Crime and punishment...

[Fiddleback]

But I have to say that capital punishment is a tough thing for me, ideologically. Generally, I don't make a big scene against it, but I have a couple problems. I was a staunch supporter until, one day, a friend of mine appealed to my more libertarian side. They asked me what right the state has to kill a person? Is their right founded through the collective will? And if so, is democracy more than a pluralist totalitarianism? I still am not entirely sure how to respond.



Chris

Great discussion Chris. These guys make me sick. And, having three ladies to protect, scare the hell out of me.

I'm pro capital punishment. However, I believe the US does it wrong. We get no deterrent from it. It should be quicker, and painful. A long wait for a painless death is just expensive and ineffective.

To address another of your questions, the Bible gives govt the power of the sword. So that is where the right of the govt comes from IMO.

No good answers to this situation. Horrid and terrifying. What would you do if you were the father? What would I do. Well, I'll not say. I have ideas though. Ugly ones.

 

[Runs With Scissors]

yipes. That's some scary stuff. Makes me glad to be another member with a protecive dog, a gun and a sharp knife within reach.

I'm all for capital punishment, as long as it's NOW, not in ten years after two dozen appeals.

Although I've had recent experience to change my thoughts on the death penalty.

There is a man who ahem.....did a person very near and dear to me very, very wrong. I spent many a night planning his death, since he'd barely gotten a slap on the wrist from the legal system for his heinous crime. As most who have been there can tell you, it's a helluva lot easier to think about than to do, although I am now thankful for my poor timing on a couple of occasions.

He is now serving a mandatory ten year sentence for another crime (way, way, way too light of a sentence, IMO) But having horrible health problems. Kidney failure, dialysis, teeth falling out of his head. Evidently the prisons in Arizona aren't quite like the boy scout camps run here in Alaska.

He's thin, pathetically weak, and dying a slow, painful agonizing death. Since he's a pedophile, I like to think he's someone's source of perverse entertainment. All his acts of evil are catching up with him. Every time I think about that it puts a little more spring in my step. I would be thoroughly disappointed if his ticket got punched at this stage of the game. Maybe in another seven and a half years though....

 

[namaarie]

I frequently have the notion that prison would be a lot worse for the inmate in many ways than the death penalty, and a lot better ideologically for society. Death is quick, and in our rightly humane system of execution, there is no more pain than a needle prick. For mass rapist-murderers, that's WAY too light, if you ask me. Especially for sex offenders (who I think are the most heinous there are), I hear prison isn't too much fun. It does give me a perverse satisfaction to know that the big man who raped little Timmy is going to be Big Bubba's special friend in there. And it won't be pleasant.

Plus, if evidence comes out a few years later that exonerates the inmate, he can be released. Accidents do happen, and while I think that a trial by a jury of your peers is as good as it gets in our system, sometimes people will have a crappy attorney or the evidence just points the wrong way. Innocents have been executed, and that is unacceptable. At least if they lived to be exonerated, they would be able to feel the satisfaction of being proven right. The more I think about it, the more I think that capital punishment by the state is not as good an answer.

By the same token, I think that very commonly, the best solution is that the perps catch a couple of hollowpoints at the scene of the crime. Right there in the act. It makes me smile when I read of a homeowner or business owner who simply ends the violent crime, right then and there, making sure that the perp will never again hurt anybody else.

Aside from that, I guess I think our system should focus on violent crime--things that actually hurt others or intended to, and I include sexual assault as some of the most extreme violence--and stick with incarceration. Let the b@stards rot, and don't give them the satisfaction of the easy way out.

Chris

 

[C.S. Graves]

If somebody kicks in my door, runs up the stairs and grabs my son, my wife or me, I'm just not ready to handle that and I daresay that most people without military or police training are and probably not even many of them.

I think I'd be similarly ill-equipped in such a situation. I don't own a firearm of any kind, so in the unlikely event that some thug DID break in and he's armed, I'm probably done for... I'm just glad that it IS highly unlikely where I live. My city didn't have a single homocide until April of this year, which, though still unfortunate, is comforting when you consider how many cities have a higher rate.

Canada, believe it or not, does not allow repeated sex offenders out of prison. They are there for life.

Hmm, I don't believe this is necessarily so. I know someone who was recently informed by police that the tenant living across the hall was convicted for preying on old women and young girls. Also, I think that Carl Toft guy is out of prison, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[richardallen]

I think you can only be pro capital punishment if you condone or at least accept killing innocent people.

I dont think this statement needs an explanation. Given what Dave Rishar already mentioned in this thread, it should be self-explaining.

As for the crime, what a tragedy. Could've been prevented, I guess. Then again, that's life. Bad things happen to good people, a lot.

Keno

 

[wato]

under TRUE libertarianism. people would be able to protect themselves. Conflicts like this would not go to trial.

As another libertarian, it pains me to have to say this: perfect liberty can only be enjoyed by perfect people. Since there is no perfection this side of the River Styx, society just has to whomp up something that works most of the time and call it 'good enough.'

 

[Dave Rishar]

Especially for sex offenders (who I think are the most heinous there are), I hear prison isn't too much fun.

It isn't. That is a very, very hard way to do time.

It does give me a perverse satisfaction to know that the big man who raped little Timmy is going to be Big Bubba's special friend in there. And it won't be pleasant.

Criminals adding to another criminal's punishment, as already decided upon by society, represents a complete and utter failure of our judicial system. The debt required by the public must be paid, but not more. If the debt is insufficient then let us increase the debt, not subcontract things out.

 

[cat]

Perhaps if nonviolent drug offenders didn't go to prison, then we would have the money and space to lock up the serious scumbags and throw away the key.

There is the money, and that also fits in with what wolf_1989 has said. They've got money for all sorts of things - including wars, and foreign aid (that benefits only the ruling top dogs in Africa, for example) - your tax-payers' money. But whether it's the UK, or the USA, or SA, the jails are overcrowded and they don't build more! It should be a priority! - And there'd soon be more than enough public support - "democratic" public support - with a bit of the right publicity in the media. Even without promoting the concept, I'd bet that the majority of citizens would have no problem with government revenue being allocated to it.

Canada, believe it or not, does not allow repeated sex offenders out of prison. They are there for life.

That's good, but what about murderers and violent robbers? I bet they get out.

On the other hand, in some ways, death row is too easy.

No. It's a deterrent, and the more brutal and nasty the method, the more of a deterrent it is. The idea is to remove them, and doing it in an unpleasant way gives them something to think about when they're committing brutal crimes.

@wolf_1989: The best way is to have 3 dogs. I was reminded of this yesterday when one of my co-workers was telling me where he had bought a house, and I asked about the "security situation" there, knowing that it had always been a bad area, and wouldn't have gotten any better nowadays, and eh said that he had 3 Rottweiler German Shepherd crosses. And it reminded me of a manager I had some years ago, who had 3 German Shepherds, and told us a lot about how it worked. His were dangerous dogs. Apparently 3 is the minimum to start getting the right sort of pack behaviour and obviously it would involve much more serious and determined attackers to deal with 3 dogs. When one had to be euthanised because of old age /disease, and he got another one, I asked whether it had been trained like the others and he said no, it wasn't necessary.

 

[cat]

I think you can only be pro capital punishment if you condone or at least accept killing innocent people.

We're mainly concerned with those cases where there is absolutely no doubt.

 

[cat]

I'm all for capital punishment, as long as it's NOW, not in ten years after two dozen appeals.

+1

There is a man who ahem.....did a person very near and dear to me very, very wrong. I spent many a night planning his death, since he'd barely gotten a slap on the wrist from the legal system for his heinous crime.

I spent about 2 years doing nothing but trying to track down the man who was responsible for a computer bomb exploding in the office next to mine, causing the guy who turned it on to have his insides splattered all over the walls and ceiling and the 2 girls in the room with him.
I did get close to begin arranging for him to be killed, but I'd cooled down by then and I decided that the risk of being implicated was not worth it.

 

[cat]

By the same token, I think that very commonly, the best solution is that the perps catch a couple of hollowpoints at the scene of the crime. Right there in the act. It makes me smile when I read of a homeowner or business owner who simply ends the violent crime, right then and there,

We had a few cases like that in this city 2 weeks ago, and one of my colleagues said "It must be a good week." One case, a guy was robbed (in a civilised suburban part of town) of cash he was taking to pay his workers, but he then chased them in his car and killed two of them. Another case, the cops had some guys they tried to stop start shooting at them, and they they shot and killed two. Better when they're killed, for cops as well as civilians. Even though the civilians automatically get charged with murder, initially, at least the criminals aren't there to lie in court, with lying lawyers.

 

[richardallen]

We're mainly concerned with those cases where there is absolutely no doubt.

Then you dont *understand* the point. I will make it a bit easier: How would they determine "no doubt"? Will they have to call "cat", are you the one who decides there is "no doubt"? How about those cases where there was "no doubt" and later innocence was proven? What about those? Bummer, huh?

Do you understand the problem now?

Regards,

Keno

 

[mkhop]

Hey wolf how much does the other half weigh. There are some really dangerous people out and I have a wolf shepherd at 95 lbs that is a pretty good alarm. I live in a vey small town in WV and home invasions are not ubheard of just up the road. As a corrections officer I have sen humanity at its lowest common denominator and it is just unbeleiveable what some people can do. I have made a personal desicison that I will not let bad things happen to me without a fight and that includes the political mumbo jumbo, if I have to get locked up protecting myswelf well at least they get good health and dental in there.

 

[Thomas Linton]

There is the money, and that also fits in with what wolf_1989 has said. They've got money for all sorts of things - including wars, and foreign aid (that benefits only the ruling top dogs in Africa, for example) - your tax-payers' money. But whether it's the UK, or the USA, or SA, the jails are overcrowded and they don't build more! It should be a priority! - And there'd soon be more than enough public support - "democratic" public support - with a bit of the right publicity in the media. Even without promoting the concept, I'd bet that the majority of citizens would have no problem with government revenue being allocated to it.

We have 3.7 times as many jail/prison cells per capita as we had when I was a kid. We have the largest proportion of our population incarcerated among all "first world" nations.

That's good, but what about murderers and violent robbers? I bet they get out.

Most murders are "crimes of passion." Husband kills wife. Drunk kills fellow drunk over the last 1" in the bottle. Such killers get out sooner than repeat sexual criminals. Murderers for hire or robber-murderers are typically executed in most U.S. states (unless problems with proof result in a 'deal"). So in a sense, they "get out." (Ohio adds five years for using a "gun" in a crime -- but nothing for using a battle axe or sword. Punishments are set by politicians.)

No. It's a deterrent, and the more brutal and nasty the method, the more of a deterrent it is. The idea is to remove them, and doing it in an unpleasant way gives them something to think about when they're committing brutal crimes.

Again, it's a deterrent to the executed. Otherwise, not a significant effect. Brutality or nastiness has no impact. Certainty has little.

 

[namaarie]

cat, I think we do indeed agree on a number of points. But your statements advocating inhumane or "unpleasant" execution does not strike a chord with me. I think that our humanity is what separates us from those scum. If people are to be executed, it is because it has to be done, and it should be done in the quickest, most painless way possible. Way I see it, execution should be about killing a person, and not be focused on the method as a statement. And what statement would that make? That we're willing to be sadistic, just like them? Compassion, dignity, nobility, humanity, and an unwillingness to brutally kill people with unnecessary pain are all traits that make us better than them--that help justify why some should, because they lack these traits, die. I think that to descend to their sick level would be beyond folly.

Dave Rishar:
I was really hoping for you input. You've chimed up so well before in similar conversations that I knew you'd add something good, and you did. I guess you caught me in a weaker statement. You're right, of course. Here I go lecturing about humanity, and yet I'm so frequently too willing to turn a blind eye to abuses and torment that was never prescribed by a court of peers. I guess that's me at my most hypocritical. You're right, Dave. A criminal should get every bit of punishment that the justice system decides to deal out, but not a bit more. Thanks for bringing me back to reality.

Chris