A Momentary Breath of Sanity before the Madness Resumes

[Tanager]

I know it won't last, and I know the moratorium probably won't make it past the state House, but hey, it's better than before.

(Why we still execute people at all is beyond me. I mean, other than because it helps suburbanites sleep at night to know that scary-looking minority folks from the cities are getting offed by the State.)

NC Senate Committee approves two year death penalty moratorium, to be voted on by full Senate

"suburbanites sleep at night to know that scary-looking minority folks from the cities are getting offed by the State" - Tanager

Oh, now I know where you're coming from Tanager. The ultimate bleeding heart liberal. Never mind whether or not these 'scary-looking minority' committed a hideous crime like say rape or murder, or both. Maybe it was a little girl they did it to, but hey whats the difference. It's just downright inhumane to kill someone who raped and/or killed someones little girl or boy, isn't it? My goodness how can WE be such barbarians?! Give me a fucking break!!! These motherfuckers are not human and shouldn't be treated as some kind of innocent victim of capital punishment.

And the breath of sanity is what????

Now having said this I will say that I AM opposed to the death penalty, but for completely different reasons. Killing some sick bastard really just gives them the easy way out. I say keep 'em alive and lock them in a fucking hole for the rest of their miserable twisted lives. Take them out for twelve hours a day and make them do incredibly hard labor, then throw them back in the hole. Oh, and make them work 7 days a week also. And build special prisons for these guys right on the equator and make them wear heavy clothing. Really just do whatever it takes to make every last day of their lives one nasty, shitty day of hell that makes them wish they were dead. I wana hear those sorry bastards cry at night.




Papillon, baby...........................

[RainyDay]

How many states is that now? Illinois, NC and didn't Texas do this some months ago? (Ironically) For a country that prides itself on being so bloody democratic, it's sobering how disinterested people are over the possibility of executing innocent people. There's a shocking attitude among the weak minded that the state never makes mistakes and anyone on death row deserves to be there, whether or not they received a fair trial.

[Nathaniel Catchpole]

Yeah, the inability of people to make the connection between the State killing innocent people and individuals killing innocent people always makes we wonder. As if it's two different things.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Nah, Texas is still frying them as fast as possible. Maryland had a moritorium for awhile. Research showed that there werea racial and geographical biases in the way Maryland was applying the death penulty. If the culprit was black and his/her victim was white you were a goner. If the culprit was white and the victi black you had a great chance of escaping the chair. If the culprit and victim were both black you still had a pretty good chance of escaping the chair. I can't give exact numbers but the pecentages were pretty interesting.

Of course, the newly elected Republican governor rescinded the moratorium. By the way, he didn't get elected on his death penulty stance. He promised to legalize slot machine. Everyone loves slots.

Because I'm a "bleeding heart liberal" ( as opposed to a blood thirsty right-winger?) I'm against the death penulty. Not out of some distorted "love" for criminals, but because mistakes have been made. The Republican governor of Illinios halted executions because too many death penulties were being overturned because of DNA evidence and other factors. I'd rather have a ton of murderers in prison for life than excute one innocent man or woman by mistake.

You can make it up to a person you wrongly imprisoned for a crime, but you can't give him his life back if you've executed him by mistake.

[Tanager]

Scott, you normally post pretty intelligent things, but this isn't one of those posts.

I hope most folks aren't as bloodthirsty as you, but I may be as wrong.

[Tanager]

Darryl, FWIW, I'm against the Death Penulty as an absolute - I don't care if you've got the right guy or not, I don't see execution as morally valid.

Let me just say, before anyone gets their hopes up, this has practically no hope of surviving the full House/Senate in NC. Maybe in a few more years. Then again, maybe not.

Yeah, I know Tanager, man I'm just really angry here lately. Jobs been really messing with me. Jesus, whoever thought of this workin for a living bullshit should have been executed!

I won't edit my first post, I will live and die with my out of control nature, but...

... let me try this again since I just got done blowing off some steam. I have often flipped back and forth on the death penalty over the years. When I was a bleeding heart lib I said that it was just plain wrong to kill someone, no matter what. Then once I started to look at things in a cleaner light, I thought why in the hell should my local tax dollars be paying to keep these people alive? But ultimately nowadays, having participated in the justice system I really have to admit that it is so corrupt, and lawyers have turned it all into such a farce using it for their own glory and personal satisfaction that it's almost impossible to know which way is up.

Having said this, I still cannot oppose the death penalty for a moral cause. Sentence these assholes to life without possibility of parole, and don't put them in some cushy federal or state prison where they get to play grab-ass with their fellow inmates all day, where they have their own tv in their cells, and so on. Because that is not punishment.

I also think that alot of my first post was because I've done time with these kind of people, and let me tell you from firsthand experience, they are some of the nastiest, violent, and most nonrepentant characters that you will ever meet. And trust me when i tell you this, if you ever had to live with some of these folks, you'd wouldn't shed a single tear to see them executed. Bloodthirsty? Me? No, you haven't met truly bloodthirsty people, and hopefully never will.

But unfortunately, innocent people will die as long as mankind inhabits this earth. I would love to see a report on how many have been needlessly killed by state execution. How they were eventually found not guilty. Because I've seen several cases over the years where inmates had their cases thrown out on appeals on grounds of something so completely rediculous as the prosecuting attorney not filing the proper motions within the proper time, and things of that nature. Thats not being found innocent, thats just exploitation of a loophole. but I'm not saying that this is the case with ALL of them, but a pretty disturbing percentage of them anyway.

[mke]

I'm against the death penalty because of mistakes and because I don't see where the state gets its legitimacy for such actions: "You killed someone and that was wrong, so we're going to kill and that's right." ???

I think that all those explosions have definitely affected Scott.

[Nathaniel Catchpole]

Well, I'm temping in a medium secure forensic psychiatric unit at the moment - about 14 patients, several of whom were in Broadmoor (maximum security hospital, one famous, although fictional alumni is Hannibal Lecter) for various crimes including rape and murder. Most of them were long-term paranoid schizophrenic/personality disordered - i.e. illness related crimes, others were in prison and became mentally ill while there. Those who attack people fatally or not, due to delusions and hallucinations really have limited fault IMO, and the chances are, they will never, ever leave hospital. For that matter, a lot of mental patients never leave hospital despite never having been violent to anyone, at any time.

If you want to reduce your tax dollars being spent on keeping people in prison, you could try lobbying against three-strikes-and-you're out, and the ridiculous drug laws in the US (and to an only slightly lesser extent, the UK). A lot of people who pose no risk to anyone are in prison, and they cost, in the UK, GBP 30000 a year each to keep inside. Half that is a livable income, so those people who steal three pizzas could be supported outside for four years for what it costs for a two year prison sentence.

The amount of people who commit those kinds of crimes is very low compared to the overall prison population - instead of killing them off, not sending people to prison for silly crimes would save just as much money. And money always seems to be the end rationale behind the prison sentence - if they're going to die inside, why not speed up the process and save some cash.

The only reason to detain someone is to prevent harm to others. That's it. And if they've committed economic crimes, giving them cash would be cheaper, even if "everyone" started to do it.

"you could try lobbying against three-strikes-and-you're out," - Nat

Nat, certainly you're joking here right? So you're suggeting to just let them out time and time again? So that they fuck up again and go back to jail, and *gasp* cost taxpayers more and more in court costs, i.e. public defender, etc.? And most certainly you don't mean this when it comes to a violent offender.

"And if they've committed economic crimes, giving them cash would be cheaper, even if "everyone" started to do it." - Nat

It's official, I've entered the twilight zone..............

[Nathaniel Catchpole]

Well Scott, your basic premise for supporting the death penalty seemed to be that since they were never going to get out, and their sub-human lives were worthless, the State may as well save some money and put them out of their misery. Entirely an economic approach to crime and punishment.

Yes, I really think it is stupid to lock people up for 2-3 years for three minor thefts. Yes, I think decent living standards and increased social freedom would reduce most economic crime. Apart from kleptomania and large scale fraud, most people are stealing to support themselves in some way. Support them and the need is reduced. Only a small number of people are naturally lazy, some theiving and pickpocketing at a low level is high-risk, low rewards. Even assuming people stealing to get by all sat around on their arses at the expense of the state, but didn't steal, that would accomplish as much as keeping them locked up. Those who would steal anyway, are likely kleptomaniacs or have some other psychological problem, they could then be cared for if they were found to pose a risk. Anyone else, lock-em-up, but then you're talking about personality disorder - a tiny fraction of the population, and demonstrated to be the result of severe abuse in most cases.

Things are much more justifiable when you're talking about recreational drug use - the risk then is only to the person themselves. Most risks to kids or of crime are, again, economic and connected with the illegality of the drug, not with the drug itself, unless it's serious abuse which goes the same for alcohol and tobacco.

My view of prison confinement, and most other punishment, is that it usually goes _beyond_ an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth etc.

Steal three pizzas, spend two years in jail (or whatever it is). Assualt someone causing minor injuries, spend three years in jail.

Lock someone up in a room for two years, (I think that's called kidnapping), do about 15 years, regardless of how well they're treated. Most kidnappees aren't forced to do hard labour either. (Does hard labour still happen in the US, thought that had stopped, although there are british discount hardware firms that use prison labour)

Also kidnappers only demand money from one person (and not usually the state). The government charges every taxpayer through the nose to keep people locked up. And if you don't pay, you'll be locked up too, and your assets likely frozen.

In England, plenty of women are in prison for not paying their TV licence fee - about GBP90-160. Keeping them in prison for six months costs, say, fifteen grand. The license fee is a government tax to pay for TV. Prisons paid for by taxes. Net loss to the government, GBP 14910. Clever bastards. Except it aint the government that loses the money, MPs and civil servants will get paid long after everyone else loses their jobs, and have fully protected pensions. Net loss 15 grand for everyone locked up for six months vs. them not paying GBP150 fines.

And I don't buy deterrence either. USA - highest percentage prison population, highest crime rate, UK catching up.

Crimes of passion etc. will never be prevented by long prison sentences - that isn't what people are thinking about when they kill their spouses or whatever. Nor will crimes by paranoid schizophrenics (although they constitute a marginal percentage of violent crimes despite media coverage suggesting the contrary). Some retributive punishment may make you feel better, but it does nothing to protect victims or reduce the occurrence of crime.

[Darryl G. Thomas]

I read somewhere that in the US most convicted murderers serve 7-8 years.

One of the reasons Ashcroft selected Virginia to try the DC Snipers is because Virginia's more likely to put a minor to death.

If te death penulty was such a deterrent why are murders still being committed in Texas?

The prison population in the US has reached 2 million yet crime is rising, probably because the economy sucks (the crime rate dropped during the boom years of the '90s).

I don't know what the answer is concerning crime and punishment. But it seems like whatever we're doing isn't working. Other than satisfying a need for revenge.

I have a feeling that once you're in the criminal system it may be too late. So you have to do your best to try to keep as many people out of the system. So I guess you may have to come back to some of the old "bleeding heart liberal" solutions: decrease the poverty level, better education for all our citizens, health care, etc.

But you know what, I'm dreaming.

"Apart from kleptomania and large scale fraud, most people are stealing to support themselves in some way. Support them and the need is reduced." - Nat

Well Nat obviously things are different over there. I pick up the paper everyday and see beatings and other various assaults, robbery, car theft/jacking, murder, and other sorts of good time fun that shows absolutely no support for your claim. And i've known many who were popped for robbery, and basically to a man they were just doing it for more money. Not to support themselves, just more money period. Greed. And besides, if you were paying higher taxes and knew that you were just supporting lazy shits because they committed a crime and are now being punished by given ample supplies of your tax dollars, you and everyone else would be screaming to the fucking heavens. Even for a liberal this statement makes little sense.

"Most risks to kids or of crime are, again, economic and connected with the illegality of the drug, not with the drug itself,.." - Nat

Economic? Oh, I see, if you don't have enough MONEY to buy said drugs, then thats a totally different story? My goodness Nat. Um, o.k., so the DRUG really has nothing to do with it at all, I get it......

"Lock someone up in a room for two years, (I think that's called kidnapping), do about 15 years, regardless of how well they're treated. Most kidnappees aren't forced to do hard labour either. (Does hard labour still happen in the US, thought that had stopped, although there are british discount hardware firms that use prison labour)" - Nat

So in other words, as long as you treat the victim well, you shouldn't be punished to the full extent of the law? So would that hold true for a rapist who treated his victim 'tenderly' and whispered that he loved her while he committed the act? Jesus Nat, either you are truly flipped out, or I'm completely misinterpretting the things you're saying here.

[Nathaniel Catchpole]

Scott. Car Jackings and robbery, are violent crimes involving theft, not pickpocketing, shoplifting etc. which I'm fairly certain can get custodial sentences in the US if they're caught three times. Non-violent low-rent crimes. Yes, there are more violent crimes committed for gain, but they aren't the only ones that grant custodial sentences.

Note I said stealing, not robbing, or murdering. Different stuff. Gun crime is on the increase here, and the two national hotspots are where I live, and where I work, so it's not as if I'm out in the country worrying about poachers or something.

If you have to buy marijuana from someone who also deals crack and smack, it's likely that you'll be paying a premium over what you'd pay were you a) to grow it yourself b) to buy it at a cafe/pub/tobacconist. Similarly, the cost of highly addictive drugs is more than most people can afford, probably, I'd imagine, due to the extra costs incurred to producers importers and dealers by prohibition. When heroin addicts are given stable dosages in a controlled, clean setting, they're much less likely to be out mugging people to finance the next hit. It's not complicated.

Do people commit tobacco related crime, no. Do they commit crimes to finance alcohol habits (not including drunken fist fights after drinking), not that I'm aware of. Did people do all kinds of other illegal shit in order to be able to drink during prohibition, yes they did.

Please explain to me how current US drug policy reduces drug use, or reduces drug related crime. I don't agree with legalisation and licensing - more of a decriminalisation guy myself. But make chocolate illegal and people would go nuts in a week.

My point was not that kidnappers who are polite should get lesser sentences (although thinking about it, I'm sure they do). It was that minor crimes like shoplifting food are met with punishments far beyond the original effect of the crime, and with far more economic cost to society. So the actions the state takes against criminals, were those acts to be done by criminals, would result in much, much worse sentences. In other words it's OK for the state to lock someone up for a couple of years, if they steal a car, but if the owner did it, they themselves would get 7, 10, 15 years (or in some cases applauded as vigilante heroes). I'm trying to get you to explore exactly what the difference between the state doing something and an individual doing it. Not saying that I invite kidnappers 'round for tea and cakes 'cos I think they're great people.

In many cases, the actions of the State are far worse than the crimes they are punishing.

[Nathaniel Catchpole]

BTW. You ain't off the hook in the Bush thread either.

[mke]

"Do people commit tobacco related crime, no"

LOL! However, trans-Channel cigarette smugglers are doing a roaring trade, apparently it's more profitable than selling marijuana and the punishment is of course far less severe.

[john williams]

Death Penalty Facts
(Statistics are from the Death Penalty Information Center)


The United States is the only western democracy that continues to use the death penalty.
The U.S. stands with countries like China, Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan in its continued use of the death penalty. We are third only to China and the Democratic Republic of the Congo in total number of executions since 1998.

Innocent people are executed.
At least 23 innocent people have been executed in this century, and over 98 defendants have been exonerated from death row in just the last two decades.

The death penalty costs more than life in prison.
Various state governments estimate that a single death penalty case from arrest to execution ranges from $1 million up to $7 million. Cases resulting in life imprisonment average around $500,000 each, including incarceration cost.

The death penalty is racially inequitable.
Over 80 percent of persons executed were convicted of killing whites, although people of color make up more than half of all homicide victims in the U.S. And on death row, 43 percent of the inmates are black, although only 12 percent of the U.S. population is black.

The United States leads the world in killing children.
The U.S. is one of only six countries since 1990 that have executed people for crimes they committed before the age of 18. The US has executed more juvenile offenders than any other country.

The death penalty does not deter crime.
States that do not have the death penalty have an average murder rate that is actually lower than states that have the death penalty.


Hey, its a crazy system, but the whole world just looks to the US of A and swoons in admiration and its staggering level of civilization. ;-)

[Tanager]

I resolve never to make a West Virginia joke again. Damn, I never knew they didn't have the Death Penalty. Kudos.

[RBS]

Scott---

How long do you think we should throw those humps from
Enron in jail for, being that they stole hundreds of millions?

Nat, in Florida i can tell you for sure, that crimes like pick pocketing, shoplifting, etc., are misdemeanors and they do not fall under the three strikes rule. Only felonies.

And gun crimes are actually on the decrease in that state because of the new laws passed a couple of years back stating that if you use a firearm in the commission of a crime, you will automatically do 10 years. Do it again, 25 years. Hooray!!!

Overall I think that sentencing guildlines here are fair and just. It's the legal system itself that is corrupt.

We disagree on alot of these things, but I do agree with you when it comes to Marijuana. I quit several years ago, though I do still smoke a little every new years eve. But I'm completely for legalization. But only for that, not heroin, pcp, X, or any of the harder shit such as that. And I fully agree with something that Mr. Schaumann said on another thread here, alcohol is much more dangerous and destructive than pot.

Although I think your bit about an owner locking someone up for stealing their car is kinda funny, but you just can't do that kind of thing. Kidnappers themselves are violating someones civil liberties to such an extreme that I find it difficult to believe that you, who so loudly pounds on the liberty pulpit, would find it in your heart to go lightly on them. I'd have to wait until somebody locked you away in their keeping for a year or two and then see what you'd have to say about it.

And I wasn't trying to duck and run on the dubbya thread, but I have nothing more to add to it. We went around in circles a couple of times and would just continue to do so. But if you insist, then I'll just say you won the argument.

RBS, good question. I'll have to think about that one. But I'm sure as hell not going to go Nat's route and say 'lets just give 'em some money' thats for damn sure.

[Tanager]

For the record, I think the "humps from Enron" committed crimes far more heinous and societally harmful than your average street thug, and I'm damned sure not buying that Fastow needed to setup all those shell corporations b/c he was a helpless crackhead. Just once, I'd like to see those idiots (most of whom, I'm sure, fall under the category of "wealthy suburbanites who support tough sentencing laws") stuck in a real prison, not some Club Fed white collar bullshit boarding school.

Uh-oh, Tanager is angry now!! Get 'em brother!!!

[Tanager]

Dolan, get your ass over to the Rock Drummers thread and weigh in.

[Nathaniel Catchpole]

Again, kidnapping's nasty, I just don't see how different it is to locking people up in prison, that's all.

It's not the winning that counts, it's the taking part!

"Again, kidnapping's nasty, I just don't see how different it is to locking people up in prison, that's all." - Nat

You don't see how different kidnapping is to putting someone in prison? Am I reading this correctly? If so, I thank you for being so gracious as to give me a simple one here Nat. The difference is that the kidnapping victim hasn't committed a crime against anyone. Yet 99% of the criminals in prison have. The kidnapping victim has done nothing to deserve being held prisoner, they have broken no laws, nor have they harmed anyone. The criminal on the other hand has.

But to get more to the meat of your quote, are you saying that people shouldn't be locked up period? I guess in a real twisted sort of logic, one could say that prisoners are being held against their will just like a kidnapping victim, but there IS a mjor difference. What kind of alternative do you believe should be implemented Nat?