death penalty

[abcrystcats]

Question for Doreen:

I'm just curious -- do you believe in total nonviolence? If someone were hurting you, would you hurt them back? Would you kill in self-defense, or in defense of a loved one?



I also want to throw in a personal observation here: all deaths are not equal. If you kill someone in self-defense (to prevent them from killing someone else), I do not think that makes you a murderer. What about euthanasia? Some people assist at the deaths of loved ones to prevent them from going through more pain and suffering. Are they murderers? We need to get off this idea that if we kill a murderer that makes us murderers too. It's overly simplistic.

[Doreen Peri]

Answer for Cat-

I would defend my loved ones to the death. I would lie down in the street and let a truck drive over me before I'd allow it near them. If someone came into my home or met us on the street and tried to harm my child or any loved one, I would defend and kill as necessary.

Otherwise, I am a pacifist. Defense is the only reason to use violence. Ever.

It is not at all simplistic to say that to kill a murderer makes us murderers. It *should* be a simple concept but so many don't seem to *get* it. So, it must not be simplistic at all.

If murders have already taken place... they are over, done with, the victims are dead already, there is no reason to murder the murderer. That's not defense. That's lowering yourself to his crime by commiting the same crime he committed. That's nowhere similar to defending a loved one. The loved one is killed and buried. Killing the murderer will not bring the loved one back.

Murdering the murderer is murder.

It's barbaric.

Did that clear up my position, Cat? Hope so.

[abcrystcats]

and you think this is true even when the murderer in question is a serial killer with an addiction to the thrill of torturing and killing?

It isn't that I WANT these people to die. It's that I don't want them killing anyone else. I don't even want to take that chance. Read stilltrucking's article about the serial killer who is up for parole in two years. These things do happen.

Slightly off-topic -- Why are humans so incredibly merciful to each other and so intolerant and cruel to members of other species? Here we are arguing about whether it's OK to execute a serial killer while millions of animals are getting to put to death just because they happen to be in the way. Did you know that in most states if a dog bites ONCE, it is put to death? That's ONE bite, not ONE murder.

I hate the fact that we care so damn much about OURSELVES and so little about every other living thing coexisting on the planet with us. It is not very evolved. HUMAN life is worth so much that we can debate endlessly about the worth of the very lowest, most evil member of our species. But a cow's life is worth two sides of beef.

Sorry for the off-topic, but every time we get all moralistic about the death penalty this comes into my mind.

Do you believe humans have a divine mandate? Are we so special that we should stress this much about killing a member of our own species? If someone is a definite danger to society, then I think he or she ought to be killed, to prevent future deaths of other innocent people. It seems obvious to me.

I do not understand why the death of a cow to provide a steak dinner to some well-to-do American is OK, but the death of a proven killer to prevent future deaths, is not. Why are humans so special?

[stilltrucking]

I hate the fact that we care so damn much about OURSELVES and so little about every other living thing coexisting on the planet with us.

not to change the subject but I been thinking about that too, a cat dies oh what the hell through it in the dumpster, humans take a lot of paperwork

[stilltrucking]

the game of justice
plea bargains
maybe something more humane, some kind of drug that paralizes and feeding tubes, I am getting weird this is a dark area of the human psyche

[Doreen Peri]

and you think this is true even when the murderer in question is a serial killer with an addiction to the thrill of torturing and killing?

Serial killers can be locked up for life. We don't ever need to let them out. We don't need to kill them.

It isn't that I WANT these people to die. It's that I don't want them killing anyone else. I don't even want to take that chance. Read stilltrucking's article about the serial killer who is up for parole in two years. These things do happen.

Those things shouldn't happen. Lock them up forever, no chance for parole.

Slightly off-topic -- Why are humans so incredibly merciful to each other and so intolerant and cruel to members of other species? Here we are arguing about whether it's OK to execute a serial killer while millions of animals are getting to put to death just because they happen to be in the way. Did you know that in most states if a dog bites ONCE, it is put to death? That's ONE bite, not ONE murder.

I'm not for murdering animals, either, Ms. Cat.

Do you believe humans have a divine mandate? Are we so special that we should stress this much about killing a member of our own species? If someone is a definite danger to society, then I think he or she ought to be killed, to prevent future deaths of other innocent people. It seems obvious to me.

It *does* seem simple to me. If they are a danger to society, you remove them from society via the penal system, not by capital punishment.

To kill them is to become them.

Not a "mandate", no. Damn, I'm sick of that word. I'm sick of it because of how it's being used in the news regarding our fearless nazi leader. Because, yeah, I think there's something divine about a human being, whether they have committed murder or not. To stop them from murdering in self defense is one thing. But to murder them because they have committed murder is quite again another.

Bush sends our troops to Iraq to kill people. Why? 100,000+ civilians have died, to date, according to recent respectable news sources. Why? For what? Because people died in 911? Were they murdered by the Iraqis? No. Then why? To stop them from murdering people? The whole thing is bizarre and sick and to me and for some reason, to me, it's very similar to this death penalty thing. If it's OK to kill a person because they've killed someone, then it can be OK to kill a person BEFORE they kill some one and call it self defense, even when not being attacked. I tie these situations together because I'm against killing people unless it's totally justified and the ONLY way it's justified is if there's a gun to someone's head.

I do not understand why the death of a cow to provide a steak dinner to some well-to-do American is OK, but the death of a proven killer to prevent future deaths, is not. Why are humans so special?

In some countries, cows are considered sacred. In other countries, cows are raised for the sole purpose of being used as beef. *shrug*... I can't answer that other than this way. If this issue is important to you, which I can clearly see that it is, I think you should work for the cause to close down cattle farms where the cows are being raised for beef.
-----------

StillT - I didn't refer to truck drivers. LOL! I said, "I would lie down in the street and let a truck drive over me"... It was an innocent illustration.... nothing personal, my friend.

[abcrystcats]

Death by lethal injection is probably the most humane way to go. Ever had to euthanize an animal? They simply become unconscious and then stop breathing. It is totally painless. It is not "cruel and unusual." It's the same when someone is given too much anesthesia during an operation. They never wake up. It doesn't hurt them.

Taking away someone's life should never be done lightly or for emotional reasons. "Revenge" is an emotional reason. I abhor the theater aspect of this, and the fact that some people actually think that taking a life will give them some satisfaction for the death of a loved one. I can't imagine how people could think that way. It's all grief and sadness. But ... see above. I think there is a time and a place when the death penalty applies.

[abcrystcats]

OK ---


IF you can guarantee that these people will be locked up for life, and never be released from prison under any circumstances, then I could go along with it. I am not a lawyer and I do not know how we would create laws to enforce that.

What do you think about the murderers (there have been some) who have asked for the death penalty instead of prison? What would you do with a serial killer (or other murderer) who wanted to die for his crimes, or who felt death was preferable to life in jail? Would you force them to live because if you killed them it would be murder?

[stilltrucking]

revenge that was Eichman's execution

sorry to keep butting in here but

if there was a way that they could be incarcerated for life with no chance of parole then that would work like the maximum security prisons

but what you got now is those maximum security hell holes like the one in Virginia, there ain't enough really violent ones to fill them so they wind up sending some poor schliemel who got busted for non violent drug offenses to them just to justify the millions and millions of dollars that were spent to build them while other prisons are over crowded.

[Doreen Peri]

OK ---

IF you can guarantee that these people will be locked up for life, and never be released from prison under any circumstances, then I could go along with it. I am not a lawyer and I do not know how we would create laws to enforce that.

What do you think about the murderers (there have been some) who have asked for the death penalty instead of prison? What would you do with a serial killer (or other murderer) who wanted to die for his crimes, or who felt death was preferable to life in jail? Would you force them to live because if you killed them it would be murder?

I think there is a sentence "Life without parole" in most states. There should be such a sentence in ALL states. And I think "Life" should MEAN "Life", not 15 years or whatever. Sometimes, it means that. The system needs to be changed.

One of my other major beefs about the death penalty is not only the amorality of it and my resulting disgust, but also the fact that it's quite possible they could kill the wrong person. Now that DNA evidence has become admissable, many people have been released from prison because they were proven innocent. What if the state kills the wrong person? Why take the CHANCE that could happen?

And no, if the murderer WANTS the death penalty, so what? All the better that the state doesn't kill him. The fact that he wants it shows he feels awful about what he's done and doesn't want to live with it. This is a person who feels remorse. This is a person who has a CHANCE of being a human being and growing from his experience and perhaps even teaching his fellow inmates something about remorse.

[abcrystcats]

You're not butting in, you're part of the discussion.

And, BTW, what WOULD we do about about mass murderers like Eichmann and (for a real whopper) Hitler? I suppose if Hitler hadn't committed suicide, we would have put him to death for his crimes against humanity. Doreen would have given him life in prison. If someone is NEVER released from prison, I could go with that. It is a far more evolved solution than killing them. I don't suppose that Hitler's death, or any amount of punishment (including cruel and unusual ones) could have ever atoned for Hitler's crimes.

But there you have another problem. What happens when keeping someone alive is more dangerous to them than putting them to death? If Hitler had lived, millions would have wanted him dead. If he lived in prison, it would have had to be in solitary confinement, for his own protection. What is solitary confinement like? Isn't that pretty cruel and unusual, in and of itself? Life in prison these days sucks, too. Socializing with hard-core criminals isn't a picnic. In order to make the prisons better places, we'd have to spend a lot more money on them than we already do.

[Doreen Peri]

Prison reform is another topic which needs discussion, bigtime! I don't know what solitary confinement could do to a person, but it's a lot more humane than murdering him.

And of course, StillT, Cat is right! you're not interrupting... geesh! We're all discussing this topic.

I'd actually would have liked to hear what Hitler had to say after years of confinement. Who knows how a person changes? What if he had read the history reports and learned something about his actions. He thought HE was the moral one! Just as Bush thinks what he's doing is right... truly believes that... I believe this.... Hitler TRULY believed what he was doing was morally justified. He THOUGHT he was helping the planet. Imagine if he stuck around for years and was exposed to how history presented the facts. Maybe he would have actually listened and changed and been remorseful for his deeds.

It would make for a good book, really. The Imaginary Hitler Diaries. If he were alive today, what would he say? What would he think? How old would he be? 100 or so?

[stilltrucking]

Hannah Ahrend wrote a billiant book about the eichman trial, what danger was he to anyone, was he going to go out and start killing jews again, a sick old man that had lived for years in obscurity never hurting anyone, why not put him in prison, he was not a danger to anyone

we been over this thing about mistakes yes I am opposed to the death penaly my god look at the scandal in illinois, fifteen innocent prisoners freed from death row by that lawyer, god bless him. we are talking about the exceptions here, the guy who is going to be paroled in two years. Doreen I dreaded this post when I saw it, I I don't know you as well as that richard head old man of yours but I know how much empathy you have I been posting all over studio eight about this, I freaked when you said truck driver run over me, I been posting about this post all about this I call my sister myself, you are one of the most empathic people I have ever met.
not to change the subject how long will the miracle jam go on, my candle shows no signs of going out yet
in friendship

[judih]

not to change the subject - but the jam is about over
i figured any time now when the fifteenth is really no longer the fifteenth in doreen peri land

[abcrystcats]

As for DNA evidence, it IS admissible in court now, and forensics has become a very sophisticated science. The chances of our putting the wrong person to death is very slight now. Particularly with serial killers.

I also admit that in the past the death penalty has been used very unevenly, targeting blacks and other minorities. Yes, innocent people were put in jail and even killed, based on scanty proof. Sometimes politics has gotten in the way and provided excuses for unjust accusations (look at Sacco and Vanzetti).

On the other hand, what is life in prison like for a murderer? Aren't they on the lowest rung of the social scale even in prison? If they're soft, yuppy guys like Scott Peterson, then what happens to them? In some cases, wouldn't death be preferable to life as a murderer in the Federal Pen?

Good answer about the murderers who want death. But when does life become superfluous? Worthless to the possessor of it? We believe it's OK to euthanize a suffering terminally ill cancer victim. That's supposed to be a mercy to them. Life without possibility of parole is a pretty grim sentence when you consider what it's going to be like. Think about it: you are going to lock a person up FOR LIFE. That means he is never, ever going to get out. All bets are off. And whatever torture and cruelty he receives at the hands of his fellow prisoners is IT.

I am not arguing, Doreen, only trying to get at the heart of what you believe about all this. I'd rather not kill, but between a life with no hope, plus suffering, and a simple death -- one shot and it's over -- I'm kind of struggling. Is it easy or hard to commit suicide in prison? If it's easy, then case closed, I guess.