
09:36 PM
PFF
System Bot
DemonDriver1 Member
Posts: 51 From: Millsboro,DE but Salisbury is better Registered: Oct 2006
OK, not contending your "hinted at" capabilities of killing someone and getting away with it, where does that place you in the above equation? "You have to act like a human being to be treated like one, correct?" How does that make you any different from any other capital murderer?
I really hate it when people dont pay attention.
Im not in the "equation"
Someone who harms a child is NOT HUMAN. That makes me different. Its NOT MURDER if they are below bacteria.
I cant believe I had to explain that.
IP: Logged
09:38 PM
Mike Marden Member
Posts: 432 From: Fernandina Beach, FL Registered: Aug 2006
Euterpe, you spoke of the law abiding......desperate schmucks...... I'm not really sure that the death penalty enters into their reasoning whether or not to commit a capital crime. I think the operative phrase is "law abiding". Maybe I'm being the "rose-colored glasses" optimistic, but if you are "law abibing", the death penality is not going to be a deterent. Either your morals will not allow you to commit murder, or the situation will be so overwellming (i.e your child being murdered or horribely molested) that you don't care about the outcome.
IP: Logged
10:00 PM
Mike Marden Member
Posts: 432 From: Fernandina Beach, FL Registered: Aug 2006
those who steal thru positions of power like ken boy lay or jim baker or tom delay or Jack Abramoff
either this was needlessly hyperbolic in the context of the present discussion, or you have gone totally off the rails.
either way, you have just disemboweled your own credibility on issues where you might have actually had something to offer, or at least taken a tactically useful position.
Originally posted by ray b: why they can and do cause more harm and hurt to the nation and peoples trust in goverment then some random pervert
Social and Political issues can be closely related but, as a culture, we generally haven't applied criminal law to political chest thumping regardless of party affilitation. I have personal views of several politicians that is not very flattering, just as I'm sure virtually all people do. Just because I feel a particular political figure is "scum of the earth", doesn't justify their execution. While you have a right to your opinion of their qualitities, leadership, honesty, ect.... Advocating their execution is just a lttle on the far side. Execution of violent criminals, sexual predators and the like is and has been a social norm through out history. I have no issue with politicans that have betrayed the trust of the people being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law as it applies to the crime. In fact, I welcome close scrutiny of all politicians. Child molestors won't need to be observed once their sentence has been carried out. Is the death penalty a deterrent to a sexual predator commiting a crime, I really don't know or care, call it what ever you want. They don't deserve a second chance to harm another child.
------------------ Ron Land of the Free because of the Brave. Most gave some, some gave all. Some ran the other way.
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 02-11-2007).]
IP: Logged
09:51 AM
jstricker Member
Posts: 12956 From: Russell, KS USA Registered: Apr 2002
Not too long ago, a man walked into an Amish school house and murdered several girls and young ladies. The murderer then turned the gun on himself. I think most would agree that this was a sick man. But, here's my question, had he not committed sucide, knowing he committed the crime, would he deserve the death penality? There is absolutely no doubt in my mind. Emotionally off, you bet, does that make it alright, no way.
IP: Logged
10:24 AM
Old Lar Member
Posts: 13797 From: Palm Bay, Florida Registered: Nov 1999
Lets see..build more prisons to cage violent criminals for life requiring more prison staff, food, health care and an ever increasing burden on the taxpayers or $20 for electricity or drugs to eliminate the problem people, my vote is for death. Is it a deterrent, no, but a good way to eliminate a second offender, or third or forth or fifth as some judges lets them out on some technicality down the road.
