I have a Question:

Why is it that some people in here see "life in Prison" as too easy a punishment?


It's not, except for the capital crime of murder. For that, it no more than a slap on the hand. Free room & board, weight room, basket ball courts, TV, etc, etc.
Take all that away, lock the murderer in a 6x10 cell, 24 hrs a day, for life. Then it might be punishment enough for taking an innocent life.

Why is it that some people in here see "life in Prison" as too easy a punishment?

Because all too often it isn't actually "LIFE" in prison. Charles manson was sent to prison for life and still, how often has he come up in front of a parole board. Sure they have never let him out yet, but all it takes is a sympathetic board and this guy gets off and walks outside. How many times has this already happened in the past and the killer was freed just to kill yet another INNOCENT VICTIM. Stop worrying about how humane conditions are for these animals and start worrying about the conditions of the victims and their families. If they are found guilty, and I mean without a shadow of a doubt, kill the SOB. I don't want him living off my tax dollars any more than he has to.

If they let me, I would, without reservation, volunteer to go down to the local State or Federal prison, and be the son of a bitch who throws the switch on convicted killers, rapists, and child molesters.

For murderers, rapists, and child molesters I would shed not one tear.
I would throw the switch, and I would watch with bemusement and a feeling of satisfaction as the jackass in question writhed in agony, jerking and snapping & popping like bacon in a frying pan. Sparks flying, smoke billowing out of every orifice, and the smell of grilled meat heavy in the air.
The family and clergy of the convicted one would look on in horror, as the sentence was carried out with brutal and calculated efficiency.

Later on, I would use a spatula to scrape the crispy remains of the convict off the electric chair, and cheerfully help the mortuary crew bag the remains for cremation or burial.

Then I would go home, have a beer or two, and sleep like a baby.

I would love to buy you those beers.

Charles Manson has done how many years inside now, nearly 40.
And yous still arent satisfied until people are put to the sword.

Charles Manson has done how many years inside now, nearly 40.
And yous still arent satisfied until people are put to the sword.

No I'm not satified yet, he's still alive.

His Victims would have been how old now? How many children and grandchildren would they have had? How many beautiful moments in life did they have taken away from them? How does forty years in prison make up for all that?

I suppose his serving forty years is enough? You wanna let him out? You want him working in your supermarket and maybe following your wife home to do whatever he wants? Fine he's learned his lesson right? He's been rehabilitated?

Im not saying 'let him out',Im saying he's already served 40 years,tho in his case he wont ever get out.

I voted yes, but only for murder with aggravating circumstances, per each state's laws.

In my own state, this includes--murder for hire, murder of a law enforcement person, murder of a victim under a certain age, use of explosives, if the offender had a prior conviction of murder, murder by laying in wait.

I find it strange that a state passes the death penalty, yet an appeal goes to the federal court.
Basically, the sentence is passed by one judicery but repealed by another.

Check this guy out. Now who wants their tax dollars to go toward his support for the next 50 years?

Name TDCJ Number Date of Birth
Shore, Anthony 999488 06/25/1962

Date of Offense Age (at the time of Offense)
04/16/1992 29
Race Gender Hair Color
White Male Gray
Height Weight Eye Color
5' 10" 198 Brown
Native State South Dakota

Wrecker Driver / General Construction / Lineman / Laborer
Prior Prison Record
None

Summary of Incident

On 09/26/1986, in Harris County, Texas, Shore kidnapped a fifteen year old white female and strangled her to death with a cord. Shored then dumped the victim's body behind a Ninfa's Restaurant.

On 04/16/1992 in Harris County, Texas, Shore kidnapped a twenty-one year old Hispanic female, sexually assaulted her and strangled her to death with a cord. Shore then dumped the victim's body behind a Dairy Queen Restaurant.

On 10/19/1993, Shore entered the home of a fourteen year old female, bound and sexually assaulted her, and strangled her to death. Shore then fled the scene on foot.

On 08/07/1994, Shore kidnapped and sexually assaulted a nine year old female causing her death. Shore then dumped the victim's body behind an abandoned commercial building.

On 07/06/1995, Shore kidnapped a sixteen year old Hispanic female and sexually assaulted her causing her death. Shore then dumped the victim's body in a field.

Co-defendants
None
Race and Gender of Victim
Two Hispanic Females, One White Female, and Two Unknown Females
Photograph of Offender

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/shoreanthony.jpg

Im saying he's already served 40 years

Saying it like that though makes it sound like you think he's served enough time. I prefer to say he's ONLY served 40 years.

[QUOTE=moderate]Wrong. On both counts. Name one innocent person who has been executed.


How about Barbara Graham.
Just watch the intense Oscar-winning movie with Susan Hayward's
sterling and believable performance :
{{{{{{{{{{{ I Want To Live }}}}}}}}}} 1958

Barbara Graham was guilty.
She pistol-whipped the old woman to death, hoping to get her to tell where she'd hidden her jewels.

SMW--

Hey, I've eaten at that Ninfa's.

Crap, what was in that quesadilla?

SMW--

Hey, I've eaten at that Ninfa's.

Crap, what was in that quesadilla?
You don't wanna know, darlin.

Just be glad the ole boy didn't live next door to you.

;)
SMW

I find it strange that a state passes the death penalty, yet an appeal goes to the federal court.
Basically, the sentence is passed by one judicery but repealed by another.

That's why prisons are overcrowded.

The guilty try to get out of their punishment hoping to find a loop hole in the system to spare their life.

Personally, I think if one is found guilty beyond a doubt of commiting a serious crime~murder, rape of a kiddie,etc, they should die soon afterward. It would send a strong message to other freaks wishing to do the same.

The point is. It dosent send a strong message out, because the crimes you mentioned continue at pace.

Saying it like that though makes it sound like you think he's served enough time. I prefer to say he's ONLY served 40 years.
Maybe he has, tho Charles Manson is mentally unstable,and as he picked up a cult following he will spend the rest of his life behind bars.

The point is. It dosent send a strong message out, because the crimes you mentioned continue at pace.


They continue at pace and it hasn't sent a strong message because it isn't used reliably. Close some loopholes and actually kill some of the people on death row and you MAY see a difference.

I find that countrys with harsh criminal justice systems breed harsh criminals.

Studies reveal: The Nazis detered crime...Thats right all you need is a elaborate system of work and death camps as well as vicious brown shirts beating and shooting holigans in the street and your crime rate will drop to virtually zero!!! Sign up today.

sounds a lot like the argument for keeping saddam in power. There was no sectarian violence when he was in charge!

It would have been an advantage to the US to keep Saddam in power during its socalled war on terror.

sounds a lot like the argument for keeping saddam in power. There was no sectarian violence when he was in charge!


I guess killing 300,000+ Kurds and Shiite, just after the 1st gulf war was a sign of sectarian solidarity. (Or were you just being facetious?)

I was being facetious

That's why prisons are overcrowded.

The guilty try to get out of their punishment hoping to find a loop hole in the system to spare their life.

Personally, I think if one is found guilty beyond a doubt of commiting a serious crime~murder, rape of a kiddie,etc, they should die soon afterward. It would send a strong message to other freaks wishing to do the same. Wrong. Prisons are so crowded because of the "war on drug users" in which non-violent personal users are thrown in prison under mandatory minimum sentences that were pushed into legilation by the 'prison industry'. Prisons are over crowed because its profitable to steal peoples freedom in America.
I was being facetious and failing. My point was that extreme and brutal punishments will always deter some criminals, and never all. The question is do you think its OK for the state to become the same brutal killers as those it kills? Do you want to be unable to rectify mistaken convictions?

I agree that prisons should be less cozy. I am also against them being inhumane. That means no TV (maybe educational movies once a week). No weights. Many Books. And maybe checkers and chess boards.

Wrong. Prisons are so crowded because of the "war on drug users" in which non-violent personal users are thrown in prison under mandatory minimum sentences that were pushed into legilation by the 'prison industry'. Prisons are over crowed because its profitable to steal peoples freedom in America.

See. If we killed off the murders and kiddie abusers right off, there would be plenty of room for the guilty drug runners.

How the hell is imprisoning drug users equal to 'stealing people's freedom'?

I don't want a crackhead living next to me making meth and blowing up the place. Put their non violent ass in jail where it belongs.

As far as prisons being overcrowded because it's profitable, I call bullshit. It costs more to keep some of these scum alive then to put them to death.

and yeah, a prison shouldn't be a country club. I love how McCain run his jail. His inmates hated it, as it should be.

and yeah, a prison shouldn't be a country club. I love how McCain run his jail. His inmates hated it, as it should be.
Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff Joe Arpaio to be exact. Chain gangs, limited television, no porn, no cigarettes, etc. Even makes them wear pink underwear and eat spam. Hell of a lawman...nicknamed 'America's Toughest Sheriff'.:thumbs:

Maricopa County (Arizona) Sheriff Joe Arpaio to be exact. Chain gangs, limited television, no porn, no cigarettes, etc. Even makes them wear pink underwear and eat spam. Hell of a lawman...nicknamed 'America's Toughest Sheriff'.:thumbs:

Yes, that was him! Thanks for the correction. :thumbs:

A lonf time ago I knew 3 friends who bunked into America together. All 3 were doing ok, one was a barman in NYC.
In walked 2 guys and ordered a couple of beers, Immigration and Naturalisation Service,oooops, arrested.
This was a Friday evening, he was due in court for a deportation order on the Monday and placed in a large holding room.
When the cops went to check on the inmates on Saturday morning, the barman had been murdered.
Just thought Id tell yous that.
No one was charged with his death.

I wonder what happens in Arizona if you refuse to comply with this guys rules.

I agree with 500 about the war on drugs. It's pretty ridiculous. If you're found with more than an ounce of marijuana you're charged with possession with intent to distribute and I think the penalties for that start in the multiples of years. I certainly wouldn't call that akin to having a meth lab and selling meth.

I agree with 500 about the war on drugs. It's pretty ridiculous. If you're found with more than an ounce of marijuana you're charged with possession with intent to distribute and I think the penalties for that start in the multiples of years. I certainly wouldn't call that akin to having a meth lab and selling meth. Um, if you have over an oz, you probly ARE dealing. I can see slapping someones wrist for a bowl and small amount, surely they don't get tossed in jail.
I know in NY the repeat dwi's are going to jail, as it should be. I'm just saying there would be plenty more room if we started killing proven murders and scum of society.

Ps, sorry about your friend, Paul.

I wonder what happens in Arizona if you refuse to comply with this guys rules.
you stay longer.

Um, if you have over an oz, you probly ARE dealing. I can see slapping someones wrist for a bowl and small amount, surely they don't get tossed in jail.
I know in NY the repeat dwi's are going to jail, as it should be. I'm just saying there would be plenty more room if we started killing proven murders and scum of society.

Ps, sorry about your friend, Paul.
Joe's said numerous times...he's got more tents:thumbs:

Um, if you have over an oz, you probly ARE dealing. I can see slapping someones wrist for a bowl and small amount, surely they don't get tossed in jail.
I know in NY the repeat dwi's are going to jail, as it should be. I'm just saying there would be plenty more room if we started killing proven murders and scum of society.

Ps, sorry about your friend, Paul.
An ounce isn't really that much. What if you and your 3 roommates all pitched in to buy an ounce and share it?

And I'm pretty sure you CAN get thrown in jail for small amounts, but most people don't because most judges are sane. However, I think less than an ounce should just be a fine or something like a speeding ticket. It's stupid to be on probation for a year and have that conviction on your record for something as silly as having a bowl full of weed. I've also heard about a guy who was on probation for having bird seed that he had shipped from Canada which had hemp seeds in it. Apparently the whole 50 pounds or so of bird seed had enough hemp seeds that the level of THC was like the teeny tiny decimal amount that can get you in trouble.

An ounce isn't really that much. What if you and your 3 roommates all pitched in to buy an ounce and share it?

And I'm pretty sure you CAN get thrown in jail for small amounts, but most people don't because most judges are sane. However, I think less than an ounce should just be a fine or something like a speeding ticket. It's stupid to be on probation for a year and have that conviction on your record for something as silly as having a bowl full of weed. I've also heard about a guy who was on probation for having bird seed that he had shipped from Canada which had hemp seeds in it. Apparently the whole 50 pounds or so of bird seed had enough hemp seeds that the level of THC was like the teeny tiny decimal amount that can get you in trouble.

Then you and your 3 roomies should go get it together and split it before you get caught with an oz.
I have no problem with smoking it, I''m guilty it's just been awhile for me and I'm not coming down on having your own head.
I'm more about harder drugs anyhow and getting rid of them.

That's crazy about the bird seed story.I know the laws are crazy, but we can change them if we make the effort.

Like mike said, have more tents if they need them.More so for the hard criminals who deserve them. Honestly I think if we got to killing more inmates for their crimes, it would scare straight others not to commit them.

Although barbaric, cutting off the hands off theives deterred other thieves from crime. Same should go for those who kill. We kill them and others won't act so quickly to kill.

We need to remember the precedence set by the Lousiana state police when they busted Willie Nelson's tour bus & found several ounces of pot & some mushrooms - misdemeanor charges for the musicians, none for the driver.

[QUOTE=Foolsworth]

Barbara Graham was guilty.
She pistol-whipped the old woman to death, hoping to get her to tell where she'd hidden her jewels.

The Innocent Executed
" There is no judicial mechanism for review of Guilt or pronouncement
of Innocence AFTER an exucution.The courts are done with it.Therefore,
it should go without saying that no court has announced that an
executed person was innocent,since American courts by definition do
not make such findings. "
-- by William Kreuter

I'm just saying there would be plenty more room if we started killing proven murders and scum of society.

Any idea what percentage of inmates in prisons are convicted of homicide?

WHY has this taken so long? What is this news? IF you KILL you face the DEATH PENALTY.

So murder is so heinous, we're going to murder you?

Any idea what percentage of inmates in prisons are convicted of homicide?

Nope. Figure that out and let me know would ya, I'm kinda curious.

So murder is so heinous, we're going to murder you?

Big difference between someone soaking the rug with innocent blood and getting an injection which causes no pain.

Nope. Figure that out and let me know would ya, I'm kinda curious.

I'll go out on a limb and say it's less than 1%.

So murder is so heinous, we're going to murder you?


mur·der (műrdr) KEY

NOUN:

The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.
Slang Something that is very uncomfortable, difficult, or hazardous: The rush hour traffic is murder.


Last time I checked, a court ordered execution does not fit the definition.

Big difference between someone soaking the rug with innocent blood and getting an injection which causes no pain.

No pain? Um ... recently a guy took a LONG time to die.

But that's beside the point. If it's wrong to take a life, it's wrong to take a life.

Period.

It's ESPECIALLY wrong for the STATE to take a life.

And you know that.

I'll go out on a limb and say it's less than 1%.

Ok. I'll go out on the limb and say 56%. C’est la vie.

And you know that.

What the convicted murderer did is not a figure of speech. He forfeited his right to life and liberty. And you SHOULD know that.

No pain? Um ... recently a guy took a LONG time to die.

But that's beside the point. If it's wrong to take a life, it's wrong to take a life.

Period.

It's ESPECIALLY wrong for the STATE to take a life.

It's politically correct for the state to act as our public servants and protect us from harm. It is RIGHT for them to put to death a murderer who has committed a crime against society.

I wrote earlier in this thread that my aunt had been murdered.

This morning, while reading the paper, in the death notices was a name that caught my eye. It was the father of the person who killed my aunt. The father had been my aunt's boyfriend at the time of her death. The obit stated he had been preceeded in death by a son. This is the son who had killed my aunt.
He was sentenced to life in prison and died while serving his sentence.

I just thought this was quite a coincidence, having this thread and seeing that in the paper this morning.

[QUOTE=rendova]

The Innocent Executed
" There is no judicial mechanism for review of Guilt or pronouncement
of Innocence AFTER an exucution.The courts are done with it.Therefore,
it should go without saying that no court has announced that an
executed person was innocent,since American courts by definition do
not make such findings. "
-- by William Kreuter


Concerning the guilt of Barbara Graham:

See The Encyclopedia of American Crime or read courtroom testimony by defendants on trial for the same murder.

I wrote earlier in this thread that my aunt had been murdered.

This morning, while reading the paper, in the death notices was a name that caught my eye. It was the father of the person who killed my aunt. The father had been my aunt's boyfriend at the time of her death. The obit stated he had been preceeded in death by a son. This is the son who had killed my aunt.
He was sentenced to life in prison and died while serving his sentence.

I just thought this was quite a coincidence, having this thread and seeing that in the paper this morning.
That is a coincidence, nini! Don't you wonder - if there is life after death - your aunt had the opportunity to confront her murderer? Regardless, sounds like kharma was at work in the killer's family. "What goes around, comes around."

SMW

[QUOTE=Foolsworth]


Concerning the guilt of Barbara Graham:

See The Encyclopedia of American Crime or read courtroom testimony by defendants on trial for the same murder.

I don't have to.
The Movie explains what happens.
A lot of what Court Testimony and Trial documents
record is False and just plain Untrue.
Like,did Johnny Cochran ask OJ to take the stand.
No,because they painted an extremely long {9 months worth}
portrait of OJ as being Incapable of committing the murders.
Why on Earth would a Sane,Rational person want to Relieve the
OJ Debacle Trial,to get to the truth.The jury was also in on FiX.
OJ knew over the weekend that the Juror's were very likely to acquit him.
Some stooge in the seguestered Hotel,got word to OJ about how
the Jurors were gonna Vote to Acquit.That's why OJ didn't seem too upset when
he walked into the courtroom on a Tuesday.Don't futgit on the
previous Day {monday} when the Jury,who only delieberated for a few hrs.came into court
and asked Judgy Ito for explanation about a piece of evidence.It turned out to
be of NO importance.Just a bit of fakery to make their judgement seem Credible.
The Defense were all enablers to a gigantic Murder cover-up.
Barbara Graham was framed by those 2 men,who actually set her up
as a Fall Guy.I mean,Fall Galsy.
Got it ???

I get it, foolsworth.

Here is what I get-- the EVIDENCE clearly pointed to her guilt.

The movie you speak of contains numerous fictional elements and portrays Barbara in a sympathetic light, and Barbara is played by a beautiful and sympathetic actress, Susan Hayward. The whole audience is rooting for poor Babs, sob.

The REAL Barbara Graham was a tough talking third rate crook who hung out with lowlives and thought she'd earn some partying money by bashing a helpless old woman over the head until her skull cracked. Read up sometime what ELSE her cohorts did to people they didn't like.

Please present EVIDENCE to the contrary.

Capital Punishment Statistics (Source: DOJ)

Executions

In 2006, 53 inmates were executed, 7 fewer than in 2005.

Executions, 1930-2006

In 2006, 53 persons in 14 States were executed -- 24 in Texas; 5 in Ohio; 4 each in Florida, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Virginia; and 1 each in Indiana, Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, California, Montana, and Nevada.


Of persons executed in 2006:
-- 32 were white
-- 21 were black


All 53 inmates executed in 2006 were men.


Lethal injection accounted for 52 of the executions and electrocution for one.


Thirty-eight States and the Federal government in 2005 had capital statutes.


Prisoners under sentence of death

The number of prisoners under sentence of death decreased for the fifth consecutive year in 2005.

Prisoners on death row, 1953-2005

At yearend 2005, 36 States and the Federal prison system held 3,254 prisoners under sentence of death, 66 fewer than at yearend 2004.

Since the death penalty was reinstated by the Supreme Court in 1976, white inmates have made up more than half of the number under sentence of death.

Prisoners on death row by race, 1968-2005

Of persons under sentence of death in 2005:
-- 1,805 were white
-- 1,372 were black
-- 31 were American Indian
-- 34 were Asian
-- 12 were of unknown race.


Fifty-two women were under a sentence of death at yearend 2005.

The 362 Hispanic inmates under sentence of death at yearend 2005 accounted for 13% of inmates with a known ethnicity.

Among inmates under sentence of death and with available criminal histories at yearend 2005:
-- nearly 2 in 3 had a prior felony conviction
-- 1 in 12 had a prior homicide conviction.

Among persons for whom arrest information was available, the average age at time of arrest was 28; 1 in 9 inmates were age 19 or younger at the time of arrest.

At yearend 2005, the youngest inmate under sentence of death was 20; the oldest was 90.

You're right, SMW, what goes around, comes around.
As my husband said, "Quite a quinky-dink" (sp)

Capital Punishment Statistics (Source: DOJ)


At yearend 2005, 36 States and the Federal prison system held 3,254 prisoners under sentence of death, 66 fewer than at yearend 2004.


Thanks SMW. See now, theres 3,254 facing death. Sure would make a lot more room available in jails.
And if I heard right *I was in a doc's office and the tv wasn't on caption* I think they said $100 a day to house a prisoner. We sure are spending a lot of money keeping the walking dead alive.

[QUOTE=Foolsworth
I don't have to.
The Movie explains what happens.
A lot of what Court Testimony and Trial documents
record is False and just plain Untrue.
Like,did Johnny Cochran ask OJ to take the stand.
No,because they painted an extremely long {9 months worth}
portrait of OJ as being Incapable of committing the murders.
Why on Earth would a Sane,Rational person want to Relieve the
OJ Debacle Trial,to get to the truth.The jury was also in on FiX.
OJ knew over the weekend that the Juror's were very likely to acquit him.
Some stooge in the seguestered Hotel,got word to OJ about how
the Jurors were gonna Vote to Acquit.That's why OJ didn't seem too upset when
he walked into the courtroom on a Tuesday.Don't futgit on the
previous Day {monday} when the Jury,who only delieberated for a few hrs.came into court
and asked Judgy Ito for explanation about a piece of evidence.It turned out to
be of NO importance.Just a bit of fakery to make their judgement seem Credible.
The Defense were all enablers to a gigantic Murder cover-up.
Barbara Graham was framed by those 2 men,who actually set her up
as a Fall Guy.I mean,Fall Galsy.
Got it ???[/QUOTE]


Yea, Yea, and Stanley "Tookie" Williams didn't kill four people, was a model prisoner, and deserved to live because he wrote a kiddie book. (again, sarcasm intended)

That is not my post, moderate. That's foolworth's post.

Sorry bout that. Didn't see a quote tag in the post.

I'll go out on a limb and say it's less than 1%.

Jamie, if you're going to hold your own in a debate, you have to have some actual data at hand, otherwise you're just talking out of your ass. If you can't back up your assertions, they're worthless.

As for "no source readily available" - this is nothing more than an excuse for complete laziness. You're using a computer, for fuck's sake.

:rolleyes:

Here's a start:

Percentage of prisonsers serving a sentence for homicide

1986 - 14%
1991 - 12%

If you really want to argue your 1% assertion, you'll have to do some actual research yourself, but I suspect the homicide conviction numbers are even higher today, given the following:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Murders in the United States jumped 4.8 percent last year, and overall violent crime was up 2.5 percent for the year, marking the largest annual increase in crime in the United States since 1991, according to figures released Monday by the FBI. --CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/12/crime.rate/index.html)

Main reason I posted the info from the DOJ was to give some measure of the scope of the situation.

(in other words, so Paul wouldn't think we're exterminating people right & left over here!) 53 people executed in a year is bad, but it's not 2 million or some other outrageous number.

;)
SMW

Sorry bout that. Didn't see a quote tag in the post.

No problem.

Now, here's a cigarette and a blindfold.

:)

No problem.

Now, here's a cigarette and a blindfold.

:)

You're too funny, Ren. Thx for making me LOL.

:lolhit:

Thanks SMW. See now, theres 3,254 facing death. Sure would make a lot more room available in jails.
And if I heard right *I was in a doc's office and the tv wasn't on caption* I think they said $100 a day to house a prisoner. We sure are spending a lot of money keeping the walking dead alive. Its sosts more to execute people because they are more willing to go through appeal after appeal using not just housing money but court money as well.

Again Imp you seem to genuinely have a lack of information on this issue (as well as a few others) and making the best choice you see with the information you have, but there is so much more.
+++++++++++++++++
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0808-06.htm

The number in jail for drug offences - about 500,000 - is greater than the entire jail population of western Europe. Of these, 320,000 are serving more than a year.

Just under 20% of those jailed for federal drug offences are serving time for marijuana offences. (about 100,000)

Even minor marijuana offences carrying mandatory minimum sentences which some judges have apologized for having to apply.
...........
Many middle-class voters believe that the drug laws have eased when the reverse is true.

There were 734,498 marijuana-related arrests in 2000, 646,042 of them for simple possession, and 1,579,566 drugs arrests of all kind, the highest ever recorded by the FBI.

Last year the US spent $40bn fighting drugs, a 40-fold increase since 1980.

The effect on drug use and public opinion is minimal: 35% of Americans over the age of 11 have tried marijuana, and an estimated 11m say that they are current users.
.............
While states' spending on prisons has risen by 30% in the past 10 years, spending on higher education has fallen 18%.

Civil rights activists are concerned about the disparity in sentencing. Government figures show that black people make up 14% of the drug-taking population but 58% of those convicted of drug offences. Ninety-six percent of those prosecuted for possessing crack are black or Latino.
........
But a new poll commissioned by the American Civil Liberties Union shows that the drug policies no longer enjoy popular support, despite the heavy lobbying by the prison industry and the prison guards' union to maintain the sentences.

It shows that 61% of Americans oppose mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offences.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0808-06.htm

The Prison-Industrial Complex
(page 1 of 10)

Correctional officials see danger in prison overcrowding. Others see opportunity. The nearly two million Americans behind bars—the majority of them nonviolent offenders—mean jobs for depressed regions and windfalls for profiteers

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/199812/prisons

Big difference between someone soaking the rug with innocent blood and getting an injection which causes no pain. The injection is most likely very painful. The authorities attempt to stop it with pain killers and paralyzers. But the fact is most poisons are extremely painful and we will never know if the drugs work because the person is dead.
It's politically correct for the state to act as our public servants and protect us from harm. to an extent...yes.
It is RIGHT for them to put to death a murderer who has committed a crime against society. wrong. How does that persons death help repay their crime against society? The current system does not address this either and that is part of the problem with it. You are substituting your opinion for fact and i disagree. In your previous sentence you said the state shoulld protect people from harm. How does killing someone protect the people any more then throwing them in jail for life? It doesn't. Some people are just blood thirsty.

Its sosts more to execute people because they are more willing to go through appeal after appeal using not just housing money but court money as well.

And what I'm saying is that once a person is found guilty of a herendous crime,~murder and kiddie rape~ ,then there should be no more chances to appeal and drag the courts and the victims family thru the ringer and burn the tax payers money.

Again Imp you seem to genuinely have a lack of information on this issue (as well as a few others) and making the best choice you see with the information you have, but there is so much more.

ok
+++++++++++++++++
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0808-06.htm

The number in jail for drug offences - about 500,000 - is greater than the entire jail population of western Europe. Of these, 320,000 are serving more than a year.

Just under 20% of those jailed for federal drug offences are serving time for marijuana offences. (about 100,000)

Even minor marijuana offences carrying mandatory minimum sentences which some judges have apologized for having to apply.
...........
Many middle-class voters believe that the drug laws have eased when the reverse is true.

There were 734,498 marijuana-related arrests in 2000, 646,042 of them for simple possession, and 1,579,566 drugs arrests of all kind, the highest ever recorded by the FBI.

Last year the US spent $40bn fighting drugs, a 40-fold increase since 1980.

The effect on drug use and public opinion is minimal: 35% of Americans over the age of 11 have tried marijuana, and an estimated 11m say that they are current users.
.............
While states' spending on prisons has risen by 30% in the past 10 years, spending on higher education has fallen 18%.

Civil rights activists are concerned about the disparity in sentencing. Government figures show that black people make up 14% of the drug-taking population but 58% of those convicted of drug offences. Ninety-six percent of those prosecuted for possessing crack are black or Latino.
........
But a new poll commissioned by the American Civil Liberties Union shows that the drug policies no longer enjoy popular support, despite the heavy lobbying by the prison industry and the prison guards' union to maintain the sentences.

It shows that 61% of Americans oppose mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug offences.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0808-06.htm

But all you've listed here are drug prisoners. I am not talking about them. I am talking murders and kiddie rapers.

But I do agree that too many are getting tossed in jail on small drug issues.

again, I'm not talking about those folk.

The Prison-Industrial Complex
(page 1 of 10)

Correctional officials see danger in prison overcrowding. Others see opportunity. The nearly two million Americans behind bars—the majority of them nonviolent offenders—mean jobs for depressed regions and windfalls for profiteers

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/199812/prisons

Among its roughly 3,800 inmates are some 500 murderers, 250 child molesters, and an assortment of rapists, armed robbers, drug dealers, burglars, and petty thieves.

There's 750 who shouldn't be alive.

The injection is most likely very painful.
Not nowhere near as painful as an innocent slowly bleeding out, organs slowly failing and the pain involved with that.


The authorities attempt to stop it with pain killers and paralyzers.
Better then their victims had. They had no pain killers or paralyzers to help ease their pain.

So what if a convicted murderer has a little pain as they die? Their victims didn't have a choose.

But the fact is most poisons are extremely painful and we will never know if the drugs work because the person is dead.
to an extent...yes.

Again, I don't care. If it was me running the show, they would die a slow horrible painful death equal to what their victim did.
wrong. How does that persons death help repay their crime against society?
Tell me how keeping them alive the rest of their sorry life locked up in a cell is helping them repay their crime?
Eye for an eye, life for a life seems fair.



The current system does not address this either and that is part of the problem with it. You are substituting your opinion for fact and i disagree.
Yes, I AM only stating my opinion here. You are allowed to disagree with it. No problem.

In your previous sentence you said the state shoulld protect people from harm. How does killing someone protect the people any more then throwing them in jail for life? It doesn't. Some people are just blood thirsty.
Well, for one, they have the chance to escape. If released, chances are they will kill again. and while in jail serving their life sentence, no doubt *seeing as they are looking at death anyway, they are not hesitant in killing in jail too.

The percentage of blacks seems very high compared to the percentage of the population they make up.

Not nowhere near as painful as an innocent slowly bleeding out, organs slowly failing and the pain involved with that. So this statement doesn't apply to the innocents the state murders? Wrong convictions occur. What you suggest increases that likelyhood innocent people get murdered.
Better then their victims had. They had no pain killers or paralyzers to help ease their pain.

So what if a convicted murderer has a little pain as they die? Their victims didn't have a choose.
Again, I don't care. If it was me running the show, they would die a slow horrible painful death equal to what their victim did. You're obviously bloodthirsty. Revenge is not justice. Revenge is revenge.
*seeing as they are looking at death anyway, they are not hesitant in killing in jail too. i thought you didn't care about those in jail already. You seem to think that they are all definatly guilty and that the death sentence is fitting. Do you seriously care wether the state or an inmate does the killing? In fact it seems more fitting since you want them to slowly bleed to death like thier victims..

So this statement doesn't apply to the innocents the state murders? Wrong convictions occur. What you suggest increases that likelyhood innocent people get murdered.
And what I'm saying is that once a person is found guilty of a herendous crime,~murder and kiddie rape~ ,then there should be no more chances to appeal and drag the courts and the victims family thru the ringer and burn the tax payers money.

Apparently you didn't read it but skimmed it instead.

Innocent people getting murdered, no I don't want that by the states hands or anyone elses, but innocent people get murdered daily and many times their killers live on.

You're obviously bloodthirsty. Revenge is not justice. Revenge is revenge.

I am not blood thirsty so much as wanting Justice served. Too many times someone is found beyond a shadow of a doubt guilty and yet are free to live.
If you want to twist shit around then I can freely say you have no heart for the victims and feel bad for the murderers. Tsk Tsk.

What I'm saying and have been since I started posting in this thread is if one knows that they kill another and is found out, that they shall die too,law of the land. It will cease many from murdering.




i thought you didn't care about those in jail already. You seem to think that they are all definatly guilty and that the death sentence is fitting. Do you seriously care wether the state or an inmate does the killing? In fact it seems more fitting since you want them to slowly bleed to death like thier victims.. I said 'the guilty should die by the sword they swung.' I am NOT saying innocent people should die in prison and I am NOT saying the other prisoners have the right to kill each other. Stop twisting my friggin' words around or I'm going to do it back to you.
And no. You are the one sticking up for an inmate who 'might' maybe' experiance a little pain in their death for a crime they commit which brought MUCH pain to their victim. All I'm saying is I wouldn't give a shit if a murderer felt a bit of pain on their death bed *although the state bends backwards to make sure they don't* and any pain they feel is nooooo where NEAR the pain their victims suffered.

The percentage of blacks seems very high compared to the percentage of the population they make up.

Well, when the black family got broken up by the Great Society programs of the 1960s and the father of the family got replaced with the welfare check and children no longer had a role model that actually worked and took responsibility and show children right from wrong, this kind of thing happens. The illegitimacy rate amongst the African American is somewhere around 70% and it is THE driving cause of crime amongst black people, dammit.

Its sosts more to execute people because they are more willing to go through appeal after appeal using not just housing money but court money as well.

Appeal after appeal is the built-in safeguard against executing innocent people. While 'take 'em out back and shoot 'em' might be a good idea for a murderer caught in the act, guilt or innocence isn't usually so clear-cut.

SMW

That being the case, executions should be abolished, as over the years new technology comes to light which may or may not prove ones innocence

That being the case, executions should be abolished, as over the years new technology comes to light which may or may not prove ones innocence
For arguments sake, Paul... what if someone pleads GUILTY to murder? Should we continue to warehouse them?

For arguments sake, Paul... what if someone pleads GUILTY to murder? Should we continue to warehouse them?
Yeah why not.If someone pleads guilty that claim is investigated,as you know,theres always nutters who claim 'they did it'.

I highly doubt someone would plead guilty AND take the death penalty. I mean even if you see the death penalty as fitting justice surely admitting it and saving the taxpayers money, and the greiving family more heartache is worth some sort of leinancy.

I meant in non killing states.

Well, when the black family got broken up by the Great Society programs of the 1960s and the father of the family got replaced with the welfare check and children no longer had a role model that actually worked and took responsibility and show children right from wrong, this kind of thing happens. The illegitimacy rate amongst the African American is somewhere around 70% and it is THE driving cause of crime amongst black people, dammit.

So how can people debate the facts? There is no such thing as "African American" these days. They are ALL AMERICAN. They have had the same rights to Education, etc.

All AMERCIANS choose their path, despite their color, in todays world. Many choose WRONG! Welfare is NOT an OPTION for contributing to society! Blacks need to get with the program. They have so many more handouts then the whites who are in the same dire needs as them!

There's too many problems with the judicial system for a death penalty. For example, a male committing a capital crime against a female is more likely to be sent to death row than a woman committing a capital crime on a male. Race also plays a factor. And, obviously, having a lot of money to hire a great lawyer will certainly lessen the chances of a death sentence.

When the system isn't fair, how can we justify a death penalty?

The percentage of blacks seems very high compared to the percentage of the population they make up.

shhhh paul, that's a no-no.. a taboo if you will.

Even though it's fact, we have to pretend to be stupid and naive... You can't call out the black community on anything. They have the media in their back pocket, and are like a car alarm. If you slightly touch them, they explode into a loud scream.

With all the "politically correctness" going around, we sure do have to purposely be dumb on a lot of things... like blacks and crime, airport security... it's a common trend.

There's too many problems with the judicial system for a death penalty. For example, a male committing a capital crime against a female is more likely to be sent to death row than a woman committing a capital crime on a male. Race also plays a factor. And, obviously, having a lot of money to hire a great lawyer will certainly lessen the chances of a death sentence.

When the system isn't fair, how can we justify a death penalty?

True the system needs fixing but that does not mean a McVey, Bundi, or serial killer/murder should go unpunished. If there is any doubt then they should get life in prison. However, in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever the death penalty is a suitable punish for the crime of murder.

As for your example our laws are not black and white. Many things come into play like self defense, sanity, etc. Therefore the death penalty should only be used for cases such as those mentioned above.

True the system needs fixing but that does not mean a McVey, Bundi, or serial killer/murder should go unpunished. If there is any doubt then they should get life in prison. However, in cases where there is no doubt whatsoever the death penalty is a suitable punish for the crime of murder.

As for your example our laws are not black and white. Many things come into play like self defense, sanity, etc. Therefore the death penalty should only be used for cases such as those mentioned above.
I agree with this. In cases where there is positively no doubt about guilt, very heinous cases of serial murder/torture, etc., then the death penalty should remain in play.

When the system isn't fair, how can we justify a death penalty?
In good conscience, you can't.

I agree with this. In cases where there is positively no doubt about guilt, very heinous cases of serial murder/torture, etc., then the death penalty should remain in play. In a system which is already broken, with lawyers taught to twist words and minds, who is going to be the "great impartial god" who gets to decide which particular case involves guilt without a doubt. It is already supposed to be that way (impartial) and it is not so mistakes are made all the time.

shhhh paul, that's a no-no.. a taboo if you will.

Even though it's fact, we have to pretend to be stupid and naive... You can't call out the black community on anything. They have the media in their back pocket, and are like a car alarm. If you slightly touch them, they explode into a loud scream.

With all the "politically correctness" going around, we sure do have to purposely be dumb on a lot of things... like blacks and crime, airport security... it's a common trend.
Decka you totally missed Paul's point.

logical thinking proves if we get rid of all laws there will be no crime.

Once again a convicted murder proves that life in prison does not stop him from killing again.

"Falk was serving a life sentence for murder...."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5159811.html

I doubt his next jury will be so lenient.

I voted "yes", murderers should receive the death penalty.

Once again a convicted murder proves that life in prison does not stop him from killing again.

"Falk was serving a life sentence for murder...."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5159811.html

I doubt his next jury will be so lenient.

There also have been plenty of cases of people on death row who have gotten their sentences reversed, (http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/permanentout.htm) which would lead one to believe that we've executed some innocent people. I guess the question boils down to if we'd rather risk having murderers kill again or risk executing innocent people. I think the latter of the two is worse.

There also have been plenty of cases of people on death row who have gotten their sentences reversed, (http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/permanentout.htm) which would lead one to believe that we've executed some innocent people. I guess the question boils down to if we'd rather risk having murderers kill again or risk executing innocent people. I think the latter of the two is worse.


The day you can name someone proven innocent, after being executed, I'll consider your argument.

The day you can name someone proven innocent, after being executed, I'll consider your argument.

Who is going to try to prove someone innocent after they've already been executed? What the hell is the point?

Who is going to try to prove someone innocent after they've already been executed? What the hell is the point?


Ask any of the groups opposed to the death penalty. They have been trying to find one such case for years.

Results from google:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/na/chi-0412090169dec09,0,7244555.story

While Texas authorities dismissed his protests, a Tribune investigation of his case shows that Willingham was prosecuted and convicted based primarily on arson theories that have since been repudiated by scientific advances. According to four fire experts consulted by the Tribune, the original investigation was flawed and it is even possible the fire was accidental.

He got sentenced to death for allegedly committing arson in which the resulting fire killed his 3 daughters.

The day you can name someone proven innocent, after being executed, I'll consider your argument.

If you were truly open to that and not merely entrenched in your current belief system, you would have already done the research and re-considered your position. There are plenty of such cases on record. It is morally and ethically incumbent upon you to do so before taking a hard-ass stand. At least, one would have hoped so if you are saying that would have made a difference in your belief. Which is what you have just stated, therefore the onus is upon you.

There were a few in Salem Massachusetts--of course, that was 350 odd years ago.

There also have been plenty of cases of people on death row who have gotten their sentences reversed, (http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/permanentout.htm) which would lead one to believe that we've executed some innocent people.

I'm really not sure how that shows any of these people are innocent. You need to understand why death penalty cases are reduced or overturned before you make that statement.

There were a few in Salem Massachusetts--of course, that was 350 odd years ago.


Yes, and before it took 10 appeals, and twenty years, to carry out the Court Ordered execution. Besides, the Salem Witch Trials were held by the Church, and we need not go into their record of killing.

Yes, and before it took 10 appeals, and twenty years, to carry out the Court Ordered execution. Besides, the Salem Witch Trials were held by the Church, and we need not go into their record of killing.

That's correct..to my knowlege, there have been no innocent persons executed in this country in quite a while, that have been conclusively proven to be innocent. If that were so, it would make headlines around the world.

I'm really not sure how that shows any of these people are innocent. You need to understand why death penalty cases are reduced or overturned before you make that statement.

True, I don't know any of the specifics of those cases.

A better example would be Ernest Willis (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6643919/).

In July, a federal judge in San Antonio threw out the conviction, saying authorities concealed evidence and gave Willis anti-psychotic drugs during his trial, leaving him too dazed to confer with attorneys. The judge ordered Willis retried or set free.