Death Penalty..........

MagicRat · #1 12-12-2005, 08:48 PM

Are you in favour of the death penalty as a punishment for convicted criminals?
If yes, for what crimes? Where do you draw the line for the use of such a sentence?

I know this has been a hot-button topic for years, but recently it's in the news again, since Gov. Arnold did not stop the death sentence of the Crips' founder Stanley Williams, as per the story below. Do you think he deserves to die? Personally, I do not think so. His crimes simly do not warrant such action. Furthermore, unlike many death row inmates, he has used his considerable intellegence and organizational skills to resurrect a productive life for himself, (as far as one can be productive and make a contribution to society while in prison).

Personally, I am not in favour of the death penalty in any form. It is far more expensive to execute someone in the US than it is to imprison them for life. I feel that death for some lets them off easy. Let them suffer in an unpleasant (but not inhumane) prison for life.

Furthermore, many prisioners, including death-row inmates have been found to be innocent or the evidence used to convict them has been flawed. IMO the risk of executing the innocent is too great.

There seems to be no definitive proof that the death penalty is an effective deterrent to the most severe criminal activities. (If I am wrong on this, please discuss). Some nations that have similar demographics to the US, but do not have the death penalty, (Canada, Australia, Western Europe) have much lower per capita rates of such serious crimes.

Finally, other nations that use the death penalty, such as China, Indonesia and Singapore execute criminals for crimes that simply do not warrent such action, such as continued criticism of the state and relatively modest drug smuggling. For these nations, execution is akin to using a hammer to swat a fly; it's become too easy for such nations to use a brutal punishment to solve a real or perceived problem with their societies. It becomes a quick and easy alternative to real action on their behalf, such as enacting and enforcing reasonable laws in society.
It also is a very effective tool for undemocratic political regimes to control their people through terror.

Although I am philosophically against execution, I do consider that some crimes may be so terrible as to justify it. Should Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin have been executed? Perhaps mass murder in the millions may warrant such a punishment.

Of course emotion can affect my reasoning on this subject.
If someone brutally murdered a loved one of mine (or me, for that matter) would I want so see the perpetrator executed?
It would be tempting. Dispite my anti-capital punishment stand, I can see that a desire for personal revenge can cloud one's judgement.

Comments?

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger refused to block the execution of Stanley Tookie Williams, rejecting the notion that the founder of the murderous Crips gang had atoned for his crimes and found redemption on death row.

With a federal court refusing to grant a reprieve, Williams, 51, was set to die by injection at San Quentin Prison early Tuesday for murdering four people during two 1979 holdups.

Williams' case became one of the country's biggest death-row cause celebres in decades. It set off a countrywide debate over the possibility of redemption on death row, with Hollywood stars and capital punishment foes arguing that Williams had made amends by writing children's books about the dangers of gangs.

But Schwarzenegger suggested Monday that Williams' supposed change of heart was not genuine, noting that the inmate had not owned up to his crimes or shown any real remorse for the countless killings committed by the Crips.

"Is Williams' redemption complete and sincere, or is it just a hollow promise?" Schwarzenegger wrote less than 12 hours before the execution. "Without an apology and atonement for these senseless and brutal killings, there can be no redemption."

Williams' supporters were disappointed with the governor's refusal to commute the death sentence to life in prison without parole.

"Too often I hear the governor and many who are around him talk about his values system," said NAACP President Bruce Gordon.

"In this particular case, those values seem to be cast aside. There is absolutely no recognition given to redemption."

Williams stood to become the 12th person executed in California since legislators reinstated the death penalty in 1977.

He was condemned in 1981 for gunning down convenience store clerk Albert Owens, 26, at a 7-Eleven in Whittier and killing Yen-I Yang, 76, Tsai-Shai Chen Yang, 63, and the couple's daughter Yu-Chin Yang Lin, 43, at the Los Angeles motel they owned. Williams claimed he was innocent.

Just before the governor announced his decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit of Appeals denied Williams' request for a reprieve, saying there was no "clear and convincing evidence of actual innocence." The appeals court then declined to reconsider and lawyers filed an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court.

The last California governor to grant clemency was Ronald Reagan, who spared a mentally infirm killer in 1967. Schwarzenegger, a Republican who has come under fire from members of his own party as too accommodating to liberals, has rejected clemency twice during his two years in office.

In denying clemency to Williams, Schwarzenegger said that the evidence of his guilt was "strong and compelling," and he dismissed suggestions that the trial was unfair.

Schwarzenegger also pointed out the brutality of the crimes, noting that Williams allegedly said about one of the killings, "You should have heard the way he sounded when I shot him." According to the governor's account, Williams then made a growling noise and laughed for five to six minutes.

In addition, the governor noted that Williams dedicated his 1998 book Life in Prison to a list of figures that included the black militant George Jackson, calling it "a significant indicator that Williams is not reformed and that he still sees violence and lawlessness as a legitimate means to address societal problems."

Williams and a friend founded the Crips in Los Angeles in 1971. Authorities say it is responsible for hundreds of deaths, many of them in battles with the rival Bloods for turf and control of the drug trade.

Among the celebrities who took up Williams' cause were Jamie Foxx, who played the gang leader in a cable movie about Williams; rapper Snoop Dogg, himself a former Crip; Sister Helen Prejean, the nun depicted in Dead Man Walking; Bianca Jagger; and former MASH star Mike Farrell.

During Williams' 24 years on death row, a Swiss legislator, college professors and others nominated him for the Nobel Prizes in peace and literature.

"If Stanley Williams does not merit clemency," defence lawyer Peter Fleming asked, "what meaning does clemency retain in this state?"

The impending execution resulted in feverish preparations over the weekend by those on both sides of the debate, with the California Highway Patrol planning to tighten security outside the prison.

A group of about three dozen death penalty protesters were joined by Rev. Jesse Jackson as they marched across the Golden Gate Bridge after dawn Monday en route to the gates of San Quentin, where they were expected to rally with hundreds of people.

At least publicly, the person apparently least occupied with his fate seemed to be Williams himself.

"Me fearing what I'm facing, what possible good is it going to do for me? How is that going to benefit me?" Williams said in a recent interview. "If it's my time to be executed, what's all the ranting and raving going to do?"

elementskater15 · #2 12-12-2005, 09:06 PM

I am in favor of the death penalty as long as the criminal is 100% guilty. I also think corporal punishment (physical) should still be implied to sick crimes such as child molestation.

Muscletang · #3 12-12-2005, 09:38 PM

I think the cost should be cut down. If it's more expensive to kill them than hold them, something is wrong.
How much is a rope tied around a tree?
How much is a few guys with a few guns?
How much is a sharp axe and a tree stump?

If we don't want to kill them then corporal punishment is the way to go.
How about a nice round of 20 lashes?
How about a nice round of mild electrical shock?

Prisoners have too many rights as it is. People bitch and complain about the illegal immagrents in this country. Well we have what, 2 million in our prisons right? Drag their asses out, give them enough food to survive, and work their asses off in the fields or where they need it.

As for the death penalty, there's nothing wrong with it. Ever heard, the punishment should fit the crime? If you kill somebody, you should be killed back. If you want them to suffer some, pour honey on them and throw them in a pit with fire ants, or push them into the pool at an aligator farm.

As for the innocent people on death row, 1 out of every 20 on death row is innocent, 5%. That's bad but it could be worse. I think though there should be eye witnesses, over whelming evidence, and DNA proof. If not all the things match up then you should spend the rest of your life in a salt mine instead of dying by a pack of wild wolves.

2strokebloke · #4 12-12-2005, 11:11 PM

Kill for killing. It doesn't make any logical sense, except as much as to get rid of somebody who will murder repeatedly and cannot be reformed, in which case there is no point in keeping them in prison, and it would obviously be unsuitable to release them back into the general population.
Otherwise I see no reason for the death penalty, in all I think it's pretty stupid. The concept of punishment in and of itself is really pretty asinine and childish in my view. "He hurt somebody, let's hurt him back!" the idea is rediculous, illogical, and totally pointless - it's a self defeating moral mechanism. "I'm against hurting people, so when people hurt other people, we hurt the people that did the hurting." - do you see how idiotic that logic is? Only idiots subscribe to that school of semi-thrigmotropic "thought". The Three Stooges loved the eye for an eye gag...
Should we put people in jail to keep them from hurting other people? - yes definately. Should we punish them, in the three stooges ideology - an eye for an eye? No. Because as soon as you do, you've accomplished nothing more than to make all laws, all logic, and all morals arbitrary, maleable, perverted, null and pointless. You destroy the entire system, you make it pointless to class things as good and evil when you change those definitions at will for the purpose of seeking revenge.

Muscletang · #5 12-13-2005, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

Should we put people in jail to keep them from hurting other people? - yes definately. Should we punish them, in the three stooges ideology - an eye for an eye? No. Because as soon as you do, you've accomplished nothing more than to make all laws, all logic, and all morals arbitrary, maleable, perverted, null and pointless. You destroy the entire system, you make it pointless to class things as good and evil when you change those definitions at will for the purpose of seeking revenge.

First, what will a little kid learn more from, being told "now don't lie honey" or getting a belt across the ass? I can tell you right now that belt made me learn real quick.

Secondly, tell that to the people doing the killing if all laws and morals are lost to punishiment involving pain or death. They're the ones going out and killing productive members of our society, they're the ones doing the killing of the laws and morals.

elementskater15 · #6 12-13-2005, 06:26 AM

You speak much wisdom Tang-san. >_< I agree 100% about the belt example. Most criminals aren't goint to be "reformed" with just a slap on the wrist. I for one am in favor of the "eye for an eye" type of punishment as well (hence my support of corporal punishment). Hell, you rape somebody, you get raped back. How's that sound?

eversio11 · #7 12-13-2005, 02:06 PM

Frankly, I don't think we have enough death sentences. The other day at work, I saw a day smack a kid on the arm for fooling around. So the kid hits the dad back and yells 'don't hit me!'.

Death penalty for the kid.

Steel · #8 12-13-2005, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eversio11

Frankly, I don't think we have enough death sentences. The other day at work, I saw a day smack a kid on the arm for fooling around. So the kid hits the dad back and yells 'don't hit me!'.

Death penalty for the kid.

\

NissanSkylineGTR98 · #9 12-13-2005, 02:43 PM

Coming from a country without the death penalty (Canada) I think capital punishment is a logical solution to some crimes, what about child molesters, or serial killers? I seriously believe some criminals cannot be converted back to anything useful to modern society, whats the point of making them endure a life in prison...at the expense of tax payers?

elementskater15 · #10 12-13-2005, 03:19 PM

I also think we shouldnt give criminals of crime like the ones mentioned above a chance in society. They shouldn't have the luxory(sp?) of life in prison or the freedom of death. If it is on the tax payer's dollar, you might as well make it count. Torture them everday for the rest of their hell bound life. BTW, that kid wouldn't be able to hit me back after I got through with him. He'd be lucky to still have an arm.

M3FordBoy · #11 12-13-2005, 06:11 PM

I pretty much agree with everything Muscletangsaid. The problem is that in the case of Williams it was to little to late. If the person convicted is proven guitly by DNA or whatever the punishment of death should be soon and swift. All the appeals and stuff is just a waste of time and money. Also the way it is done is also stupid shoot them or hang them whatever but it shouldn't cost a million dollars to put someone down. It's like if a man is shooting people the cops have no problem shooting to kill right there. But once he gets in jail it's to late he'll be alive for another 20 years easy. For what effect? I dout that even gives a hole lot of closer to even the victims family members. And to how other countries handle things my dad was born in Vietnam and his brother was killed at a younger age by some crooked cops, but they have no problem shooting you right there if you are caught with cocane or something like that. I'm not saying this is how we should deal with things but it should definatly be strcter.

MagicRat · #12 12-13-2005, 07:25 PM

First of all, thank you for all opinions; I hope the debate continues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muscletang

I think the cost should be cut down. If it's more expensive to kill them than hold them, something is wrong.

If you are going to be executing someone, it is a very GOOD thing that it's expensive. It's indicative of a more civilised society.

About 12 years ago, I heard the statistic it takes about $4 million to execute someone (probably more money now) , but only about $1.75 million to imprison them for 50 years.

The difference is all the legal appeals etc. that a condemned person is entitled to under US law. This is one of the most decent things about execution in the US; if it's going to happen, the state will provide every legal defense available to prevent it. This is extrodinarily civilised and, as far as I know, unique among nations that use capital punishment.

Other nations that execute people, such as China, do so because it's cheap, easy and is a visible instrument of terror to keep the population in line. Note they can execute people for, among other things, expressing their opinion, if its contrary to the government.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muscletang

As for the death penalty, there's nothing wrong with it.

Muscletang, judging by some of your earlier posts, you appear to be a good Christian.

Do you think the commandment "Thou shall not kill" also should apply to a country's legal system?

Should it apply to a prosecuting attornety who works to convict someone so the death penalty should apply?

Should it apply to the executioner who administers the lethal injection?

(BTW I am not criticising your opinion at all. I am genuinely curious about how such a religious instruction would apply. )

2strokebloke · #13 12-13-2005, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Muscletang

First, what will a little kid learn more from, being told "now don't lie honey" or getting a belt across the ass? I can tell you right now that belt made me learn real quick.

What? Time-out isn't an option? Seems to be just as effective in my experience. The willingness of people to inflict harm on others will probably never cease to amaze me. People love to hate eachother, and the only difference between the pyschopath serial killer and the general "productive member of society" is the general public is ashamed of this desire, and needs to seek a way to justify it. Thus they pervert their morality for this purpose.
It's not okay to do things to just anybody, but the loophole is that it is okay to do these things to people who are willing to do them to just anybody.
Morals for most it seems are just a thin disguise to cover the unjustifiable hate that the "general productive members of society" have for each other.
When you do these things, this eye for an eye, childish idiotic crap - nothing seperates you from the criminals you seek to punish. Well - except for the morals you don't bother to follow anyway.

Muscletang · #14 12-13-2005, 08:05 PM

Quote: