The death Penelty

[The_Dark]

I did the homework. Studies have been done... the answer comes back differently depending on who does the study.

[phee]

I did the homework. Studies have been done... the answer comes back differently depending on who does the study.

That is very typical.... *sigh*

[Steven]

I did the homework. Studies have been done... the answer comes back differently depending on who does the study.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

thats the problem with statistics.

they are almost always biased.

and people are not numbers, although we love to reduce them to that.

[Steven]

A:  That's the part that assumes it's cheaper to execute convicts.

B:  This is the part that assumes there is no value to human life once it has taken another for no reason.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A: strip it down, do the deed, dig the hole. I'm not a finance major but I assume that's cheaper than 20 years of sustinance.

B: No assumption here. Just a beleif that any potential remaining value, if it exists, has been forfeited by said innocent life taker.

[phee]

A:  strip it down, do the deed, dig the hole.  I'm not a finance major but I assume that's cheaper than 20 years of sustinance.

B:  No assumption here.  Just a beleif that any potential remaining value, if it exists, has been forfeited by said innocent life taker.

So (phee stears back around to a long ago point) what about the few times when the system took an innocent life? Who should be killed for that?

[The_Dark]

I'll vote for anyone that can give a REAL WORKABLE answer for that.

and in the correct thread even

[phee]

I'll vote for anyone that can give a REAL WORKABLE answer for that.

and in the correct thread even

Good man....

[BrassFusion]

It will never be so cheap as to just dig a hole, because we have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person deserves to die.

And I'm not sure what you meant about reducing people to numbers, Steven...

[The_Dark]

It will never be so cheap as to just dig a hole, because we have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person deserves to die.

And I'm not sure what you meant about reducing people to numbers, Steven...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What color is the sky in your world?

Guilt is established when it is proven beyond a REASONABLE doubt.

[phee]

What color is the sky in your world?

Guilt is established when it is proven beyond a REASONABLE doubt.

That sounds kinda like a personal attack (the sky color comment)...anyway

And as long as witnesses lie, prosicutors fudge evience, and people make mistakes... innocents are killed... that doesn't sound reasonable enough...

[BrassFusion]

What color is the sky in your world?

Guilt is established when it is proven beyond a REASONABLE doubt.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, from now on I'll make sure to use only cliches that are acceptable to you.

[The_Dark]

Thats not a Cliche. Thats how the law is written. Thats how the law is practiced.

[BrassFusion]

Thats not a Cliche. Thats how the law is written. Thats how the law is practiced.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

"Reasonable doubt" applies only to establishing guilt, not sentencing.

[The_Dark]

oh and sorry about the sky comment... it's just what I say when someone says/posts something so far out of touch with reality.

[The_Dark]

There is no sentencing without the establishment of guilt.

[BrassFusion]

There are no kittens without cats. What does this have to do with your argument of "beyond a shadow of" vs. "reasonable?"

[Steven]

So (phee stears back around to a long ago point) what about the few times when the system took an innocent life? Who should be killed for that?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But you see my good Phee.....that were talking about two completley different subjects here.

you keep asking questions or steering back to an issue that I've answered allready - in that in the gray areas, fine, let the system be the system and ahve them join the lifers till justice is done. I'm not talking about the cracks in teh system. ANd remeber too that the system has ALWAYS had cracks, and always will. Add to that that in many eras and cultures, this same "life for a life" approach was and is found to make perfect sense, at least in terms of the ruling partys and who put them there.

Back to the the clear cut and obvious (and thank you Mark - for thsoe who are found GUILTY and let's not pick it apart people, you know I mean beyond a reasonable doubt) do the deed. Pull the trigger.

For those with whom we may err...... forgive me God, I've done the best I can with what I've got.

Your never going to get perfection Phee.

But you will get plenty of overloaded prison systems and deadly criminals released back to the streets because of that overloaded system.

[Steven]

1:  It will never be so cheap as to just dig a hole,

1A:  because we have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person deserves to die.

2:  And I'm not sure what you meant about reducing people to numbers, Steven...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1: I didint mean just dig a hole. Or, perhaps I did. Please do not let my simplicity in terminology water down the point being made: deal with it (the death and disposal) and keep it simple. Let's not get caught up in the process in other words.

1A: What the fuck does cheap disposal of dead predators have to do with proving guilt beyond a shadow of a doubt? Do you really think I'm arguing to do away with that neccesity just because I like my bad guys dead? I like em dead, no doubt. But do your best to get there the right way first.

2: Statistical analysis. Reduces human tragedy, the smell, the sound, the generational repurcussion, the void, the fear, all of it, to a mere human study. the victim becomes "the victim", when in reality her name is Susan Jones. The body becomes "a body", when in reality ten minutes ago it was Billy playing kick ball with his friends out on the playground. Studies are too clean. They are simply for a point to be made. A vote to be gained. A dollar to be dropped.

Do you really not hear me on this Brass? I use words like "Justice" because words like "Travesty" are often re-labeled as incidents.

[BrassFusion]

For those with whom we may err...... forgive me God, I've done the best I can with what I've got. 

No, you're not doing the best you can with what you have, you're killing people needlessly. Well, not you, but you spoke of yourself as a metaphorical representation of all people who support capital punishment.

But you will get plenty of overloaded prison systems and deadly criminals released back to the streets because of that overloaded system.

Oh, you mean "deadly criminals" like people in there for marijuana possession? If anything's overcrowding our prisons, it's the war on drugs. But that's a whole nother ball of wax.

Don't try to say there's a space issue. In my first (and quite possibly last) bit of research, I've found that only 1005 prisoners were executed in the US between 1976 and January 19th, 2006.

That's a really small piece of the pie, considering how many non-violent criminals are wasting space in prisons:

America, with less than 5 percent of the world population, has a quarter of the world's prisoners.  There are six times as many Americans behind bars as are imprisoned in the 12 countries that make up the entire European Union, even though those countries have 100 million more citizens than the United States.  Our jails and prisons have become the 51st state, with a greater combined population than Alaska, North Dakota and South Dakota. — Editorial, San Jose Mercury News, 1999-12-31.

In August [2000], the U.S. Department of Justice revealed that the number of men and women behind bars in the U.S. at the end of 1999 exceeded two million and the rate of incarceration had reached 690 inmates per 100,000 residents — a rate Human Rights Watch believed to be the highest in the world (with the exception of Rwanda).  ...  The unrelenting war on drugs continued to pull hundreds of thousands of drug offenders into the criminal justice system: 1,559,100 people were arrested on drug charges in 1998; approximately 450,000 drug offenders were confined in jails and prisons.  According to the Department of Justice, 107,000 people were sent to state prison on drug charges in 1998, representing 30.8 percent of all new state admissions. Drug offenders constituted 57.8 percent of all federal inmates. — Human Rights Watch World Report 2001: United States

Sources:

Executions in the United States

Prohibition: The So-Called War On Drugs

[Steven]

No, you're not doing the best you can with what you have, you're killing people needlessly. Well, not you, but you spoke of yourself as a metaphorical representation of all people who support capital punishment.

Oh, you mean "deadly criminals" like people in there for marijuana possession? If anything's overcrowding our prisons, it's the war on drugs. But that's a whole nother ball of wax.

Don't try to say there's a space issue. In my first (and quite possibly last) bit of research, I've found that only 1005 prisoners were executed in the US between 1976 and January 19th, 2006.

That's a really small piece of the pie, considering how many non-violent criminals are wasting space in prisons:

Sources:

Executions in the United States

Prohibition: The So-Called War On Drugs

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

your killing me Brass.

again you stretch too far. Nobody wants to kill potheads. See, that's where you take a good position into a place where you alienate the receiver because you become disrespectful.

And you dont really listen.

I'll share a bit....

much of my family is mixed up in the prison system.

they are 2nd and 3rd generation Latino Gang memebrs. In and out of Prison and the LA County system, and fuck yes for overcrowding.

Incidently they shoot people.

They stab people. They order executions. They run drugs.

They rape people, hell, they butt rape each other when they get stuck back in the system. They enjoy the violence, the rush, the life. They are bred for it. ANd they teach it to their children.

I'm in no way implying its just a Latino thing. I've seen it beyond my family, beyond my race, beyond my early environment but since I've seen it at home, I've seen it much closer than an online study will ever bring you.

And the drug war reaches far far beyond your bowl full of Buds as well.

This too, is steeped in blood, and this too I have seen. There is more violence associated with drug trafficking than the media and studies portray. And you have to start outside this country if your going to get real. And you have to include women and children victims. Even animals. Your Satruday night buzz had a start somewhere else, a violent one.

And your prison overcrowding (not) argument is exactly what I'm talking about.

Statistical bullshit.

Make no mistake about it - every prison is a timebomb.

And just like the military, much of what goes down - never sees print, despite what you think you know.

I know you've got your research and your youthful passion and to a degree I applaud that. But bear in mind that there is a good degree of personal saftey in your facts gathering.

[BrassFusion]

What the hell? I didn't say anything about killing potheads. I said that prisons are overcrowded because non-violent drug users are incarcerated needlessly. I said that to counter your claim that eliminating capital punishment would cause prisons to be more overcrowded. There's an easy solution to that.

The drugs don't cause the violence, either. The laws cause the violence. Weed grows GREAT in many American climates. No need to mix ourselves up in international terrorism for it.

Edit: The War on Drugs, while ridiculous on the whole, isn't completely unfounded. I believe the only realistic thing that we can do right now to alleviate the problem is legalize marijuana. Other drugs are more dangerous and must be dealt with accordingly.

[Steven]

What the hell? I didn't say anything about killing potheads. I said that prisons are overcrowded because non-violent drug users are incarcerated needlessly. I said that to counter your claim that eliminating capital punishment would cause prisons to be more overcrowded. There's an easy solution to that.

The drugs don't cause the violence, either. The laws cause the violence. Weed grows GREAT in many American climates. No need to mix ourselves up in international terrorism for it.

Edit: The War on Drugs, while ridiculous on the whole, isn't completely unfounded. I believe the only realistic thing that we can do right now to alleviate the problem is legalize marijuana. Other drugs are more dangerous and must be dealt with accordingly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fair enough.

one last set of comments though, and then I think we've done this poor topic to death......

I dont think that eliminating the death penalty will cause overcrowding. Thats not my argument.

I think (and not just I) that the system is allready overcrowded.

And its also deadly because of it (incidently many of your non violent offenders get hurt or killed in this pressure cooker - its the law of the jungle in there). There are many incarcerated felons in teh system t hat are career predators. We'll use rapists, child predators, and murders for example. And we'll use two time offendors as a multiplier. By the way in the case of child sexual predators, I'm not satisfied with releasing them after time served and then offering a public resource to identify their whereabouts. Its a heinous crime. Tragic in the long term effects of the child and who he or she develops into. It continues to manifest itself (the tragedy) in a generational manner. I lump them in with murderers. Some argue that it is a mental illness. Fine. But too many repeat themselves. its a risk that I think is not worthwhile to take. Telling a child "well. uncle was sick...." does very little to heal the lifetime wound.

yes I would, if I could, eradicate them (the above mentioend examples). Lethal injection and disposal. Or whatever. Sounds harsh - but so is my point of view. I did not ask for torture. I'm asking for disposal. We'd open alot of prison cells that way, and cut alot of long term food and housing. We'd also free up the legal system from those very career criminals who use it as an abomination in order to hit the streets again. We'd also stop a 2nd or 3rd wave of repeat street history. And their influences on those they lead. Rehabilitation does nto solve the problem. Because the root of the problem is never truly addressed, and in an age of growing relitavism, it just gets worse.

And the weed thing will never happen.

I understand your point of view, I smoked weed (and did everythgin else) for most of my life. But this is America - home of the world's greatest propoganda machine. You'll never see a condoned approach to drugs, let alone see pot as a cash crop or a private resource. If anything, there are too many politicians who would lose an important platform to lobby from. I'm not saying this is right, or wrong. I'm simply saying that I do not beleive it is feasible in America, because there is much more behind the issue than simple principle. The war on drugs is a tool to build from. No one will release that. Its simply not our way. And add to that possibility that someone south of the border, will realize that they can introduce this same crop to our consumers much cheaper. And therefore you will still have outside influnce from 3rd world countries. Just liek we do with illegal electronics and bootlegged software. you wont stop it. and you dont have the power to stop it. The trail of blood will always be there. As will the desire for and the market for other illicit drugs like cocaine. Its bigger than your ideals. Bigger than your social studies. And worse than your imagination from the livingroom.

Your argument for Marijuana only (my assumption) is also open to much speculation. Really, how do you draw the line? With scientific study? Because we both know that weed alone and nothign else is a thin reality. The escapism associated with weed also atttracts other chemical desires. Sure there are people who only smoke weed. But in my 20 plus years of history of drug abuse, I've seen low numbers of those who fit that category.

I actually see the value in yoru arguments Brass, I do.

I just lack the faith that they can work.

And I'm jaded. And getting old. Seen too many things, been too many things, to beleive what your telling me.

Peace.

Steven

[The_Dark]

It will never be so cheap as to just dig a hole, because we have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the person deserves to die.

And I'm not sure what you meant about reducing people to numbers, Steven...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thats why I brought it up. You made that statement. Which is out of touch with the reality of our judicial system. In our system, we only have to prove Reasonable Doubt and even then it is only during the establishment of guilt.

What is considerd during sentencing is intent and other factors leading up to the crime to establish what a fit punishment should be.

[BrassFusion]

Dark, if you're not going to think, don't bother typing. The two should go hand in hand.

In our system, we only have to prove Reasonable Doubt and even then it is only during the establishment of guilt.

I said that. You're not saying anything new. You're paraphrasing what I said and trying to pass it off as covering something that my tiny brain didn't understand.

What you are arguing is that finding "reasonable doubt" is different than finding someone guilty "beyond a shadow of a doubt." If you weren't aware, the phrase "REASONABLE DOUBT" means that there is a "reasonable" possibility that the accused may not have committed the crime, and therefore should not be found guilty for it. "Reasonable," in this context, is up to the jury to determine. That's what they're for.

I really, really don't understand how that phrase is quantitatively different than "BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT."

Or how it could possibly matter to you, or any element of this discussion.

Stop trying to make yourself look smart by baiting me. It will never work.

[The_Dark]

OMG your funny. First you insult me and say I need to think... and then admit to not being smart enough to see the difference between "reasonable doubt" and "beyond a shadow of a doubt"

it matters because we are discussing the death penalty. You first need to understand how the judicial system works to really talk about it.