♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 7, 2010 12:38:42 GMT
Anna, in your reply 13 you accuse those who reject the correlation between an (alleged) rise in serial murders and the abolition of the death penalty as being "politically correct." No-one who knows anything about statistics (and I don't know much) could come to this conclusion without further proof. Did it happen in Canada? Did it happen in New Zealand, or any other country which abolished the DP? Dearest SkyLark, I don't have the stastics for these countries. I posted on other boards about several predatorial murders in Canada. Remember too that most people, who commit a serial killer type murder are arrested after their first murder too and technically don't qualify as "serial killers", but the mindset is identical.
A country like Germany forces communities to massive dna tests to solve murder cases. The US civil rights prevent such mass testing. The chance of getting caught in Germany is hence greater then in the US since the police aren't restrained by constitutional considerations. Perhaps some of the countries you mention follow Germany's example.
As Lin rightfully said the chance of getting caught also plays a role in the criminal mind.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2010 12:44:20 GMT
Some criminologists believe that the risk of being caught is a much more powerful deterrent than the likely punishment; as I said on the other thread, this might well be a big incentive to bump off your witness!
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 7, 2010 12:53:32 GMT
I think we have here in part at least a COMMON SENSE vs POLITICAL CORRECTNESS argument!Explain what you mean here, in what way is this about political correctness or even common sense? You are claiming that serial murders have risen because of the death penalty abolishment, based on the fact that few serial murders were recorded in 1780! Surely better recording meanswe understand this better now than 200 years ago? Surely DNA has made it earier to define a murder as a serial murder?
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 7, 2010 13:16:17 GMT
This 'DP eligible' is a red herring.
As I said on the other thread, which crimes are 'DP eligible' varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and over time.
Surely the key question is the basic ethical one of whether or not we should empower the state to kill its citizens who fail to obey the law? Only once that is resolved is it relevant which breaches of the law are going to result in death, be it drug smuggling, doubting the literal truth of the bible or hideously murdering and tortuing several people.
To justify the DP per se on the basis of what is and isn't an 'eligible' crime seems to me to be complicating a clear-cut ethical issue.
Do I think the state should be empowered to kill its citizens for breaches of the law?
No. I don't think the state should have that power.
And practically, as I've already posted, the possibility of the death penalty inevitably results in perverse decisions by some juries, with guilty people being allowed to walk free.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 7, 2010 13:18:07 GMT
P.S. Arguments about the increase in serial murders are spurious, utterly. As Random Voice has pointed out, the differences in police intelligence sharing, to say nothing of the introduction of DNA evidence, means that comparisons with 'the past' are really invalid.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 7, 2010 15:59:01 GMT
So far, only Lin has come out in support of the death penalty as retribution. It is a perfectly honourable reason for punishment, and so far as I am concerned the only valid justification for the death penalty - though I don't agree with it largely because of the very real risk of wrongful conviction. Thank you, Skylark. I'm sure I can't be the only pro who supports the death penalty because it's the appropriate punishment for taking someone else's life. I think Jumbo supports it for that reason and possibly one or two other members who haven't spoken up on the subject yet. I think we have to remember that sometimes too much attention is placed on the US when the death penalty is discussed. Japan, Jamaica and various other democracies also use capital punishment and if we're talking numbers, unsafe convictions and crimes that no sane person would regard as deserving the death penalty then you have to also consider the likes of China, Iran and Saudi Arabia. When Mike and I lived in Turkey one of our students was a member of Bulent Ecevit's family. He was a great servant to his country and one of the best Prime Minister's they've had in the last fifty years or so. Ecevit, in his second term of office, pushed a law through Parliament - in the teeth of opposition - outlawing the death penalty in Turkey. Cynics claimed he did it to try to get into the EU but I know from other speeches he made, other articles he wrote and from the simple words of a member of his family that he did it because he did not believe in capital punishment. As someone whose husband is an anti I know all the arguments on both sides of the fence. I do admit that I'm not a gung-ho type of pro who just wants to rush them outside once they've been found guilty and ice them. I'm very well aware that we in Britain have wrongly executed people - I used to live about 10 minutes away from Derek Bentley's home - and I also think that, in America, the Haymarket Bombers, Sacco and Vanzetti, Anna Antonio, Eva Coo, Bruno Hauptmann and Caryl Chessman were wrongly executed. As for the cynical shambles that countries like China, Iran and Saudi call 'justice,' I wouldn't hang a RAT on the basis of a criminal and legal system like theirs. I know what it's like to lose someone you love to murder. It cuts a knife right through your heart and you're never the same afterwards. I know for a fact that we have a number of members of this board who have also been victims of murderers and they too have been touched to the quick by this crime. I know some pros almost dance in the street when someone is executed but I find that pretty sick and only feel sadness at such an unnecessary and total waste of life.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 7, 2010 16:02:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 7, 2010 16:05:40 GMT
By the way, I notice that EIGHT of the serial killers before 1900 were women (ten if you include the wife and daughter of the 'Bloody Benders.')
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jan 7, 2010 16:08:25 GMT
And the Wiki article doesn't even mention Christie Cleek (1400s) and Sawney Bean (late 1500s to early 1600s!)
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 8, 2010 4:14:54 GMT
I would agree that Torquemada was a serial killer, just as the ritual murdering Aztec and Inca priests were. I find this lust to torture and murder innocent people much more heinous than the murders of serial killers like Lizzie Borden or Billy the Kid. Until the modern era the former type of serial killer seemed to always be in a position of political power.
The later type of serial killer isn't the reason why parents are afraid to leave their children unwatched for 2 minutes. The kill for profit serial killers were around all through history. With the rise of the standard of living these serial killers decline in number with the exception of the serial killers, who murder for mere sadistic pleasure. This type of serial killer actually increases with an improved economy and improved education. They are very deliberate and aware of their actions. For the other serial killers the victim was "simply in the way" or a "means to an end", The most heinous and evil serial killers target the victim directly and enjoy inflicting pain and suffering. Torturing and murdering is for them a hobby and not a means to reach another goal.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 8, 2010 4:37:30 GMT
I think we have here in part at least a COMMON SENSE vs POLITICAL CORRECTNESS argument!Explain what you mean here, in what way is this about political correctness or even common sense? You are claiming that serial murders have risen because of the death penalty abolishment, based on the fact that few serial murders were recorded in 1780! Surely better recording meanswe understand this better now than 200 years ago? Surely DNA has made it earier to define a murder as a serial murder? Common Sense would be assuming that the following equation reflects the mindset of most criminals contemplating a criminal act.
..The Chance of getting caught +The Severity of the Punishment for the Crime =The Decision on whether or not to commit the Crime
True every potential criminal will weigh things differently and individually. Education, economy, personal history, etc. factor in too. In Germany the DP is anti-constitutional and politicans simply cannot publicly support the DP! If it's true that the DP deters some murders and thus saves lives this would mean that the governments that refuse to use this option are negligent and in part morally responsible for the murders that could have been deterred. The anti-DP governments are forced to deny any claim that the DP has a justification to protect their reputations. In Germany the DP was terribly misused in the past and a "good liberal" isn't supposed to be pro-DP.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 8, 2010 4:52:40 GMT
I support the death penalty because it's a proportionate punishment for murder. I don't support the use of execution for any other crime but if you take another person's life then you should pay the price for that with your own life. That's why I'm a pro. All the arguments about deterrence or non-deterrence, guilt or innocence, costs of execution versus imprisonment, mean nothing to me. It's because murder is the deliberate killing of another person that the only proper punishment for it is execution. That's how I feel, anyway. I'm sure some people may consider me an "amoral pragmatist" in the DP debate.
I suppose the retributionist arguments for the DP do emphathize that the victim's life is precious, valuable and worth defending-i agree. For those who i feel are truly worthy of the DP the only value their lives have is to serve as a frightening example to anyone at large capable of such a horrible act.
I do believe there is generally some element of relief to the victim's family, when a heinous murderer is disposed of, Maybe it's the closing a dark chapter, but i would NEVER call it compensation!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 8, 2010 8:08:59 GMT
The model of retribution I support has little or nothing to do with avenging/compensating individual victims. It is more to do with forced repayment of a debt to society and applies to the tax-dodger as well as the burglar and violent offender.
Murder is regarded as the most heinous of crimes and therefore usually merits the most severe punishment available, depending on the circumstances surrounding it. That may be the death penalty, it may be a life sentence, it may be 15 years of hard labour.
You are rght, Anna, in saying that a token fine would be no deterrent to murder, but I remain unconvinced that the idea of dying in prison is not as effective as the death penalty.
We do however know that people have been wrongly convicted of murder; I can think of at least a couple who have served many years in Britash jails before being cleared when evidence came to light that they were not in fact the culprits. I'm sure there are more.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 8, 2010 16:32:17 GMT
The model of retribution I support has little or nothing to do with avenging/compensating individual victims. It is more to do with forced repayment of a debt to society and applies to the tax-dodger as well as the burglar and violent offender. Murder is regarded as the most heinous of crimes and therefore usually merits the most severe punishment available, depending on the circumstances surrounding it. That may be the death penalty, it may be a life sentence, it may be 15 years of hard labour. You are rght, Anna, in saying that a token fine would be no deterrent to murder, but I remain unconvinced that the idea of dying in prison is not as effective as the death penalty. We do however know that people have been wrongly convicted of murder; I can think of at least a couple who have served many years in Britash jails before being cleared when evidence came to light that they were not in fact the culprits. I'm sure there are more. [size=3 Yes the argument that life without parole in prison is equal and has the same deterrent effect as the death penalty is a more reasonable assumption. I believe that the death penalty is the greater deterrent, even if it takes 10 years to carry out, because LWOP is a punishment with absolutely no concept of "immediacy". The fact that LWOP is overwhelming preferred by the convicted over the DP should say something too. [/size][/b]
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jan 8, 2010 22:48:41 GMT
My view is that a dead killer is no longer a problem for potential additional victims and is a load off the back of prison system and therefore the taxpayer.
I would place a mathematical value on the life of the killer making it approximately equal to Zip Squat to the Tenth Power.
When we remove a killer from Planet Earth we make the planet a better and safer place.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2010 5:55:45 GMT
According to information I've seen on this board - see for example the American Legal Association thread - keeping the death penalty in the US costs a huge amount.
You could of course execute all convicted killers within a week of the jury verdict - that would save a huge amount of money, Unfortunately it also means a lot of innocent or vulnerable people will be put to death - mainly the poor and black.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 11, 2010 5:35:09 GMT
According to information I've seen on this board - see for example the American Legal Association thread - keeping the death penalty in the US costs a huge amount. You could of course execute all convicted killers within a week of the jury verdict - that would save a huge amount of money, Unfortunately it also means a lot of innocent or vulnerable people will be put to death - mainly the poor and black. If there is NO reasonable doubt as to the guilt of of the DP eligible murderer than the execution should be carried out quickly! Unfortunately the lawyers and not only defense lawyers like the present system and the money they can make by dragging things out.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 11, 2010 11:16:39 GMT
If there is NO reasonable doubt as to the guilt of of the DP eligible murderer than the execution should be carried out quickly! EVERYBODY convicted of murder is convicted with 'no' reasonable doubt. AFTER such convictions sometimes new evidence comes to light that throws up reasonable doubt, then what?
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jan 11, 2010 15:34:27 GMT
If there is NO reasonable doubt as to the guilt of of the DP eligible murderer than the execution should be carried out quickly!! EVERYBODY convicted of murder is convicted with 'no' reasonable doubt. AFTER such convictions sometimes new evidence comes to light that throws up reasonable doubt, then what? There may a 1% chance of reasonable doubt in the Scott Peterson case.. If SP got a life in prison sentence no one would care and he'd be forgotten to rot away in prison. IF i were wrongfully convicted of capital murder i would rather get the DP in the present system because i'd have a much bigger support group and the chances of innocence being proven would be greater.It's absurd to suggest that the death row murderers of Dru Sjodin and Bobbie Jo Stinnett are less than 100% guilty. Some cases are simply slam dunks and the murderer should be disposed of quickly!
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jan 11, 2010 20:03:53 GMT
It's absurd to suggest that the death row murderers of Dru Sjodin and Bobbie Jo Stinnett are less than 100% guilty. Some cases are simply slam dunks and the murderer should be disposed of quickly!Who gets to decide what is and what is not a slam dunk case? And what if they are convinced that a given case is a 'slam dunk' only for new evidence to come to light a week after the guy is killed, Then, what?
|
|