What has gone wrong with Humanity Too Strong a Libido: I think most of us would agree that the majority of violent crimes committed in America is by minorities (non-whites). In Massachusetts, there was a 16-year old who walked into the school bathroom and stabbed a freshman dead. A white kid with both family members did this. The lawyer is going to file an appeal, what a joke. The lawyer said "the problem is with the system...it's a barbaric and uncivilized way to treat juveniles" When he was read the verdict and that he was going to do life in prison he became real upset and started to put his head down. Before that he was standing like nothing would phase him. He wasn't crying after killing the kid though and wasn't crying before his verdict. Truly pathetic. This punk should be put to death. Another group of kids from the suburbs (presumably white) went into the "hood" or city and started to mug people. 16-years old and then they went back to the suburbs to probably buy drugs. What the heck is wrong with people? There has to be a way for America to get rid of all the scum who are doing harm to other Americans. Plus: I am not hating  questioneverything: Death Penalty is way more screwed up than it sounds. I agree that some people should die. The only problem is that there is no justice in the system. It's truly just a way for the government to justify their sadistic needs. It's not a real penalty. If it was it would be unbiased. There's cannibals that aren't on death row while some 16 year old kid is.  FogofWar: Where is a 16 year old kid on death row? Unless you're talking about China, I call bullshit on that one.  Malobear: What has gone wrong with Humanity? The Native Americans say the west has forgotten the intructions for living on earth.The juvenile has mental issues and needs to be committed by the State to a State mental hospital. The legal guardian should be the one on trial. FogofWar: The Native Americans have forgotten more than any other culture of the environment. Most aboriginals in Canada could not survive a day in the wild. They rely on our reserves and treaty cheques here in Canada. Not to say all natives have; but here in Canada; the native people as a whole, have lost touch with their roots more than any....and our methods of "equality" are the very reason for that.
FogofWar: http://www.wireclub.com/Forums/ViewTopic.aspx?ForumId=772986&ParentId=1049052&Page=11 Another topic in which I discussed the Native issue in Canada.  Anne aka Mags: I don't know if the initial story is true or not. I live in a country where the death sentence hasn't be used for more than 40 years. Nevertheless, the issue is not the sentence, but the state of this world where we accept that its 'normal' for someone to carry a weapon of any kind. I agree that legal guardians can be as much to blame as the perpetrator, but it does not end there. If you look into our histories, particularly those of indigenous people (no matter what the country), the entire community were involved in the raising the children. There is even an old saying "It takes a community to raise a child!". Before we start laying blame, we need to look at ourselves and ask "What have I done to help build community life where I live?". In other words, the blame lies with us as well! I have a goal to smile and talk to at least one stranger everytime I walk out the door of my home. This works!!! I am slowly getting to know my neighbours and they are getting to know me and my son. It is important that people know that someone cares about them and that we are accountable for our actions on a personal level, let alone legal level. It is said that we live in a global community due to the access the internet gives us, however, this is not true until we localise our interactions. Too Strong a Libido: *laughs until his ass hurts* I kindly suggest some people to turn the pages first before trying to sound smart, I nearly fell off my chair with laughter! FogofWar: "the idea of civilization is ridiculous" so ridiculous that it has survived nearly 10,000 years.  StuckInTheSixties: There are ALWAYS going to be errors made within the justice system. The problem with the death penalty is that if it's administered incorrectly, there's no way to make the correction. If the state incorrectly incarcerates someone, they can release them and offer compensation for the time that person was improperly incarcerated. If the state incorrectly executes someone, there's no way to give the person back his life. I can here the muttering now: "What about those situations where it is clear and unambiguous that there is no error?" The problem is that many offenders don't fall neat and cleanly into two categories: unambiguously guilty, and ambiguously guilty. It's not black and white. There's a grey, ambiguous area in the middle, where many cases exist. If the justice system allows for the death penalty for those cases where there is clear and unambiguous guilt, it's inevitable that it will also be applied to cases where it's not. There are ALWAYS going to be errors made within the justice system. The justice system is inherently unfair. It favors those with economic means. I'm not really complaining about too much that. There doesn't seem to be any way to have a both a free society and an economically perfectly level playing field in the justice system. The reality of economic inequities is a simple reality of living in a capitalist society. But that is another reason why the ultimate penalty should be avoided. If the penalty is going to be the ultimate, the procedure shouldn't be less than perfect. There are ALWAYS going to be errors made within the justice system. That is a reality. Even with the long and arduous journey a capital case must travel from arrest to execution, even with all of the various reviews, appeals, etc. errors are going to occur. The justice system is administered by humans, and humans are anything but perfect. They make mistakes. They overlook things. They lie. They hold biases. They discriminate. They are susceptible to misinterpretation of facts. They are easily misled. They hold grudges. They range from ultra-intelligent to moronic. They are anything but perfect. There are ALWAYS going to be errors made within the justice system. It's unrealistic to not accept that reality. Every time a death row inmate is freed because of developing circumstances in his case, it proves that fact. The advent of DNA analysis certainly proved it in quite a few cases, didn't it? There are ALWAYS going to be errors made within the justice system. It comes down to this: How many incorrect executions are you willing to accept in order to facilitate the correct ones? One incorrect execution for every million correct ones? (Hmm ... even I might be willing to accept that.) One incorrect execution for every 100,000 correct ones? One incorrect execution for every 10,000 correct ones? One incorrect execution for every 1,000 correct ones? One incorrect execution for every 100 correct ones? One incorrect execution for every 10 correct ones? One incorrect execution for every correct one? There are ALWAYS going to be errors made within the justice system. Malobear: SITS says"The problem with the death penalty is that if it's administered incorrectly, there's no way to make the correction. If the state incorrectly incarcerates someone, they can release them and offer compensation for the time that person was improperly incarcerated. If the state incorrectly executes someone, there's no way to give the person back his life." While that statement is true,what price can you put on someone that has served timed fasely accused. Whether its time lost or life there can be no price. StuckInTheSixties: "No price?" I'm going to, for the moment, take that literally. Would you take a billion dollars for a month of time lost to incarceration? How about a billion dollars for a year? Personally (and hypothetically ... it ain't gonna happen), I'd take either of those. I understand your point, but even if they gave you NOTHING but your freedom, that's an infinitely greater compensation than you'd get had they wrongly taken your life. Compensating the wrongly incarcerated is a separate issue from the issue of the ethics of administering the death penalty. FogofWar: I have to agree with SITS on this. While nothing can put a price on your freedom; should you be incarcerated incorrectly; it would be far worse to not be alive than to have that freedom reinstated. There are pros and cons to the death penalty; and the question is what SITS asked; to what price are you willing to pay for a justice system? Is one innocent person wrongfully accused worth 1 million who are guilty? The biggest question is how would you feel if you were that one in a million? StuckInTheSixties: Actually, although that would seem to be in agreement with my position here, I don't think it's appropriate to consider how it would be to be the wrongly convicted person awaiting execution. That's an emotional response. Execution is the most profound punishment. Considering it rationally requires cold, hard objectivity, not emotional subjectivity. That's not easy, I understand. We are humans. We have emotions. It's really easy to look at some scummy villainous serial killer with a s^x-torture dungeon in his basement, whatever, and just think, "That evil piece of shit doesn't deserve to draw another breath." And you would be right. He doesn't. He doesn't deserve one iota of mercy. And it's easy to look at the victims, and empathize with them. However, those are emotional responses. It's not easy to be rational with those things. But think of that figure that represents justice, the blindfolded figure holding up a balance. Justice is blind, and it's unemotionally rational and evenhanded, else it's retribution, not justice. My feelings about the death penalty have nothing to do with mercy. Most who are convicted of capital crimes are guilty scum. Most ... not all. I simply believe in the idea that there's no justification, no justice, when a small number of innocents are wrongfully executed as the cost of getting the guilty. And I'm convinced, and the evidence is overwhelming, that it is literally impossible to have a system that processes large numbers of accused without making errors. So what do you do with the scum? Life without parole. Lock them in a small box, and provide them with only that which most efficiently keeps the trouble of housing them to a minimum, and which fits within the constraints of the Eighth (I think) Amendment, the one that guarantees we not be subjected to "cruel and unusual punishment." There's no need to coddle them. I can hear the objection now ... "What if they continue to commit violence after being incarcerated?" If there's even a crumb of trouble, a hint, they should be treated like so-called "super-max" prisoners, never able to be in the company of any other human unless they have formidable restraints on. Yep, this is very expensive. It is, however, MUCH cheaper than it is to run them through the death penalty procedures that courts have determined over many years are necessary when executions are allowed to take place. If you're thinking this through, you're probably thinking, "But once in a while one of those scum is going to be able to play the system, gain some measure of trust, and then kill some corrections officer, attorney, etc. That's true. Let's not pretend it's not. If you house those scum, on very rare occasions, one of them will hurt or kill again. Or even escape. Obviously, if that happens, they get the most restrictive treatment forever. No second chances. No opportunities. Super-max treatment for life. Period. I am empathetic for those that would inevitably become additional victims in the justice system I describe. The answer isn't to execute in order to protect us from additional victims. The answer is to have rigid procedures in place, and good training for those involved, in order to keep that to a minimum. That's very expensive. But again, it's less expensive than processing people for execution. As a society, we accept that certain occupations come with danger: the military, of course; law enforcement; corrections. We would have to work hard to keep the potential for additional violence at a minimum. None of this is for the benefit of the scum. It's for the benefit of those few wrongly convicted along with the scum. Anne aka Mags: Here's an emotional response for you. My niece was a victim of abduction and multiple counts of rape (including the use of implements). After 29hrs, she was finally released and able to return to her daughter. The bastard (excuse my language) that did this was caught before the day was over and is incarcerated for life (25yrs+). At the time of my nieces abjuction, this guy was out on parole having previously molesting a 13yo girl. I want him to rot in jail. I don't want him executed. As far as my family is concerned, death's too good for him and he should suffer as my niece suffered and continues to suffer, let alone the effect it had on our family. Since her abduction, our government was motivated to introduce a new law that promoted heavier penalties for rapists, particular those of young people. It has been named after her. I agree with SITS and his suggestion on how repeat offenders should be punished. DEATH IS TOO GOOD FOR THEM!!! FogofWar: I do agree that rational decisions need to be made; particularly in politics; and especially when the politics involve the lives of others. War is the same. One cannot become emotional about the sacrifices necessary to save more lives….but at the same time; people can't lose sight with the reality of the issue; and I think knowing what it would mean to be in that situation makes one aware of the reality. I understand the necessity of a judicial system; even if it is flawed (as it will always be; us being human and all); and I would be able to see the bigger picture in that situation. I would think one in a million is rather low; hell one in a thousand isn't really that high. "…that it is literally impossible to have a system that processes large numbers of accused without making errors." Absolutely. I agree entirely. We are, after all, human; and humans make mistakes. StuckInTheSixties: Mag, we appear to be talking about two different things in reference to "repeat offenders." The evil scum that abducted your niece was out on parole, walking around freely, when he committed that act. I was referring specifically to convicted and incarcerated murderers, with no chance of winning parole, sentenced to remain there until they die of old age, who might kill or harm again while serving that life sentence. oldtimeracer: The first problem with the judicial in many states/countries is the sentence of "life". If you are sentenced to life here in the USA, a lot of times that means that you will be walking the streets in a couple of years. A Life sentence should be that, a "Life" sentence. Non of this bullshit with "You were a good boy in prison, we'll let you out early" or if you come from a family that is politically connected or has more money than the law allows, that is also a ticket to freedom. If you sorry ass is sentenced to Life in Prison", then the only time you should come out is in the back or a hearse with a sheet over your head. StuckInTheSixties: What you aren't taking into consideration here is that by having two kinds of life sentences ... ~ Life with an opportunity for parole ~ Life with no parole ... it can work both ways. Yes, as you say, it can be frustrating, and harmful, to society when a destructive, evil person is released on parole and commits another crime. We wish he'd never been released. But at the same time, there are certain classifications of crimes where having a range of sentencing that extends up all the way to life (with parole) allows judges and parole boards to keep a really destructive, evil person behind bars for a very long time, and also incarcerate another less destructive, less evil person for less time ... ... even though the statute they were convicted under is the same. People and their crimes can be vastly different even though they are convicted under the same statute. Here's some hypothetical scenarios that illustrate that: Guy No. 1: A guy who has never been in the slightest bit of trouble has a drink or two on the way home from work. His blood-alcohol level is above the legal limit, but only by the tiniest amount. He receives a phone call from his wife. There's some sort of minor emergency. He's heading home, although he's not breaking any speed laws, or driving dangerously, etc. Someone runs a stop sign, coming through an intersection directly into the path of our guy. There's an unavoidable collision, and unfortunately, the person that ran the stop sign is killed. That person caused the accident, yet our guy's blood/alcohol is higher than legally allowed. Guy No. 2 A guy who has a long, sordid history of criminal behavior, has a particularly lengthy list of of alcohol-related trouble of all sorts. This guy is a blight on society, always causing problems of one sort or another. He gets incarcerated, serves his time, has been in and out of the justice system repeatedly for almost all of his life, always for relatively low-level criminal activity. Now he's completely inebriated, on a bender, so drunk he can barely walk, he's driving eratically, dangerously fast on small, crowded streets and runs down a little old lady in a crosswalk who wasn't spry enough to get out of his way as he barreled down the street. Both of these guys are convicted of negligent homicide. So should the sentencing for them be: ~ Within a specified range of time, such as 5 to 20 years (with possibility of parole) ~ Within a range of time that extends to life, such as 5 to life (with possibility of parole) ~ Life with no parole Remember, both of these guys broke exactly the same law. If you want the satisfaction of a sentence that justifiably puts Guy No. 2 behind bars for the rest of his pathetic life where he can no longer cause trouble, Guy No. 1 is going to be swept along with him. It makes more sense to me to allow the judge and parole board the discression to allow Guy No. 1 to put his life back together again after serving his punishment, and still throw the book at Guy No. 2 What would work best is for certain really heinous crimes to have a ADDITIONAL sentencing option of "life with no parole." That way a sentencing judge (perhaps with the mandatory agreement of a parole board) could take away the parole option for really heinous criminals while still allowing the parole possibility for a less heinous criminal. Count on one thing: regardless of how things work, because they're administered by human beings, those imperfect humans will find ways to screw it up. clσsєt mσnkєч: Well, we all know everything originates with a greed. I think we should focus on what is right also! If we focus on what is wrong, let it be to warn ourselves and others. Too much negative brings a drain on our spirits. Things right with humanity today: 1. As long as there are people helping people, caring for other people, there is right in humanity today. 2. The rain still comes 3. The sun still shines 4. You have your body. There is health there. Build on it. 5. You have your soul, your focus of life. Unite it with the power of the creator. Build it up. 6. You have friends and family. Honor them even if they are now only a memory. 7. Everyday if we all did all we could to make this world a better place, it would slowly be a better place. 8. Remember that happiness comes from within and spreads outward not the other way around. Any happiness from without is only fleeting, temporary. 9. Be positive. Be someone you would want to be around. Then other people will want to be around you. 10. All our reverses can turn to positives if we grow with them. The wind blows against the trees. They grow with it. We can also. Cheers StuckInTheSixties: Are you, like, a Jehovah's Witness or something? (laughs) Sorry, just being a smart-ass! StuckInTheSixties: That's my least favorite Wireclub emot. It's practically just a dark blob. I like this one:  Fancy! Kinetic! Colorful! | Philosophy Chat Room 10 People Chatting Similar Conversations |
