are you in for or against the death penalty

There are many horrible ways to die. And personally, I'm generally very big on vendetta. But my disposition is, don't worry about what type of punishment some corrupt justice system is going to dish out to you. Worry about me having my way with you.

Having the system impersonally do what I should have done is completely unsatisfying. In fact, it's offensive. It's an admission of failure, actually. You created a monster, society. Now, after you fucked up and failed me and the animal in question, you want to bury your mistakes? No.

If the system has you behind bars, and you can't hurt anyone else, I'll consider that a consolation prize. I'll live with it. The best case scenario would be that there never was a "you". That's rational. I'll let it go at that point, even though I would have handled it differently.

Btw I'm all for the right to choose. I say, abort every fetus that's unwanted by the host organism. We don't need anymore unloved and unwanted monsters roaming streets. It's bad enough that the parents did anything as trivial as fuck in the first place. But then, for me to have to shit it up is adding insult to injury. But then these "right to life" simpletons want to cry , "Ooooh, life is too precious!" Bullshit. If life was so fucking precious, why the hell are so many people shitting all over one another? Please. *smfh

If the system wants people to have faith in "justice", it needs to do better. The system, killing anyone who's not an immanent threat to someone else after-the-fact, is absurd. They're a day late and a dollar short, and they aren't giving me any satisfaction. I'd rather feed the asshole to the alligators. At least they'd make practical use of the bastard in question, as long as he or she was fit for alligator consumption.

But, hey. That's me. And that's revenge. That's how I feel. It may not be pretty, but neither is putting someone in a chair and frying them. You cross me, and you're potentially in a dance with the devil. But at least I'm not sugar-coating my sadism with self-righteous bullshit.

I don't see any difference between killing as an act of revenge, and the murder which provokes it. Both are wrong.

Murder occupies a different position in the law and human behaviour from other crimes, such as theft, because you cannot replace a life; and because most people value life more than they value their jewellery or their car. The death penalty as a deterrent to others clearly does not work; the justice system is imperfect because murderers can be released on technicalities or even avoid a trial for lack of evidence. Leaving aside manslaughter and crimes of passion, the men (and it is mostly men) who kill in gruesme and sadistic fashion and make grandiose claims for their inspiration, are often the ones who want to be remembered for their crimes, once they have been caught. The greatest punishment for these people is to be ignored; Charles Manson lost his liberty, but his notoriety has fed him for five decades, I think there should have been a ban on any news about him, photos, interviews and so on -the living death of his image would have been enough, why would anyone want to remember him? In the UK, also in the 1960s, a man called Ian Brady kidnapped several children and photographed them before raping them and murdering them, and burying their bodies on the Moors, one of the boys has never been found. We regularly hear the story of his crimes, mainly thanks to the Murdoch press which keeps this man in the public consciousness -and that is exactly what Brady wants, to protect his status as 'the most evil man in Britain'. Justice is about punishment, not revenge; what hurts the murderer most may sometimes be the most just punishment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I don't see any difference between killing as an act of revenge, and the murder which provokes it. Both are wrong.

Murder occupies a different position in the law and human behaviour from other crimes, such as theft, because you cannot replace a life; and because most people value life more than they value their jewellery or their car. The death penalty as a deterrent to others clearly does not work; the justice system is imperfect because murderers can be released on technicalities or even avoid a trial for lack of evidence. Leaving aside manslaughter and crimes of passion, the men (and it is mostly men) who kill in gruesme and sadistic fashion and make grandiose claims for their inspiration, are often the ones who want to be remembered for their crimes, once they have been caught. The greatest punishment for these people is to be ignored; Charles Manson lost his liberty, but his notoriety has fed him for five decades, I think there should have been a ban on any news about him, photos, interviews and so on -the living death of his image would have been enough, why would anyone want to remember him? In the UK, also in the 1960s, a man called Ian Brady kidnapped several children and photographed them before raping them and murdering them, and burying their bodies on the Moors, one of the boys has never been found. We regularly hear the story of his crimes, mainly thanks to the Murdoch press which keeps this man in the public consciousness -and that is exactly what Brady wants, to protect his status as 'the most evil man in Britain'. Justice is about punishment, not revenge; what hurts the murderer most may sometimes be the most just punishment.

---

If you kill someone's loved one, or violate someone, that's a risk. I don't guarantee myself to be level-headed. No one can, under a worst case scenario.

Therefore, I expect the system to be. That's their job. But the system has NO BUSINESS killing anyone.

Quote:

---

...most people value life more than they value their jewellery or their car.

---

This simply isn't true. Run a poll here at HA. I think you'll find most people are willing defend their material possessions with lethal force. I'm not one of them, and you may not be one of them, but by and large people are willing to kill to keep what material goods they own. They value their own lives above jewellery or cars, but not the life of the would be thief. Conversely, many thieves carry weapons and are willing to kill rather than get caught. The fact is, humans talk a good game but their actions reveal the true value they place upon human life.

At the risk of being redundant (I've think I said as much before in this thread) justice derives from the word "just" which is to make even. Justice is simply State usurpation of revenge. It is an attempt to satisfy the survivor's (of the murder victim) need to "get even" and simultaneously shoulder the responsibility for that revenge so that the survivor avoids becoming the next target in a potentially infinite chain of tit for tat murders.

I sympathize with Nicole's POV and sometimes think that the loved ones of the murder victim should be the ones who pull the lever and execute the murderer. But that would circumvent the whole function behind having the State do it.

I have nothing against capital punishment for murder, except the unfortunate fact that jurors cannot be trusted to follow a logical argument without being derailed by flim-flam and bigotry. The finality of death is more certain than any judge or jury can be about the guilt or innocence of the accused. For that reason alone, I usually align myself against the death penalty. Were I certain of the accused's guilt, and my certitude was intellectually honest and mathematically airtight, I might pull that lever myself.

Too many people get railroaded, and too many people just want a hanging.

By the same token, too many people walk because people judges and juries are potential chumps.

My problem with the death penalty actually begins there. I don't have mercy necessarily. I just don't believe the state should play god. Look at all the white collar crimes that go on while we pour tax money into the war on drugs. The system needs to do some major housekeeping, to say the very least.

Truthfully, many people on death row WANT to die. Aileen Wuornos did. John Hughes feels the same way right now. But for my money, that's too easy. And I can't think of anything much worse than waking up in a cage for the rest of your life, knowing society has collectively disowned you. All forms of execution are too quick. And there's no torture like mental torture. I would suggest physical torture, but who the hell's going to do that? What sane, well-adjusted person? The answer is "none". Only another violent criminal is up to that task. Child molesters don't fare well behind bars. Too many criminals love their kids. Cops don't do well behind bars. Too many criminals simply won't allow them to.

People in jail and/or prison want OUT; either through the door, or through death.

But again, do you know how many people are on death row who are innocent? I don't, but I'm sure there are some. How many women who were raped thought "all the black guys in the line up looked the same"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicole Dupre

Truthfully, many people on death row WANT to die. Aileen Wuornos did. John Hughes feels the same way right now. But for my money, that's too easy. And I can't think of anything much worse than waking up in a cage for the rest of your life, knowing society has collectively disowned you. All forms of execution are too quick. And there's no torture like mental torture. I would suggest physical torture, but who the hell's going to do that? What sane, well-adjusted person? The answer is "none". Only another violent criminal is up to that task. Child molesters don't fare well behind bars. Too many criminals love their kids. Cops don't do well behind bars. Too many criminals simply won't allow them to.

People in jail and/or prison want OUT; either through the door, or through death.

But again, do you know how many people are on death row who are innocent? I don't, but I'm sure there are some. How many women who were raped thought "all the black guys in the line up looked the same"?

---

Your last paragraph sums it up for me, Nicole. If just one innocent person is put to death in error by the state, the entire argument in favour of the death penalty falls way. And the files are full of cases exactly like that.

I'm opposed to the death penalty on any grounds, as it happens, but that's the logical and moral clincher for me, if I'm forced to reach for an argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicole Dupre

Truthfully, many people on death row WANT to die. Aileen Wuornos did. John Hughes feels the same way right now. But for my money, that's too easy. And I can't think of anything much worse than waking up in a cage for the rest of your life, knowing society has collectively disowned you. All forms of execution are too quick. And there's no torture like mental torture. I would suggest physical torture, but who the hell's going to do that? What sane, well-adjusted person? The answer is "none". Only another violent criminal is up to that task. Child molesters don't fare well behind bars. Too many criminals love their kids. Cops don't do well behind bars. Too many criminals simply won't allow them to.

People in jail and/or prison want OUT; either through the door, or through death.

But again, do you know how many people are on death row who are innocent? I don't, but I'm sure there are some. How many women who were raped thought "all the black guys in the line up looked the same"?

---

Forced Labour, 16 hours a day beats death row in my book... Make them do some good for humanity, clean up those reactors in japan, mine uranium,...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OmarZ

Forced Labour, 16 hours a day beats death row in my book... Make them do some good for humanity, clean up those reactors in japan, mine uranium,...

---

That works for me.

In Australia if a dog bites or harms someone it is put down .The same go's for people,in fact a dog is the better creature because if a dog bites it's only going by it's instinct.A human knows exactly why they do these evil crimes

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russtafa

In Australia if a dog bites or harms someone it is put down .The same go's for people,in fact a dog is the better creature because if a dog bites it's only going by it's instinct.A human knows exactly why they do these evil crimes

---

As ive said, its better to make them do something useful while they are living, and let God or whatever, take care of afterwards.

By killing them, you just let them be tottally useless.

how can they be useful?

State sanctioning the death penalty makes the state, electorate, and anyone else who agrees an accessory to murder.

Or an accessory to justice. Never use an argument that takes it's conclusion as a premise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Or an accessory to justice. Never use an argument that takes it's conclusion as a premise.

---

In terms of the application of pure logic, you're right of course, Trish.

But I find the idea of state-sanctioned murder abhorrent in any circumstances. And given that so much of US values are supposedly Christian, I find it utter hypocrisy that so many in your country also seem happy with the death penalty. The old saw of an eye for an eye comes from the Old Testament, not the new. Part of the bible, yes, but not part of the Christian creed.

murder go's on all the time in prison usually sponsored by gangs or organised crime what does the justice system think of that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russtafa

murder go's on all the time in prison usually sponsored by gangs or organised crime what does the justice system think of that?

---

In a lot of countries it cynically shrugs its shoulders and lets things carry on as before, and as often as not it's recognised that it couldn't happen without the tacit or backhanded involvement of the prison authorities.

and the justice system is perverted in and out of prison and even the judges are frightened

Slice & dice. Salvage the parts.

what parts? i always liked the French system"guilty until proven innocent" makes it harder to weasel out of it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russtafa

what parts? i always liked the French system"guilty until proven innocent" makes it harder to weasel out of it

---

Heart, skin, corneas, all the organs, etc.. Poisons or high doses of electric current make just about all of it unusable. You know somebody, who's probably perfectly healthy, is going to die at a specific time. There's people on waiting lists for every piece of that cadaver. Why waste it?

I suppose it serves some of society... The Death Penalty.
My personal take is it cheapens the institution, the judicial ideal... and a contemporary, cozy euthanasia is a easy road for the culture, and the defendant.
I'd prefer life for the accused, live it out, think it through... and in the instance of error, survival.
But, my idealism is certainly trumped by all the complexities of the actual dispensation of sentences and practices of police and law.
The practice of law, the criminal justice system is like a very undesirable communicable disease .... avoided at all costs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NaughtyJane

The practice of law, the criminal justice system is like a very undesirable communicable disease .... avoided at all costs.

---

Agreed..............the very fact that we are enslaved by enshrined laws diminishes our inherent freedom.

Yeah, fuck laws. People are freer when their whole community can be dominated by the whims of one rich fucker and his hired thugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Yeah, fuck laws. People are freer when their whole community can be dominated by the whims of one rich fucker and his hired thugs.

---

So Godmother, could yoou grant me a favor?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Yeah, fuck laws. People are freer when their whole community can be dominated by the whims of one rich fucker and his hired thugs.

---

Perhaps that may happen. But people will be free to choose whether they want to be dominated or whether they don't. The problem is that we want the safety and security that laws bring but to force people to accept those laws we then install the security and government apparatus which becomes the new tool for those who seek to dominate others. So, in effect 'we the people' have created our own prisons and the rich fuckers just uses his servants to run the prison.

But at least we can be force fed all the garbage sold to us in safety and security!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

So Godmother, could yoou grant me a favor?

---

Come on Hippi, its not the day of her daughters wedding..

Quote:

---

Perhaps that may happen. But people will be free to choose whether they want to be dominated or whether they don't.

---

How do you figure that? In the world of sexual fantasy one consents to domination. But in the real world, domination usually means "against one's will."

Quote:

---

The problem is that we want the safety and security that laws bring but to force people to accept those laws...

---

In a representative government we agree to those laws, they aren't forced upon us. They are the result of a long process public discussion, and of give and take among our elected legislators. Of course there are always some people who have to be forced to do even the most reasonable things, like if you live in a community and use the local well and the local roads, contribute a share proportional to your use. There are always people who have to be forced to do things like not kill others, not steal, not con others out of their life savings, etc.

Quote:

---

...we then install the security and government apparatus which becomes the new tool for those who seek to dominate others.

---

This is always a danger. Governments which were fairly representative can be usurped by powerful people. This is why we try to build in checks and balances. It's why we shouldn't allow huge gaps in wealth and power to exist within society, at least not without a continuum between. This is why the Supreme Court made a mistake declaring corporations were persons when it comes to their ability to give to political campaigns. But living with these risks, these correctable mistakes and others is preferable to living without laws entirely and serving in a more immediate fashion the whims of the wealthy and powerful.

Quote:

---

So, in effect 'we the people' have created our own prisons and the rich fuckers just uses his servants to run the prison.

---

Obviously you haven't lived in a real prison or served a real tyrant. Neither have I, but I've read and have an imagination. We built a reasonably secure society. Every system, even the system of having no system, can be taken over by the charismatic, the wealthy and the powerful. Each system runs its own risks. The system of having no laws, runs the worst risks.

No....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

How do you figure that? In the world of sexual fantasy one consents to domination. But in the real world, domination usually means "against one's will."

---

There are those 'in the real world' who are quite content to be administered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

In a representative government we agree to those laws, they aren't forced upon us. They are the result of a long process public discussion, and of give and take among our elected legislators. Of course there are always some people who have to be forced to do even the most reasonable things, like if you live in a community and use the local well and the local roads, contribute a share proportional to your use. There are always people who have to be forced to do things like not kill others, not steal, not con others out of their life savings, etc.

---

Representative government didn't spring fully formed - like Diana from Zeus - out of the mind of humanity. Its roots were likely noble but even then it wasn't a process which involved the majority of the people in any one city/culture/country. If you buy into the theory that democracy came from Greece then you should know that it was only a small part of the male population of the greek city-states that had the right to vote for their representatives. Over time, sure the process became more inclusive but it also became more malleable and less transparent. I do not believe that truly representative government is possible without a fully armed and educated population which ensures that government never becomes bigger than the people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

This is always a danger. Governments which were fairly representative can be usurped by powerful people. This is why we try to build in checks and balances. It's why we shouldn't allow huge gaps in wealth and power to exist within society, at least not without a continuum between. This is why the Supreme Court made a mistake declaring corporations were persons when it comes to their ability to give to political campaigns. But living with these risks, these correctable mistakes and others is preferable to living without laws entirely and serving in a more immediate fashion the whims of the wealthy and powerful.

---

You have a good point - we in North America are indeed much better off than others since we are not blatantly enslaved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Obviously you haven't lived in a real prison or served a real tyrant. Neither have I, but I've read and have an imagination. We built a reasonably secure society. Every system, even the system of having no system, can be taken over by the charismatic, the wealthy and the powerful. Each system runs its own risks. The system of having no laws, runs the worst risks.

---

I have spent a short time imprisoned and have lived under a pseudo-dictatorship. Definitely living on the outside of prison and in Canada is preferable. It is all about degrees anyways....we choose to accept that which is the least risk in order to preserve life. But somehow the primal spark of Abel remains in me. (and no I'm not a follower of the bible or any religion)