zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 12, 2014 18:20:19 GMT -5
I'm all for letting even the pedophiles out into the general population. No one in jail should be protected from the consequences of their crimes and if that means death by other inmates, so be it. Takes care of these assholes getting out and doing it again.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 12, 2014 18:35:00 GMT -5
The death penalty is not a deterrent...fine, but then neither is prison - so should we do away with that too?
And by keeping these dangerous death penalty-type prisoners in prison, we allow them to rape and kill other prisoners, which apparently to some people is chock full of innocent people! So why are you wanting all of these innocent people to be raped and killed in prison by the real criminals? Exactly. Using the "well, murder still happens" basis to say that the Death Penalty is not a deterrent, one could expand that to say "crime still happens, so imprisonment is not a deterrent... let's just get rid of all the prisons!" only if you assume that prisons are there to deter. but this is a false dichotomy, because that is NOT why they are there. which undermines the deterrent argument even further. prisons are there for THREE reasons: 1) to punish perpetrators 2) to keep them away from greater society 3) to potentially reform prisoners. if we really wanted to "scare people straight", we would execute shoplifters.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 12, 2014 18:36:20 GMT -5
(I'd be willing to bet that those against the Death Penalty "because apparently it's not a deterrent" would be HIGHLY opposed to getting rid of prisons for the same exact reason... not a deterrent) that makes no sense. first of all, i have not, nor has anyone else here, constructed an argument that says "we should get rid of the DP SOLELY because it is not a deterrent". what we have said is that YOUR claim that it IS a deterrent is dubious. secondly, i really would argue that prisons are not a deterrent to crime. but that doesn't mean i am opposed to prison, because of the the very sound and valid social reasons for why prisons SHOULD be here, none of which have anything to do with deterrence. and finally, those of us that are against the DP generally favor LWOPP as an alternative. carrying that sentence out without prisons would be rather difficult.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 22:52:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2014 18:58:59 GMT -5
Exactly. Using the "well, murder still happens" basis to say that the Death Penalty is not a deterrent, one could expand that to say "crime still happens, so imprisonment is not a deterrent... let's just get rid of all the prisons!" only if you assume that prisons are there to deter. but this is a false dichotomy, because that is NOT why they are there. which undermines the deterrent argument even further. prisons are there for THREE reasons: 1) to punish perpetrators 2) to keep them away from greater society 3) to potentially reform prisoners. if we really wanted to "scare people straight", we would execute shoplifters. Incorrect. The correlation is exactly the same. the crime (whatever crime you'd like to examine) still happens so the punishment (whatever punishment is stipulated FOR that crime) shouldn't exist. Robberies "still happen", so "incarceration for 3-5 years" shouldn't exist. Rapes "still happen", so "incarceration for 7 to 20 years" shouldn't exist. Murders "still happen", so "incarceration for 10 years to Life" OR "Death Penalties" shouldn't exist. As to your "3 reasons"... sorry but they are garbage. In order: 1) to punish perpetrators Modern Prisons are not the "punishment" people believe them to be. Otherwise they wouldn't be in such high demand and/or have overcrowding issues. Punishments are not for reprisal, they are for deterrence. Why do you punish a 5 year old? You do it in the hopes that he/she won't do the bad thing again. 2) to keep them away from greater society Doesn't really work if they serve their time and are released (just to go back to doing the bad thing that got them incarcerated in the first place), parole out, or escape... does it? 3) to potentially reform prisoners. Most inmates learn how to be better criminals in prison... not how to be better citizens.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 12, 2014 19:50:44 GMT -5
only if you assume that prisons are there to deter. but this is a false dichotomy, because that is NOT why they are there. which undermines the deterrent argument even further. prisons are there for THREE reasons: 1) to punish perpetrators 2) to keep them away from greater society 3) to potentially reform prisoners. if we really wanted to "scare people straight", we would execute shoplifters. Incorrect. The correlation is exactly the same. the crime (whatever crime you'd like to examine) still happens so the punishment (whatever punishment is stipulated FOR that crime) shouldn't exist. Robberies "still happen", so "incarceration for 3-5 years" shouldn't exist. Rapes "still happen", so "incarceration for 7 to 20 years" shouldn't exist. Murders "still happen", so "incarceration for 10 years to Life" OR "Death Penalties" shouldn't exist. red herring. i never claimed that prisons would prevent murder.As to your "3 reasons"... sorry but they are garbage. this is an ad hoc attack. kind of amateurish, so you can dispense with it next time, and just move to your counterarguments.In order: 1) to punish perpetrators Modern Prisons are not the "punishment" people believe them to be. Otherwise they wouldn't be in such high demand and/or have overcrowding issues. Punishments are not for reprisal, they are for deterrence. Why do you punish a 5 year old? You do it in the hopes that he/she won't do the bad thing again. i disagree completely. prisons are s(*tholes, imo. they are the worst humane punishment i can imagine. being deprived of family, of social contact, of any sense of freedom, and exposed to the risk of abuse, beatings, disease, and god knows what else would most definitely be punishment. anything worse would be inhumane.2) to keep them away from greater society Doesn't really work if they serve their time and are released (just to go back to doing the bad thing that got them incarcerated in the first place), parole out, or escape... does it? LWOPP. that is what we are talking about, here. how many people who have been rightfully sentenced to LWOPP have been released, Richard?3) to potentially reform prisoners. Most inmates learn how to be better criminals in prison... not how to be better citizens. we should fix that. but reform is, in fact, one of the main reasons for prisons, historically. it is a shame we have forgotten that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 22:52:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2014 19:54:31 GMT -5
Reform may have been the intent, but it hasn't been the reality for decades.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 12, 2014 20:02:58 GMT -5
Reform may have been the intent, but it hasn't been the reality for decades. agreed. but when i said "why they are there", i meant "intent". if that wasn't clear, i apologize. i got that from a history of prisons that i read about 25 years ago. i realize that private prisons have no interest in reform, as it cuts down on business, so i was referring mostly to the public prison system, which historically has cared about such things, and use it to excuse many things they do, like work programs. they should get back to (more of) that.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 12, 2014 20:06:45 GMT -5
When have prisons ever been about reform? And the prisons we have now are resorts compared to what prisons used to be...shackle the criminals to the walls for a few years and feed them rotten bread and tainted water. Now THAT'S a f'ing prison!
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 12, 2014 20:15:11 GMT -5
When have prisons ever been about reform? you're kidding right?
edit: sorry, i couldn't help that reaction. have you ever heard a prison called a "correctional facility" before? did you ever consider the etymology of that term, or did you just figure they were being silly?
And the prisons we have now are resorts compared to what prisons used to be... no, they have been about the same for the last half century. but yes, before that they were worse. most of us consider that to be a BAD thing. shackle the criminals to the walls for a few years and feed them rotten bread and tainted water. Now THAT'S a f'ing prison! no, that is a monstrosity. that is beneath us, as a people. why do you think that prisoners should be shackled and abused? what societal purpose would that serve?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 12, 2014 20:20:23 GMT -5
Well, it would certainly make their victims or their families feel better. Plus, maybe, just maybe, prison would be so awful that no one in their right mind would want to be in there or go back in again. Frankly, what happens to criminals is of zero concern. They had no concerns when they committed their crimes.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,865
|
Post by zibazinski on Sept 12, 2014 20:20:48 GMT -5
Plus, stop the medical care that law adding citizens can't even afford.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 22:52:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2014 20:21:10 GMT -5
Incorrect. The correlation is exactly the same. the crime (whatever crime you'd like to examine) still happens so the punishment (whatever punishment is stipulated FOR that crime) shouldn't exist. Robberies "still happen", so "incarceration for 3-5 years" shouldn't exist. Rapes "still happen", so "incarceration for 7 to 20 years" shouldn't exist. Murders "still happen", so "incarceration for 10 years to Life" OR "Death Penalties" shouldn't exist. red herring. i never claimed that prisons would prevent murder.As to your "3 reasons"... sorry but they are garbage. this is an ad hoc attack. kind of amateurish, so you can dispense with it next time, and just move to your counterarguments.In order: 1) to punish perpetrators Modern Prisons are not the "punishment" people believe them to be. Otherwise they wouldn't be in such high demand and/or have overcrowding issues. Punishments are not for reprisal, they are for deterrence. Why do you punish a 5 year old? You do it in the hopes that he/she won't do the bad thing again. i disagree completely. prisons are s(*tholes, imo. they are the worst humane punishment i can imagine.2) to keep them away from greater society Doesn't really work if they serve their time and are released (just to go back to doing the bad thing that got them incarcerated in the first place), parole out, or escape... does it? LWOPP. that is what we are talking about, here. how many people who have been rightfully convicted of LWOPP have been released, Richard?3) to potentially reform prisoners. Most inmates learn how to be better criminals in prison... not how to be better citizens. we should fix that. but reform is, in fact, one of the main reasons for prisons, historically. it is a shame we have forgotten that. It's not an "ad hoc attack", Your counters to my point were listed numerically... so I followed in kind. As to the actual points... i disagree completely. prisons are s(*tholes, imo. they are the worst humane punishment i can imagine.The worst humane punishment I can imagine is the Death Penalty. But that's beside the point. Punishments shouldn't BE "humane" they should be a deterrent. If they are not enough of a deterrent as they are, they should be escalated. Prisons are not typically "s(*tholes" (as you say), most of them are relatively clean, and the inmates get free medical care, three meals a day, clothes (and laundry service for those clothes), climate controlled temperatures, and a bed to sleep in. LWOPP. that is what we are talking about, here. how many people who have been rightfully convicted of LWOPP have been released, Richard?Too long to post here, but check out this link: Life Without Parole
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 12, 2014 20:23:35 GMT -5
Well, it would certainly make their victims or their families feel better. better than what?Plus, maybe, just maybe, prison would be so awful that no one in their right mind would want to be in there or go back in again. Frankly, what happens to criminals is of zero concern. They had no concerns when they committed their crimes. the quality of a society is measured by how humanely they treat those for which they have "zero concern", imo. i am not alone in that opinion.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 12, 2014 20:25:41 GMT -5
When have prisons ever been about reform? you're kidding right?
edit: sorry, i couldn't help that reaction. have you ever heard a prison called a "correctional facility" before? did you ever consider the etymology of that term, or did you just figure they were being silly?
And the prisons we have now are resorts compared to what prisons used to be... no, they have been about the same for the last half century. but yes, before that they were worse. most of us consider that to be a BAD thing. shackle the criminals to the walls for a few years and feed them rotten bread and tainted water. Now THAT'S a f'ing prison! no, that is a monstrosity. that is beneath us, as a people. why do you think that prisoners should be shackled and abused? what societal purpose would that serve? The same purpose as having them be raped, beaten, and killed in prison by other prisoners...or is that somehow not a monstrosity and not beneath us as a people? And I only had them shackled to a wall - I don't know where you got "beaten" from
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 22:52:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2014 20:26:28 GMT -5
Well, it would certainly make their victims or their families feel better. better than what?Plus, maybe, just maybe, prison would be so awful that no one in their right mind would want to be in there or go back in again. Frankly, what happens to criminals is of zero concern. They had no concerns when they committed their crimes. the quality of a society is measured by how humanely they treat those for which they have "zero concern", imo. i am not alone in that opinion. While I agree with that sentiment... I disagree that we should have "zero concern" for criminals.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 12, 2014 20:27:57 GMT -5
we should fix that. but reform is, in fact, one of the main reasons for prisons, historically. it is a shame we have forgotten that. It's not an "ad hoc attack", Your counters to my point were listed numerically... so I followed in kind. As to the actual points... i disagree completely. prisons are s(*tholes, imo. they are the worst humane punishment i can imagine.The worst humane punishment I can imagine is the Death Penalty. i don't consider that humane. But that's beside the point. Punishments shouldn't BE "humane" they should be a deterrent. sorry, but i am afraid that the SCOTUS, and the American public have disagreed for over 100 years, there. that is precisely what they should be. humane punishment is enshrined in the Eighth Amendment.If they are not enough of a deterrent as they are, they should be escalated. Prisons are not typically "s(*tholes" (as you say), i said it was my opinion. you are entitled to your own. but you won't change my opinion. if you want to see what prison that is NOT a shithole looks like, i would happily provide you several examples.most of them are relatively clean, and the inmates get free medical care, three meals a day, clothes (and laundry service for those clothes), climate controlled temperatures, and a bed to sleep in. right. anything less would be inhumane.LWOPP. that is what we are talking about, here. how many people who have been rightfully convicted of LWOPP have been released, Richard?Too long to post here, but check out this link: Life Without Parolethat link isn't working for me. sorry. edit: that link is working now. it doesn't actually provide me with a number. i would have to go down each case in order to figure it out. but thanks for the effort. more than one, and less than the number of people that have been wrongly sentenced to the DP, i think is the answer.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Sept 12, 2014 20:29:25 GMT -5
Well, it would certainly make their victims or their families feel better. better than what?Plus, maybe, just maybe, prison would be so awful that no one in their right mind would want to be in there or go back in again. Frankly, what happens to criminals is of zero concern. They had no concerns when they committed their crimes. the quality of a society is measured by how humanely they treat those for which they have "zero concern", imo. i am not alone in that opinion. And being raped, beaten, and killed by other prisoners is the standard we're pushing now?
I don't see how adding a death penalty could make it much less "humane" than it is now...
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 12, 2014 20:30:32 GMT -5
no, that is a monstrosity. that is beneath us, as a people. why do you think that prisoners should be shackled and abused? what societal purpose would that serve? The same purpose as having them be raped, beaten, and killed in prison by other prisoners...or is that somehow not a monstrosity and not beneath us as a people? sure. but that is the difference between us and them, right? we are civilized, and they are not. so, you are proposing that we should stoop to their level? um....dude- that is totally immoral. no fucking way. And I only had them shackled to a wall - I don't know where you got "beaten" from i said abused, not beaten. try again.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 22:52:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2014 20:40:48 GMT -5
It's not an "ad hoc attack", Your counters to my point were listed numerically... so I followed in kind. As to the actual points... i disagree completely. prisons are s(*tholes, imo. they are the worst humane punishment i can imagine.The worst humane punishment I can imagine is the Death Penalty. i don't consider that humane. But that's beside the point. Punishments shouldn't BE "humane" they should be a deterrent. sorry, but i am afraid that the SCOTUS, and the American public have disagreed for over 100 years, there. that is precisely what they should be. humane punishment is enshrined in the Eighth Amendment.If they are not enough of a deterrent as they are, they should be escalated. Prisons are not typically "s(*tholes" (as you say), i said it was my opinion. you are entitled to your own. but you won't change my opinion. if you want to see what prison that is NOT a shithole looks like, i would happily provide you several examples.most of them are relatively clean, and the inmates get free medical care, three meals a day, clothes (and laundry service for those clothes), climate controlled temperatures, and a bed to sleep in. right. anything less would be inhumane.LWOPP. that is what we are talking about, here. how many people who have been rightfully convicted of LWOPP have been released, Richard?Too long to post here, but check out this link: Life Without Parolethat link isn't working for me. sorry. Weird... it works fine for me. Here's the URL "in the raw" (so to speak): www.prodeathpenalty.com/lwop.htmAs to your boldings... Here's the Eighth Amendment: Please, find for me, in that quote, either the word "humane" or the word "inhumane". Thanks.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 12, 2014 20:45:52 GMT -5
that link isn't working for me. sorry. Weird... it works fine for me. Here's the URL "in the raw" (so to speak): www.prodeathpenalty.com/lwop.htmAs to your boldings... Here's the Eighth Amendment: Please, find for me, in that quote, either the word "humane" or the word "inhumane". Thanks. "cruel and unusual" is a synonym for "inhumane" for me, Richard. if you want some (legal) justification for this, i would gladly supply it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 22:52:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2014 21:43:16 GMT -5
Weird... it works fine for me. Here's the URL "in the raw" (so to speak): www.prodeathpenalty.com/lwop.htmAs to your boldings... Here's the Eighth Amendment: Please, find for me, in that quote, either the word "humane" or the word "inhumane". Thanks. "cruel and unusual" is a synonym for "inhumane" for me, Richard. if you want some (legal) justification for this, i would gladly supply it. Just because they are synonyms for you doesn't mean that's a universal truth. And we both know that the courts make "bad calls" on implementation of the laws all the time... so... "legal justification" is pretty much irrelevant as well. Cruel and Unusual (to me) means that the punishment does not fit the crime, nor is it reasonable to tie it to the crime as a reprisal of any sort. One example: I'm o.k. with the Death Penalty for MURDER. There's a dead person that shouldn't be dead. There's a tie-in crime-to-punishment. I'm not o.k. with the Death penalty for shoplifting a wrench from Sears... there's no tie-in one has nothing to do with the other, nor could a reasonable person expect that stealing a wrench could get them killed, therefore death for shoplifting would be "cruel and unusual".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 12, 2014 22:52:34 GMT -5
"cruel and unusual" is a synonym for "inhumane" for me, Richard. if you want some (legal) justification for this, i would gladly supply it. Just because they are synonyms for you doesn't mean that's a universal truth. nor did i claim it was. i was just explaining myself. that is how i use the term. if you don't, that is fine. but as i said, it is not without historical basis that i use it in that way. this precise argument was made in the SCOTUS in the period between 1950 and 1972. repeatedly.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 25, 2024 22:52:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2014 22:54:01 GMT -5
LWOPP. that is what we are talking about, here. how many people who have been rightfully convicted of LWOPP have been released, Richard?Too long to post here, but check out this link: Life Without Parole that link isn't working for me. sorry. edit: that link is working now. it doesn't actually provide me with a number. i would have to go down each case in order to figure it out. but thanks for the effort. That link wasn't about numbers. That link was about proof that it can and does happen.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 12, 2014 23:00:59 GMT -5
Cruel and Unusual (to me) means that the punishment does not fit the crime, it can also mean that the sentence is "arbitrary". that is what they said in 1972, anyway.nor is it reasonable to tie it to the crime as a reprisal of any sort. One example: I'm o.k. with the Death Penalty for MURDER. well, then do you disagree that it should be applied to treason, espionage, and drug trafficking in large amounts? do you agree that the DP should NOT be applied to those crimes?There's a dead person that shouldn't be dead. There's a tie-in crime-to-punishment. I'm not o.k. with the Death penalty for shoplifting a wrench from Sears... there's no tie-in one has nothing to do with the other, nor could a reasonable person expect that stealing a wrench could get them killed, therefore death for shoplifting would be "cruel and unusual". as i am sure you are aware, the DP was applied to many crimes other than murder prior to 1775. theft was indeed a capital offense. so, we have evolved a bit since then, and i would argue that we are continuing to evolve on this issue. that is how the law works. as standards of decency and civility move ever forward, so do our standards of what is acceptable punishment. sure, there is some backsliding here and there, but it is largely unidirectional.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 12, 2014 23:01:57 GMT -5
that link isn't working for me. sorry. edit: that link is working now. it doesn't actually provide me with a number. i would have to go down each case in order to figure it out. but thanks for the effort. That link wasn't about numbers. That link was about proof that it can and does happen. cool, but i asked for numbers: i said HOW MANY, not IF. like i say, thanks for trying. i meant it when i said that, but it was not what i was looking for.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,086
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 12, 2014 23:08:17 GMT -5
And we both know that the courts make "bad calls" on implementation of the laws all the time... so... "legal justification" is pretty much irrelevant as well. i disagree fervently about the second half of this. we might disagree on whether a ruling is a good call or not. but we ALL have to live by that call, or suffer the consequences. i would call that about as "relevant" as it gets- until the position is overturned, anyway.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,694
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Sept 12, 2014 23:33:22 GMT -5
Exactly. Using the "well, murder still happens" basis to say that the Death Penalty is not a deterrent, one could expand that to say "crime still happens, so imprisonment is not a deterrent... let's just get rid of all the prisons!" only if you assume that prisons are there to deter. but this is a false dichotomy, because that is NOT why they are there. which undermines the deterrent argument even further. prisons are there for THREE reasons: 1) to punish perpetrators 2) to keep them away from greater society 3) to potentially reform prisoners. if we really wanted to "scare people straight", we would execute shoplifters. When scared I usually don't run a straight line... harder for my pursuers to find me real or imagined..
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 13, 2014 15:35:06 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2014/09/03/us/2-convicted-in-1983-north-carolina-murder-freed-after-dna-tests.html?_r=0All too common- mental problems, false confession, police tunnelvision, and a prosecutor that can never admit they were wrong. Thirty years after their convictions in the rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl in rural North Carolina, based on confessions that they quickly repudiated and said were coerced, two mentally disabled half-brothers were declared innocent and released Tuesday by a Robeson County court. The two young defendants were prosecuted by the district attorney Joe Freeman Britt, a 6-foot-6, Bible-quoting lawyer who was later profiled by “60 Minutes” as the country’s “deadliest D.A.” In 1994, when the United States Supreme Court turned down a request for review of the case, Justice Antonin Scalia described Mr. McCollum’s crime as so heinous that it would be hard to argue against lethal injection. Justice Harry A. Blackmun, who was an open opponent of the death penalty and had voted to hear the case, noted that Mr. McCollum had the mental age of a 9-year-old and that “this factor alone persuades me that the death penalty in this case is unconstitutional.” Recent testing by an independent state agency, the North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission, found a match for the DNA on the cigarette butt – not to either of the imprisoned men, but to Roscoe Artis, who lived only a block from where Sabrina Buie’s body was found and had a history of rape convictions. Joe Freeman Britt, the original prosecutor, told The News & Observer last week that he still believed the men were guilty. *smh* You gotta wonder how the prosecutor can still believe in their guilt knowing DNA evidence points to another highly likely suspect?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Sept 13, 2014 15:37:10 GMT -5
To be clear- I think until we can clean up the system and restore confidence in how justice is meeted out, we should suspend all executions. I am not against the death penalty in principle. And I don't favor it because it's a "deterrent". I favor it when it is warranted as punishment for a crime-- in other words, it may deter others, it may not- but you deserve it, so you should get it.
|
|