Yes, the banning of the juvenile death penalty was...

[Catwoman]

*shrugs* I should have known better than attempt to engage in proper debate with you sidhe, we have "discussed" the death penalty before, and you didn't listen then either.

I like the Cellar because while many of us disagree, there is almost always an openness and honesty in discussion. With you, that doesn't exist. You come across as narrow minded, vicious, bitter and pretty fucked up.

If I'm wrong, don't respond with flames, show me it's not true.

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally Posted by case

I understand the philosophy of it, LS, but do you really feel comfortable with our govt/legal system making the choice as to whether a person's life should be taken? What about folks who were innocent, or acted in self defense? That isn't probably considered "cold blooded" to you, but why should we leave that decision in the hands of an already misguided, if not incompetant group of people? Who is fit to make that judgement? You? Me? The victims of a crime? An educated removed individual sitting behind a wooden podium? A group of conditioned people sitting in wooden benches having had all kinds of spin flung at them by lawyers looking to win a case? I don't feel comfortable giving anyone that kind of power.

Sure, there are a lot of sick people out there, looking to hurt you or your family. And if one of them does, how does revenge on that person really fix the problem? It just gets rid of the person who did it, but it doesn't rid you of the experience. It will happen with other sick people and their innocent victims. So are we just going to shoot everyone who gets acused of a crime worthy of it? And which crimes *are* worthy of killing someone?

Our system isn't perfect. I'm not saying it is. However, what would you have us do? Who would you have making the decisions? Nobody? Someone has to have the power to enforce our laws, or there will be anarchy. Judges know the law, and 97% of the time the rulings they make are in favor of the defendant. The courts are so paranoid about getting their decisions reversed that they make every effort to make sure that the defendant gets as fair a trial as possible. Then there's DNA. I think that DNA evidence should be mandatory in rape and murder evidence. Not if the defendant can afford it. It should be MANDATORY. Then we don't have to worry about DNA exculpating somone after they've spent ten years in prison for something they didn't do. And if they admit it--sorry. If you're stupid enough to admit to something you didn't do, maybe Mother Nature's trying to tell you something.

And if we get rid of those sick people, then they won't have the opportunity to hurt anyone ELSE.

As I've said many times, it's not like we keep the death penalty a secret. Unless you've been living under a rock your entire life, you KNOW that certain crimes warrant the ultimate penalty. Therefore, should you choose to commit that crime, society may choose to hand down that penalty. I'm not MAKING someone commit a crime just so I can kill them.

I'm not cold-hearted. I just think that society deserves more consideration and protection than the predator. You don't baby a rabid dog, you destroy it so that it won't harm anyone.


Sidhe

[kerosene]

Originally Posted by Lady Sidhe

Judges know the law, and 97% of the time the rulings they make are in favor of the defendant.

Can you back this up? Does this mean that all rulings in favor of the defendant are inaccurate?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Lady Sidhe

And if they admit it--sorry. If you're stupid enough to admit to something you didn't do, maybe Mother Nature's trying to tell you something.

Wow. That's one of the most ignorant things I've seen written on the cellar... Especially in the context of a thread about the juvenile death penalty.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Lady Sidhe

If you're stupid enough to admit to something you didn't do, maybe Mother Nature's trying to tell you something.

I find this very interesting that, of all things, you're mentioning this regarding juvenille cases. You are obviously not at all aware of the countless cases, the majority of them serious, in which a minor has admitted to crimes they did not commit when under pressure during an police interview.

"He sounded so sure of himself that I started to doubt my son," Rick Sr. said. "I started to wonder if Ricky really had done this awful thing. I couldn't understand why Danny would say he'd done it if he hadn't."

Mother Nature, indeed.

Why are you certain of the death penalty and yet so blind to the process, the flaws of the process, and the reasons why the process is in place? This world is not so black and white.

[Lady Sidhe]

Originally Posted by Catwoman

Your point about justice - one life for another - is valid. But what you must realise is that not all crimes are the same. Not every murder is a cold-blooded killing with no regard for their actions, no conscience and no sense. What would you do if you were alone with a guy who had locked you in a room, spent 3 days torturing you, raping you, shitting on you, and you saw a knife and your opportunity. Would you kill him and get the fuck out of there? Or would you, calmly and rationally, think 'oh I couldn't possibly do that, killing is wrong, and therefore every killing is wrong, so I can't kill him. I wouldn't want to risk the death sentence.'

Come on Lady S, I can get over your dogmaticism if you have a point, but please recognise crime is not black and white (nor is it predominantly black if that's your next joke) and sometimes there is margin for error.

If you recognise there is variation in crime you cannot wax lyrical about standardised punishment or justice.

I DO realize that all crimes are not the same. I don't consider killing in self-defense or the defense of another to be cold-blooded murder. We have the right and the duty to protect ourselves against an unprovoked attack. That's not what I'm talking about at all.

I'm talking about serial murderers, spree killers, mass murderers, child killers, child rapists....people who are in and out of jail for the same thing over and over and over and who present an ongoing threat to society.

I know that crime is not black and white, but neither is it ALWAYS gray. If you have a guy who has a lengthy history of child molestation, then he should never, EVER be released. Obviously he cannot be rehabilitated, and the next time he may decide that it would be better to kill the victim so he wouldn't get caught. What then? Or a rapist who's in and out of jail on rape charges may decide the same thing. Kill the victim, and they can't tell on you.

I'm all in favor of mandatory DNA testing. I feel bad for the people who've spent years in jail only to be proven innocent on DNA. That's why I think it should be mandatory for all capital cases. Any kind of testing that may prove a defendant in a capital case innocent should be used, even if the court must pay for it. I also think that the jury should be able to hear ALL of the evidence, including past history of the defendent, so that they can determine propensity. The jury too often only hears certain parts of evidence, so they don't have all the information that they need to make a fair decision.

Many times, I've read where jury members find out that a defendant that they let off, or gave a light sentence to, actually had a history of the offense for which he was being tried. They were not allowed by the court to know about the defendant's history, and say that if they had known, they would have made a different decision.

If a woman kills her rapist, good for her...she saved the state some money. Give her a medal for helping to protect society and send her on her way. Too many times, the victim is put on trial and dragged through the mud by a lawyer who doesn't care about anything except winning cases. Where's the morality there? Just because OJ had the best lawyers and a biased jury doesn't mean he's NOT guilty. Just because Robert Blake was found not guilty doesn't mean he didn't do it. They may never do it again. But they did it once, and that was enough to destroy two families. What about them?

Our justice system is biased in favor of the accused. The courts lean over backwards to ensure that the accused gets as fair a trial as possible so that a higher court won't reverse their decision.

For instance, if a juvenile has a history of assault, as soon as he becomes an adult, his record is sealed. Therefore, if he assaults again, or rapes, or kills, the prosecutor cannot give the jury all of the information that they need to make a fair decision. He can't say, "Look at this...he has a history of this kind of behavior. This shows propensity." How is THAT fair? The jury lets the guy off with a light sentence, IF they find him guilty, because they think it's his first offense, when actually it's not.

And rape or murder? A defense lawyer can drag the victim through the mud, (this happens a lot in murder cases, and the victim is not there to defend themselves) but a prosecutor cannot do the same with regards to the accused's history. How is THAT fair?

No, I know that crime isn't black and white. But when it comes to admissions, DNA evidence, eyewitness or earwitness evidence (which I give only half-consideration to, knowing the questionable reliabiltiy of it), video or tape recordings, or other things that point to the individual's guilt, I think that they should be punished, whether you want to call it societal retribution or justice--I consider them the same thing--according to the severity of their crime.

Vandalism? Get a fine, maybe spend a night in jail if it was extremely destructive. Rape? Put you in a cell with Bubba who hasn't seen a woman in thirty years, and let you see how you like it. Child molestation? Put you in a cage and never let you out. Rot in there for all I care. Child abuse? Fix you like an animal so that you can't create more little ready-made victims. Put you on a list so that you can never adopt or babysit or teach or have any access to kids. Murder? A life for a life.

I think that's fair.


Sidhe

[OnyxCougar]

I have to admit I'm on LS's "side" here. Speaking as a family member of a murder victim, I say fry the bastards. Speaking as a victim of rape and child molestation, I say, fry the bastards.

Emotional? Of course. Logical? Yes. If we kill proven offenders, they will not repeat their crimes. That is as logical as it gets, people.

And those of you who are pro-choice and Anti-Death Penalty, I call hypocrite.

[mrnoodle]

Originally Posted by jaguar

your semantics say it all really. What's 'extreme justice' ? Sounds like a polite way of saying cruel, sadastic revenge that sounds more palateable to me. Which makes you no better.

I can tell you what justice isn't: creating a system by which the predator of children is suddenly elevated to an untouchable status, where committing the most atrocious act possible on the most innocent of victims is a ticket to free health care, free boarding, internet access and a voluminous law library (and public servants) at your disposal. What a coup, to have a significant segment of the population believe that what you've done isn't evil (since there's no such thing), and to suddenly have the might of the ACLU at your back, daring "the man" to look at you crossways.

Cruel, sadistic revenge? Not at all. An end at the hands of a firing squad is multiple powers of magnitude MORE humane than what he did, and if he deserves any "respect," it's a quick end to his miserable poisonous existence, and not a whit more. That you, jaguar, would align yourself on the side of such monsters just so you can fly the philosophical banner of "fairness" is disgusting. I'm sure you're giddy with joy that the kid who was released from prison yesterday can once again live a normal life. Well, normal but for the fact that he seems to have a propensity for beating little girls into bloody rags by picking them up by the legs and dashing them against brick walls. But hey, a little couch time and he'll be right as rain.

If one of these people visited your home, you might feel differently. I shudder to think that you might not. After all, you can accuse people like me of cruelty and utterly turn your back on the victims of the world's most vile crimes. I'm sure Dahmer would've appreciated your support.

[Catwoman]

Thank you for your most rational and eloquent post to date. I mean that.

I really do understand your point. If you don't want the electric chair - don't murder! It's quite simple.

I think your style of writing sometimes comes across as bloodthirsty, and can suggest an appetite for brutal punishment and humiliation. If that is true (which I really hope it's not) this is the same intrinsic quality that leads a murderer to murder. An anger against something, a burning desire to hurt someone. Ok your reason is justified: they hurt someone else. But their anger is just as real to them.

In your last paragraph, I'm with you until the murder bit. I agree that IF reparation is to be conducted it should be on a like-for-like basis. I have the same 'show them how it feels' urge. But swiftly after that urge comes a rationalisation and humanity that would prevent me from condoning MORE pain and torture, no matter the crime of the perpetrator.

I think, on a wider scale, it is circular and self-perpetuating. I think harm to one person causes harm to the whole world. Punishing the harm-causer with more harm will only increase the net-negative.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by Lady Sidhe

He can't say, "Look at this...he has a history of this kind of behavior. This shows propensity." How is THAT fair?

Funny, you answered yourself right here:

Originally Posted by Lady Sidhe

Many times, I've read where jury members find out that a defendant that they let off, or gave a light sentence to, actually had a history of the offense for which he was being tried. They were not allowed by the court to know about the defendant's history, and say that if they had known, they would have made a different decision.

History means nothing when you are on trial for a crime because you are being tried based on evidence, not your previous actions. Previous actions bias juries to the point of finding the innocent guilty. That is why the judge takes the defendant's history into account during the sentencing portion of the trial, not during the actual trial, itself.

Originally Posted by Lady Sidhe

But when it comes to admissions, DNA evidence, eyewitness or earwitness evidence (which I give only half-consideration to, knowing the questionable reliabiltiy of it), video or tape recordings, or other things that point to the individual's guilt

You're insisting this evidence is always rock-solid. It is not, even admission of guilt as I noted above.

[Kitsune]

[retracted]

[Troubleshooter]

You left out that prevents recidivism.

[jaguar]

jesus fuck you got quite a beating with the stupid stick didn't you. I wasn't aware of a system that 'elevates predators of children to untouchable status', I was aware that many didn't live though their prison terms or if they did, were regularly victims of all sorts of crimes while inside and were often murdered or beaten after release.

The only thing I align myself with is due process and the criminal justice system over emotional lynch mobs and arbitary murder. When you start punishing people for crimes they haven't committed on the basis they may you start down a very slippery slope indeed. The same applies to punishing people outside the criminal justice system. But don't let that get in the way of ranting about the extreme cases.

So let me get this right. A 5 year old gets raped and murdered, her dismembered body gets found in a rubbish bag in a local park. Someone comes forward claiming they saw you in the area the night before. The media goes wild, someone else backs the claim up (silhouette looked about the same and hey, we all want to help find the evil kiddie fiddler right?), you say you were just walking your dog? Yea right, kiddie fiddler. Free legal aid? You're kidding, you're a vile evil scummy kiddiefiddler now and everyone knows it, into the cell for you and don't expect regular feeding while you're in there either. You're convicted, on the evidence of witnesses and under intense media pressure, Appeal? You've got to be kidding, you're gonna die next week, kiddie fiddler, get in the cell. Your arm got broken by a couple of cops on the way in? Tough luck, you fucking disgusting kiddie fiddler. It's what you deserve.

Is that how it should work? We have due process for a reason. It's a system built on centuries of development to create a process where justice, not revenge can be served in an environment that attempts to be as fair as possible.

If it happened to you, you might feel differently. I don't turn my back on the victims, i simply see the value of due process.

You love your emotive language, no wonder, without it your argument looks pretty fucking weak without it, the same emotive bullshit used to push any kind of irrational legislation, whether it be making sure that kids aren't runied for life by seeing tits on late night TV or taken away women's choice over their own bodies. Pretty fucking black and white for raped little girls, not so if the wrong guy gets accused.

Onxycougar - Lets keep on topic shall we, abortion is a whole other issue.

[mrnoodle]

I have not a violent bone in my body. I've never thrown the first punch, I've turned the other cheek more times than I care to count, and I haven't shot at anyone since 1989. If a bug is in the house, I'm more likely to catch it and release it outside than to stomp on it.

You can rob me, you can beat me up, you can set my car on fire, and I'll call 911 and let the flawed system run its course. But mess with my family or with kids in general and you opt out of the human race as far as I'm concerned. If anyone attempted rape or murder of my nephews, niece, parents or siblings, a prison term for me is a foregone conclusion, because the sonofabitch will not see another sunrise. I know that's wrong from the standpoint of my faith, and I know it's a foreign concept to many people who have never lived in an environment where the police were no more than 5 minutes away at any time.

But no, nobody could make me "mad" enough to do violence against them for anything other than self-defense. With the above caveat.

[mrnoodle]

jaguar, welcome to my ignore list, you pompous fucking limey twit.