Who has the best take on the Death Penalty? <-- Banishment revealer!
The ClubHouse: The Game - Discussion Room: General :
General - Archives:
Oct. 6-16:
Who has the best take on the Death Penalty? <-- Banishment revealer!
Bulltwinkle | Saturday, October 07, 2000 - 09:40 pm  Just a thought on the deterent aspect. 100% of the executed criminals do not commit another crime. I support the DP. I live in Texas. |
Jenn | Sunday, October 08, 2000 - 12:38 am  I am against the death penalty. I don't think it's worth it if innocent people could be put to death, and I have no doubt that they sometimes are. While DNA evidence can sometimes prove a person's guilt or innocence, what about the cases in which there is no DNA involved? I also agree with Katie, when a person is put in jail for life they should be in jail for life, none of this out in 7 years business. If the government is allowed to kill, what does that teach children, that sometimes murder is okay? |
Voyeur | Sunday, October 08, 2000 - 01:31 am  guruchaz, I believe that the death penalty is appropriate in some societies and not others. Life without parole is always preferable to the death penalty because there is no chance of executing an innocent person, there is the possibility of learning about extreme psychology that could help prevent future crime, and we move away from what might be termed legalized murder. But many societies do not have the resources to devote to the support and study of these people, for those societies, the death penalty is appropriate (the purpose being to remove these people from society forever, the death penalty is no more a deterrant than life is). Since our society has reached the point where we spend more in resources carrying out a death sentance than we do in imprisoning someone for life, the death penalty is no longer appropriate for our society. I don't have any moral qualms with killing extreme criminals, I could personally carry out the sentance of anyone whose case was proved beyond the shadow of a doubt (I think that anybody who supports the death penalty at all had better be willing to pull the trigger/flip that switch themselves). But I do find it disturbing that so many are convicted of capital crimes on evidence that is so flimsy and exposed as so flimsy when incontrovertible evidence (such as DNA evidence) later proves them innocent. I just have to wonder how many people on death row who do not have DNA evidence available to exonerate them were likewise convicted on such flimsy evidence. I don't view death as a really horrible thing to happen to a person, it's what happens to those left behind that is the worst part. I do believe in preserving life whenever possible, but I do acknowledge that societies have limited resources and may have to make the choice to kill those who are criminally and violently anti-social instead of simply removing them from society. |
Norequerdo | Sunday, October 08, 2000 - 06:06 am  The United States does not fit into the category of a society that doesn't have resources. The bottom line is that we are just about the only modern society left that does have a death penalty. The death penalty is not about deterrence, it is about vengeance. If anybody has a chance see if you can find a documentary film called the Thin Blue Line. It is a great example of why we shouldn't have a death penalty. Just my two cents |
Lazzarus50 | Sunday, October 08, 2000 - 07:54 am  I have been and probably will remain an opponent of the DP, all the reason's probably being very many and varied to be discussed here. But the two that disturb me most: 1. The Prosecutorial Zeal(mentality) that has established itself in the government sector has become very scary to me. In some of the cases that I have read about, the legal boundaries that were stepped over by them to support their claims of criminal activity and the relentless pursuit of the DA's to convict a person, irregardless of the true facts available to them. It seems that they are more interested in making a case and name for themselves(so self serving) than actually finding the truth of the case or searching elsewhere for the perpetrator. It's a sad day when you have to look on your government with suspicion of ulterior motives and mistrust because they have so poorly done their job. 2.Philosphical beliefs-I'll just leave this as stated. On a sideline here, didn't one of the BG's ask the question "What would Aristotle think of our DP?"? I thought I was watching a PBS history on Greece and seem to recall(but I might be wrong on this) that Aristotle was banished by the population, sent to prison and made to drink hemlock; the DP of the time. Anyone know? |
Ocean_Islands | Sunday, October 08, 2000 - 09:08 am  It was Socrates, not Aristotle, who was forced to drink Hemlock. |
Petunia | Sunday, October 08, 2000 - 09:23 am  The Socrates argument doesn't work, because he was convicted of "neglect of the gods whom the city worships and the practice of religious novelties" and "corrupting the youth". Neither of which are grounds for the DP today. Besides which, while the Prosecutors asked for his execution, he was free to counter it with a lesser sentence - banishment from Greece - which scholars say would have been accepted. He chose not to. |
Digilady | Sunday, October 08, 2000 - 11:46 am  Hemlock. I thought that was a militant response to new fashion statements? |
Wcv63 | Sunday, October 08, 2000 - 11:46 am  For those who are against the DP here are just a few thoughts to ponder: Should a friend or family member of yours (God forbid) be a victim of an evil bloodthirsty killer would you feel the same? If you looked into the eyes of this wretched predator and saw evil, triumph and comtempt for life and humans, would locking them away make you feel safe? If there was even the slimmest possibility that even one of these horrendous purveyors of evil could escape and/or be paroled into YOUR neighborhood, would you feel the same? Do you believe, honestly believe, that prison can rehabilitate and/or medicate and treat these spawns of the devil? I don't think it's inhumane nor do I think it is vengeance to feel that evil should be eradicated permanently and without equivocation. |
Lazzarus50 | Sunday, October 08, 2000 - 11:54 am  Right Ocean....it's all begining to come back to me now......DOH(Best Homer Simpson Voice). |
Nikkid | Sunday, October 08, 2000 - 11:54 am  While I'm a supporter of the death penelty... My views are all over this thread. I am NOT a supporter unless it is proven beyond a possible doubt. I could not come to a guilty verdict with a death penelty unless there is DNA evidence and lacking that - witnesses, and motive. If there is any doubt, forget it. There are of course two cases that really disturb me. 1. Simpson - what a mockery of a trial that was. I truly believe he was guilty. 2. The Memphis Three - I am so disturbed about that conviction. If they execute the *ringleader* I believe that state would be committing murder. Those boys were lynched for being different. |
Lazzarus50 | Sunday, October 08, 2000 - 12:03 pm  Wcv63: That situation descibed in your post is what happened in my family, and it was something I pondered over for a long time. Actually both victim and killer were members of my family. It was a rough time for me. |
Ocean_Islands | Sunday, October 08, 2000 - 12:07 pm  Shall we take a brief census of where The Game Players stand on this issue? |
Sandyc | Sunday, October 08, 2000 - 12:21 pm  Okay! Heavy subject. I'm for the death penalty. I live in Canada. When I think about what it costs us: financially, socially, and emotionally; to put up with all this sh*t from stupid and selfish cretins, lawyers, zealots, and other psycopaths; I say we should find them guilty and get rid of them. Maybe then a woman would feel safe walking down the street night or day and maybe then we wouldn't have to warn our kids from the time they are two to watch out for this that and whomever. What kind of world do we live in where all the news is about someone totally wasting someone else being, and where you can't trust your neighbour or have to be careful what you say on the internet. If some a**hole does something that a jury finds worth locking them up for, why let them sit and stew about it and plot their revenge. Jail never cured anyone. Maybe the idea of it scares them once they get caught and are pleading for mercy and forgiveness saying I'll never do it again - (yah right!). Jail just lets them learn and figure out other ways to be just as nasty once they get out. And once they get out they usually have no choice but to go back to their old ways because they are so looked down on by the rest of us. You can't change someone who doesn't want to change and somehow they feel justified in doing what they did so they don't want to change. Just get rid of them. They are not nice people anyway. |
Ocean_Islands | Sunday, October 08, 2000 - 12:27 pm  Thanks, Sandyc. Your post demonstrates the worst of all attitudes regarding the death penalty. "Get rid of them, because they aren't even nice people." |
Lazzarus50 | Sunday, October 08, 2000 - 12:47 pm  Amen Ocean. |
Norequerdo | Sunday, October 08, 2000 - 05:06 pm  I am with Ocean on this one |
Sbw | Sunday, October 08, 2000 - 07:13 pm  "And once they get out they usually have no choice but to go back to their old ways because they are so looked down on by the rest of us." This sounds like our problem not theirs to me. |
Nikkid | Sunday, October 08, 2000 - 07:22 pm  HUH? Sbw, we have been discussing murderers. You can get all warm and fuzzy with them, if you would like, but I for one think this is your problem, not ours. |
Ocean_Islands | Monday, October 09, 2000 - 06:22 am  Here is the tally so far: Xenia: For Roger: For Talisker: For Zebulon: For Moon: Against Himay: Against Arreal: Against Vykin: Against Luke: No contribution Mantastic: No contribution Who should we vote out? |
Sbw | Monday, October 09, 2000 - 08:32 am  Nikkid - Nothing warm and fuzzy here. Her statement was "And once they get out they usually have no choice but to go back to their old ways because they are so looked down on by the rest of us." So you are saying we should execute them because we can't accept they have paid their debt to society as provided by the law? That was my point. I didn't even state that they should be on the street, that probably is/should be dependent on the individual case. But the statement as posted IMO is our problem. |
Max | Monday, October 09, 2000 - 09:55 am  Emotionally, I'm for the death penalty. Rationally, I'm against it. That might sound confusing. Let me explain. Emotionally, my first reaction towards the perpetrator of a heinous crime is to want them dead and gone--to have them pay for what they did in Old Testament "eye for an eye" fashion. There are a few problems with actually following through on this emotional, and very human, reaction. I'll try to separate them into sections which I believe comprise the major arguments on this issue (all based on U.S. laws and society): Judicial process, Socio-economic realities, Prison conditions, and Religious viewpoints. 1. Judicial process Our justice system has safeguards built in to prevent innocent people from being convicted of crimes. The foundational principle is, after all, innocent until PROVEN guilty. Over the years, the rules of the system have been amended over and over again to allow the accused more and more leeway in casting doubt on their guilt. These amendments have been well intentioned, but have often gone awry and provided loopholes that allowed many guilty parties to walk away unpunished. The system has become so complicated that it takes sophisticated lawyers to navigate through all the options available to the accused. This takes money. If you don't have money, the system doesn't necessarily work very effectively in your best interests--guilty or innocent. Which leads to the next issue.... 2. Socio-economic realities In the United States, prisons are mostly filled with people from the lower echelons of the economic strata. This is particularly true on death row. Now, you might counter by saying that this is the section of society committing the most crimes. Maybe that's true. However, I submit that if two people commit a similar crime, say murder, and one is rich while the other is poor, it's almost a sure bet that the poor defendant will receive a stiffer sentence than the rich one. Nothing is true 100% of the time, but in most cases, the person who can afford top-notch legal representation is going to fare much better than the one who must use a public defender. The end result is that punishments are not meted out based solely on the crime committed--they are also based upon the defendant's ability to cough up the cash. 3. Prison conditions Yes, prisons are overcrowded. In many states, a lot of that overcrowding is because of mandatory sentencing laws that end up putting repeat offenders in prison for many years, even if their repeated crimes are petty thefts. Yes, it's expensive to keep people in prison. However, it's more expensive to the taxpayer to have a prisoner on death row than in the general population. Executions won't stop prison overcrowding and they won't decrease the tax burden for maintaining prisons. Unless, of course, you want to advocate immediate execution upon conviction with no possibility of appeal. Even then, overcrowding will be a problem in prisons because the majority of people there are not subject to the dealth penalty anyway. 4. Religious viewpoints I can only represent a Christian viewpoint here, since that's my background. The Old Testament talks about an eye for an eye. Many proponents of the death penalty site this scripture as their backup. However, there are many laws in the Old Testament that are no longer followed. Ritual sacrifices, what you can and cannot eat, and so forth. Why were these cast aside? Because Jesus in the New Testament changed the focus. The most important law, according to Jesus, is to love God and love one another. If you are Christian, you probably recite the Lord's Prayer from time to time. Think about the words, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." This is one of the hardest challenges we are faced with, IMHO. It means that the Lord will grant you forgiveness in the same measure as you grant it to others. That's really hard to grasp when someone has done something horrible to you, like murder a loved one. Now, this does not mean that people who do bad things should not be punished. We all must face consequences for our actions, good and bad. It means that if someone has committed an act against you, you need to try and find it in your heart to forgive them, let it go, and move on. Like I said, this isn't an easy one. Heck, I have problems forgiving the guy who keyed the side of my car, much less someone who killed a friend (yes, I've had that happen) or family member. I'm still working on that. But killing in turn won't take the burden from my heart. Okay, I've rambled enough. This is all, of course, just my opinion.  |
Leap | Monday, October 09, 2000 - 08:18 pm  I mentioned in another post that I am very anti-death penalty. And, I will vote against players who are pro-death penalty. IMO, I think the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment. I think the death penalty lowers the state to the level of the murderer. If one innocent person is killed, the death penalty is not effective. The death penalty is not a deterrent. I am going to have a hard time voting for Gore, since he is pro death penalty and am seriously considering a third party (and for other reasons as well). |
Guruchaz | Monday, October 09, 2000 - 08:20 pm  Ok, great. Thanks for your input. Maybe you could run for office.  |
Max | Monday, October 09, 2000 - 10:16 pm  Leap, So I guess you'll be voting for Ralph Nader then, right? If you're bothered by Al Gore's death penalty stance, you must think George W. Bush is evil incarnate given all the death orders he's condoned as Governor of Texas! Just wondering. Perhaps you'll consider looking at a wider range of issues before you make a voting decision. It's an imperfect world; not everyone can agree with me...um...I mean you on everything.  |
Leap | Monday, October 09, 2000 - 10:47 pm  As I think back to how I voted on the BB show, I realize that I swayed back and forth between HGs as the show progressed. I assume this will also happen as we play the online game. While the death penalty issue will influence my voting the first time, I anticipate other issues/behaviors/discussions will influence my further votes. I realize the death penalty is a hot-button issue for me, but also know that some folks could care less. However, I also know that we all vote for people for various and sometimes limited or unusual reasons (like Jamie wearing too much makeup). For me, this is one of those reasons. |
Ocean_Islands | Wednesday, October 11, 2000 - 01:16 pm  Is it time to vote according to your political beliefs? |
Leap | Wednesday, October 11, 2000 - 02:04 pm  Fortunately, some of the folks I am not as fond of are also pro-death penalty. I am still not clear if we are voting for 1 person or 2 people. When the poll comes out, I will be voting for Xen, Roger and/or Zeb. |
Digilady | Wednesday, October 11, 2000 - 03:29 pm  Hope not, Oc. Also hope religion doesn't come into it. |
Norequerdo | Wednesday, October 11, 2000 - 03:33 pm  Death Penalty shouldn't really come into it. I am against the death penalty but my best friend is a supporter. Does it lessen my view of her, no. I wouldn't vote for president based on one issue alone. |
Ocean_Islands | Thursday, October 12, 2000 - 02:35 pm  Don't forget to vote! http://www.bomis.com/tvclubhouse/banish.html |
Bulltwinkle | Thursday, October 12, 2000 - 02:56 pm  Leap, Just so you know, Bush can defer executions, but there has to be a concrete reason. Final decision about execution lies with Texas Parole Board. Dislike Bush for his many other flaws, but recognize that as governor of Texas, he can't do much for the people who were condemned unless he is presented with a case specific reason. |
Leap | Thursday, October 12, 2000 - 03:52 pm  I do realize my left-leaning politics are evident, however, I've never mentioned Bush. |
|