Fucking politics.
 

RIP Stanley Tookie Williams.

I don't like the death penalty in any form, for the punishment of any crime.

RIP

I don't either.

The death penalty is used either as vengeance (which is always morally wrong) or out of laziness (can't be bothered to find a better way to stop crime or rehabilitate criminals, so.....uhh...let's just kill 'em....yeah, that's it.)

(But don't read that as a point of support for Tookie. The guy was found guilty of four counts of murder, regardless of how long ago. Those verdicts were never overturned by subsequent evidence, so therefore he should have spent the rest of his life in prison with no possibility of parole.)

I don't understand what the buzz is all about.
Murderer get's killed.
He took 4 lifes, we/them took one.

any ideas? no seriously, i am not mocking. just curious how?

For a country supposedly based on Christian values, I'm suprised so many people want vengeance, no one offering to turn the other cheek.

And that makes it right somehow?

I find it pathetic that people are rejoycing his death. The man may or maynot have actually killed those people but either way, he was worth a lot more to society alive than dead...he was a 3x nobel peace price nominee, he was obviously doing something right by writing childrens books and speaking out against gangs.

So THAT makes the 4 lives he took right?

He wrote a few books that tell children not to enter gangs. What a big fucking difference he made. The kids are still entering the gangs, the gangs are still killing each other and innocent people. No, this man has done nothing but kill people and destroy innocent lives. I hope he rots in hell where he belongs.

i couldnt give a shit. when he was killing people he knew that there was such a thing as a death penalty. didnt stop him from doing it though.

So, let's say someone comes and brutally muders your sister or mother...

I can see you saying "Here I'll bend over so you can fuck my ass before you kill me too."

Take your asshat off for a while, k?

"Be bothered" seems to follow fairly obviously from the post, I don't see why it's such a bad thing.

I don't care who he is or what he did, nobody deserves the death penalty. The fact that he redeemed himself has little to do with the fact that he shouldn't have been given that barbaric sentence in the first place.

It's still either revenge or indolence. The death penalty doesn't teach the criminal anything, it doesn't rehabilitate him, it doesn't protect society any more than life imprisonment and it doesn't bring back the people he killed.

That's a very good question. And it's one I've asked other people and myself many times. With today's technologies I can't think of any better solution than segregation and storage (i.e., prison) right now. What I would consider to be the better (and more evolved) approaches are very technology-dependent, and such technologies don't seem to completely exist yet. They would also be embroiled in ethical discussion, which will be more of a roadblock than technology invention/improvement.

The ideal solution would be prevention, via either genetic crafting or genetic analysis and intervention, perhaps other ways? We've already mapped the genome. Now we need to map all the peripheral aspects (protein interactions, neurology, etc.) I think it'll be possible, just a matter of time. The hardest part is probably behind us. Doctors have already said that genetic crafting in human reproduction could be possible. In 100 years, the standard human embryo "package" would include a standard genetic analysis of propensity toward social indifference or criminal activity, and mitigation of that propensity.

The next best solution would be rehabilitation (more difficult and would probably take longer than prevention, and may never be possible). Changing the mind of a criminal to a point that we can be as sure as possible/feasible that they would never perform any violent crime (or any crime at all?) in the future. Somewhere between chemical personality neutering and surgery to the prefrontal cortex. And I don't mean psychology or even psychiatry; I mean something more invasive and more results-oriented. Something that can be tested on current prisoners, after which we can be quite sure about what works and what doesn't.

None of this "we'll prescribe these meds and put him in group therapy, then let him out". That would be bullshit. I'm talking about something close to lobotomization, if required. Perhaps a chemical which destroys the ability for neural activity that would initiate (at least the most violent types of) criminal activity. I want the fuckers to be mentally ball-chopped, tested 50 ways to insure docility, then taken off the taxpayer's dime. Better for them, better for us. No vengeance, no laziness, just results. But again, this approach may never come to fruition.

^So while were at it why not build a super race?:confused:

Murdering the body and murdering the mind seem pretty damned close to me there.

we don't have death penalty, we don't have life imprisonment, we believe in rehabilitation, and we don't have any more crime, quite possibly less, than the US States preaching an eye for an eye.

Europe, to take something comparable in population terms, have much less serious crime than the states (abolition of death penalty is an entry requirement for the EU). If you want proof, look up my quite detailed statistics in the gun control thread.

And as far as i remember from the last discussion about this, US' States without the death penalty have the same or less serious crimes than those states who practice it...

So it doesn't work...

Hence, the only motivation would be vengance?
- that's not very christian is it?

especially for a country that has made it it's official policy to attack any country that doesn't live up to a a number indicators which is based on a subjective intepretation of moral values.

And Yes if some serial killer killed my mom, dad, step mom, step dad, my brother, and my four step brothers. I would most definantly want them dead. But since when should a countrys law be based around my personal need for vengance, rather than what's best for the society, and it's morality, as a whole?

So what do you do to chronic repeat offenders?

erm? we put them in jail for the number of years the judge decides they deserve for their crime. Then we set them free, if they commit the crime again, they obviously haven't served enough time, so we put them in jail again for the number of years the judge thinks they deserve for the crime they have commited. which repeats until they either get smarter or die of natural courses. Most petty thieves and the like gets smarter after 2 or 3 times on the inside.

Mind you prisons are very different here, the aim is that a prison should be 50/50 Rehabilitation and Punishment. So we try to give them high school diplomas, job training, drug rehab etc. while they're serving time - to brake the cycle.

As far as i recall though, no murderer have ever murdered again after serving his time, at least not in the last 50 years.

Keep locking them up. Better than killing them :)

It was also shown in that thread that statistics can be twisted to derive any meaning you want.

Nope.

:weird: Huh? :blah:

Go back and re-read what I said. I didn't say that a country's law should be based on anyone's personal need for vengance, did I?

I was offering a little tongue-in-cheek commentary on mysterious_w's comment about turning the other cheek (pun intended).


My feelings are this... I don't feel the death penalty is morally right.
I don't believe in rehabilitation though. I feel that it is morally wrong to supply murderers with TV, radio, reading material, companionship, a window to look out of, or any other 'luxuries' that they have denied the person they murdered. I feel they should be given enough food and water to survive, a blanket and rough clothes to keep the chill off, and light and dark cycles and enough exercise to maintain their bodies. NOTHING else.

well, can't say I agree, but i have a feeling that further arguments about that is rather pointless. However, the fact remains though, that there is less violent crime in Europe, and that's undisputable. The reasons are most likely numerous, but the doomsday scenario many supporters of death penalty talks about - certainly doesn't add up.

was talking (subjectively) about the Bush doctrine, That any country who the US deems not to live up to it's definition of a peacefull country, is a viable target for attack. Which the current administration has been quick to base on morality and Christian faith, after the original arguments, erm, failed to convince.

Well, i don't see a quote you anywhere, so why are you taking offence?

he, well a rare occation where we actually agree on something, anything, most interresting :)

well so much for the agreement :D

Ah, there's the delicate line we have to consider. Genetic tinkering without crossing over into eugenics.

None of my recommendations would be easy to design or implement. Then again, nothing worth doing ever is.

:)

Further arguments are pointless only if the facts are presented correctly. According to this organization, your statistics are all wet.
The first three sentences in my quote tell the tale though.



No offense taken. You were, quite obviously referring to taking vengance for the killing of a relative, which I spoke of. So why shouldn't I clarify my meaning?

Sounds like a good system then.

I read on CNN that it took an extra 31 minutes to kill him

they couldnt find a vein for the IV

how gut wrenching is that??? lying on that table for an extra 31 minutes... jesus!

I once donated plasma, it took them 30 minutes to find the vein in my arm.

It was gut wrenching.

If lying on a table for an extra 31 minutes is so horrible then by that logic he should have been executed immediately after his trial. :P

For the record, I thought that Scotland had higher violent crime rates than the countries listed, but the statistics could be out of date or reporting on a different set of crimes ("serious" rather than "violent").

^I guess it depends on who bent the statistics to fit their needs.

True, I suppose.

You forgot - all of these things he supposedly did for 'good' he was paid for. I'm not for the death penalty though - that's the easy way out. Let them rot in jail till the day they die - 40+ years behind bars never tasting freedom is a way better punishment than putting them out of their misery quickly.

Oh america, you so civilised!

From another thread

The solution would be a place called Absolom

These messages were both taken from dead step-Uncle Mal and my step-father; criminals generally repeat the crimes because they have failed at their own life, so they need somewhere to live and eat, because prison is somewhere to stay, sleep, eat, etc., an offender will never stop offending his given 'topic' of choice to study, whether it be robbing a bank to a department store, a criminal will always get the money; enjoy it, and go back to there life in prison, in Australia here, when you to prison you can learn all sorts of trades, qualifications, aprrenticeships, traineeships, basically anything thats learning, INSTEAD of going back to the general routine of doing an act of criminalism, the person is then released back into society with the knowledge and know-how of how to be a "someone" instead of "nobody", getting a job, wife and/or family should be very diffrent for an ex-criminal, so in conclusion; I think education is the way out of a mess.