292 replies to this topic

[Howdyphillip]

Deathwalker, on 20 June 2012 - 08:10 AM, said:

Moral superiority, my keester.  It is about removing from society, those who would harm society in the most effective manner possible.  Seriously, do we have a shortage of murderers that requires us to keep convicted ones, alive?

This is the same gong you have been banging the entire thread. It has been proven to you here that it costs society more to execute, and it does not prevent crime. So do you want to explain what you mean when you say "the most effective manner possible"?

[Ser Robin Hill]

Stubby,

I didn't claim it was a deterrent.

Sr. Torres,

Then, we should make the process more efficient.

Edited by Deathwalker, 20 June 2012 - 09:10 AM.

[Baitac]

Shryke-

Danny Rollins and Ted Bundy were guilty. No question whatsoever. You may check the facts. I choose to focus on the victims of their crimes, the families of the victims, and the neighbors and townships were the people were butchered. I believe in due process. I also believe in sentencing guidelines that include execution for people like the two above.

Edited by A Senhora Baitac, 20 June 2012 - 10:23 AM.

[Ken Stone]

Deathwalker, on 20 June 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

Sr. Torres,

Then, we should make the process more efficient.

Great idea!  How?

[Howdyphillip]

Deathwalker, on 20 June 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

Sr. Torres,

Then, we should make the process more efficient.

This is a big circle in conversation that only comes around because you don't want to answer a difficult question. Hurrying the process would assure that even more innocent people are executed. Are you really saying that you are fine with this as long as we save some money? Would your stance change if you were one of those that were falsely convicted?

Since executions do absolutely nothing for society as a whole but satisfy vengeance, do you think this is enough of a reason to kill even more innocents than we do already?

A Senhora Baitac, on 20 June 2012 - 10:20 AM, said:

Shryke-

Danny Rollins and Ted Bundy were guilty. No question whatsoever. You may check the facts. I choose to focus on the victims of their crimes, the families of the victims, and the neighbors and townships were the people were butchered. I believe in due process. I also believe in sentencing guidelines that include execution for people like the two above.

You know what we received as a society from the death of Ted Bundy and Danny Rollins? Absolutely nothing. None of their victims magically popped up from the ground, none of their deeds became undone. What we lost is the ability to study these men to find psychological and maybe even physiological reasons behind their acts that may in the future help us as a whole to prevent other crimes of this nature.

All of this, and the death of the innocents splattered through just so people can satisfy their need for vengeance. Society has no place dealing with this.

Edited by Holafernando Torres, 20 June 2012 - 10:34 AM.

[Pebbles]

A Senhora Baitac, on 20 June 2012 - 10:20 AM, said:

Shryke-

Danny Rollins and Ted Bundy were guilty. No question whatsoever. You may check the facts. I choose to focus on the victims of their crimes, the families of the victims, and the neighbors and townships were the people were butchered. I believe in due process. I also believe in sentencing guidelines that include execution for people like the two above.

I understand I won't change your opinion.

I just want to go on record as saying.   If I am ever murdered, not matter the circumstances I deeply and truely hope that my murderer is not executed themselves.

I also want to say that if someone I love is murdered then I hope I can find the mercy not to wish harm or death upon the murder.   (I may find that hard to do - but I hope I would get there)

This is not to say I want the guilty to go free.  I would like them to serve their time and if they are no longer a threat to society then perhaps they could then be released.

[Ken Stone]

Deathwalker, on 20 June 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

Sr. Torres,

Then, we should make the process more efficient.

I have an even better idea.  We should just not have any more crime then we wouldn't have to worry about it.  Think about how much we would save if people just stopped committing crimes.  We should do that.

[Ser Robin Hill]

Ken Stone, on 20 June 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

Great idea!  How?

Expedite the appeals process and place reasonable limits on it.

Holafernando Torres, on 20 June 2012 - 10:28 AM, said:

This is a big circle in conversation that only comes around because you don't want to answer a difficult question. Hurrying the process would assure that even more innocent people are executed. Are you really saying that you are fine with this as long as we save some money? Would your stance change if you were one of those that were falsely convicted?

Since executions do absolutely nothing for society as a whole but satisfy vengeance, do you think this is enough of a reason to kill even more innocents than we do already?

Putting the interests of a single individual before those of millions is my definition of insanity.  Giving murderers free room and board and medical/dental care for the rest of their lives, is stupidity to the nth degree.

[Ken Stone]

Deathwalker, on 20 June 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

Expedite the appeals process and place reasonable limits on it.

Great idea!  Like what?

[Ser Robin Hill]

Ken Stone, on 20 June 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:

Great idea!  Like what?

1.  Time limits.
2.  Consolidate appeals.  Eliminate the practice of taking one appeal as high as it will go and when it fails, starting the process over with an appeal on a different basis.
3.  Eliminate the spate of last minute appeals and requests for stays of execution to prepare new appeals.  By that time, these are nothing more than publicity stunts for political purposes.

[paddington]

I think the process was pretty quick in Britian.   Last person hanged was charged/convicted/hanged in just over a year.

[Nukelavee]

Castel, on 19 June 2012 - 09:50 PM, said:

...
So basically we should invent a new system of law to determine whether someone is 100% GUARANTEED GUILTY? And we should somehow make sure that this system doesn't fall prey to the same uncertainties as the other system? Or we could just accept that those rare cases of near-certain guilt are the costs of doing business and just keep those people locked up?

Dude - are you actually thinking thru what you are saying?

I get what you are trying to establish - that no system is perfect, and therefore, we should take no action that is absolute.  See?  I get it.

But - if that is the case, that being certain of anybody's guilt is a rare thing...then we have no business handing out punishment, ever, except maybe fines.

If nobody can really be proven guilty (we can drop certain, or absolute, proven implies 100% accurate), what's teh point at all?

Now, let's run with no death penalty for a minute-  what do we do with the Bundy types?  Well, what we do now, lock em up forever.  Except, we, by your standards, can't be certain they are guilty.  So, we put the "maybe" guilty person away, for life...although he may be innocent.

This is where my issue with your thinking comes in - the chance of him being innocent is enough to not kill him, but not enough to let him ever leave prison.  By your thinking, there are pretty good odds (or even documented cases) of the innocent being executed; there are likely even more innocent men doing full life terms.

Your morals don't let you take a life absolutely, but they let you take away as much of a life worth living as possible.  That is just splitting hairs, allowing yourself some emotional loophole to feel better about yourself.

And you scoff at re-thinking the system, meaning you don't really care that much, you still accept inhumane acts, or errors, but, because it's just shy of the finalness of death...you're ok.

[Shryke]

A Senhora Baitac, on 20 June 2012 - 10:20 AM, said:

Shryke-

Danny Rollins and Ted Bundy were guilty. No question whatsoever. You may check the facts. I choose to focus on the victims of their crimes, the families of the victims, and the neighbors and townships were the people were butchered. I believe in due process. I also believe in sentencing guidelines that include execution for people like the two above.

Except you can't create sentencing guidelines that only kill people who are "guilt, no question whatsoever".

[Shryke]

Deathwalker, on 20 June 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

1.  Time limits.
2.  Consolidate appeals.  Eliminate the practice of taking one appeal as high as it will go and when it fails, starting the process over with an appeal on a different basis.
3.  Eliminate the spate of last minute appeals and requests for stays of execution to prepare new appeals.  By that time, these are nothing more than publicity stunts for political purposes.

You do realise the system is as slow as it is to stop the state from killing innocent people, right?

You want to make that more likely?

[Shryke]

Nukelavee, on 20 June 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

Dude - are you actually thinking thru what you are saying?

I get what you are trying to establish - that no system is perfect, and therefore, we should take no action that is absolute.  See?  I get it.

But - if that is the case, that being certain of anybody's guilt is a rare thing...then we have no business handing out punishment, ever, except maybe fines.

If nobody can really be proven guilty (we can drop certain, or absolute, proven implies 100% accurate), what's teh point at all?

Now, let's run with no death penalty for a minute-  what do we do with the Bundy types?  Well, what we do now, lock em up forever.  Except, we, by your standards, can't be certain they are guilty.  So, we put the "maybe" guilty person away, for life...although he may be innocent.

This is where my issue with your thinking comes in - the chance of him being innocent is enough to not kill him, but not enough to let him ever leave prison.  By your thinking, there are pretty good odds (or even documented cases) of the innocent being executed; there are likely even more innocent men doing full life terms.

Your morals don't let you take a life absolutely, but they let you take away as much of a life worth living as possible.  That is just splitting hairs, allowing yourself some emotional loophole to feel better about yourself.

And you scoff at re-thinking the system, meaning you don't really care that much, you still accept inhumane acts, or errors, but, because it's just shy of the finalness of death...you're ok.

Yes.

I mean, you act like this is some sort of revelation.

Death is final. Imprisonment is not. That's why we rely on imprisonment in a fallible system.

Imprisonment is also less expensive.

Edited by Shryke, 20 June 2012 - 11:08 AM.

[Howdyphillip]

Deathwalker, on 20 June 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

Expedite the appeals process and place reasonable limits on it.

Putting the interests of a single individual before those of millions is my definition of insanity.

Can you please point out how much more of a danger Charles Manson is to society than Ted Bundy?

Shryke, on 20 June 2012 - 11:03 AM, said:

You do realise the system is as slow as it is to stop the state from killing innocent people, right?

You want to make that more likely?

I have been asking this for two days... At this point, I don't think that DW is going to give a response.

Edited by Holafernando Torres, 20 June 2012 - 11:12 AM.

[Baitac]

Каек который прячет, on 20 June 2012 - 10:30 AM, said:

I understand I won't change your opinion.

I just want to go on record as saying.   If I am ever murdered, not matter the circumstances I deeply and truely hope that my murderer is not executed themselves.

I also want to say that if someone I love is murdered then I hope I can find the mercy not to wish harm or death upon the murder.   (I may find that hard to do - but I hope I would get there)

This is not to say I want the guilty to go free.  I would like them to serve their time and if they are no longer a threat to society then perhaps they could then be released.

Gillio: you have always impressed me for being a wonderful woman. You are on my list as persons I would most like to meet. Your words touched me and I hope that such things never ever happen to you a
or your family. I respect you tremendously.

[Baitac]

Shryke, on 20 June 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

Except you can't create sentencing guidelines that only kill people who are "guilt, no question whatsoever".

Agree.

[Baitac]

Holafernando Torres, on 20 June 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

Can you please point out how much more of a danger Charles Manson is to society than Ted Bundy?




I have been asking this for two days... At this point, I don't think that DW is going to give a response.

I think the process should take as long as it takes. This creates an opportunity to exonerate, ameliorate, and clarify. It should not be used frequently. It should never be used to control inmate population. It does not really work as a deterrent. But, IMOHO, I think that there are acts that are so egregious that the death penalty should be exacted.

[Ken Stone]

Deathwalker, on 20 June 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

1.  Time limits.
2.  Consolidate appeals.  Eliminate the practice of taking one appeal as high as it will go and when it fails, starting the process over with an appeal on a different basis.
3.  Eliminate the spate of last minute appeals and requests for stays of execution to prepare new appeals.  By that time, these are nothing more than publicity stunts for political purposes.

Still seems a little lengthy to me.  Why don't we just execute the people at the sentencing?