Of course 68% of cases have errors. That's why they're appealed.

A wrong execution is jsut about the most terrible thing imaginable, but that's why we have the layers and layers of judicial processes. There are, however, terrible cases of murder which merit this punishment.

Don't try to scare me with that nonsense about getting falsely accused of murder and put on death row. Not only is it a useless argument, but if I didn't do it then I have nothing to worry about.

So why, again, did you say there should be capital punishment in the first place? What was your rationale. Clearly not the "deterrent" argument or you would have backed down by now. Is it pure hatred for those murderers? You just want them to die?

How do you feel about televising execution?

It's about justice for the victims and their families. It's about punishment. Naked, brutal punishment for the most serious, and only the most serious, murders.

I'm not even going to dignify something so stupid as televised executions with a response.

Bundy's killings or any of that type, only a very sick mind could produce. He had no more control than a mad dog does so shot him, and by inference anybody who might do the same. Where do you draw the line? I would find it easer to exacute some who had the self control but did not use it.

How do you punish someone who is so detached and has such lack of control. Could they even understand except in an abstract manner what is happening? How does punishing them do any good except make you feel better.

Gay marriage: Either allow it and remove the right to ban it from the states or strip references to marriage from the IRS and other government institutions so legally everyone is part of a civil union with marriage being merely a ceremony bestowed only by a church.

Guns: Hunting only. People who hoard a ton of guns are mentally unstable for doing so and shouldn't be allowed to have them.

Prayer in School: Never on official time with official sanction. Student breaks or after school clubs? All for it.

Death Penalty: Killing someone isn't going to make you feel better about what happened to you or a loved one.

Abortion: Yes unless there is an objection by a parent.

Evolution in School: It's factual and sound scientific theory. Get over your ignorance.

War in Iraq: Shouldn't have ever happened because like most sane people said from the beginning, it had nothing, and Sadam had nothing, to do with September 11th. Americans went along with the power grab because they're emotional infants that lack the ability to think for themselves and just absorbed the drum beat to war that rumbled through the media.

War in Afghanistan: We could have taken Osama without a single death. Osama even wrote up a will and radioed apologies for getting others involved in his war. Bush asked the generals if we should send in our troops in or if the local warlords could be trusted because it would then be a victory for Afghanistan and the United States. The generals said they could not be relied upon. Bush vetoed and decided to use them. They let Osama get away because they're corrupt. We've been rotting in that country ever since.

Gitmo/CIA Blacksites/Torture: If you're for torture it's only because you're ignorant and have never had a friend or family member suffer as a prisoner of war.

Why are they so stupid? Should the people not be exposed to those naked, brutal punishments?

If you refuse to televise it, is it not because you are ashamed of what goes on in there? I windowless room in the dead of night under lock and key..... I thought this was supposed to be the State carrying out justice.

@Thucydides Perhaps it makes him feel better, as in most revenge acts, or perhaps he seeks by proxy to destroy that part that is in all of us because he fears it so.

I don't need to be psychoanalyzed because I support the death penalty in the most extreme circumstances. I've made myself clear, and if you people want to be pig-headed abolitionists then fine.

"If you people want to be pig-headed abolitionists then fine."

You sound like a slave-owner. It makes me feel better to know you're on the losing side of history.

Hibis: "Abortion: Yes unless there is an objection by a parent."
Are you saying that if a girl gets pregnant, HER PARENTS should be allowed to choose if she has the kid or not? That's her life being decided right there...

@ Invictus I did see it your way many years in the past. As I saw the continued failure of are system inspite of technical improvements, and saw that the most extreme of crimes are commited by people who are the most extreme of the mentally ill, I changed my view.

About televising execution, I'm against execution in the first place. So I'd obviously be opposed to televising it.

We arrest people for failing to comply with our laws, but if the government wasn't doing it, the imprisonment or execution of these people would be against the law.

I support the ACLU on many issues, but one case in which their reasoning does not seem sufficient is in that of execution. The ACLU reasons against execution that it is the ultimate denial of civil liberties. However, so is imprisonment. Like perhaps all issues, this is not black and white. It seems necessary that somewhere, the line must be drawn.

Yeah I draw the line between deliberately killing people and just holding them in an area they're not allowed to leave.

I'd also say that there are different ways of imprisonment - such imprisonment should not end up in slavery and torture of the inmates either. They should get food and medical care. In prison you could still read and write books, do something productive eventually. It should not be the ultimate end of you as a human being.

@SEcki - you give way to much credit to a number of lifers. They stopped being human beings when they committed the attrocities that got them a life sentence. Prison is just a means of housing them until their bodies cease to function. Food, shelter, a crapper, and medical care is all they should get. They should have to work to help offset the costs. It isn't slave labor to make them clean their clothes, cook their food, and wash their dishes, we all do that for our own households. They just have a bigger "house." And as far as making them work (the old license plate shops and chain gangs), I go to work every day to support my standard of living. Prisoners get paid a pittance to buy essentials they need and to pay for the costs of upkeep for their new standard of living.

But as far as entertainmnet and/or being productive... They don't deserve entertainment when they have made certain someone else will never take another breath, much less watch a TV show or read a book. And they should NOT be allowed to profit from their crime by writing a tell all about it. Any profits from a tell-all should go to their victim's families and, if it is a particularly reprehensible crime, the family should have a say if the words ever reach the outside world or not. Prisoners incarcerrated for violent crimes (murder, rape, etc.) violated someone else's rights and therefore have no rights of their own.

"They stopped being human beings when they committed the attrocities that got them a life sentence."

No, they never stopped being human beings. No one does. Thinking that would lead you down a dangerous path - are you willing to go down hat? That some human beings are worth more than others? That some aren't humans anymore? That you treat some humans worse than cattle? Do you really want to do that? Again: serial murders objectify their victims and denied them the right of being a human being, this is what we mostly find so shocking - no mercy in their deeds, cruel, sadistic. If you pay back eye for an eye - wouldn't that make you go to the same level? I admit that some deeds want me to pay back on the same level (and when you see rape and murder of children, many feel the same) - I am human after all. I do wonder, though, if this makes me more a like to the monsters I want to kill - trying to impose the same cruelty that they did. This is maybe the question - we see how "normal" people turn to murderers, rapists and burglars during war time. Do we treat those scum as monsters and deny them being human because we don't want to be bothered with the inner monster in us all that might turn some of us in the wrong moments to monsters themself?

I am not saying that prisoners should not being made to work to some degree - I just ant to point out, you should not torture them, not humiliate them to the bone - if you do that instead of capital punishment, that would fail the point for me completely. It is nor right when prisoners are raped by other inmates, for example. That should not happen. They should serve their punishment, yes. Again - I just want to point out that you should not turn from capital punishment to Guantanamo Bay torture and applaud yourself for being humane.

"And they should NOT be allowed to profit"

Profit? Oh well ... I was never saying that. And I did not mean it at all. Being productive with doing literature, doing craftswork, doing sensible things behind prison bars can be a fulfillment on its own. I agree that - if parole is out of question - they should not receive money. If there is a possibility, or if it is not a life sentence, it even makes tremendous sense for them to save money for the life after prison. And I was not thinking about people turning their crimes into books - the media is doing that far better than them. The serial killers gave us great role models for Psycho, Silence of the Lambs, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre etc pp.

"Prisoners incarcerrated for violent crimes (murder, rape, etc.) violated someone else's rights and therefore have no rights of their own."

No, they have some rights left, not all, but some. This because they are still humans. They should be punished, but denying them the most basic human rights would defeat the purpose of a civil society for me all together. YMMV

We can't say that prisoners don't deserve happiness and therefore try to limit it. Happiness is totally abstract and is very relative, and although nobody wants to go to prison, after years in prison, do you think every prisoner finds their everyday life depressing compared to their life before prison? People can find happiness in anything.

The purpose of imprisonment must instead be just to keep these people from committing the same crimes again. However, we can't just spend a ton of money on the prison system to make rehab and such more and more effective. So, there must be some balance there as well.

The fair imprisonment of wrongdoers is a benefit to society. Some people think - why should I have to pay higher taxes for the crimes of others? It is for this benefit. This is what the goal of any type of community is - the individual benefits the whole, and the whole benefits the individual.

@SEcki - I agree they shouldn't be tortured or raped or whatever. I was just saying that our current system where they cry foul because their TV priviledges were taken away i s bullshit. The best punishment in the world is to have to sit and think about what you did that got you there. No entertainment, no priviledges afforded to the free, law abiding citizens. You overlooked this part of my statement:

"Food, shelter, a crapper, and medical care is all they should get."

I stand by that statement. I'm not admonishing additional punishment besides doing their time, just saying that we coddle them to fucking much nowadays. They riot because they get the same meal day after day. Tough shit. Obey society's laws and you can go to McD's or BK or Taco Bell. Don't and lunch is always peanut butter and jelly and dinner is always meatloaf and mashed potatos.

Reading is a form of escapism, just as much as TV or the Radio or a movie. They lost those priviledges when they committed their attrocities.

So no, I don't advocate capital punishment or torture or any of the other shit that can happen in a prison when the guards or other inmates chose to abuse, but I believe that if we took away all those priviledges and only allowed the prisoners to leave their cells for work details and meals (none of this exercising in the yard bullshit) and then under the strictist of disciplinary measures (small groups of say 10 inmates at a time, shackled and escorted by guards with sharpshooter lookouts at all times), you wouldn't HAVE a prison gang society. Restrict their movement and their communication. They are being punished for an extreme crime, so they only get that most basic right of life and the necessities that come with it. Fuck liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

@ Draugnar: " I don't advocate capital punishment or torture or any of the other shit that can happen in a prison when the guards or other inmates chose to abuse, but I believe that if we took away all those priviledges and only allowed the prisoners to leave their cells for work details and meals (none of this exercising in the yard bullshit) and then under the strictist of disciplinary measures..."


That is torture.

People talk about being a "member" of society... I think the choice of words is instructive. All social animals have rules by which the members of the troop or hive or tribe or whatever are expected to follow... and when they violate those rules they should fully expect to be punished including up to being expelled or even killed if the violation is serious enough. I support what is best for the group that does not punish innocent people. I don't think that having homo sapien genetics qualifies you to being a permanent member of our society any more than a chimp sharing 98% of our genetics somehow makes that chimp a 98% member of our society. Obviously we all should start with the benefit of the doubt - and should have all benefits of being a member of society... But, if you actively work against the rest of us by being a psychopathic killer then you are akin to a traitor. A traitor has no rights as a citizen (once convicted)... they have given their rights as a citizen up by their betrayal... and are up for execution at that point. Someone who has betrayed their humanity deserves no more than a traitor against our country does - and I would argue that they deserve less... perhaps nothing. This does not mean necessarily that I'm favoring the death penalty per se... indeed I don't have a strong opinion for or against that. I don't see it as an important question for such scum as repeat killers and rapists... we should do what is best for society (and they already opted out of society). Might as well be talking about the rights of rabid animals at that point. We should do what protects us and costs the least. Currently life imprisonment costs less in the US than execution.

@Jamie -

Torture
1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.

–verb (used with object) 6. to subject to torture.
7. to afflict with severe pain of body or mind: My back is torturing me.
8. to force or extort by torture: We'll torture the truth from his lips!
9. to twist, force, or bring into some unnatural position or form: trees tortured by storms.
10. to distort or pervert (language, meaning, etc.).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Not a single one of these definitions even implies that imprisonment without liberty of any sort is torture. Every one implies action even in the case of mental torture, when it comes to individual on individual (or state on individual). So no, it isn't torture. You're opinion may be that it is, but thankfully your opinion doesn't mean squat. Legally it is *not* torture as it is not an active means of harming ones mind or body. Now, if they were being waterboarded or loud music were being blasted into their cells, that would be mental torture and I do *not* advocate those types of actions. But we make our children sit in a corner for ectended periods with no TV/phone/radio/whatever and think about their actions, so why not make an inmate sit in his cell the same way and think about his actions?

Oh, and I would argue it may be neglect, but neglect is not torture otherwise the legal term "negloect and torture" would be tantamount to saying "torture and torture". Finally, their physical needs are met, therefore I doubt it is legally neglect either.

Entertainment could be and is used as a means of control. That is if a prisoner is cooperative stays out of trouble he gets access to yard time. A prisoner with a long period of cooperation he gets to work in the kitchen. If you don't have some incentive why not cause some trouble? It makes for good entertainment to shank someone. Prisons do isolate prisoners who cause problems sometimes for the duration. This done as much as for safety reasons.

It is impossible to fairly restrict the happiness of prisoners. Happiness is relative and can be found in anything. I disagree with actively denying activities to prisoners. I'm not supporting actively offering privileges such as television. Denying interests and activities, communication and movement, to any human will not improve their behavior. This is inhumane and will instead significantly harm both mental and physical health. Mentally and physically unhealthy people are just as, if not more, detrimental to society as criminals.

Woah! That argument developed quite quickly. warsprite, I agree with you. If there's no reward/punishment system, even if it's uncoordinated and unofficial, helps keep prisons safe (to some degree) and prisoners (as) happy (as one could be in a prison)

I'm curious how many people mouthing off about incarceration have ever been arrested or been on the wrong side of the law.

@DIGID How would you control behavior. Would you let someone who just shanked a guard the same activities as prisoner who stayed out of trouble. A person can only serve one life term at a time.