Posts
Who is Jennie, and why does everyone want to kill her? It is a question that has haunted me for decades.
As to my post before last, I am not (normally) a vicious person. Just don't rob, cheat, murder, rape, or torture, me, my wife, my cats, or anyone else, and we'll get along. If this is too much to ask, what am I to say? That you get a pass to bring misery into the world because you had an abusive childhood or inherited bad genes? Let me ask you, if if you're really and truly THAT fucked up, and you really and truly CAN'T do better, why shouldn't society kill you? You're no better than a rabid dog in that, while your depravity is not your fault, the world shouldn't have to put up with you. The man who, after two DUIs, ran his car through Times Square this week and killed one person and injured a lot more, is it really kinder to give such people chance, after chance, after chance, than it is to euthanize them? Or take the pregnant addicts that Nurse Peggy used to treat, how many children must such losers have taken from them by the government in the name of compassion? I would say one, maybe two, but how many would you say? Five? Ten? Any number? And does your imagined compassion cause you to feel morally superior to me?
Liberals would say that capital punishment and forced sterilization are wrong, regardless, while conservatives would say, kill the assholes, and, on this, I'm more in line with the conservatives, yet I'm not a conservative. I'm not anything. I wish I could be, but nothing fits. I just think there are people whose claim to compassion has expired.
14 comments:
I so agree!
This trying to reform isn't working
Some people don't want to reform. Others are just too far gone.
When does the rights of one stop being more important than the rights of all others to live without the
Fear of violence
I say one strike and then your out. I put my hand in the fire I get burnt I don't do it again
You screw up once go to jail. If you do it again you forfeit any rights you may of had
Simple really
I am probably more liberal than anything else. And I am against the death penalty. I think locking people up for eternity is a safer option. Innocent people have been and will be killed while the death penalty is retained as an option.
This one is a little bit like religion and politics. I doubt that you will change anyone's mind.
Heartily agree with you Snowy. Why keep those evil bastards, Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, alive in highly expensive circumstances for decades? They kidnapped, tortured and finally murdered at least FIVE young and totally innocent children. What is the point of keeping such cruel sub-human bastards alive for one moment?
There IS NO POINT. When Brady was dying a week or so back he was moved into palliative care! He should have been left to shrivel up and die in agony.
Anybody who chooses to offend against the vast majority of honest and law abiding society should, in my firm opinion, lose all human rights. End of sermon.
I'm with EC. So many people are wrongly executed, even now, and we know that the ones who end up on death row are overwhelmingly black, poor and generally underprivileged. In the cases where these people are innocent, we have no good reason to further victimise them through the death penalty. I would prefer the guilty to languish in gaol so we have a chance of bringing justice to the innocent.
Now to your commenters:
"Anybody who chooses to offend against the vast majority of honest and law abiding society should, in my firm opinion, lose all human rights."
Even the very most abominable crimes usually have a very limited number of victims. The perpetrators offend against very small numbers of people so the argument that they offend against the majority is not really accurate. I don't wish to excuse these offenders but we are kidding ourselves if we think that their crimes against a "majority" justify execution
"When does the rights of one stop being more important than the rights of all others to live without the Fear of violence "
It doesn't matter how many are locked up or executed, we will still have violence and the fear of violence so lets not pretend that executing these offenders gives any kind of freedom to the rest of us and therefore we can't justify executions on this basis, either.
I would not wish to see forced sterilisation, given that people do, rarely, reform and recover. i would agree to long term family planning measures for some individuals
I'm not against the death penalty for vicious crimes in which the perpetrator is absolutely known. Unless there is irrefutable proof, however, I don't want to see the death penalty. These things do get overturned at times. I also hate the way the death penalty is handled, where there may be many years between the crime and the penalty. If it is going to be used it should be done quickly,
I see we are a savage bunch today. I hope I can express myself the way I want to. I am a senior citizen. I know there were murders committed all down through history. But it seemed as if they were kept at a lower rate before death penalties were banned. Now that I made that point I have a hard time with the death penalty. I know that if someone were to harm someone close to me I would be the first calling for that person to be put to death. But I would not be the person to actually kill them. How can I ask someone else to exact my revenge? It is a quandary for most of us. Often people against the death penalty will cry for life imprisonment. If it is not specified that there will be no possibility of parole the prisoner will serve only the amount of time allowed by the parole committee. If it is specified that there will be no possibility of parole it is always possible that someone somewhere down the line will decide that person should be released. How do we decide who will be put to death? Will it only be for capital crimes or will it be at the whim of a particular court? Someone brought up the point that poor and minority people are more likely to be sentenced to death. I have been poor all my life. I have seen some atrocities committed by those in authority. Legal options are not as plentiful for us. And often some of the "lesser" crimes are committed by people in dire circumstances. That does not make commission of a crime right at all but it can be a mitigating circumstance. Should a father be put to death for trying to feed his children? Of course it would seem that the best way to avoid all this would be to never do anything wrong. Who of us can say they have never done anything wrong? I guess I advocate a case by case judgement. Sometimes the death penalty might be warranted and sometimes not. Perhaps we should expect our judiciary system to utilize their minds.
I’m actually in a bit of a hurry today, so I’ll just ramble for a bit, and hope you can make some sense out of it.
My biggest problem with liberals is that they are willing to spend any amount of money to help the people with the least promise (recidivist criminals, untreatable drug addicts, and the severely impaired, for example) while, relatively speaking, leaving those with the most promise to take care of themselves. It seems to me that theirs is a false compassion that turns evolution on its head, and that consequently fosters ineptness and predatorism.
Resources are always going to be limited, so it seems to me that we could make more intelligent choices. For example, if an airliner crashes, and federal investigators determine that the crash was an extremely rare occurrence that could be completely prevented in the future at a cost of refurbishing every airplane with a $100-billion dollar part, there would be those who would take the position that every life is of inestimable value, so we should do it. But what if doing so increased to the point that no one but a millionaire could afford to fly?
Same with crime, the cost of keeping someone locked up runs into the tens of thousands of dollars a year, and since nearly everyone who is locked up will get out again and go on to commit more crimes, was the old concept of “three strikes and you’re out” really such a bad idea? But keeping recidivists locked up forever isn’t a great option either—for them or for society. So, what if, instead of three strikes and you’re out” (meaning behind bars for a long long time), we say “three strikes and you’re dead”? That could theoretically keep costs down, but not under our current system, in which the one, or two, or three decades long appeals process would cost more than a lifetime behind bars.
It seems to me that our handling of crime is a bit like spending so much money making it safe to fly that no one could afford to fly. Perhaps, in regard to capital punishment, we could make the same argument that society generally agrees is true in regard to airline safety: resources being limited, society would be better served by an unfortunate death than by directing so much of our limited wealth into, where the interest of society as a whole is concerned, unproductive solutions. It can’t be a case of the greatest good for every individual, but rather of the greatest good for the greatest number of people. I mean, really, if we knew that one our every thousand people who were executed was innocent, would that be acceptable? How about one out of a million? If you’re open to capital punishment at all, you have to figure that the downside of executing an innocent person is preferable to keeping thousands upon thousands of bad people alive and sometimes turning them loose again to prey upon society.
As for poor people (blacks especially) being more likely to be convicted, not just of capital crimes, but of any crimes, no doubt poverty and disadvantage fosters crime (which means that these aren’t JUST the people who are the most likely to be convicted; they’re the people who are most likely to BE guilty), in which case the answer surely wouldn’t be a quota for convicting and sentencing, but better social support for the disadvantaged. I believe that it’s horribly unfair to allow some people grow up in a mansion while callously relegating others (who might very well have more promise) to a ghetto, and that it is very much the responsibility of government to help those who are struggling. Unfortunately, one problem is that if you’re too big a mess (literally, a drooling idiot, for example), it might not make sense for society to spend tons of money helping you, while it might make a lot of sense for society to euthanize you. (This is where some might call me another Hitler, but so be it.) Another problem is that, no matter how much promise you have, if your parents are trashed-out drug addicts, for example, it’ll take a lot more than money to help you because the thing that you will probably need most (beyond the necessities) is someone who is wise and good to help you develop your own potential for wisdom and goodness, and the government can’t provide that. So, nothing is easy here, and while everyone has their own thoughts about to improve things, the only people who like things the way they are are the super rich. I mainly just want to feel as safe as possible in a world of uncertainty, and I don’t see society fostering that.
I've heard so many tales of people being railroaded for crimes they didn't commit that I have a hard time with capital punishment even as I feel that there are genuinely evil people out there that deserve it.
I'm not opposed to the death penalty, theoretically, at least for serial killers and mass murderers, but it still does make me very uncomfortable. The problem to me seems to be the criminal justice system, rather than the death penalty itself. One study I saw showed 1 out of 25 felony convictions is false. But because of the focus on execution, the rate of innocent defendants on death row is actually lower than the rate of innocent defedants serving life in prison -- people who are sent away and then forgotten. So are we liberals supposed to congratulate ourselves because we don't kill an innocent person, we just send him away for life?!? The question is: Will DNA analysis improve the correct conviction rate? I don't know the answer to that one.
I hesitate to say it because I don't want to incur The Wrath Of Snow, but if your views in this post and these comments are supposed to be examples of a person who is wise and good we are in a heap of trouble.
Please have mercy; it's still dark out and I won't be drinking my morning coffee for several more hours. Already I'm repenting in sackcloth and ashes.
“When does the rights of one stop being more important than the rights of all others to live without the Fear of violence”
I don’t know, although I think we’ve reached that point here—and where you are, it would seem.
“This one is a little bit like religion and politics. I doubt that you will change anyone's mind.”
This is true. On this issue, I’ll continue to think that liberals tend toward misplaced compassion, and they’ll continue, I suppose, to think I’m overly fearful and tend toward barbarity.
“Anybody who chooses to offend against the vast majority of honest and law abiding society should, in my firm opinion, lose all human rights.”
I’m getting more agreement here than I anticipated. I live in a liberal part of the US where the sentiments we hold would cause you and me to be ostracized, whereas such criminals as you mentioned would be regarded as tragic human beings in need of compassion and support. Don’t you and I deserve compassion and support? Does it make sense that a man with a Trump sticker on his bumper was beaten by a mob here, while at the same time, violent felons are held in sympathy? (This should in no way be taken to imply that I support Trump!)
“The perpetrators offend against very small numbers of people so the argument that they offend against the majority is not really accurate.”
I would strongly disagree, and I’ll give you an example. A well-meaning lady who lived ten blocks from me took a troubled young homeless man into her home where he tortured and murdered her. How many people did her murderer offend against? I would hold that everyone who heard of his crime came away with a wound to his or her spirit, and that these wounds will go on manifesting themselves in many ways. Take her family, for example. Every so often her killer will be eligible for parole, and every time this happens, her family will have to appear before the parole board to argue against releasing him (unless they’re content to see him go free). Can you imagine how awful it must be for one’s loved ones to be subjected to this ordeal for decades? Can you imagine how many more people will look upon homeless people as criminals, and therefore be less likely to help them?
“It doesn't matter how many are locked up or executed, we will still have violence and the fear of violence so lets not pretend that executing these offenders gives any kind of freedom to the rest of us…”
The US (my country) is 14th in murder. Philip’s country (Great Britain) is 71. Your country (Australia) is 104. Yet, my country locks more people up than your countries, so clearly more is needed than simply locking people up. “Don’t lock them up, kill them,” is a tempting idea, but if a mugger knows he’s going to be killed if caught, might he not murder his victim in order to avoid being caught? Or if a child who is being molested by her father knows her father will be killed if convicted, might she not be less likely to report him?
“I'm not against the death penalty for vicious crimes in which the perpetrator is absolutely known. Unless there is irrefutable proof, however, I don't want to see the death penalty.”
Peggy and I have also considered the possibility of requiring a higher standard of evidence imposing the death penalty.
“I know there were murders committed all down through history. But it seemed as if they were kept at a lower rate before death penalties were banned.”
The US violent crime rate remains near a 20-year low (https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-26/us-crime-rate-rises-slightly-remains-near-20-year-low), and maybe that’s even true here where I live (Eugene, Oregon), although I well remember the day when the lead stories on the local news were about house fires. Now they’re about murders. Another thing that comes to mind to me about this is that I felt safer as a young male than I do as a 68-year-old male. I remember being aware when I was young that old people were more afraid of crime, and I wondered why because, as I reasoned, who the hell is going to beat up an old person? Well, plenty of thugs as I have learned.
“I would be the first calling for that person to be put to death. But I would not be the person to actually kill them. How can I ask someone else to exact my revenge?”
You wouldn’t be on the jury that sent the criminal to his or her death, and their action would be justice rather than revenge. As for you not doing the killing, why should you—do you fill your own teeth or repair your own plumbing? I might make a post out of my remaining answer to your question inasmuch as it relates to my ideas about killing.
“I've heard so many tales of people being railroaded for crimes they didn't commit that I have a hard time with capital punishment even as I feel that there are genuinely evil people out there that deserve it.”
If you can afford good lawyers, you’re more likely to get off, and it often happens that cops and district attorneys present false evidence. It’s also true that I’ve been on several juries, and was impressed by how hard jurors try to bring in a fair verdict. You’re right in that innocent people sometimes get screwed by the system, but, for reasons given, I not only support the death penalty, I would like to see it applied to more crimes because I believe that doing so would be to the benefit of society.
“So are we liberals supposed to congratulate ourselves because we don't kill an innocent person, we just send him away for life?!?”
I think you've made an excellent point, and, personally speaking, if I had to choose between death and life in a super max, I would consider death a far better option than putting me in a situation that would drive me irreparably insane and therefore render me unable to have a satisfying life even if I were later found innocent and released.
“I hesitate to say it because I don't want to incur The Wrath Of Snow…”
Do you see me as someone who attacks his commenters? Because I like it when people disagree with me, I don't see it as being in my interest to jump down their throats for doing so.
“if your views in this post and these comments are supposed to be examples of a person who is wise and good we are in a heap of trouble.”
I’m reminded of a Gary Larson cartoon in which three guys in lab coats are looking through a window into another room. In that other room are several goofy looking individuals. One of the men in the white coats is saying. “Of course they’re fools, gentlemen. The question is what kind of fools are they.” Ergo, if you don’t show me where I’m wrong, what is the point of simply saying that I lack wisdom? As for any perceived lack of compassion, it seems to me that when the result of compassion is enabling criminals to victimize more people, it isn’t compassion but weakness. Not everyone deserves a third, or fourth or fifth chance to get his or her act together; and some people commit such heinous crimes that they don't even deserve a second chance.
Post a Comment