Fencing.Net - Your Guide to Fencing & Fencing Equipment

Philistine · 08-22-2002, 11:30 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by epeemike81:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Philistine:
What gives us the right to put them in prison?

--Philistine<hr /></blockquote>Self preservation of the rest of society makes it necessary to incarcerate them, but NOT to kill them.

-m<hr /></blockquote>Just playing devil's advocate here, but it's not necessary that people be incarcerted to protect society. There are a number of other ways to punish people--ranging from fines to monitoring and otherwise. We (as a society) have deciced that incarceration is the way to go--but (particularly for non-violent crimes and crimes of passion), you can't really say it is necessary.

Just responding to the issue of the lack of a "right" to impose the death penalty. I see a similar lack of "right" to incarcerate.

While there are a number of arguments against the imposition of the death penalty, I find the lack of a "right" to impose it to be one of the weakest.

--Philistine

Mergs · 08-22-2002, 11:34 AM

Where to start.

First of all, Eric, this is not about repealing the drug laws. Although, it would be interesting to see how many people have directly or indirectly lost their lives over turf wars between drug smuggling/dealing organizations. I also think it is a long stretch to compare the Ken Lay's, etc. to this particular incident. You've been through this particular rant before and have an obvious agenda. I am not saying what Ken Lay, et al, was OK, just that it doesn't compare.

Epeemike. First of all, we as a society have agreed to live together by certain rules. And as a result we have agreed to behave in a certain way. We have also agreed to what the penalties for not abiding by those rules are. Therefore, the government does have the right to determine if someone, as judged by a jury of their peers, is to die for certain crimes. Was Timothy McVeigh any more guilty because he killed 168 people than someone that killed one? Where do we draw the line at what a human life is worth? And who is going to make the determination as to who or how many constitute applying the death penalty to? Yes, we have determined that circumstances surrounding an individual's death may have an impact on an individual's punishment, but certainly in cases such as the one under discussion, it applies.

What is most disturbing is your statement about "..much less 12 people dumb enough to not avoid jury duty". What a cop out. To me, people that are "smart" enough to avoid jury duty are not only moral cowards, but have no right to pass judgement on those who see it a responsible citizenship. So tell me, if you were unjustly accused of a crime, would you rather have 12 people decide your guilt or innocence, after being duly "vetted" by both lawyers (oh, he's too conservative, or she's worked in that industry therefore biased, or.........name the excuse to be thrown off the jury) or by one judge? Which would you take your chances with? No, the system we inherited works quite well. Um, let me qualify that. The system we inherited works quite differently. In its original form, and as it is practiced today, you get 12 jurors, period. Selected at random. And they are considered your peers no matter what walk of life you come from. Quite egalitarian, actually. All men/women are equal in the sight of the law. If you have never participated in the legal system (on either side of the juror's box) you probably won't appreciate this.

No the system isn't perfect, as I've said before. Hell, given the same sort of evidence (and yes, I'll admit there was a certain amount of bungling done by the applicable police department) a high profile killer was set free. It ain't perfect, but given the majority of the other ones out there, it's the best. And the only one we've got.

[ 08-22-2002, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Mergs ]

Mergs · 08-22-2002, 11:50 AM

Eeemike & Philistine (an interesting choice of names given the discussion at hand)

While I was composing my last response I missed your posts, so let me just say, go back to the first post of mine and read about the derrent factor of punishment. If I follow your logic Philistine, then Ken Lay should just pay a fine and a little public service for his crimes? Or Charlie Manson should issue a public appolgy and fork over whatever money he has/had? Maybe we shouldn't really villify Adolf Hitler because he never had the chance to say he was sorry and pay the survivors of the 6 million Jews or 20 million Russians or the other millions of people killed during World War II for their loss?

Again, I say that we as a society have an accepted code of behavior and have agreed that to step outside that code results in a loss of privalege and freedom. Or perhaps you wouldn't mind if I came into your house and trashed your belongings, said I was sorry, tossed a couple of $100 bills at you and left?

To everyone else.

I am in the process of reading "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis and in it he has a very clear and consise discussion of Duality vs. Christianity (chapter 2 of book 2, for those who may want to read it) in which he discussed good vs evil. I say this because it also applies to this discussion.

Cheers,

Mergs

(and no, I'm not a lawyer, however I have had to act as judge and jury many times and affected peoples lives as a result)

Philistine · 08-22-2002, 12:05 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mergs:
Eeemike & Philistine (an interesting choice of names given the discussion at hand)

While I was composing my last response I missed your posts, so let me just say, go back to the first post of mine and read about the derrent factor of punishment. If I follow your logic Philistine, then Ken Lay should just pay a fine and a little public service for his crimes? Or Charlie Manson should issue a public appolgy and fork over whatever money he has/had? Maybe we shouldn't really villify Adolf Hitler because he never had the chance to say he was sorry and pay the survivors of the 6 million Jews or 20 million Russians or the other millions of people killed during World War II for their loss?
<hr /></blockquote>

I think that you misconstrued my argument.

My point was--Epeemike had indicated that he did not think that we had the right to use capital punishment.

My response was meant to show that using the arguments of "rights", we would not have the "right" to put people in jail, and thus, there is no difference relating to the "right" to punish by capital punishment or by incarceration--so that to be logically consistent, you should not oppose capital punishment grounds on the lack of a "right."

Apparently, I failed to make this point clearly.

--Philistine

[ 08-22-2002, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Philistine ]

Mergs · 08-22-2002, 12:19 PM

Philistine,

Understand. I too, need to read a little more slowly and think through responses (although the majority of it was directed at epeemike). No harm, no foul?

regards,

Mergs

HilandDoug · 08-22-2002, 02:05 PM

Mergs, you said it best, and I salute you. Now can I run the guy Westerfield through?

KShan5[PrFC] · 08-22-2002, 02:37 PM

There are many reasons I find capital punishment to be, just flat out wrong. FOr one, many of the people on death row are there because of poor representation. Two, due to racial discrimination. The criminals who kill a white person are much more likely to recieve the death penalty then if they killed a black person, latino person, what have you. Third, there are different standards, just dependig on where you live. For example, if you live in Connecticut you are less likely to be sentenced to death then if the lived in Texas or California. Fourth, what example is the country of the United States setting if they kill someone who killed? "It is okay to take someone's life, as long as you have a good enough reason?" Fifth, the death pena;ty is irreversible, if someone dies they will not come back to life. What if, two days after Timothy McVeigh was killed, we found DNA proving his innocence?

135711 · 08-22-2002, 03:19 PM

1.drugs lead to violence, alcohol is a drug, cigerettes are drugs. only in special occassions, like the american indians used tobacco.
2.death penalty for child murderers, yes.

they hung two of them in wales about 40 years ago, we should do the same. john wayne gacey got the chair, he killed about 30 boys.

edew · 08-22-2002, 04:18 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by counter riposte:
EDEW-
Westerfield is on trial. Van Dam is already dead.

That having been said, I agree that something has to be done about child abusers/molesters/pornographers and people of the like. But aside from being completely psychopathic and in need of desperate help, what caused them to be that way in the first place? Lack of attention as a kid? Bad childhood? Or could this be something different?

The overall question being... How can society prevent this from ever occuring?

Oh well, getting too philosophical at 10 AM<hr /></blockquote>Society has never and will never be able to prevent such crimes. They are just random acts no different than accidentally being hit by a stray bullet or lightning strike or bitten by a mosquito with west-nile virus or whatever. Everyone dies ultimately, and for some, it's the unfortunate circumstance of being killed by some child molester. We can mitigate it, we can prevent those who are known molesters from doing it again, but I don't think we in society can prevent the crime from happening in the future, forever.

Maybe it's possible, but the cost would be so high that it's not worth it. Cost is not just in $$, but in personal liberty and such. For example, look at all the names of the posters here. I think I am (besides Craig the moderator) the only one here with his name clearly displayed on the displayed name. Ok, it's still not my name per se (but it's quite well known among the fencing community that I don't think there's any mistaking who "EDEW" is). Most of you, the name is pretty cryptic.

Are you willing to require that your real name be used on these posts? How about your SSN and birthdate as well? How else can we verify who you are? Is all that information helpful to prevent another Van Dam? It will help (but ultimately, it still can't prevent the crime -- parents themselves kill their children much more frequently than some stranger or neighbor, consider that woman in Texas who drowned her five kids, or the woman in South Carolina who drove her car into a lake to drown her two children). At the end, it's not worth it to mitigate an already miniscule-in-number crime.

edew · 08-22-2002, 04:22 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by epeemike81:
[...]
I agree completely! In a recent poll, 2/3 of high school students said that it was easier to get pot than alcohol or tobacco products. Obviously, the "war on drugs" philosophy is NOT working. wouldn't it be more effective to legalize and tax the hell out of it?

-m[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>I would not want the government to tax the hell out of it. It's bad enough that some people are addicted to the drugs, the last thing I want is the government to be equally addicted to drugs for the revenue they bring in via taxes, on the shoulders of the addicts.

While I favor legalizing drugs, I don't favor the use of them, whenever possible. I live my life drug-free and would hope others would do the same. But it's ultimately their choice, not mine. And I don't want any government to be relying on sin taxes to raise revenue, especially if the sin tax is on something that's addictive.

Those cigarette taxes considered in CA and NY are beyond hypocrisy.

edew · 08-22-2002, 04:24 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by HilandDoug:
Well, given the FACT that the victim's blood was in his car, on his bed sheets, on his coat, on his shirt, on the rug of his home, is there any chance that he DIDN'T do it? The guy is guilty as SIN, and the sooner they kill him (preferably by hanging, electric chair, or public beheading, or firing squad), the better off the world will be.

Now Eric mentions that there is no direct evidence that he was the killer. Direct evidence is limited to a "smoking gun" or an eye-witness. This S.O.B. PLANNED on there being no direct evidence. That's why investigative procedures are used in todays criminal cases. And thank God that science can say that, yes, this is definately the dead girl's blood that this guy's house is covered with. Lacking any logical, or even illogical, reason that this girl's blood would be where it was found, and in such quantity, and lacking a reasonable explaination from the former defendant, and now guilty b*stard, then he should be killed for his most heinous of crimes. The sooner the better.

p.s: can I be the guy that runs him through several times?<hr /></blockquote>You sound just as sick as the guy himself. When do we get to run you through several times? As soon as possible, maybe, for preventive measures, of course.

[ 08-22-2002, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: edew ]

Inquartata · 08-22-2002, 06:46 PM

Someone said that it is wrong to put someone to death who is innocent. Very few people who are put to death are innocent. At worst, they are innocent of the crime for which they have been sentenced to death---most have lengthy records of violence and probably their records are missing a good number of crimes for which they were never caught, or prosecuted. We are not talking about the truly innocent, for the most part.

Moreover, we only tend to hear about the tough cases, because that is what makes good press and forwards the anti-death cause. we do not hear about the majority of so-called "dead-bang" capital caes---ie the perpetrator is seen by numerous witnesses committing the crime, or confesses and brags about it, or is caught in the act by the police. there is no question of "innocence" in most capital cases.

Well, give 'em life in prison, you say. the only way this is any more just is if they spend that sentence in true solitary confinement.

Years ago in Arizona there was a notorious case involving a swell human being named Robert Vickers. Sent to prison for life for murder, he there stabbed a cellmate 25 times, killing him, and carved the word "Bonzai" (sic) into his back. What can the state do to him now? Another life sentence? So what?

Awhile later he killed an inmate in a neighboring cell with a homemade Molotov cocktail. For this he got the chair, finally. Had he not he would no doubt have gone on killing.

So the state's "leniency" in sparing this monster's life was a de facto death penalty for at least two others. This is a better solution?

Now, if these two were equally heinous creatures, perhaps no one sheds a tear. But if they were in on a "third strike" for drug possession or fraud or shoplifting? Did they deserve to have the state snuff out their lives by putting a sociopathic murderer next to them?

And prisons are not built for solitary confinement. So it's either build a lot of new prisons, or release everyone you wouldn't want to see die that way to make room for the "real" criminals. Neither is going to happen. Prisons are expensive, and the War on Drugs is too well ingrained in a society where large numbers benefit from the status quo. So you have to put them together, and accept deaths even more unjust than capital punishment.

epeemike81 · 08-22-2002, 07:01 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Philistine:
Just playing devil's advocate here, but it's not necessary that people be incarcerted to protect society. There are a number of other ways to punish people--ranging from fines to monitoring and otherwise. We (as a society) have deciced that incarceration is the way to go--but (particularly for non-violent crimes and crimes of passion), you can't really say it is necessary.

Just responding to the issue of the lack of a "right" to impose the death penalty. I see a similar lack of "right" to incarcerate.

While there are a number of arguments against the imposition of the death penalty, I find the lack of a "right" to impose it to be one of the weakest.

--Philistine<hr /></blockquote>Ah, but we are talking about violent crimes here. it IS necessary to imprison offenders of violent crimes so that they will not prey on others. similarly with B&E, theft, etc. In terms of victimless crimes like drug use, I have already stated my belief in legalization. fines do not prevent repeat crimes, incarceration does (so does death). Death cannot be reversed, incarceration can (so can fines). thus, incarceration provides a convenient and nice middle ground.

-m

epeemike81 · 08-22-2002, 07:21 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mergs:
Was Timothy McVeigh any more guilty because he killed 168 people than someone that killed one?<hr /></blockquote>no, he shouldn't have been executed, either. yes, we do agree to live by certain laws, and yes, the government does have the right to penalize for violations of those laws. however, it is my contention that life is the one thing which should be outside the bounds of that control.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
Quite egalitarian, actually. All men/women are equal in the sight of the law.<hr /></blockquote>now who's copping out? The system does NOT treat all men equal, and you should know that. Though there are other issues, I will just raise the most obvious one: MONEY TALKS! people who can afford to get high priced lawyers are at a severe advantage over those who depend on Pro Bono.

In addition, let me get back to my point about pragmetism: With the level of appeals that are now allowed, the cost is, IMO, prohibitively high. it costs more net funds to execute than to imprison for life, and costs it over less time. thus, it costs SIGNIFICANTLY more value. There are two solutions to this: 1) don't execute people 2) don't allow so many appeals. The second of these is unreasonable due to the mistakes made by our justice system (if you don't agree, perhaps YOU should picture being falsely accused). Thus, the first seems like the correct solution.

-m

epeemike81 · 08-22-2002, 07:32 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KShan5[PrFC]:
There are many reasons I find capital punishment to be, just flat out wrong. FOr one, many of the people on death row are there because of poor representation. Two, due to racial discrimination. The criminals who kill a white person are much more likely to recieve the death penalty then if they killed a black person, latino person, what have you. Third, there are different standards, just dependig on where you live. For example, if you live in Connecticut you are less likely to be sentenced to death then if the lived in Texas or California. Fourth, what example is the country of the United States setting if they kill someone who killed? "It is okay to take someone's life, as long as you have a good enough reason?" Fifth, the death pena;ty is irreversible, if someone dies they will not come back to life. What if, two days after Timothy McVeigh was killed, we found DNA proving his innocence?<hr /></blockquote>Agree with all points, though you prob. could have used a more realistic example than Tim McVeigh.

-m

epeemike81 · 08-22-2002, 07:45 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by edew:
I would not want the government to tax the hell out of it. It's bad enough that some people are addicted to the drugs, the last thing I want is the government to be equally addicted to drugs for the revenue they bring in via taxes, on the shoulders of the addicts.

While I favor legalizing drugs, I don't favor the use of them, whenever possible. I live my life drug-free and would hope others would do the same. But it's ultimately their choice, not mine. And I don't want any government to be relying on sin taxes to raise revenue, especially if the sin tax is on something that's addictive.

Those cigarette taxes considered in CA and NY are beyond hypocrisy.<hr /></blockquote>Ah, but taxes pay for a hell of a lot of anti-drug ads and programs.

-m

Inquartata · 08-22-2002, 08:03 PM

Technically, incarceration cannot be reversed, either---only terminated. You cannot give a person back ten or twenty years, and even money will not compensate for it.

We do many things as a society that we do not allow the individual to do. Make laws. Levy taxes. Take the property of others by condemnation or eminent domain. Fine and imprison and draft to send to foreign conflicts. Capital punishment is no different. It's all part of the social contract under which we live in a group; we give up certain rights to the State.

To say that the State has no right to do anything that an individual is forbidden to do would be senseless. And it is generally recognized---even in countries where capital punishment is not practiced---that even individuals have the right to kill under certain circumstances ( such as self-defense or defense of another from grievous bodily harm or death, in war, etc. ). So on the one hand the State cannot kill because the individual cannot, and yet on the other it cannot because the individual can?

edew · 08-22-2002, 10:42 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Inquartata:
[qb]Someone said that it is wrong to put someone to death who is innocent. Very few people who are put to death are innocent. At worst, they are innocent of the crime for which they have been sentenced to death---most have lengthy records of violence and probably their records are missing a good number of crimes for which they were never caught, or prosecuted. We are not talking about the truly innocent, for the most part.<hr /></blockquote>I'm sorry, but that's a sorry a$$ excuse for murdering a person for something that the person did not do. The main fact is, if you murder, er, execute a person who did not commit the crime, regardless of that person's lengthy criminal record, the person who actually did commit the crime is still out there, potentially capable of committing the crime again (and now, with people's guards down because they think they've done away with the supposed criminal).

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
Moreover, we only tend to hear about the tough cases, because that is what makes good press and forwards the anti-death cause. we do not hear about the majority of so-called "dead-bang" capital caes---ie the perpetrator is seen by numerous witnesses committing the crime, or confesses and brags about it, or is caught in the act by the police. there is no question of "innocence" in most capital cases.

Well, give 'em life in prison, you say. the only way this is any more just is if they spend that sentence in true solitary confinement.

Years ago in Arizona there was a notorious case involving a swell human being named Robert Vickers. Sent to prison for life for murder, he there stabbed a cellmate 25 times, killing him, and carved the word "Bonzai" (sic) into his back. What can the state do to him now? Another life sentence? So what?

Awhile later he killed an inmate in a neighboring cell with a homemade Molotov cocktail. For this he got the chair, finally. Had he not he would no doubt have gone on killing.

So the state's "leniency" in sparing this monster's life was a de facto death penalty for at least two others. This is a better solution?
<hr /></blockquote>Yes it is. The difference is that humans, as individuals can commit murder. It's not (sometimes) justified, but they can. The state, however, should not be in the business of committing murder. Let people do that dirty deed, if need be, but the state should have as little power as possible. Killing people is one power I don't want my government (or any government) to have. That's the main difference.

People kill people all the time. Has been happening since Cain and Abel worked on each other. We can try to slow down the tide of people killing each other. And frankly, we're doing a damn good job at it. But it will never reach zero. Just won't happen.

However, we can at least state unambiguously that the government should not be in the business of killing people (whether that includes war, I'll leave that to another discussion).

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
Now, if these two were equally heinous creatures, perhaps no one sheds a tear. But if they were in on a "third strike" for drug possession or fraud or shoplifting? Did they deserve to have the state snuff out their lives by putting a sociopathic murderer next to them?<hr /></blockquote>No, they didn't deserve to die because of the state's irresponsibility. But that doesn't mean that the solution is to kill that one murderous person. Solitary confinement, chains, whatever, may be other solutions.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
And prisons are not built for solitary confinement. So it's either build a lot of new prisons, or release everyone you wouldn't want to see die that way to make room for the "real" criminals. Neither is going to happen. Prisons are expensive, and the War on Drugs is too well ingrained in a society where large numbers benefit from the status quo. So you have to put them together, and accept deaths even more unjust than capital punishment.<hr /></blockquote>Prisons are expensive because the prison industry wants the money. All the more reason to legalize more things. I don't approve of the way the prison industry extort money from the population by colluding with the legislators and law enforcement in making more and more activities criminal, thereby making their livelihood worthwhile. The US has the highest concentration and number of people in prison. It's bleeping ridiculous that we have so many people in prison. And it's the bleeping prison industry lobby that makes decent politicians into criminals by association if those politicians don't take a hard-line anti-crime stance.

There are fewer robberies, fewer murders, fewer crimes in general now than before (well, it may have risen some during the past two or so years, but prior to that, crime was dropping like a lead brick in water, so it had to go up sometime, too bad for Bush Jr). Yet, there are more people in prison than ever before. And for what? Petty stuff. Stupid stuff.

[ 08-23-2002, 02:46 AM: Message edited by: edew ]