[HoosierDaddy]

Are you talking about judges?

[Grimjust Bearegular]

Morgoth, on Feb 27 2009, 04:44 PM, said:

Grimhilde, on Feb 27 2009, 02:39 PM, said:

Traveller, on Feb 27 2009, 01:20 PM, said:

Grimhilde, on Feb 27 2009, 09:56 AM, said:

Besides, a life sentence does not guarantee that the criminal stops being a criminal. Capital punishment does.
A man who’s committed heinous murders is given life sentence instead of capital punishment. Inside the prison he deals drugs, beat up other inmates and finally kills someome..again. The inmate he kills was due for release in just a week. Wouldn’t capital punishment be better in this case?

A life sentence might not guarantee that a criminal stops being a criminal, but it also does not guarantee the scenario you've outlined either. There is a lot of historical evidence to show that people kept in confinement for years, even decades, change very differently from the way they were when they went in, or committed the crime they were sentenced for.

Just labelling someone as a 'criminal' and no longer treating them as a person is all very well, but what if that person lives for years in confinement, learns a new respect for freedom and life, and spends years attempting to better themselves or trying to atone for what they did? 15 odd years later they get wheeled out in front of an AUDIENCE and excecuted in front of them, and everyone watching presumably feels that some sort of justice has been done.

Well, justice doesn't care if you've changed. Justice is blind.

Executing someone is not justice. Executing someone is revenge. These are two very different concepts and I'm surprised you're not seeing the difference

Damn right it is about revenge, but it also about justice, for the victims of said criminals. The victims, which you seem to forget.

Morgoth, on Feb 27 2009, 04:58 PM, said:

Grimhilde, on Feb 27 2009, 10:56 AM, said:

It's a moot point IMO. Prisoners on Death Row often spend more than ten years there. If you're not exonerated by then, you ain't innocent.

Besides, a life sentence does not guarantee that the criminal stops being a criminal. Capital punishment does.
A man who’s committed heinous murders is given life sentence instead of capital punishment. Inside the prison he deals drugs, beat up other inmates and finally kills someome..again. The inmate he kills was due for release in just a week. Wouldn’t capital punishment be better in this case?

Of course it's not a moot point. You can never have a perfect system. No matter how many failsafes you insert at some point the system will fail and someone will be executed wrongly. This is pretty self evident. The question is whether you are willing to accept the chance of an innocent being executed. In order to accept that you must surely have some compelling arguments for as to how capital punishment is in any way beneficial to society. Why should we accept such a risk? Why do we want capital punishment?

1) It's more costly to go for capital punishment than it is to imprison someone for life. Reducing the cost means increasing the chance of making mistakes when handing out the sentence.
2) Capital punishment has never been proven to deter crime. Technically, countries that have capital punishment tend to have a much higher crime rate, though that's not much of an argument considering the countries, but there you go.

It's also important to mention that what decides whether you get the capital punishment in say the us is generally not whether you killed someone or not. The court wants to be fairly certain of guilt if they are to go for execution as an option. What decides it is intent. Why did the person kill. Was it an accident? A crime of passion? Was it planned months ahead and all a great ploy to gain the vicitim's fortune? How then do you measure something like intent objectively? You cant.

In my honest opinion, capital punishment is for those who put the need to feel better about themselves before the needs of society and the people in it.

I'll tell you why I want capital punishment in just a few seconds. But first I want to tell you what things are like in a country that doesn't have capital punishment.

Let's pick a country, any old country...like Norway. Norway does not have capital punishment. Capital punishment does not deter crime, so a in a country where there is no capital punishment crime should be deterred, right? Wrong. Crime rates are rather high in Norway, and Oslo, the capitol of Norway, is now considered to be more dangerous than New York, and that says a lot.

But there's another thing Norway doesn't have. A life sentence. A life sentence in Norway is 21 years. That is not a life, it's a quarter of a life. So if you commit a crime when you're 20, you'll get out by the time your 41, if you get a "life sentence" at all, that is.

So, no capitol punishment, but a "quarter-of-a life sentence" and, let's not forget, custody, which basically means that the state can extend the sentence as they see fit. But it's really not used that often, unless it's a high-profiled case like the Baneheia-murders or the Orderud-case. But that's almost 10 years ago now.

But nevermind, I'm rambling.

So what is it like in a country that doesn't have capitol punishment?

Over 20 women are raped every day in Norway(population: 4.5 million), only two of them report the crimes. If the perpertartor is caught, he is rarely convicted (thanks to the antiquated and misogynsitic attitudes of the jury and judges. Some of the things they say and their reasons for acquittal are horrendous, but that's a whole other discussion), and if he is convicted he rarely gets more than a year. 6 months seem to be the going rate(although the sentencing framework is 21 years). I remember a case a few years back where this guy raped 6 women, and got 4 years in prison. That's less than a year per rape!

Premeditated murder: On average 6- 15 years in prison. Unless it's a high-profiled case, like I've mentioned above. There was case last year where two brothers kicked a man to death, they got 4 years. 8 years ago there was case where 3 members of the Boot Boys (neo-nazis) stabbed an African-Norwegian boy to death. They got 18, 17 and 3 years. If they behave nicely they'll probably get out soon.

General violence and robbery: 0-5 years. 4 years ago three young men kicked and beat another man into a coma, and then stole his wallet. The victim suffered severe brain damage and must spend the rest of his life in a wheel chair. The perpetrators got 4 years and 9 months and 4 years and 6 months in prison.

Crime for profit: In Norway you get a longer prison sentence for forging a 100 kroner bill than you get for molesting a child. Yes, the Norwegian government is taking a hard line aginst white-collar crimes. And that's what's important isn't it? Money.

But surely it must be pretty awful in prison in Norway, right? Wrong. Prisons in Norway are so great that people from countries in Eastern Europe come here to commit crimes so they can go to jail! Three free meals a day, your own room with a real bed, maybe a desk and a cd-player, maybe even a TV, a gym, lots of space outside to frolick in, and the opportunity to get an education, for free, that regular, law-abiding citizens take up expensive loans for. What's not to like?

See, Norwegians believe in rehabilitation, which is all well and good. There's nothing better than helping people who have lost their way become useful members of society again. It's great! But there are some poeple that just can't be rehabilitated, people who will just keep on doing what they do, no matter how long or how many times they are in prison. These people are a danger to themselves, to society, to other inmates and to the people working in the prisons. These people will never stop, unless the state stops them. It's that simple.

And here's why I want/am for capital punishment:

If/when something horrible happens to me or my loved ones I don't want a government that says :" I'm sorry this person destroyed your life, but we have to look at it from his POV. He probably had a hard time growing up, so he can't really help it. You can understand that, can't you? We'll give him a slap on the wrist, call it rehabilitation and then send him back out into society. We're pretty sure he won't do it again. Oh, he's done it before? Well, it was probably your fault. What did you wear?"

I want a government that says: " This person destroyed your life? And he's done this before? Don't you worry, he'll never do it again, we'll make sure of that. We'll give you closure and let justice be done though the heavens fall. Because we care about you; the victim."

So it isn't about the money, or what effect it has on crime rates. It's about the victims, it's about what I think is fair. And sometimes, yes sometimes, I believe in an eye for an eye. You might find that offensive and that's fine.

And maybe I would feel differently if people here actually got sentenced to a life in prison, or even got punished in a way that reflects the crime. 6 months for destroying someone's life (cus that's what rape does to people)? It's ridiculous!

But after having seen an episode of World's Most Dangerous Prisons (or something like that) on Discovery last night I'm even more convinced that capitol punishment is the way to go in some cases.

Obdigore: Thank you, that's exactly what I meant:)

[beru]

she is right ^ here is the extra from sico (see last part for relevance) http://www.youtube.c...h?v=k4L6-0WRfSA

[frookenhauer]

Grim your example points to the fact that the punishment for crimes needs to be adjusted, not that capital punishment is needed. I do not agree with capital punishment, but if you're going to take a life...Kiss freedom goodbye. Enjoy a lifetime in a chain gang on community projects or if you're a complete animal...solitary.

One of the reason why offenders get let out early is cos it costs a fortune to keep em under lock and key, so why not get something back?

[Ain't_It_Just_]

HoosierDaddy, on Mar 2 2009, 07:21 PM, said:

Are you talking about judges?

Yes...aren't they the ones who do that, nowadays.

[Grimjust Bearegular]

Frookenhauer, on Mar 3 2009, 01:47 AM, said:

Grim your example points to the fact that the punishment for crimes needs to be adjusted, not that capital punishment is needed. I do not agree with capital punishment, but if you're going to take a life...Kiss freedom goodbye. Enjoy a lifetime in a chain gang on community projects or if you're a complete animal...solitary.

One of the reason why offenders get let out early is cos it costs a fortune to keep em under lock and key, so why not get something back?

Yes, adjustment is definitely needed.

But you have to let the animals out of solitary once in a while, and that's when they attack.

What do you do with an inmate who kills another inmate or even a prison guard? Give them an extended life sentence? Threaten them with more solitary? Somehow, I don't think so...

[Sindriss]

I disagree with you on very many levels Grimhilde. Unfortunately I have to go workout now if I want to do it before work today. But if I rembember it tonight I will try to tell you why I think that you are wrong. Besides, you didn't answer the question about if you are willing to accept innocent men who have done nothing wrong in their lives sentenced to death because of a mistake. Because it will happen, make no doubt about that.

[Grimjust Bearegular]

Sindriss, on Mar 3 2009, 12:01 PM, said:

I disagree with you on very many levels Grimhilde. Unfortunately I have to go workout now if I want to do it before work today. But if I rembember it tonight I will try to tell you why I think that you are wrong. Besides, you didn't answer the question about if you are willing to accept innocent men who have done nothing wrong in their lives sentenced to death because of a mistake. Because it will happen, make no doubt about that.

I look forward to it:)


I believe I said it was a moot point, but maybe that was an answer to something else. Oh well, I believe that if you are innocent you have nothing to fear, not with the recent advances in crime scene investigation and DNA-evidence and all that jazz.

[Sindriss]

Well I can quickly tell you that that is not true. Even with high tech stuff like DNA you still have innocents every year condemned to death because of mistakes. We are only humans and even the best technology cannot be perfect when used by us.

[Mentalist]

Grimhilde, you are victim of what is becoming known as "the CSI effect"

by far, not every crime out there's actually gonna have so much nice neat evidence for forensics to find.

This post has been edited by Mentalist: 03 March 2009 - 11:39 AM

[Grimjust Bearegular]

Sindriss, on Mar 3 2009, 12:12 PM, said:

Well I can quickly tell you that that is not true. Even with high tech stuff like DNA you still have innocents every year condemned to death because of mistakes. We are only humans and even the best technology cannot be perfect when used by us.

Where and who, how many?

Mentalist, on Mar 3 2009, 12:39 PM, said:

Grimhilde, you are victim of what is becoming known as "the CSI effect"

by far, not every crime out there's actually gonna have so much nice neat evidence for forensics to find.

but if you are innocent, don't you think experts and technology would be able to prove that within say, 15 years?

[Mentalist]

if you have the money to afford a lawyer to keep the case alive, possibly.
problem is, most judicial systems are so clogged, ol dverdicts are rarely questioned.

[Grimjust Bearegular]

Mentalist, on Mar 3 2009, 01:33 PM, said:

if you have the money to afford a lawyer to keep the case alive, possibly.
problem is, most judicial systems are so clogged, ol dverdicts are rarely questioned.

yeah, that is true. But they don't just sentence people to death willy-nilly. The evidence must be pretty solid before they do that, I guess. So, nowadays, if you're innocent and sentenced to death, either someone framed you and thus committed the perfect crime, or you're just extremely unlucky.
However, I think the likelihood of being innocent and actually being sentenced to death is very small. There should be no likelihood at all, but no system is perfect.


Sindriss: Question for you. What is, in your opinion, worse? Killing an innocent man or letting ten child molester go free? cus that's how the saying goes right? "I would rather let ten guilty men go free than send an innocent man to jail"...or something like that.

[Menandore]

Grimhilde, on Mar 3 2009, 01:20 PM, said:

Mentalist, on Mar 3 2009, 01:33 PM, said:

if you have the money to afford a lawyer to keep the case alive, possibly.
problem is, most judicial systems are so clogged, ol dverdicts are rarely questioned.

yeah, that is true. But they don't just sentence people to death willy-nilly. The evidence must be pretty solid before they do that, I guess. So, nowadays, if you're innocent and sentenced to death, either someone framed you and thus committed the perfect crime, or you're just extremely unlucky.
However, I think the likelihood of being innocent and actually being sentenced to death is very small. There should be no likelihood at all, but no system is perfect.


Sindriss: Question for you. What is, in your opinion, worse? Killing an innocent man or letting ten child molester go free? cus that's how the saying goes right? "I would rather let ten guilty men go free than send an innocent man to jail"...or something like that.

I know I'm not Sindriss but I've been reading this thread trying to find the time to butt in with my own views and I think I have a spare minute or two right now.

"I would rather let ten guilty men go free than send an innocent man to jail"

This is basically the statement at the bottom of this debate. Those against capital punishment are agreeing with this (Morgoth in particular has said that capital punishment is unacceptable because you risk killing innocents). But those in favour seem to dismiss it as irrelevant and Grimhilde seems to be arguing that it is so unlikely, it's a negligible risk.

IMO, to argue that it is more important to protect potential victims of murder/rape than it is to protect potential victims of a miscarriage of justice resulting in execution is to place a higher value on the life of victim 1 than victim 2. You can do your best to protect the public by having a robust prison system where "life" means the criminal will never be free again and do your best to protect the innocent from wrongful executions by keeping criminals locked up so they can be released at a later date. I do not believe for a second that any judicial system in the world is so good that an innocent person will never be convicted of a serious crime and put to death.

The other argument of course is whether it is morally acceptable to kill anyone as punishment for a crime even if they are guilty. I'm not sure about this one. I believe that the number one priority should always be to protect the public from repeat offenders but I think it would be better to try and improve prisons and extend sentences than to execute criminals.

@Grimhilde - you're obviously suggesting that people sentenced to death are kept in prison for 10-15 years before they are executed. So even with the death penalty, there is still as much chance that in the decade following their conviction they will escape or harm someone in the prison. What does the death penalty really add? Sure, they'd have longer inside but are the chances of that happening really increased that much by those extra years? Enough to justify the risk that an innocent man be sent to death?

[frookenhauer]

Grimhilde, on Mar 3 2009, 10:55 AM, said:

Frookenhauer, on Mar 3 2009, 01:47 AM, said:

Grim your example points to the fact that the punishment for crimes needs to be adjusted, not that capital punishment is needed. I do not agree with capital punishment, but if you're going to take a life...Kiss freedom goodbye. Enjoy a lifetime in a chain gang on community projects or if you're a complete animal...solitary.

One of the reason why offenders get let out early is cos it costs a fortune to keep em under lock and key, so why not get something back?

Yes, adjustment is definitely needed.

But you have to let the animals out of solitary once in a while, and that's when they attack.

What do you do with an inmate who kills another inmate or even a prison guard? Give them an extended life sentence? Threaten them with more solitary? Somehow, I don't think so...

Do you remember Con Air? Well you remenmber how they had that Boston Mangler all nicely wrapped up in Iron...If a prisoner is too dangerous, then its time to pick his brain clean and use him for risky drug procedures that you'd normally get volunteers to do, but not in this case cos theyre too dangerous! I'm kidding, but I'm sure you'd approve . For people who can't stop killing, there is something totally wrong with them and it would of great benegfit to us all if we figured out what it is, what triggered it and any potential preventative measure we can take with potential risk hazards in the future or if we're lucky find ways to stop that person doing anything similar in the future using our skills and brains and some stretchy ethical policies. Study em and find out what makes them tick.

Kiiling them solves nothing, an eye for an eye is an irrelevance today, because we have evolved beyond villages and city states and barbarism...Or at least we should be. Capital punishment is barbaric.

[Sindriss]

Menandore, on Mar 3 2009, 04:03 PM, said:

Grimhilde, on Mar 3 2009, 01:20 PM, said:

Mentalist, on Mar 3 2009, 01:33 PM, said:

if you have the money to afford a lawyer to keep the case alive, possibly.
problem is, most judicial systems are so clogged, ol dverdicts are rarely questioned.

yeah, that is true. But they don't just sentence people to death willy-nilly. The evidence must be pretty solid before they do that, I guess. So, nowadays, if you're innocent and sentenced to death, either someone framed you and thus committed the perfect crime, or you're just extremely unlucky.
However, I think the likelihood of being innocent and actually being sentenced to death is very small. There should be no likelihood at all, but no system is perfect.


Sindriss: Question for you. What is, in your opinion, worse? Killing an innocent man or letting ten child molester go free? cus that's how the saying goes right? "I would rather let ten guilty men go free than send an innocent man to jail"...or something like that.

I know I'm not Sindriss but I've been reading this thread trying to find the time to butt in with my own views and I think I have a spare minute or two right now.

"I would rather let ten guilty men go free than send an innocent man to jail"

This is basically the statement at the bottom of this debate. Those against capital punishment are agreeing with this (Morgoth in particular has said that capital punishment is unacceptable because you risk killing innocents). But those in favour seem to dismiss it as irrelevant and Grimhilde seems to be arguing that it is so unlikely, it's a negligible risk.

IMO, to argue that it is more important to protect potential victims of murder/rape than it is to protect potential victims of a miscarriage of justice resulting in execution is to place a higher value on the life of victim 1 than victim 2. You can do your best to protect the public by having a robust prison system where "life" means the criminal will never be free again and do your best to protect the innocent from wrongful executions by keeping criminals locked up so they can be released at a later date. I do not believe for a second that any judicial system in the world is so good that an innocent person will never be convicted of a serious crime and put to death.

The other argument of course is whether it is morally acceptable to kill anyone as punishment for a crime even if they are guilty. I'm not sure about this one. I believe that the number one priority should always be to protect the public from repeat offenders but I think it would be better to try and improve prisons and extend sentences than to execute criminals.

@Grimhilde - you're obviously suggesting that people sentenced to death are kept in prison for 10-15 years before they are executed. So even with the death penalty, there is still as much chance that in the decade following their conviction they will escape or harm someone in the prison. What does the death penalty really add? Sure, they'd have longer inside but are the chances of that happening really increased that much by those extra years? Enough to justify the risk that an innocent man be sent to death?

Well, you answered pretty close to my mind so I am okay with it

I know I would be mad if somebody raped my sister and got away with maybe 1-2 years in jail of whatever. But I would be more mad if my brother got sentenced to death for a crime I know he didn't commit because of human errors and misinterpretations of the forensic evidence.

[Morgoth]

I don't really see how rape statistics have anything to do with capitol punishment. The lenght of prison sentences in accordance with specific crimes is surely a question for another thread.

[Sindriss]

Maybe it was me who misunderstood something in some previous post. It is a long and diffecult thread and I am tired at this point

[Morgoth]

Sindriss, on Mar 4 2009, 12:55 AM, said:

Maybe it was me who misunderstood something in some previous post. It is a long and diffecult thread and I am tired at this point

no I don't think you did. I was refering to Grimhilde's post, I guess I should've made that clearer.

[Grimjust Bearegular]

Frookenhauer, on Mar 3 2009, 10:10 PM, said:

Grimhilde, on Mar 3 2009, 10:55 AM, said:

Frookenhauer, on Mar 3 2009, 01:47 AM, said:

Grim your example points to the fact that the punishment for crimes needs to be adjusted, not that capital punishment is needed. I do not agree with capital punishment, but if you're going to take a life...Kiss freedom goodbye. Enjoy a lifetime in a chain gang on community projects or if you're a complete animal...solitary.

One of the reason why offenders get let out early is cos it costs a fortune to keep em under lock and key, so why not get something back?

Yes, adjustment is definitely needed.

But you have to let the animals out of solitary once in a while, and that's when they attack.

What do you do with an inmate who kills another inmate or even a prison guard? Give them an extended life sentence? Threaten them with more solitary? Somehow, I don't think so...

Do you remember Con Air? Well you remenmber how they had that Boston Mangler all nicely wrapped up in Iron...If a prisoner is too dangerous, then its time to pick his brain clean and use him for risky drug procedures that you'd normally get volunteers to do, but not in this case cos theyre too dangerous! I'm kidding, but I'm sure you'd approve . For people who can't stop killing, there is something totally wrong with them and it would of great benegfit to us all if we figured out what it is, what triggered it and any potential preventative measure we can take with potential risk hazards in the future or if we're lucky find ways to stop that person doing anything similar in the future using our skills and brains and some stretchy ethical policies. Study em and find out what makes them tick.

Kiiling them solves nothing, an eye for an eye is an irrelevance today, because we have evolved beyond villages and city states and barbarism...Or at least we should be. Capital punishment is barbaric.

I would have suggested testing cosmetics on them instead of on animals, but you're right. I would approve:P

And they keep killing because they enjoy it, is my theory. They're evil.

Morgoth, on Mar 4 2009, 12:52 AM, said:

I don't really see how rape statistics have anything to do with capitol punishment. The lenght of prison sentences in accordance with specific crimes is surely a question for another thread.

It was background info, to show where I'm coming from so to speak. I had just read the paper( Dagbladet/VG) and was really, really angry. I think, for the record, that rape should be punishable by death.



Menandore: Should they then decrease the amount of years spent in Death Row? Hurry up the process a little? Fine by me. But aren't people in Death Row kept mostly to themselves? I don't know. Anyway, IMO capitol punishment is more humane than a life sentence, if you are guilty and all that jazz that is. A life in jail, with no hope of getting out, seems like torture to me. I know I would long for the sweet release of death.

Sindriss: And how do you think you sister would feel? What if she ran into her attacker on the street? How would it be to live in constant fear? Doesn't she deserve some closure?


I see that you all make som good points, and I do understand what you mean and where you're coming from. I don't take litely upon my decisions and I do value human life, although it might not seem like I do. That's fair.

But you want change my mind. I am for capitol punishment and I stand by that even if that makes me an immoral monster. So be it.

All I know is that if someone hurt me or my loved ones, I would want them dead. And if the state is not willing to grant me that, I would be very tempted to take care of it myself. And what good would that do? Instead of having one less criminal, there would now be two.

This post has been edited by Grimhilde: 04 March 2009 - 02:46 PM