Death penalty, a quote

Alex · Post by **Alex** » Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:22 pm

xx123456

NicDots · Post by **NicDots** » Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:30 pm

I have never viewed jail as "rehabilitation." The justice system may view it that way, but I don't. It's to keep bad guys away from the normal population.

Ritchie · Post by **Ritchie** » Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:31 pm

Alex wrote:Sorry, but that obviously includes me. I don't buy that being pro capital punishment somehow makes you a badass. Detached, perhaps. Badass? No.

What are you on about ? who is talking about being a badass , if you believe that being Pro C P is being badass whatever to that .. it's just an opinion to what one believes is morally correct .. have a nice day dude

Ritchie · Post by **Ritchie** » Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:46 pm

NicDots wrote:I have never viewed jail as "rehabilitation." The justice system may view it that way, but I don't. It's to keep bad guys away from the normal population.

I have also never viewed jail as "rehabilitation" .. punishment yes , should rehabilition arise as an outcome of incarceration great , something in these terms would be doing time for traffic offences , unpaid fines etc .. doing time for any of the crimes posted in another post in this thread , i would doubt rehabilitation would happen due to the fact that mental illness plays a major role in the crimes commited .

It has previously been seen that long term inmates once released often re-offend due to the fact that they cannot come to terms with society and became accustomed to spending time inside prison ..

tedeeoo · Post by **tedeeoo** » Sat Feb 27, 2010 5:51 pm

I don't really like the thought of a "rehabilitated" murderer or child molestor being released back into society. Not saying that a person can't change and if they do it in prison and come out a better person after having paid their full debt to society then I don't think it should be held against them. But there are some crimes that are just heinous to allow that person to be released, they may be "rehabilitated", but they still committed a crime that someone suffered from and in some cases died from, and the loved ones of those people have to live with that for the rest of their lives. People who commit crimes of that nature should know when they go to prison that it is punishment, not rehabilitation and that their rights and lives (as far as freedom is concerned) have been forfeit because they ruined or took the life of someone who didn't deserve that fate. There again, this is a debate that will probably go on till the end of time, and everybody has a right to their opinion on it, please take my thoughts on the subject as just that.

highpriestess · Post by **highpriestess** » Sat Feb 27, 2010 6:07 pm

coming from the state (in the US) that carries out the MOST executions.... and make NO MISTAKE, Texas DOES hold that title... and the fact that I work in the legal field, I have done quite a bit of research on the death penalty, and even did some research projects in school on the topic. The problem with the death penalty, as far as Texas is concerned, isn't, for me, so much the death part. I mean, we've done extensive research on serial murderers and whatnot, and we KNOW that there are some people, who commit HORRIBLE acts of rape, torture, dismemberment, necrophelia, etc., that are IMPOSSIBLE to rehabilitate. There is NO drug that you can give to a sociopath that will make him NOT a sociopath. And i think if you are a murderer... and i don't mean that you got in a heated fight with someone and that person ended up dead for whatever reason, in that fight, to me that is not a murderer, that is someone who killed someone (and they SHOULD be punished, but not necessarily put to death, because the CAN be rehabilitated) - but rather, a COLD HEARTED MURDERER, who goes out and kills people (PLURAL, there folks) because they have an inherent NEED to kill, it brings them pleasure or sexual gratification, etc... and it's pretty certain that, given the opportunity, the person will continue to do so throughout their life..... then yes, death penalty. Dahmer deserved the death penalty, so did Gacy, Bundy, etc. My desire for the world to be perfect is OUTWEIGHED by my desire to not find my daughter or granddaughter dead in a ditch or shallow grave. i'm sorry, but there it is...

HOWEVER - my problem with the death penalty is the SYSTEM. How it works. A good 80% of the individuals on death row in Texas were represented by court appointed attorneys. Texas does not have the "public defender" system that other states have, we have the "court appointed" system regarding those who cannot afford to pay and use their own attorney. How this works is, if you are an attorney in Texas, and you practice in ANY criminal court (this is why many civil attorneys WILL NOT take a criminal case, even for their own family members) your name goes on the list for court appointments... meaning as indigent defendants need representation, when your name comes up on the list, you will be appointed to represent that defendant - basically pro-bono, although the court does pay a small attorney fee that tries to cover expenses. This way when you get a court appointed attorney, he is actually a private attorney and does not work for the state, or have an office next door to the prosecutor (like an on staff "public defender" would). That's all fine and good. Until you enter in a death case. Very few attorney have experience trying (going through a trial) a death case. However, prosecutors try MANY and have MUCh experience in death cases.

It is my opinion, based on the high number of folks on death row who are indigent and used court appointed attorneys, that the court appointment system needs reform, so that death cases can only be tried by attorneys who have EXPERIENCE with death cases, and NOT by Joe Blow who's never been to trial for anything more than a DWI or drug possession cases. Because as it stands, if you have money and can afford a really good defense attorney, who has experience in a death case, you have a better chance of getting some sort of reduced sentence, instead of ending up on death row because you had an inexperienced attorney. With reform, even indigent persons would have equal acces to the same sort of defense EXPERIENCE that someone with shitloads of money has. You shouldn't have to die because you are broke when some guy out there, who comitted the SAME crime, gets to live because he, simply put, could afford to.

If you've got enough money, you can almost get away with murder (*see OJ Simpson case, sorry folks, but now that we know what we know about DNA, that we didn't understand then.... it's hard to deny that the guy was guilty!). And that's just wrong.

This is JUST my opinion, folks.... so nobody get their "knickers in a twist"

~

Cpt Matt Sparrow · Post by **Cpt Matt Sparrow** » Sat Feb 27, 2010 6:14 pm

highpriestess wrote: wrong.
This is JUST my opinion, folks.... so nobody get their "knickers in a twist" ~

HA!!! To mention the twisted knickers you are back for sure!

Matt

highpriestess · Post by **highpriestess** » Sat Feb 27, 2010 6:25 pm

LOL!!! well, that was the educated me talking.... the redneck mother in me thinks we should lock them in a room with the victims family for about 15 minutes. Problem solved at little to no cost to the state!

Post by **Trigger** » Sat Feb 27, 2010 7:23 pm

Ritchie wrote: i'm not pointing a finger at any one particular person .. I said " politically correct pussies "

This isn't a provocation at all ritchie but I oppose Capitol Punishment on Principle but I don't see it as an issue of Political correctness!, I know the history of its short comings here in the UK and had it not been repealed in the late 1960's lots of inocent people with wrong convictions for terrorism would have been hung during the 1970's.
Granted these inocents would have been exonerated and recieved public pardons for the convictions, even the survivng family members would have been compensated for the injustice done to the dear departed, but that would not have brought them back from the dead or repaired the damage done to thier family by the stigma attached to the crimes the had been wrongly convicted of.

Ritchie · Post by **Ritchie** » Sat Feb 27, 2010 7:32 pm

That's fine Ian .. no problem with me to what someone wants to believe is or is'nt the correct method of punishment .. and once again to re-iterate what has been said before in this thread .. this subject could go on and on much like the topic of religion .

Post by **Trigger** » Sat Feb 27, 2010 7:39 pm

Ritchie wrote:That's fine Ian .. no problem with me to what someone wants to believe is or is'nt the correct method of punishment .. and once again to re-iterate what has been said before in this thread .. this subject could go on and on much like the topic of religion .

I like threads like this because everyone can give thier thoughts and walk away friends they only become a problem when somebody decides that it is personel and flounces away like a child.
We have had these kind of threads for a longtime and they are the most interesting! does Australia have the capitol punishment?

Ritchie · Post by **Ritchie** » Sat Feb 27, 2010 7:42 pm

No Australia stopped C P in 1967, Ronald Ryan was the last guy sentenced to death by hanging in 1967.

tedeeoo · Post by **tedeeoo** » Sat Feb 27, 2010 7:43 pm

Trigger wrote:
Ritchie wrote: i'm not pointing a finger at any one particular person .. I said " politically correct pussies "
This isn't a provocation at all ritchie but I oppose Capitol Punishment on Principle but I don't see it as an issue of Political correctness!, I know the history of its short comings here in the UK and had it not been repealed in the late 1960's lots of inocent people with wrong convictions for terrorism would have been hung during the 1970's.
Granted these inocents would have been exonerated and recieved public pardons for the convictions, even the survivng family members would have been compensated for the injustice done to the dear departed, but that would not have brought them back from the dead or repaired the damage done to thier family by the stigma attached to the crimes the had been wrongly convicted of.

Ian,

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it would seem to me by your post, that the shortcomings you speak of had more to do with the investigative process and the convictions themselves rather than capitol punishment.

Ted

Post by **Trigger** » Sat Feb 27, 2010 7:47 pm

tedeeoo wrote:
Trigger wrote:
Ritchie wrote: i'm not pointing a finger at any one particular person .. I said " politically correct pussies "
This isn't a provocation at all ritchie but I oppose Capitol Punishment on Principle but I don't see it as an issue of Political correctness!, I know the history of its short comings here in the UK and had it not been repealed in the late 1960's lots of inocent people with wrong convictions for terrorism would have been hung during the 1970's.
Granted these inocents would have been exonerated and recieved public pardons for the convictions, even the survivng family members would have been compensated for the injustice done to the dear departed, but that would not have brought them back from the dead or repaired the damage done to thier family by the stigma attached to the crimes the had been wrongly convicted of.
Ian,

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it would seem to me by your post, that the shortcomings you speak of had more to do with the investigative process and the convictions themselves rather than capitol punishment.

Ted

Yes and no, but public views changed and it was removed from law, nationalist political parties use it as a cheap campeigning trick but intelectual thinking seems to suggest that we here still find it distasteful and barbaric.

tedeeoo · Post by **tedeeoo** » Sat Feb 27, 2010 9:23 pm

But do you really consider capitol punishment any more distasteful and barbaric than the crime it punishes? Especially in some of the more brutal cases, I'm not trying to step on your toes here, I just want to know how you think justice should be dispensed in those cases.