Death Penalty??

Can I just say . . .

Phew! *wipes hand across brow*

I haven't done that kind of quick-fast-and-in-a-hurry research since college.

 

Oh, no. Much more dilettante-ish. I plan to study the Constitution and pursue civil liberties. You know, like abolishing the death penalty.

 

Stub,

You people always talk like this....UNTIL....

When we lived in Wisconsin a bunch of brainless liberals got together and said that one of these PERVERTS could be released to hunt little girls for his pleasure.

They had gained a victory in the name of brainless liberalism and in the name of LOVE! Didn't make any difference what this PERVERT had done. Or that the majority of the citizens of Wisconsin, had said don't release this PERVERT.

But then God moved in a mysterious way! The court said OK, we will release this PERVERT. And this group of brainless liberials were rejoicing in the streets of Madison! UNTIL...the court said that this PERVERTwas to be released into your neighbor hood!

All of a sudden, like somebody turned on their conservative brain, they did not like the idea of this PERVERT being released, and fought it! And this POOR, POOR PERVERTwas soooo confused! How could we do this to him?

[ July 26, 2002, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: Justified ]

 

Whoa. I warranted a "you people"? I don't know whether to be pleased or offended. Probably neither.

I'm not sure what your point is with those comments, though. I'm certainly not against lifetime imprisonment, and don't endorse the release of unrehabilitated people (which does eliminate the "people can't be rehabilitated" argument.) If they aren't, they don't get released. Very simple.

I hardly think protecting civil liberties equates to thinking murder and rape and myriad other crimes are okay or acceptable. I do think that sometimes the ACLU makes faulty arguments. But for the most part, I support them and their work. I wouldn't mind working for them one day.

I'm still trying to get over the "you people." I haven't been referred to as "you people" in a long time.

 

Stub, which part of this post, don't you understand?

*************************************************

And by the way, I even questioned this guy about his salvation, as there was NO CHANGE in his life when he said that he got saved. And also, the incident 10 years ago, this pervert was caught doing unmentionable things to a 14 year old girl!

[ July 26, 2002, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: Justified ]

 

thats liberal society talking when its spoken of "rehabilitating" the criminal...prisons are for punishment...parole shouldnt even exist...just my opinion.....

 

Uh, didn't I say that I was totally okay with throwing out the "rehabilitation" argument? I thought I had at least implied it. Sorry I wasn't explicit enough.

Prison can be a place of healing, but you're right, that is not it's primary purpose. It's a place of punishment, and I think it's fine for people to stay there forever with no possibility of parole, if their crime warrants it. Put them in prison, lock them up and be done with it. If they want to find peace, they're more than welcome to try and find it.

If no one can be satisfied about rehabilitation, fine - keep them in prison. I don't think I tried to glorify rehabilitation as a sure thing, or that we should always trust in the idea of it. Sometimes it's not possible. Maybe even in most cases it's not possible. I'm not all that pushed to find out. Rehabilitaion for violent criminals is a personal thing, not something really for the courts to decide on, in the types of cases we're talking about. I don't know that anyone can be rehabilitated of the desire to kill, rape, or molest. I like to think so, but I certainly don't know, and am certainly not saying we should not kill them in hopes they'll be rehabilitated. They're two separate issues. I have a personal hope that a person could rid him or herself of violent urges and desires and be able to control their anger and vent it in a constructive manner, but I don't take that to the level of saying, "well, let's give him 50 years, but if we think he's been rehabilitated, we'll let him out in 15."

I'm in favor of giving reasonable sentences that are stuck to. I don't like this stuff of giving someone 50 years for burglary just because they know the person will get out in 5 years. If you want someone to serve 5 years, give them 5 years. If you want them to serve 50, give them 50. If you want them to serve out their lives, say so. But this sentence exaggeration in order to make up for the parole system has got to stop. Likewise, sentence reduction through parole for violent criminal has got to stop. Give the prison sentence appropriate for the crime, and forget parole. I think I'm okay with that. I'm not okay with giving someone more years than their crime warrants in order to make up for parole, then deciding they should serve the sentence they really didn't warrant in the first place, though, which is why I'm against three strikes as it stands. Reform the sentencing system, and I might go for it.

But to reiterate, as much as I have a hope in a person's rehabilitation, I don't think that should be a criterion for how much (or little) of their sentence they serve. Hope that's more clear.

 

Actually, I don't understand the bit about "luxury hotel." I've never been in a luxurious prison. But, maybe I've not been as lucky as those who claim they exist.

 

thanks stubborn for your feedback and clarifications...

 

Stub,

The point being, why when God said that certain acts were to carry the DEATH PENALTY, why we want to go againt HIS Word, and keep these perverts alive.

And then to top it off, with our money!

And you don't think that they are luxery hotels? Some of them are better then some of the hotels I have stayed at while traveling the US.

 

Well, well, another ACLU fan! They don't believe in God's way either!

 

Hmmm. Because, last time I checked, our country's government doesn't base it's laws on religious beliefs. That many laws coincide with religious beliefs (which they do) doesn't mean that religious beliefs are the (or are supposed to be) basis for those laws. I like having a secular government and judiciary.

And because I have yet to be convinced that it costs less to keep a prisoner alive for life than to pay for appeals.

Now, I guess we could overturn the entire judicial system to eliminate appeals and public defense and return to vigilante "justice," but then we go back to my original argument against fear and anger ruling our decision to kill killers.

As I said, perhaps I haven't had the privilege of visiting prisons that were luxurious. The hotels and motels I've stayed in in my life have been much better than any prison I've been in. So, no, in my experience, prisons aren't luxurious. I see nothing luxurious about sharing a sleeping room with a few dozen other people, or a tiny cell with another person, or by myself.

I'm always happy to clarify, doug.

 

Check back on what MOST of the original constitution was based on. I think it was the Bible. And the above part of your reply is WHY we have the problems we have in our, so called, modern times. The ACLU is as evil as Satan! Remember, it was God who was the original author of LAWS!!

 

There's one of those "hotel prisons" near where I live. No rapists or murderers there, of course. It has concertina wire around the perimeter, and inside you are two to a cell, with an open toilet.

You must stay in some pretty rough hotels. The violent and poor criminals get tossed in much worse conditions. Rape is a simple fact of life for the weak and the young. People are routinely murdered for what we would consider trifles, or just because they happened to be white/black/hispanic.

I have a friend who used to be a guard in one of those prisons. He said one guard was particularly strict, and the local gang decided to get rid of her. They went to a prisoner and told him he had to take her out, or he'd be killed in a gruesome fashion. So he tried. And did a lot of damage before the guards stopped him.

They beat him severely, and dragged his face across grating that removed much of the skin and some of the other tissue. He's crippled and scarred.

He went through this to avoid being tortured to death. Putting aside the question of whether or not he deserved it, you might consider what you might have done under those circumstances, and what would have happened to you, with either choice.

It is not realistic to suppose prisons are hotels.

 

I smell a troll.

 

Yes, it is the liberals #1 priority to release "PERVERTS" from jail. You sound like Rush.

I have said throughout here that I do not oppose life imprisonment for those who commit 1st degree murder (and I'll add to this multiple cases of 2nd degree murder). Nor do I oppose life imprisonment for serial rapists or child rapists. You don't seem to be able to see any middle ground between kill them! or release those poor innocent souls.

And I agree with some of the above comments on the nonsense of the "luxury hotel". Maximum security prison is no Hilton. They're lucky to get a book and a deck of cards.

 

Check back on what MOST of the original constitution was based on. I think it was the Bible.

Our Constitution is in no way based on Biblical Law. Unless by Biblical Law you mean the parts that outlaw murder and stealing and whatnot (Laws that exist in virtually every society in the world). Please show us how the Constitution is based on Biblical law. Feel free to use the Constitution as a reference.

And the above part of your reply is WHY we have the problems we have in our, so called, modern times. The ACLU is as evil as Satan!

Because they fight to preserve civil liberties? How dare they!

Remember, it was God who was the original author of LAWS!!

I ask again, do we live in a monarchy. If not, should we? Do we live in a society with slaves. If not, should we?

[ July 27, 2002, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Candide ]

 

Multi,

Very well put! If these liberals want to pay for these perverts to stay in prison, then make them pay for it, not me or you!

And put these prisons in the middle of the desert, instead of prime real estate! Or up in the tundra!

I think that this should end this debate very nicely!

But, it still doesn't coenside with God's Word...DEATH PENALTY!

[ July 27, 2002, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: Justified ]