We are such proponents of a culture of life that... [Archive]

sharrukin

05-23-2005, 23:29

Sympathy is quite in order for the niece. But she lost someone dear to her in what? 1985? And now she still needs to sate her basest desire for bloodthirst and revenge? The guy's still getting killed, for Christ's sake. No one's going to think, "Boy, that murderer used to seem like such scum until he helped his sister out! It's almost like now that he donated his liver, he only broke 8 ribs on that old lady, instead of 20!!!"

I'm not mad at her, she isn't making the decision. It's the Indiana Parole Board that needs pies thrown at it.

What I am saying is that we should reserve our sympathy for those who were victims of violent crimes not those who commit them. I would not take her advice on what to do as it is clearly biased and with good reason. He is scum, but by his actions he seems not to be total scum and that is all to the good. I agree about the Indiana Parole Board as common sense would suggest that his sister who is also a lesser victim of his actions should be given some consideration as well. We should remove his liver now if he is willing and that seems to be the case and send it to his sister.

If the murderers family suddenly does not want that to happen then this would be no more than a delaying action.

LittleGrizzly

05-23-2005, 23:30

why punish the niece she's done nothing wrong...

sharrukin

05-23-2005, 23:35

Bad things are happening to the murderer.

Then why wish evil on someone simply because they are not willing to forgive and forget? She had someone close to her murdered and does not want good things to happen to him. That she should be angry and bitter at this is hardly a surprise. She at least made the point that she had no ill will towards the man's sister even if she is not willing to delay justice on her behalf.

kiwitt

05-24-2005, 00:11

Kanamori

05-24-2005, 00:13

"What I am saying is that we should reserve our sympathy for those who were victims of violent crimes not those who commit them."

The sypathy is not for the convict, rather it is for the sister.

"Not sure why they couldn't take his liver now, but if that is not possible then they should put it off until it is and then execute him."

Because, that would kill him, and personally, I would not like the state to execute someone by having contaminated blood or by starving to death without bile, whichever comes first.

The problem I find with his request is that organ donation is given to the top of the list first, not where she is. If he wants to donate his liver, good for him, all the power to him. That's one less spot that his sister has to wait for anyways.

Beirut

05-24-2005, 00:18

Was he getting government sponsored Viagra too?

mercian billman

05-24-2005, 00:39

Maybe we should just get on with the damn program. I'm sure there's other kidney watchamagics out there. ~D This guy is the scum of society. The sooner he get's plugged out the better for everyone.

Why is it that we need excuses to not execute people like this?

First of all organ donation is no joke; people die waiting for new kidney's, hearts etc.

Secondly he's going to be executed, does it really matter if the state waits 90 days to do it?

ichi

05-24-2005, 01:32

If we take out his liver and put it in his sister isn't like part of him is still alive (liver and soul instead of heart and soul) so he escapes the totality of his sentence.

and what if he is evil and his evil is manifested in his liver, and it consumes his sister and she goes on a rampage stomping people's aunts to death in order to feed it's insatiable liver hunger?

Haven't we learned anything from thousands of horror/sci fi movies people? Too risky, I say fry him then dismember the corpse and burn the scraps, shoot the ash into a part of space where we never intend to go.

or maybe we could apply just a little common sense . . .

ichi :bow:

sharrukin

05-24-2005, 01:38

"Forgivenness" is not needed in a country where "revenge" is more important, i.e. the legalisation of the "Death Penalty". I am not surprised by the attitude shown here.

BTW: I do not support the death penalty. The State "killing" people may only justify in small-minded people that "killing" is OK, when someone does something wrong. If the government can do it why shouldn't I.

You shouldn't kill because the state takes away the right of vengeance and promises to enforce justice in it's place.

The state must kill either way! By failing in it's duty to protect citizens or by executing those who deserve to die. The state, by letting murderers, rapists and child molesters walk free is just as responsible for what it fails to do (stop criminals) as it is for what it does do (executions). The Death Penalty prevents any further killing on the part of the one executed and that is enough for me. If it should deter others then that's just an added bonus, but not really the point.

And no forgiveness is not yet mandated in most nations, nor should it be. The offender is the one who should ask for forgiveness and it can always be withheld.

kiwitt

05-24-2005, 02:09

Don't kill them just put them away.

If it costs too much, make them pay for their accomodation, out of their assets ceased. i.e. if he has 20 years to serve he has to pay back $600,000 dollars. ($30,000 for each year served). If he has no money, make him work it off in Prison and then after while on parole and thereafter.

We probably should do this to all criminals. Make them pay for their time served. User Pays . he he :D

Proletariat

05-24-2005, 02:47

The state, by letting murderers, rapists and child molesters walk free is just as responsible for what it fails to do (stop criminals) as it is for what it does do (executions). The Death Penalty prevents any further killing on the part of the one executed and that is enough for me.

What does the death penalty do to keep criminals from killing that life without chance of parole does?

Gawain of Orkeny

05-24-2005, 02:53

or maybe we could apply just a little common sense . . .

Just when I thought you were making sense for once ~D ~D ~D

ichi

05-24-2005, 03:21

Just when I thought you were making sense for once ~D ~D ~D

I got too close to the edge and got scared ~;)

ichi :bow:

PanzerJaeger

05-24-2005, 03:28

Johnson, 40, was convicted of breaking into Hutslar's Anderson home, beating and stomping on her, then setting a fire to hide his crime. The state has said he admitted to the killing but changed his story after his conviction.

Proletariat this doesnt have anything to do with the culture of life movement. Do I need to explain the difference between an aborted baby and this guy?

I dont really care how the liver thing is dealt with, but he needs to be dead at the end of all this.

Proletariat

05-24-2005, 03:41

I dont really care how the liver thing is dealt with, but he needs to be dead at the end of all this.

So in a rush to kill this guy his innocent sister dies as well. Brilliant. Where are the WWJD bracelets?

ichi

05-24-2005, 03:42

the difference between an aborted baby and this guy

a fetus is aborted when a women decides she doesn't want to carry it anymore, a decision that the state has no part in, unless the fetus is capable of surviving on its own.

This guy has been determined through due process by the state and a jury of his peers that he needs to die as punishment for his crimes.

pretty simple.

ichi :bow:

Byzantine Prince

05-24-2005, 03:43

So in a rush to kill this guy his innocent sister dies as well. Brilliant. Where are the WWJD bracelets?
WWBPD ~D

PanzerJaeger

05-24-2005, 03:44

As i said, I dont really care how that dispute is worked out as long as he is executed.

Now why were you in such a rush to impugn the culture of life when this has nothing to do with it?

Productivity

05-24-2005, 03:47

Well she didn't stomp an old lady to death. He did! So I will reserve my 'hoping bad things happen' for the brutal murderer rather than the upset niece!

The upset niece who if she has her way could directly contribute to the death of an innocent.

I'd call it murder.

sharrukin

05-24-2005, 03:48

What does the death penalty do to keep criminals from killing that life without chance of parole does?

Well 'life without chance of parole' doesn't put an end to their worthless lives.
And since there is in reality no such thing as life without chance of parole, it in fact prevents them from getting out after twenty years and killing again. The mythical 'life without chance of parole' exists only in arguments against the death penalty and is usually then never heard from again.

sharrukin

05-24-2005, 03:53

Don't kill them just put them away.

Why not execute them? Why should we spend any more time on them than we must?

If it costs too much, make them pay for their accomodation, out of their assets ceased. i.e. if he has 20 years to serve he has to pay back $600,000 dollars. ($30,000 for each year served). If he has no money, make him work it off in Prison and then after while on parole and thereafter.

We probably should do this to all criminals. Make them pay for their time served. User Pays . he he :D

And after he kills someone while out on parole or 7 years later? Why not just get rid of him?

sharrukin

05-24-2005, 04:06

Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
Well she didn't stomp an old lady to death. He did! So I will reserve my 'hoping bad things happen' for the brutal murderer rather than the upset niece!

The upset niece who if she has her way could directly contribute to the death of an innocent.

I'd call it murder.

He committed murder and was sentenced to death for his crime. He cannot exercise the freedoms he would normally have if he wasn't a 'Brutal Murderer'. So the niece is the one who is supposed to assume the burden of looking after his sister. His family is the last group of people on earth she should have any responsibility to look out for. And if she doesn't spend time and effort looking after his family she is in your eyes just as bad as he is?

Proletariat

05-24-2005, 04:31

As i said, I dont really care how that dispute is worked out as long as he is executed.

Blood! Blood! Blood makes the green grass grow!

Now why were you in such a rush to impugn the culture of life when this has nothing to do with it?

You don't see any irony here at all?

Productivity

05-24-2005, 04:35

He committed murder and was sentenced to death for his crime. He cannot exercise the freedoms he would normally have if he wasn't a 'Brutal Murderer'. So the niece is the one who is supposed to assume the burden of looking after his sister. His family is the last group of people on earth she should have any responsibility to look out for. And if she doesn't spend time and effort looking after his family she is in your eyes just as bad as he is?

In her world, she would prefer that he could not donate a vital organ to his sister.

But for that wish, the vital organ would go to the sister, saving her. But for her actions, the sister will die. Do what you will with the murderer, but why should another innocent become a victim as well.

Papewaio

05-24-2005, 04:39

Kanamori

05-24-2005, 04:40

It would have to be a split liver transplant.

PanzerJaeger

05-24-2005, 05:13

You don't see any irony here at all?

Nope. The culture of life mentality has never extended to people who stomp old ladies to death. There is no conflict in my viewpoint.

Proletariat

05-24-2005, 05:16

Nope. The culture of life mentality has never extended to people who stomp old ladies to death. There is no conflict in my viewpoint.

Right, because the irony has to do with the murderer's death.

:dizzy2:

PanzerJaeger

05-24-2005, 05:24

When did I ever say the woman shouldnt get the liver?

Proletariat

05-24-2005, 05:28

When did I say the murderer shouldn't be killed?

I can play, too. At least Pape bothered with a reason one way or the other on the innocent sister's life.

bmolsson

05-24-2005, 06:06

Hmmm..... A discussion on if it's ok to wait with an execution in order to make the harvest of a liver possible....... Sigh........

Papewaio

05-24-2005, 06:15

Hmmm..... A discussion on if it's ok to wait with an execution in order to make the harvest of a liver possible....... Sigh........

Yes its Pate for the course :bow: ~D :dizzy2:

sharrukin

05-24-2005, 06:53

In her world, she would prefer that he could not donate a vital organ to his sister.

But for that wish, the vital organ would go to the sister, saving her. But for her actions, the sister will die. Do what you will with the murderer, but why should another innocent become a victim as well.

Well as I have previously stated I think they should harvest his body for working parts! It may be the only useful thing he can contribute. I just do not see blaming the victims of violent crimes for not caring enough about the family of the attacker!

But for her actions, the sister will die. HE IS THE ONE WHO CREATED THE SITUATION! NOT HER!

If the choice was mine I would use the liver to save a life, though as Papewaio points out it would be better if it was not his sister. The genetic relationship however may not allow any other choice. The niece of the murdered woman doesn't owe his family anything!

Ironside

05-24-2005, 08:28

No family member of the murderer should benefit from his death.

If the liver was going to an unrelated third party then it would be okay.

Otherwise by giving the liver to a family member you are rewarding them for having murderers in the family. That kind of eugenic reward program is not good for any society.

Pape don't you think that he would still give a part of his liver if he was a nice citizen? It's not that liver donations kills the giver.

BTW, sharrukin are you volunteering for being the guy that gets innocently executed because of a sloppy police-investigation? ~;)

sharrukin

05-24-2005, 09:09

BTW, sharrukin are you volunteering for being the guy that gets innocently executed because of a sloppy police-investigation? ~;)

yeah, that is in fact going to happen and unfortunately it's not going to be a volunteer. However it is also going to happen because the state let someone out who will then kill again. Are you volunteering to be that person?

I see the state as having responsibility for the administration of justice. If it fails in that by letting a murderer walk it is just as responsible for that death as it would be if they sat the murderer down on old'sparky. The benefit of the death penalty is that the vast majority of people who die are criminals.

Productivity

05-24-2005, 10:10

But for her actions, the sister will die. HE IS THE ONE WHO CREATED THE SITUATION! NOT HER!

If the choice was mine I would use the liver to save a life, though as Papewaio points out it would be better if it was not his sister. The genetic relationship however may not allow any other choice. The niece of the murdered woman doesn't owe his family anything!

That is a constant. His actions are parameters that have been set, and cannot be changed anymore.

The actions that can save a life (ie. supporting a stay of his execution until he can give his liver to his sister) is something that can be changed, and if the niece denies this and the sister dies, the death of the sister is directly upon her.

Nobody is advocating that the murderer not gets executed (at least not in the context of this, I personally disagree iwth the death penalty, but that is not the argument here). They are advocating a temporary stay, untilhe can give his liver.

Nobody is saying that she has to care about the family of the criminal. All I'm saying is that she should not be allowed to make a decision, which potentially could kill someone. Especially when all that decision will do is bring the inevitable slightly closer.

Remind yourself what this niece thinks. "But if Johnson were allowed to donate the liver, she said, "He is going to be remembered more as a hero for saving his sister than for this brutal murder."".

She obviously feels that he should not be allowed to donate his liver, and that feeling will quite possibly kill an innocent. It may not be murder in the eyes of the law, but in my eyes that is as good as choosing to murder someone.

Ironside

05-24-2005, 12:46

I see the state as having responsibility for the administration of justice. If it fails in that by letting a murderer walk it is just as responsible for that death as it would be if they sat the murderer down on old'sparky. The benefit of the death penalty is that the vast majority of people who die are criminals.

So you want to execute people so they cannot ever be released and possibly kill an innocent again, but when this process will end up killing innocent people it's ok? :dizzy2:

New argument please, as I think this one is quite dead. :book:

Redleg

05-24-2005, 13:34

So you want to execute people so they cannot ever be released and possibly kill an innocent again, but when this process will end up killing innocent people it's ok? :dizzy2:

No its not okay - every death pently case needs to be look at in detail both before the actual trail of the individual and if the person is convicted the the case needs to be looked at even more closely to insure that all aspects of the legal process were fully meet, and the there were no inconsistentencies (SP) with the police investigation or the criminal trail. If the United States is going to maintain the death pently as an option - our criminal trail process must be fine tuned to insure that such mistakes do not happen.

I have given my stance on the death pently a lot of thought - I think in some cases it is warranted and must be an option in the criminal trail process - just like my position on abortion is that I am against it - but in the first trimester it is the woman's choice.

However since you are against the death pently - are you also against abortion in all its forms - because to be against the death pently and for abortion makes you just another hypocrite - and there are already plenty of us on these boards about that.

New argument please, as I think this one is quite dead. :book:

Not yet - I think the convicted criminal should be allowed to have a stay on his execution to donate part of his liver to his sister. And its perfectly okay for the murdered lady's family members to be upset that the state is going to allow the stay. However the state must take into consideration the overall society good of allowing the stay - an innocent person is allowed to recieve a donated liver transplant from a willing doner. And if it allows the convicted criminal to at least attempt to mitigate his actions by saving another life - then that is the right course of action.

Spetulhu

05-24-2005, 14:14

I think the convicted criminal should be allowed to have a stay on his execution to donate part of his liver to his sister. And its perfectly okay for the murdered lady's family members to be upset that the state is going to allow the stay. However the state must take into consideration the overall society good of allowing the stay - an innocent person is allowed to recieve a donated liver transplant from a willing doner. And if it allows the convicted criminal to at least attempt to mitigate his actions by saving another life - then that is the right course of action.

A fine way of looking at the situation! :bow:

Ironside

05-24-2005, 15:26

Not yet - I think the convicted criminal should be allowed to have a stay on his execution to donate part of his liver to his sister. And its perfectly okay for the murdered lady's family members to be upset that the state is going to allow the stay. However the state must take into consideration the overall society good of allowing the stay - an innocent person is allowed to recieve a donated liver transplant from a willing doner. And if it allows the convicted criminal to at least attempt to mitigate his actions by saving another life - then that is the right course of action.

I agree. :bow:

What I was commenting on was the before-mentioned argument, that isn't so hypocratic but circular, unless one way (for the innocent to die) is much more common than the other.
Thus you need a new argument to get anywere, unless you use the "lock the cell and throw away the key" argument = harder to get paroled if convicted for a life sentence. Some deserve it, some don't, so scrapping parole completly is somewhat unfair IMO.

But sharrukin cannot use that argument, not without changing opinion. ~;)

Redleg

05-24-2005, 16:30

I agree. :bow:

What I was commenting on was the before-mentioned argument, that isn't so hypocratic but circular, unless one way (for the innocent to die) is much more common than the other.
Thus you need a new argument to get anywere, unless you use the "lock the cell and throw away the key" argument = harder to get paroled if convicted for a life sentence. Some deserve it, some don't, so scrapping parole completly is somewhat unfair IMO.

But sharrukin cannot use that argument, not without changing opinion. ~;)

The locking them up and throwing away the key - is worse then the death pently in my opinion - so I am all for it for a lot of the convicted criminals. Image sitting in a 8 by 10 cell with only yourself for company - no Television, no radio. Only books and letters to read - and all those heavily censored and monitored for what the convicted criminal gets to read. Yep a worse punishment then death. Unfortunely no Prison system in the United States abides by this philisophy that I know of. Even the worse criminals get 1 hour of out of the cell time, and from what I understand get some Television and Radio priveledges.

sharrukin

05-24-2005, 18:57

So you want to execute people so they cannot ever be released and possibly kill an innocent again, but when this process will end up killing innocent people it's ok? :dizzy2:

New argument please, as I think this one is quite dead. :book:

Well your argument assumes there is an option where innocent people don't end up dead and that simply isn't true. You want to put people in prison but that option ends up killing innocent people as well. The difference is that at least the vast majority of the ones who are executed in my system are the guilty. Or do you think that even matters?

But sharrukin cannot use that argument, not without changing opinion. ~;)

Since that wasn't Sharrukin's argument to begin with he doesn't need to change his opinion! My argument was and is that the vast majority of those who are convicted are in fact guilty as charged. We do not live in a perfect world and mistakes will happen. It is a fantasy to suggest that we will not execute thoses who are innocent of any crime. That is simply being realistic.

Not executing criminals and letting them out kills more innocent people than using the death penalty ever could. If you are interested in something else other than moral posing you must make a decision that will kill innocent people either way. A few innocents will die by execution but far more will die if you do nothing.

Hurin_Rules

05-24-2005, 19:41

you throw the pies, i'll snatch their livers!!

So good, I had to add it to my signature. ~:cheers:

Ironside

05-24-2005, 20:03

Not executing criminals and letting them out kills more innocent people than using the death penalty ever could. If you are interested in something else other than moral posing you must make a decision that will kill innocent people either way. A few innocents will die by execution but far more will die if you do nothing.

I would like to see some stats on this.

Sweden hasn't had any case on what you describe for the last 40 years, atleast.

And I know atleast one case where a man got convicted for life in prison (for murder) when he was innocent. Assuming that life in prison gets converted to death penalty, I would say that Sweden does not follow your ideas. ~D

sharrukin

05-24-2005, 22:55

I would like to see some stats on this.

Sweden hasn't had any case on what you describe for the last 40 years, atleast.

And I know atleast one case where a man got convicted for life in prison (for murder) when he was innocent. Assuming that life in prison gets converted to death penalty, I would say that Sweden does not follow your ideas. ~D

If you are actually unaware that criminals who get out of prison on parole or simple release tend to commit crimes then there is really nothing to say. They are called 'Repeat-Offenders', the more technical term being reciticism and it actually does happen.

Sweden hasn't had any case on what you describe for the last 40 years, atleast. No repeat-offenders in Sweden? WOW! I am impressed!

Goofball

05-24-2005, 23:12

The difference is that at least the vast majority of the ones who are executed in my system are the guilty.

The "vast majority?" Well, that's comforting. Not.

~:eek:

Adrian II

05-24-2005, 23:19

The "vast majority?" Well, that's comforting. Not.Elementary, my dear Goofball. And after we execute all lawyers who defend rape or murder suspects, we will never again convict a single innocent to death.
:smug:

sharrukin

05-24-2005, 23:24

It must be very comforting to walk away from the problem saying 'the state should not kill' as if that adrressed anything but your own moral beliefs. The problem of course does not then go away. The criminals go on to kill others but of course you can wash your hands of any responsibility for that so it's all right then. You can then claim to be "a good man". I for one am not willing to buy my purity with the blood of the innocent.

Adrian II

05-24-2005, 23:28

I for one am not willing to buy my purity with the blood of the innocent.Yes you are, since you accept execution of innocents as the price for your own piece of mind.

Redleg

05-24-2005, 23:39

Elementary, my dear Goofball. And after we execute all lawyers who defend rape or murder suspects, we will never again convict a single innocent to death.
:smug:

Sounds like a plan to me - put maybe we should feed all lawyers to the sharks instead.

Adrian II

05-24-2005, 23:48

Sounds like a plan to me - put maybe we should feed all lawyers to the sharks instead.Now what have those poor sharks done to deserve that cruel and unusual diet?

Kraxis

05-24-2005, 23:49

20 years, but not 90 days?

When we talk about live donation of organs the donor does have a say in it. I can donate my kidney to whomever I want (for not charge that is), I can do the same with any other organ I have. I just tend to die of such a case. But if I'm going to die anyway I can just as well do it.

I don't know about donorlists in the US, but I would not be surprised if they were seperate from each other and thus it could easily be that the guy's sister belonged to another list than what his liver would be issued to. Definately not going to help her. Besides not everyone can give everyone an organ, siblings normally can...

The sister needs not suffer because of her brother's actions. And in this case the price to pay is low. I don't care about death penalty discussion in this case as it is already settled, but I find the situation silly.
If his sentence was that important why not execute him as soon as he was convicted?

It is funny how the executions are humane, yet the man needs to go to his death knowing that his sister will likely suffer. Quite humane.

Goofball

05-24-2005, 23:50

I for one am not willing to buy my purity with the blood of the innocent.Yes you are, since you accept execution of innocents as the price for your own piece of mind.

Ouch!

sharrukin, please see my sig...

Redleg

05-24-2005, 23:50

Now what have those poor sharks done to deserve that cruel and unusual diet?

Absolutely nothing - however sharks normally just bite and gulp down their prey - so they won't have to taste the oily slim that ouzzes (SP) off of lawyers in general.

~:eek:

sharrukin

05-24-2005, 23:56

Yes you are, since you accept execution of innocents as the price for your own piece of mind.

The innocent will die one way or the other. It is not an easy thing but we do not live in a fantasy world where we can choose one way and all the good people will live happily ever after. The question is should criminals be the ones who are executed for 'the vast majority' of cases or should we stand by and let innocent people be killed while we prattle on about what moral upstanding folks we are by doing nothing!

Proletariat

05-24-2005, 23:59

I for one am not willing to buy my purity with the blood of the innocent.

So instead of eliminating one source of Completely Wrongful Death (read, executing innocents), we'll have two. Actual murder and executions for the innocent.

Great idea! Who's being sanctimonious at the expense of other humans lives again?

Goofball

05-25-2005, 00:01

The innocent will die one way or the other. It is not an easy thing but we do not live in a fantasy world where we can choose one way and all the good people will live happily ever after. The question is should criminals be the ones who are executed for 'the vast majority' of cases or should we stand by and let innocent people be killed while we prattle on about what moral upstanding folks we are by doing nothing!

Hmmm.

Sorry, but as far as I'm concerned, "doing nothing" holds the moral high-ground over "executing innocent people so I'll feel safer" every day of the week and twice on Sundays...

Proletariat

05-25-2005, 00:04

The innocent will die one way or the other.

You yourself admit that if Life w/o Parole worked, it'd be as effective as executing the guilty for the purposes of preventing recidivism.

Yet you're not advocating changing the Parole laws, you're advocating executing the guilty, along with whatever innocents happen to get railroaded in our far from perfect justice system.

Brilliant. And least you didn't take the disgusting and false moral highground.

:dizzy2:

sharrukin

05-25-2005, 01:42

You yourself admit that if Life w/o Parole worked, it'd be as effective as executing the guilty for the purposes of preventing recidivism.
If it worked, then yes it would do that. The problem is that many who are against the death penalty are also against longer prison sentences and enthralled with the idea of rehabilitation.

Yet you're not advocating changing the Parole laws, you're advocating executing the guilty, along with whatever innocents happen to get railroaded in our far from perfect justice system.

Why will you not accept any responsibility for the failure of the justice system to protect the average citizen? That is why it exists in the first place. You say that I would be responsible for the death of innocent people because the system of justice is not perfect and a few will be executed regardless of how careful we are. Well I accept that but say that we need to go ahead anyway because to not do something leaves far more innocents dead. Not a great choice but there it is. You seem to think that the death of those people just isn't your problem because you didn't pull the trigger. I would go for your 'life without parole' if you could point to anywhere on the planet Earth where it actually happens that way!

Brilliant. And least you didn't take the disgusting and false moral highground.

:dizzy2:

Why is facing reality such a big shocker? The world is not a simple place and we do not get to select our choices like we would at a supermarket! And I will leave the moral highground. to those more interested in themselves and the 'oh, so delicate moral decisions they must make'. When you deal with killers, rapists and child molesters you are not dealing with decent people. You let them out onto the street and the result will be misery and heartache and I think we must accept responsibility for that just as much as we do for executions! So no, I will not be 'pure in thought and deed' but at least on my watch there will be fewer innocents in the morgue than there is now!

kiwitt

05-25-2005, 01:49

The benefit of the death penalty is that the vast majority of people who die are criminals.

Who care is we kill a few innocents ? I just hope never to become one.

They almost killed a "girl" in Indonesia by firing squad, because someone may have put drugs in her luggage, while in the Airport Baggage Handling.

If someone places a bomb in my luggage, while I was distracted or by baggage handlers, I would be deemed a "Terrorist" until proven innocent.

Sorry, killing people is wrong and innocents especially, just for some ideal.

kiwitt

05-25-2005, 01:57

Sounds like a plan to me - put maybe we should feed all lawyers to the sharks instead.

Are Sharks cannibals ? ... i.e. eat their own. Yes ~D

sharrukin

05-25-2005, 02:01

Who care is we kill a few innocents ? I just hope never to become one.

They almost killed a "girl" in Indonesia by firing squad, because someone may have put drugs in her luggage, while in the Airport Baggage Handling.

If someone places a bomb in my luggage, while I was distracted or by baggage handlers, I would be deemed a "Terrorist" until proven innocent.

Sorry, killing people is wrong and innocents especially, just for some ideal.

What murders, rapists and child molesters do when they get out has nothing to with an ideal. But I guess that isn't your problem.

Redleg

05-25-2005, 02:02

One must ask themselves how many murders are truely repeat offenders - its my belief that while some individuals are beyond reform and should be put to death when their crimes are discovered and adequately proven beyond a doubt that they committed the horrendous deed.

Its my belief that the majority of individuals that have committed murder - did the criminal act in a fit of rage or passion - ie hot blooded murder. And while they should pay for their crime - death is not necessary the answer.

Before society puts a man to death because of his actions - society must first prove beyond a doubt that the individual committed a heinous (SP) act.

If in doubt about the guilt of the individual - they must be set free or given a lighter sentence.

However when you catch them red-handed in their actions - its a lot easier to prove their guilt.

kiwitt

05-25-2005, 02:10

What murders, rapists and child molesters do when they get out has nothing to with an ideal. But I guess that isn't your problem.

It is my problem. Each has a psychological reason or defect as to why they did it. They are by this definition "mentally disabled". They need treatment, be it drugs, rehabilitation, etc. They pay back what damage they have done. i.e. the victims and society is compensated, by them working it off.

A life sentence should be that for murderers. Permanent Sterilisation may be required for repeat sex-offenders.

Some enlightened countries have stopped killing people many years ago and they haven't become lawless.

sharrukin

05-25-2005, 02:19

It is my problem. Each has a psychological reason or defect as to why they did it. They are by this definition "mentally disabled". They need treatment, be it drugs, rehabilitation, etc. They pay back what damage they have done. i.e. the victims and society is compensated, by them working it off.

A life sentence should be that for murderers. Permanent Sterilisation may be required for repeat sex-offenders.

Some enlightened countries have stopped killing people many years ago and they haven't become lawless.

When a woman is raped or a child, how exactly do you compensate them for what was taken from them? How exactly does a criminal work that off? The answer is that you cannot! Executing the individual who perpetrated the crime will do nothing to change what happened to them, but it will certainly prevent them from ever doing it again to someone else.

Some enlightened countries were not lawless before they stopped killing people!

kiwitt

05-25-2005, 02:30

sharrukin

05-25-2005, 02:43

True that crime is horrendous, but taking a still life is worse. Society determines what is an appropriate punishment (and in some unenlightened countries (Indonesia for one), that includes the "Death Penalty"). You can not pay anything back.

What I advocate is all criminals pay for their imprisonment term, either while they are in prison (by producing goods) at a rate that equals their costs. I estimate $30,000 per year, plus that again to personal victims and their families.

You simply will not accept responsibility!
You simply will not accept responsibility for the criminal justice system.
You will not accept responsibility for what criminals do when released from prison.
Those who are willing to accept such responsibility cannot walk away so easily

It seems that the victims of murder and rape are the invisible people in your worldview.

kiwitt

05-25-2005, 02:54

You simply will not accept responsibility!

I am not responsible. I do vote for representatives to Government, who do take responsibility.

You simply will not accept responsibility for the criminal justice system.

There are other's more worthy than me.

In a "representative" government, I have no control over the actions of my representative, accept to vote them off at the next election.

You will not accept responsibility for what criminals do when released from prison.

Why should I. Are they answerable to me ? I am not above the law.

Those who are willing to accept such responsibility cannot walk away so easily

I support "strong" law and order parties. I just don't accept the death penalty.

It seems that the victims of murder and rape are the invisible people in your worldview.

Never. These are very serious victims and should be looked after, by proper victim support systems. I support the "Victim Support Service" here in New Zealand, by donations.

Papewaio

05-25-2005, 05:04

Sounds like a plan to me - put maybe we should feed all lawyers to the sharks instead.

As a matter of professional courtesy sharks don't eat lawyers. ~:cool:

PanzerJaeger

05-25-2005, 05:20

It appears the woman will not be getting the liver because the doctors advised she would be better off with a full liver, or at least thats what I heard on the news.

Hurin_Rules

05-25-2005, 07:49

Just FYI re: the title of the thread: a proponent is someone who supports something; I think you meant opponents.

~:cheers:

Big_John

05-25-2005, 08:01

a proponent is someone who supports something; I think you meant opponents.i think she was trying to be ironic or sarcastic.. or maybe some other -ic i don't know about.

Ironside

05-25-2005, 09:06

If you are actually unaware that criminals who get out of prison on parole or simple release tend to commit crimes then there is really nothing to say. They are called 'Repeat-Offenders', the more technical term being reciticism and it actually does happen.

Sweden hasn't had any case on what you describe for the last 40 years, atleast. No repeat-offenders in Sweden? WOW! I am impressed!

And suddenly you talk about all kinds of crimes, instead of murder. ~:confused:

Yes, no cases of a released murderer killing again in Sweden. Cannot say if they've been arrested for other crimes.

Still waiting for the stastistics...

Kraxis

05-25-2005, 14:36

And suddenly you talk about all kinds of crimes, instead of murder. ~:confused:

Yes, no cases of a released murderer killing again in Sweden. Cannot say if they've been arrested for other crimes.

Still waiting for the stastistics...
Just want to add that it is the same for Denmark and Norway as far as I know.
Combined we might not have a lot of population (merely 19 million or so), but it does prove that the vast majority of OUR murderers (can't talk on behalf of anyone else really) become less deadly.
And a pre-emptive strike here, some murderes have been in prison before they were thrown in for their murder, just not murder.

Proletariat

05-25-2005, 17:41

i think she was trying to be ironic or sarcastic.. or maybe some other -ic i don't know about.

Thank you. Thought this made it obvious.

Way to go, Awesomica!

Proletariat

05-25-2005, 17:51

So no, I will not be 'pure in thought and deed' but at least on my watch there will be fewer innocents in the morgue than there is now!

Well, we're just gonna go in circles from here.

You: We're actually saving lives!

Me: We're admitedly killing innocents to do so.

You: But look at the big picture!

Me: Why not let the murderers kill the innocents instead?

You: More people will die that way!

Agree to disagree, I guess.

sharrukin

05-25-2005, 17:56

And suddenly you talk about all kinds of crimes, instead of murder. ~:confused:

Yes, no cases of a released murderer killing again in Sweden. Cannot say if they've been arrested for other crimes.

Still waiting for the stastistics...

I do not speak Swedish so my sources for what goes on in that country are rather limited. What I suspect is that the Swedes simply call murder something else. And considering that the death penalty was abolished in Sweden in 1972 I am not sure what your point is? The conditions you take credit existed before the death penalty ended?

And the reason I did not bother to answer is that it was obvious that what you were saying was not correct and that the thread has run it's course.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In his teens Mijailovic began to exhibit violent tendencies. He had several run-ins with the police over possession of knives and harassment of other young people. In 1997 he was arrested and sent to a youth prison for stabbing his father. Ever since he has been receiving treatment for mental health problems and has consequently fallen foul of the systematic cutbacks that have taken place in Sweden’s public sector since the beginning of the 1990s.

Since 1995 many more people suffering from mental illnesses have found themselves with little or no appropriate care. Several Swedish mental health professionals and charities have pointed to Mijailovic’s case as expressing the failures of the country’s psychiatric services. Leif Silbersky, a leading defence lawyer who has experience of other cases involving mentally ill defendants, told BBC News Online, “It is a fantastic and ridiculous situation we’re in. Anna Lindh has to die so that he [Mijailovic] can get psychiatric treatment. There has to be a debate in Sweden about psychiatric care.”

According to statistics from the National Board of Health and Welfare the number of mentally ill homeless people in Sweden has substantially increased since the 1995 reforms. The proportion of homeless people suffering from mental illness increased from 18 percent in 1993 to 35 percent in 1999, a total of some 3,000 people.

In recent years there have been a number of violent attacks on the public by people with mental health problems, although the mentally ill are far more likely to be the victims of crime than the perpetrators. Mental health professionals have pointed out that in many cases attacks by the mentally ill are desperate cries for help from people who have not received appropriate care from the public health system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since I don't speak Swedish perhaps you could translate the link below for all of us so we can get the details. It may not be as advertised, so I cannot vouch for it.

Two 17 year old men were sentenced for murder to 4 years
They murdered two girls. They assault them, throw them out into the snow and then looted the girls car.
They were not mentally ill according to the Swedes but then there is a new report out telling us that 90% of murders are mentally ill.

http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/inrikes/did_7518602.asp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
An 18 year old who murdered the owner of a restaurant in Malmö last autumn has been sentenced to eight years in prison. His accomplice, who was also eighteen, will serve five years for serious assault.

On October 3rd 2004 the owners of the restaurant Wendis in Malmö were closing for the night. Mohamed Saeed Omar and Boonrawd Paernkit had hidden in the toilet and, armed with knives, pepper spray and with covered faces, planned to rob the restaurant.

The female restaurant owner was stabbed to death and her husband, Wendi Ma, was stabbed in his eyes.

Mohamed Saeed Omar was found guilty by Malmö district court of the murder and robbery of the female restaurant owner. He was also convicted for the serious assault of her husband.

His friend, Boonrawd Paernkit, was convicted to five years in prison for seriously assaulting Wendi Ma, but found not guilty of murder. Three other friends of the 18 year olds were convicted of attempted robbery and will be put into social care. They were standing outside the restaurant keeping watch during the crime.

According to Tuesday´s Dagens Nyheter the light sentences were due to the two men's age at the time of the crime. If they had been over 21 years of age they would have been seen as adults in the eyes of the law, which would have meant lifetime imprisonment for the murderer and ten years for his accomplice.

Dagens Nyheter´s Ole Rothenborg, who was at the sentencing, said that the only comment the husband had after hearing the court decision was, "it´s not fair" - suggesting that both of the youths should have been convicted for his wife's murder.

"Mohamed Saeed Omar confessed during the trial that he also kicked the woman´s head so hard when she was lying on the floor that he thought he had killed her - but it was the stabbing which killed her," continued Ole Rothenborg.

Hurin_Rules

05-25-2005, 18:39

i think she was trying to be ironic or sarcastic.. or maybe some other -ic i don't know about.

Ah, my mistake then. Sorry P.

Ironside

05-25-2005, 20:46

I do not speak Swedish so my sources for what goes on in that country are rather limited. What I suspect is that the Swedes simply call murder something else. And considering that the death penalty was abolished in Sweden in 1972 I am not sure what your point is? The conditions you take credit existed before the death penalty ended?

Read your homework better. Sweden havn't been in war for the last 191 years so why would we use war-time laws? Pwned ~D ~;)
Sweden abolished death penalty during peace time in 1921 and the last execution was 1910.
We got murder, 2:degree murder (manslaughter? unplanned murder) and causing another person's death (like drunk driving). I assume it's the same as all other western countries.
Are you implying that we simply call it something else only to keep some good stats that very few actually care about...?

And the reason I did not bother to answer is that it was obvious that what you were saying was not correct and that the thread has run it's course.

What I'm saying is that convicted murderers havn't committed murder after thier release. Thus executing them wouldn't change a thing.

So you come dragging here with the worst cases in recent time here, as proof that I'm lying? Two of the cases got shot penalties due to the low age of the perpetrators (and you can complain about that), but thier relevance here is questionable. Mijailovic got life, so it's not a proof that we don't use life sentance.
They aren't proving anything about what these criminal will when they get out and that is the issue as death penalty does nothing to deterrant crimes, and they don't even mention a previous criminal record for two cases.

Unless you either got psychics a la Minority Report, or suggesting death penalty (or permanent life in prison) in a preventine pupose (and even on this point those articles gives very little to nothing to stand on) this articles' relevence to the issue is zero, none, nada, noll, null. :bow:

sharrukin

05-26-2005, 00:47

Read your homework better. Sweden havn't been in war for the last 191 years so why would we use war-time laws? Pwned ~D ~;)
Sweden abolished death penalty during peace time in 1921 and the last execution was 1910.
We got murder, 2:degree murder (manslaughter? unplanned murder) and causing another person's death (like drunk driving). I assume it's the same as all other western countries.
Are you implying that we simply call it something else only to keep some good stats that very few actually care about...?

What I'm saying is that convicted murderers havn't committed murder after thier release. Thus executing them wouldn't change a thing.

So you come dragging here with the worst cases in recent time here, as proof that I'm lying? Two of the cases got shot penalties due to the low age of the perpetrators (and you can complain about that), but thier relevance here is questionable. Mijailovic got life, so it's not a proof that we don't use life sentance.
They aren't proving anything about what these criminal will when they get out and that is the issue as death penalty does nothing to deterrant crimes, and they don't even mention a previous criminal record for two cases.

Unless you either got psychics a la Minority Report, or suggesting death penalty (or permanent life in prison) in a preventine pupose (and even on this point those articles gives very little to nothing to stand on) this articles' relevence to the issue is zero, none, nada, noll, null. :bow:

If I gave the impression that I thought you were lying then it was a false one. I thought you were mistaken that is all. Whether or not murderers have or have not committed murder after their release remains unknown as you have provided nothing to back up your claim.

I went to the site on criminal statistics for Sweden and they seemed to provide everything but the Recidivism. Maybe that's for Swedes only.

I found a brief mention about a paper that found repeat killing in 1.8% of all murder cases in Sweden during 1975-1979. Unfortunately they wanted me to pony up some cash for it and I wasn't that interested in proving you wrong.

The number of reported cases of rape doubled between 1975 and 2001 in Sweden.
The number of reported cases of violent assault tripled from 24,000 to 70,000 cases in 2001.

This is something I ran across and most of the figures for Sweden seem to be accurate. I haven't checked out the New York figures extensively but they also seem accurate.

In absolute figures the crime rates in New York (with its 8.1 million people) and Sweden (with its 8.9 million) for 2003 speaks for itself: New York had 598 murders (Sweden 189); New York 1,875 rapes (Sweden 2,565); New York 18,764 assaults (Sweden 65,177); New York 29,207 burglaries (Sweden 122,700).

All crimes but murder are lower in New York. What about the claim that Sweden is the safest place in the world - it sure has some major cracks in its façade?

Doesn't really look like paradise to me!

Of those in Sweden who during the period 1973-89 were convicted of murder or manslaughter, 25% relapsed into new crimes within three years after a sentencing, and of those who during the same time period where convicted of assault or severe assault 45% relapsed into new crimes within three years after a sentencing (according to The National Council for Crime Prevention-report, 1994). Of these who were convicted of e.g. murder the most were imprisoned during this three-year period the survey covered. It would of course have been a higher percentage if the survey would have covered 3 years after release. And yet higher if the survey would have covered 6 years after release, or 9 years, or 12 years, or 15 years ...

In three other researches by the National Swedish Prisons and Probation Administration it has been revealed that ca. 38 % of felons relapsed into new crimes after release. The National Swedish Prisons and Probation Administration - report Återfall och långtidsdömda, 1999. And the report Åter avsändaren, 1999, and the report Uppföljningsperiod 1994-1999.

When it comes to the alternative of custody a Swedish survey made by the Karolinska Institutet showed that 70% of the patients within the forensic psychiatry had committed new crimes within five years. 40% of them had relapsed into severe crime. DN 99-09-29. Another survey (SVD 99-0103) showed that out of 222 criminals who were sentenced to custody and who were released in 1996 42% committed new crimes, a total of 337 crimes. And sometimes even very heinous violent crimes.

And for comparison

In the USA a large survey showed that of the murderers and killers who were released in 1983 43% were rearrested within three years. Of these 26% were reconvicted. Of abusers 60% were rearrested after their release, and 40% were reconvicted. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report 1989, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983. On page 6 they write: "Released prisoners were often rearrested for the same type of crime for which they had served time in prison …Thus, released murderers were more likely than other prisoners to be rearrested for a new homicide."

Ironside

05-27-2005, 20:15

Gah!!
I cannot find any good sources so I've have to use logic instead.

I went to the site on criminal statistics for Sweden and they seemed to provide everything but the Recidivism. Maybe that's for Swedes only.

Yes both Krå and Brå got thier info only in Swedish it seems.

I found a brief mention about a paper that found repeat killing in 1.8% of all murder cases in Sweden during 1975-1979. Unfortunately they wanted me to pony up some cash for it and I wasn't that interested in proving you wrong.
Can be correct, not all people that have comitted murder gets life in Sweden, but executing all murderers would make execution a quite common punishment.

To the issue. Don't you think mr David Anderson (who is the source of your second quote ~;) ) would have loved a Swedish case? Why don't he use one?

To my source it's here on Swedish.
Livstidsstraff eller inte (http://www.sourze.se/default.asp?itemId=10041139)
It's sadly only a debate article, but it is the type were a lot of the validation would disappear if he was proven wrong on that point.