The death sentence.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
He hopped off after some juicy turnips. Didn't you notice my gurning gaffer in the interim?? * hurt look *

I think you mean 'girning'??? The contorting face? Yeah... but... not as good as the toad and tater.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
uh… *squinting * if you are trying to ask if stereotypes work both ways then the answer is yes. Perhaps I didn’t mention that even though im not white I still have stereotypes about blacks myself. I make it an effert to consciously and overtly block out these stereotypes as much as possible and I think Im able to pretty well but you can be damn sure they still exist in me and Im sure on some level they motivate my view point on people and society. The first step in honestly and successfully confronting our inner biases (which are generally programmed into us by society as we grow up) is to admit that they exist. And EVERYONE has them. No one is immune.

I'll accept that... nice to see you didn't say "hell yeah I'd put your sorry @$$ on death row!"

nah I didn’t feel crappy I knew her very very well by that point and I realized she was capable of holding contrary points of view. She was simply oblivious. Totally naive that this was a bizarre way of thinking. To her it made perfect sense. To her it was not so much about race as it was about the cartoon images she perceived as reality. And she didn’t really look down on blacks she just had this stereotypical image about them. But at the same time she would talk about how hot Tu pac was or something. And I find this rather typical among a lot of people really. In a way it can be thought of as a good thing. Her father was overtly racist so she overcame that environment (I think her stereotyping came mostly from the media and pop culture rather then her upbringing). And she is obviously openly accepting of non-whites in personal relationships so I see it as a step in the right direction. In the end she wound up in a long term relationship with a black man and her father wound up liking me more then any other of her old boyfriends (probably because the one other long term boyfriend she had was white and he wound up raping her and robbing their house for drug money. So much for stereotypes). Oh and I might add that now shes engaged to a Korean guy.

Interesting story. (btw... I like Tu Pac as much as Eminem ... see previous post.) Sad about the boyfriend that did her harm, though.

Then let it be known from henceforth that a black person has said that BLACKS CAN BE RACIST TOWARD WHITES. That was easy. Oh and should I mention Asians can be racist toward non-asians? Hispanics can be racist toward non-Hispanics? French Canadians can be racist toward non-french… (well actually toward everybody ). Yukama Indians can be racist toward non-Yukama Indians? Etc… See where Im going with this?

Hey! Watch it about French Canadians!

That, my dear, is the question to investigate. And by acknowledging ok there is an unfairness somewhere in the system somehow but we aren’t sure why then leads us to the point of well can we have something like the death penalty in a world we know in which it unfairly effects certain groups? Should we at least suspend it until we have answers to some of these questions about differences? And I think that’s the question from which this whole discussion diverged. So what do you think?

And how could we make the justice system completely fair? Perhaps we could divide up the country into separate states, separate people by 'race' and force them to move to these places. We could put up huge walls with no entrances into the next state which holds a different 'race'. This way, if a crime is committed by someone, they are commited to their own justice system.. tried, judged and punished by their own 'race' and therefore... we will have no more cries of injustice because one 'race' has a higher population than another in prisons.

Would that be a viable option? Of course not. But we all live in this country together. The laws of this land are for all to follow and when a citizen breaks those laws, they are held accountable to the punishments set for breaking those laws.

I don't have all the answers and I know you don't either. Just to say the problem is racism, I think is not correct. I honestly think the problem is more complicated than that.

[Rían]

originally braided by Ruinel
*grabs a bit of Rian's hair and starts braiding* So... Johnny Depp... totally hot, eh?

Ouch! Not so tight!

Oh, yeah, but Orli just totally blew him away in "Pirates", doncha think?! *fans self* I'm like SO into Orli!

Hey, whatcha think of my new shoes? Wanna borrow 'em?

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Ruinel
I don't have all the answers and I know you don't either. Just to say the problem is racism, I think is not correct. I honestly think the problem is more complicated than that.

I think that racism is just one of the problems; you can also say similar things about people with learning difficulties or mental health problems. But the point is just to illustrate that any human system is likely to have biases and that's one reason why I have a problem the irreversible death penalty.

Interesting that you spell it "girning", for that's how I would normally spell it (as a Scots word). However, it seems that the English spelling is "gurning" so I assumed that's how everyone else would spell it! In Scotland it means "moaning, crying or complaining" rather than just face-pulling.

Ach, jings, help ma boab.

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Ouch! Not so tight!

Oops sorry. Do you want me to braid in some hot pink yarn? or neon green?

Oh, yeah, but Orli just totally blew him away in "Pirates", doncha think?! *fans self* I'm like SO into Orli!

Meh... Orli isn't that cute. But Johnny Depp is so totally hot he sets my toes on fire! *giggle* I don't even care that he's old. *giggle* He's 40, you know. But he's just like, so totally HOT! *giggle* Let's take turns thinking of names for our kids if I married Johnny and you married Orli.

*pulls our pink paper and matching pink pen with fluffy feather poof on top*
hmmmmm...

• Heather
• Jasmine
• Anastasia
• Blossom

All girls because little boys are so gross.

Hey, whatcha think of my new shoes? Wanna borrow 'em? [/B][/QUOTE]
oooooooh... sssWWWWEEEEET!!!

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
I think that racism is just one of the problems; you can also say similar things about people with learning difficulties or mental health problems. But the point is just to illustrate that any human system is likely to have biases and that's one reason why I have a problem the irreversible death penalty.

You never did answer my question before. I'll repeat it. Do you think that 15 to 30 years is ample time to find new evidence that would acquit someone found guilty in their original trial? I do not believe there are any number of limits on appeals that an inmate on death row can make. He/She can have a new trial every year if they want. All they need to do is find a new witness or new evidence that they could present to a new jury and a new judge.

I think the general consensus is that a person is brought before a judge and jury and sentenced to death very quickly and 'poof' ... the sentence is carried out. However, that really isn't the case at all. The trial is very lengthly, and the sentencing part requires a unanimous decision on the part of 12 people. 15 to 30 years pass before the sentence is carried out. Those that have the shorter time span have finally declined any further appeals, some admitting their guilt (finally) and face their punishment. Those that have the later times, are still appealing in hopes of being found innocent in a new trial.

Interesting that you spell it "girning", for that's how I would normally spell it (as a Scots word). However, it seems that the English spelling is "gurning" so I assumed that's how everyone else would spell it! In Scotland it means "moaning, crying or complaining" rather than just face-pulling.

I don't know. That's just how I thought it was spelled.
*looks up 'girning' and 'gurning' in Macmillan dictionary...*
hmmm... not there.
*looks up 'girning' and 'gurning' in Webster's dictionary...*
not there either.
Now I don't know where I got that spelling from. But I know it means, making faces... contorting your face.

Ach, jings, help ma boab.

eh?

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Ruinel
You never did answer my question before. I'll repeat it. Do you think that 15 to 30 years is ample time to find new evidence that would acquit someone found guilty in their original trial?

Sorry if I wasn't clear: my point was that it's irrelevant how long you take, the answer is still no. Any system can make mistakes. By posing the question, you're implying that it's possible to make a system perfect by spending lots of time and money on it. My point is that no system can be perfect.

Obviously, one which takes 30 years to review the case will have less mistakes than one which doesn't, and I'm sure that some systems have all sorts of procedures which make it better than others.

Originally posted by Ruinel
eh?

Just some random couthiness. It won't happen again.

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
Im sorry I just cant get past this thinking. It makes my blood grow cold. Not to be flip but its really along the same lines of Inca priests thinking well if we kill a few innocent virgins every year in a bloody formal ceremony we will have good luck and good crops and good health and less deaths among the citizenry.

the problem here is that sacrificing virgins does not lead to less deaths among the citizenry (though i must say, i have never tried )... the death penalty does

What you really should be saying is not that well the death penalty is better then nothing and shrugging and walking away but that the death penalty is an unjust way of dealing with people and you should be trumpeting loudly your ideas about true life sentences and such. At least stress that you are choosing the lessor of two great evils because these are currently your only options. Perhaps you have already and ignore this if you have but from the feeling behind your posts I didnt get this impression.

yes, i have stated what i would prefer... but in the absence of true life sentences, no death penalty is arguable worse than the death penalty in terms of how many innocents are killed

as i said... if i lived in say, texas, i would not spend my time fighting the death penalty... instead, i would push for true life sentences and then fight the death penalty when and if this first objective was achieved

And I guess my one question to you is would you be as adamant about supporting killing some innocents to save some others if one of the innocents to be killed was your child? Would you accept that the odds just happened to go very much against you but you accept your duty in saving more people by sacrificing your child? Or would you do everything in your power to keep this from happening?

the child question is tough to answer... there is a bond between father/son (or mother/son, etc.) that throws reason out the window... look at all the henious crimes committed and yet the guilty is almost always supported by his/her mother or father... i think it is an instinct that may be too strong for any logic to overcome

a better question might be, what if i was an innocent man on death row... i would certainly fight to clear my name, but i don't think i would all the sudden change my stripes and say the death penalty is bad because i am now the subject of it

our society sacrifices innocents all the time for greater goods... but usually the individual who must make the sacrifice is not named in advance, so the choice is easier

when we draft people to go to war we do not know if soldier john will die, but we do know, with certainty, that a certain amount of soldier's will die... soldier john is willing to make that sacrifice, but if he could be given a crystal ball and see for certain that he would die, would he still make that same choice or would he become a protestor? what choice would you make if you knew for certain that you would die for the betterment of your society?

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Interesting. Mostly, I also take the view that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, but for me there are a few overriding moral imperatives.

There are three of them at work here:
1) You're definitely killing to maybe prevent killing;
2) It's society that is doing the killing, for which we have responsibility;
3) You're punishing people for things they haven't done yet.

to these principles i would say... when you let criminals back out on the street you are leading to more killing... the only maybe is which one of the criminals you let go will do the crime... and in my eyes, society is just as responsible for this more indirect killing

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Oops sorry. Do you want me to braid in some hot pink yarn? or neon green?

Meh... Orli isn't that cute. But Johnny Depp is so totally hot he sets my toes on fire! *giggle* I don't even care that he's old. *giggle* He's 40, you know. But he's just like, so totally HOT! *giggle* Let's take turns thinking of names for our kids if I married Johnny and you married Orli.

*pulls our pink paper and matching pink pen with fluffy feather poof on top*
hmmmmm...

• Heather
• Jasmine
• Anastasia
• Blossom

All girls because little boys are so gross.

Hey, whatcha think of my new shoes? Wanna borrow 'em?

oooooooh... sssWWWWEEEEET!!!

This is getting WORSE than the death penalty!

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
Oops sorry. Do you want me to braid in some hot pink yarn? or neon green?

Meh... Orli isn't that cute. But Johnny Depp is so totally hot he sets my toes on fire! *giggle* I don't even care that he's old. *giggle* He's 40, you know. But he's just like, so totally HOT! *giggle* Let's take turns thinking of names for our kids if I married Johnny and you married Orli.

*pulls our pink paper and matching pink pen with fluffy feather poof on top*
hmmmmm...

• Heather
• Jasmine
• Anastasia
• Blossom

All girls because little boys are so gross.

Oh, you're killing me! I give up! I give up! I just can't keep it up anymore! *gag*

[Artanis]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Oh, you're killing me! I give up! I give up! I just can't keep it up anymore! *gag*

Thank you.

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
to these principles i would say... when you let criminals back out on the street you are leading to more killing... the only maybe is which one of the criminals you let go will do the crime... and in my eyes, society is just as responsible for this more indirect killing

I can see where you're coming from, but what about number 3: the "punishing people for things they haven't done yet" one?

Also, I'm not sure that the evidence support the claim that having the death penalty leads to less death amongst the citizenry.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Artanis
Thank you.

Just trying to keep a little lightness in a heavy discussion ... I'll be quiet now

[brownjenkins]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
I can see where you're coming from, but what about number 3: the "punishing people for things they haven't done yet" one?

i guess this one is basically how i view the legal system... in my view the main reason for imprisonment of violent people is to stop those people from committing crimes they may do in the future... rehabilitation is a spotty science at best and i tend to take the one strike and you are out view when it comes to certain crimes

Also, I'm not sure that the evidence support the claim that having the death penalty leads to less death amongst the citizenry.

my non-scientific analysis is that if violent criminals are not put to death they will enter our standard legal system... be released at some future point... and commit similar crimes again

certainly not all of them, but even 20% or so would lead to more innocent deaths than the number of innocent people put to death on death row currently

i will admit however, that i have not researched numbers... i.e. how many people are put to death and later found innocent each year vs. how many violent criminals who have been released from jail commit violent crimes again... but common sense tells me the latter number is probably much higher

i would certainly change my stance if i was wrong in my assumption

[The Gaffer]

I understand what you're saying; I just go the other way and put more emphasis on the principle in this case.

I don't know what the evidence is either, though, again, it would be really difficult to prove one way or another. We could compare the murder rates of countries with and without the death penalty, but that wouldn't prove a thing.

You could argue that having a death penalty legitimises killing in a societal sense, and that might lead to more murders. Again, who knows?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by brownjenkins
the problem here is that sacrificing virgins does not lead to less deaths among the citizenry

oh I dont know. Psychology is a powerful thing when everyone believes something should work. * pause* So whos gonna be the first to use that quote to say Insidious is endorsing virgin sacrifices…

no death penalty is arguable worse than the death penalty in terms of how many innocents are killed

the problem with this argument is that the state is directly sanctioning the deaths of innocents (in fact they are doing the executing). When people are killed by former criminals now out of jail its not the state killing those people. And I really would like to know the numbers of murderers who when parolled get out and kill more people. It is probably higher then innocents who die on death row as you say but are we talking about small change vs. small change here? And if so is it worth it having the state knowingly kill innocent people to save a few dozen more? Is that really the kind of state we want to live in? Where everyone is just a random number away from an unjustified CIVIL death?

but anyway to continue what i was saying, if you take this to its logical end then you are actually saying we should be killing MORE people to minimize even more the numbers of innocents killed by parolled/escaped convicts. I mean if the goal is to save society in general from roving former criminals intent on murder AND you acknowledge that a better system would be life time imprisonment BUT, as you say, we dont and probably wont ever have that then the only logical alternative based on this reasoning is to kill more people who get convicted of serious crimes. Which sounds frighteningly like “Kill em all! And let god sort em out!� to me.

a better question might be, what if i was an innocent man on death row... i would certainly fight to clear my name, but i don't think i would all the sudden change my stripes and say the death penalty is bad because i am now the subject of it

But I thought you already DO believe that the death penalty is bad. Its just you feel its better then not having it at all.

when we draft people to go to war we do not know if soldier john will die, but we do know, with certainty, that a certain amount of soldier's will die... soldier john is willing to make that sacrifice, but if he could be given a crystal ball and see for certain that he would die, would he still make that same choice or would he become a protestor? what choice would you make if you knew for certain that you would die for the betterment of your society?

Well Im not really able to see the equivalence between citizens who have wrongfully been convicted of a capital crime and soldiers who (assuming they weren’t drafted) have CHOSEN to join the armed forces and get paid knowing full well that they could be getting themselves into a situation where they might get injured or killed. And furthermore many people go into the military (and into guaranteed death situations in combat) with the point of view that giving up their life for their country is an acceptable and noble cause. Im pretty sure not one innocent person who has been convicted of a capital crime has thought to themselves well Im willing to do this for my country because it’s the right thing to do. They probably all felt that they never once asked for or agreed to take this risk.

The military thing makes me think of something else too. When you join the military or are hired to any risky job there is always extensive notification of the possibility of injury or death while performing said duties of that job and theres all kinds of LEGAL formal paper work that must be read and signed and such before the person can be formally allowed to undertake such a position. But yet there is nothing formalized such as to say As a citizen of this country we reserve the right to kill you for no crime whatsoever in the event that your death proves to be to the betterment of society in general. Which is essentially what you are saying the state should be doing. Maybe we need to have a form that you can thumb print sometime between birth and 18 years old. At least give some sort of risk sheet at your 18th birthday or something that would formally bind you to the remote possibility of innocent death by the state if you wish to maintain your citizenship in the US. But it is of course not written out as such. And in fact the state would never dream of acknowledging anything of the sort.

[brownjenkins]

i still don't really see a difference between the state executing an innocent person or taking a course of action that will lead to the death of innocent people... my assumptions about the numbers may or may not be right (and when i search the net it is hard to find a source i would consider unbiased), but i do believe that any time you make a stand like "the death penalty must be abolished" that you have to take into account the consequences and not just act on pure principles alone

i also don't believe in the "slippery slope" argument... where the next thing you know dogs and cats will be sleeping together... i think each issue should be looked at for what it is and judged according to it's outcome... though some may (and do) argue with me on this, i prefer a relative pov over an absolute one

on the war thing... i was talking about people who are drafted

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Oh, you're killing me! I give up! I give up! I just can't keep it up anymore! *gag*

WOOOHOOOO!!! I WIN!!!






wait... .... what did I win?

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Sorry if I wasn't clear: my point was that it's irrelevant how long you take, the answer is still no. Any system can make mistakes. By posing the question, you're implying that it's possible to make a system perfect by spending lots of time and money on it. My point is that no system can be perfect.

Obviously, one which takes 30 years to review the case will have less mistakes than one which doesn't, and I'm sure that some systems have all sorts of procedures which make it better than others.

I'm not implying money at all. I'm implying opportunity for the convicted to provide evidence which would support his/her claim that he/she was innocent of the crime for which he/she was convicted and sentenced to death.

No system CAN BE perfect, EVER. The possibility for error will always be there, even if you make that possibility for error so small that the probability for error is nonexistant.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
* pause* So whos gonna be the first to use that quote to say Insidious is endorsing virgin sacrifices…

Hey, that's better than my rep of endorsing baby killing!


Another possible down point to the rest-of-your-life-in-prison idea - Do you guys think that people will abuse this? IOW, turn it into a "well, life in prison may stink, but at least I'll have 3 square meals a day and a roof over my head, and I won't have to work!" Seriously, I know paramedics and cops who have "regulars" - they call 911 and use ambulances as taxi cabs to get to the other side of town because the bar they want to go to is near the hospital, and things like that. And the idea of having prisons cover an area the size of Delaware, or whatever state it is - wow......

Knotty problem ....