Supreme Court Debates Juvenile Executions

The Black Flag Cafe is the place travelers come to share stories and advice. Moderated by Robert Young Pelton the author of The World's Most Dangerous Places.

Moderator: coldharvest

Postby kilroy » Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:54 am

Quote:
i never said earlier that they have no chance of becoming functional members of society. you have me confused with someone else.


Ugh!!! I think I have a brain tumor or something.

Then why do you want to execute people?


dude you quoted me earlier...

Quote:
if this is the question you're talking about rob, here's my take. capital punishment is not necesserily about detterence. it's about punishment.


So it's about punishment? Or revenge?


it's about punishment, and also like i said in my last post, 'the punishment must be commiserate to the crime. when the evidence is damning enough, and when the crime is vicious enough, the convicted deserves death. and it would also take away the license to committ crime unlimited in prsion to those convicted to a maximum sentence of life without parole. '
when they ask how you feeling
you tell em you feeling like something important died screaming
you tell em you feeling like something even more important arrived breathing
something you should probably try feeding
User avatar
kilroy
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 5691
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:34 am
Location: Alabambam

Postby patriot » Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:02 am

it's about punishment, and also like i said in my last post,


Isn't life imprisonment in a super-max facility punishment enough?

'the punishment must be commiserate to the crime.


So we're back to the Hammurabi Code, eh? Eye for an eye?

when the evidence is damning enough, and when the crime is vicious enough, the convicted deserves death.


I don't really think it's up to us to decide who deserves to be murdered and who doesn't. That's playing God.

and it would also take away the license to committ crime unlimited in prsion to those convicted to a maximum sentence of life without parole. '


That wouldn't cease any noticable percent of violent acts in prison. Not by a long shot my friend. The serial murderers and passion-killers don't account for a lot of the violence in prisons. It's more of a gang-related nature, and you will NEVER get rid of that as long as we have the appauling prison institutions we have now.
User avatar
patriot
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:35 pm

Postby kilroy » Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:17 am

Isn't life imprisonment in a super-max facility punishment enough?


no.

So we're back to the Hammurabi Code, eh? Eye for an eye?


so you're saying the punishment shouldn't fit the crime?

I don't really think it's up to us to decide who deserves to be murdered and who doesn't. That's playing God.


then why is it okay for us to decide who deserves to be locked up and who doesn't, and who can be rehabilitated and who cant, or who is 'insane' and who isnt? is that 'playing god' too? that's the whole point of the judicial system - to judge people. should we do away with it?

That wouldn't cease any noticable percent of violent acts in prison. Not by a long shot my friend. The serial murderers and passion-killers don't account for a lot of the violence in prisons. It's more of a gang-related nature, and you will NEVER get rid of that as long as we have the appauling prison institutions we have now.


maybe it wont rid it by a long shot, but even if i concede this, it doenst matter. those who commit crime in prison, whether gang-related or not, can be and are put on trial and given a further sentence. if you have someone who has reached a maximum sentence of life without parole, it's a free ticket to commit as much crime as they want, whether for a gang or not.

like i said, i'm all for using the death penalty with the strictest of standards and very rarely. if the circumstance never arrives to where it is used, that would be wonderful. but the option to use it in those extreme and bizarre circumstances should be there.
when they ask how you feeling
you tell em you feeling like something important died screaming
you tell em you feeling like something even more important arrived breathing
something you should probably try feeding
User avatar
kilroy
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 5691
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:34 am
Location: Alabambam

Postby patriot » Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:24 am

so you're saying the punishment shouldn't fit the crime?


Not at all. But when we kill someone for killing someone, shouldn't we also castrate rapists and child-molestors? Or at least rape em back?

then why is it okay for us to decide who deserves to be locked up and who doesn't, and who can be rehabilitated and who cant, or who is 'insane' and who isnt? is that 'playing god' too? that's the whole point of the judicial system - to judge people. should we do away with it?


Playing God is limited to deciding who is worthy of life and who isn't. It's got nothing to do with reabilitating people or diagnosing mental disorders.

maybe it wont rid it by a long shot, but even if i concede this, it doenst matter. those who commit crime in prison, whether gang-related or not, can be and are put on trial and given a further sentence. if you have someone who has reached a maximum sentence of life without parole, it's a free ticket to commit as much crime as they want, whether for a gang or not.

like i said, i'm all for using the death penalty with the strictest of standards and very rarely. if the circumstance never arrives to where it is used, that would be wonderful. but the option to use it in those extreme and bizarre circumstances should be there.


Well, so far you've been the most logical about the whole death penalty thing, and that's good. It gives me an idea of where you're coming from.
User avatar
patriot
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:35 pm

Postby kilroy » Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:39 am

the death penalty is not playing god. its a logical decision to enforce a punishment with a desired result. what would you propose to do with someone who is already sentenced to life without parole who persists in murdering his jailmates? or a terrorist like osama bin laden?

as i said, these situations are extreme and far-fetched. but if these extreme and far-fetched circumstances never arrive, then the death penalty would never need to be enforced. however, i still believe that the option needs to be there because despite the fact that events leading to it's use may be astronomically slight in many peoples' opinions, they still may happen, and the justice system should be ready for it.
when they ask how you feeling
you tell em you feeling like something important died screaming
you tell em you feeling like something even more important arrived breathing
something you should probably try feeding
User avatar
kilroy
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 5691
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:34 am
Location: Alabambam

Postby patriot » Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:53 am

the death penalty is not playing god.


Enforcing abritrary idealogies that results in the muder of another human-being isn't playing God?

its a logical decision to enforce a punishment with a desired result.


And that result being the elimination of an unredeemable member of society?

what would you propose to do with someone who is already sentenced to life without parole who persists in murdering his jailmates?


Solitary confinement. Reforming the prison system. You really think if we part our minds to it we couldn't quell prison violence?

or a terrorist like osama bin laden?


That is different. We are at war with Bin Laden. He is not an American citizen either. He is a military target, and must be eliminated.
User avatar
patriot
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:35 pm

Postby kilroy » Mon Oct 18, 2004 12:00 pm

abritrary idealogies that results in the muder of another human-being isn't playing God?


it's not an arbitrary ideology.

And that result being the elimination of an unredeemable member of society?


yes.

Solitary confinement. Reforming the prison system. You really think if we part our minds to it we couldn't quell prison violence?


whether we could or not quell the violence doesnt matter. unless you put someone in solitary confinement forever, it does not eliminate the possibility of committing further murders, whether or not it is likely. the death penalty does. as i said, i am not in favor of killing everyone who commits murder, or even the majority. the recourse to the death penalty should be open however.

That is different. We are at war with Bin Laden. He is not an American citizen either. He is a military target, and must be eliminated.


point taken, he's not an american citizen, and thus does not apply to the debate. but what about domestic terrorists such as timothy mcveigh?
when they ask how you feeling
you tell em you feeling like something important died screaming
you tell em you feeling like something even more important arrived breathing
something you should probably try feeding
User avatar
kilroy
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 5691
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:34 am
Location: Alabambam

Postby patriot » Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:06 pm

it's not an arbitrary ideology.


Eye for an eye isn't an arbitrary idealogy?


And that result being the elimination of an unredeemable member of society?



yes.


So, back to my previous point. If the result desired is that of the elimination of an unredeemable member of society then why not execute serial rapists and paedophiles? There is no cure for either, and thus they can never hope to become functional members of society.

whether we could or not quell the violence doesnt matter.


It doesn't? So if we were able to find a way to reduce prison violence it wouldn't matter? C'mon now...

unless you put someone in solitary confinement forever, it does not eliminate the possibility of committing further murders, whether or not it is likely.


If the death penalty reduced prison violence there would be very little of it. I though you conceded this point?

point taken, he's not an american citizen, and thus does not apply to the debate. but what about domestic terrorists such as timothy mcveigh?


Mmmmm. That's a tricky one, but after thinking about it this how I feel...

McVeigh was an American citizen; this is true, but what McVeigh did (in my opinion) could be construed as military in nature (deliberately attacking a Federal building, bombing American infrastructure).

I believe if a citizen reverts to terrorist tactics such as this they revoke their citizenship and should be designated enemy combatants. If someone's aim is to disrupt America's infrastructure then they should be considered enemies of the state, and should be put to death if need be (just like Osama).
User avatar
patriot
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:35 pm

Postby kilroy » Mon Oct 18, 2004 3:45 pm

Eye for an eye isn't an arbitrary idealogy?


what do you mean by arbitrary ideology? how does any system of doing things become less 'arbitrary' than another? i dont understand what you are trying to get at here.

So, back to my previous point. If the result desired is that of the elimination of an unredeemable member of society then why not execute serial rapists and paedophiles? There is no cure for either, and thus they can never hope to become functional members of society.


rapists and pedophiles (however vile i may regard them as) do not violate others unalieable right to life. murderers do.

It doesn't? So if we were able to find a way to reduce prison violence it wouldn't matter? C'mon now...


i didnt mean that it wouldn't matter to society, only that it wouldn't matter to my point.

If the death penalty reduced prison violence there would be very little of it. I though you conceded this point?


i never held in contention the point that the death penalty may not reduce violence in the prison system. the goal is not to reduce prison violence as an overall trend. the goal is to punish and eliminate violent individuals who have proven themselves to understand their actions and to be a life-threatening danger to those around them, even within the prison system.

Mmmmm. That's a tricky one, but after thinking about it this how I feel...

McVeigh was an American citizen; this is true, but what McVeigh did (in my opinion) could be construed as military in nature (deliberately attacking a Federal building, bombing American infrastructure).

I believe if a citizen reverts to terrorist tactics such as this they revoke their citizenship and should be designated enemy combatants. If someone's aim is to disrupt America's infrastructure then they should be considered enemies of the state, and should be put to death if need be (just like Osama).


yes, 'could be construed' to be a military attack, but how do you differentiate between a criminal act and an act of terrorism? your definition of attacking a federal building is similar to laws on the books in some states that say that killing police officer carries a mandatory death sentence. does the decision of whether the person is a 'terrorist' or a 'criminal' happen before or after a trial? if before, you're opening a pandora's box of federal abuses (people who aren't really terrorists being labeled as such by vindictive federal agencies for example). how do you determine that a 'terrorist' intended to 'disrupt america's infastructure'? and what if the attack was not on a federal building as in the case of oklahoma, but on a business center (such as the sears tower)?
when they ask how you feeling
you tell em you feeling like something important died screaming
you tell em you feeling like something even more important arrived breathing
something you should probably try feeding
User avatar
kilroy
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 5691
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:34 am
Location: Alabambam

Postby patriot » Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:00 pm

what do you mean by arbitrary ideology? how does any system of doing things become less 'arbitrary' than another? i dont understand what you are trying to get at here.


An eye for an eye seems a bit arbitrary, but that's just me I guess.

rapists and pedophiles (however vile i may regard them as) do not violate others unalieable right to life. murderers do.


But they do violate one's inalienable right to happiness. They are unredeemable ergo they can never become functional members of society. They will continue to rape and molest no matter what. It's my opinion that paedophiles and serial rapists should be sentenced to life in prison.

i never held in contention the point that the death penalty may not reduce violence in the prison system. the goal is not to reduce prison violence as an overall trend. the goal is to punish and eliminate violent individuals who have proven themselves to understand their actions and to be a life-threatening danger to those around them, even within the prison system.


Like I said before life imprisonment is just as effective as the death penalty. And since we know the death penalty won't do anything to reduce prison violence (as it is a matter of gang violence and drug-trafficking) then you've gone and got yourself in a Catch-22.

yes, 'could be construed' to be a military attack, but how do you differentiate between a criminal act and an act of terrorism? your definition of attacking a federal building is similar to laws on the books in some states that say that killing police officer carries a mandatory death sentence. does the decision of whether the person is a 'terrorist' or a 'criminal' happen before or after a trial? if before, you're opening a pandora's box of federal abuses (people who aren't really terrorists being labeled as such by vindictive federal agencies for example). how do you determine that a 'terrorist' intended to 'disrupt america's infastructure'? and what if the attack was not on a federal building as in the case of oklahoma, but on a business center (such as the sears tower)?


Well, it's not up to me to determine what would be construed as a military/terrorist style attack. I guess I'd leave that up to the law-makers, and if I felt they were innacurate in their classification I'd be sure to let them know.

But I'll play devil's advocate and say that if one's goal is merely to kill Americans, and not necessarily anyone in particular, and not for any particular purpose other than to kill Americans, then that would be classified as terrorism.
User avatar
patriot
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:35 pm

Postby kilroy » Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:13 am

Quote:
rapists and pedophiles (however vile i may regard them as) do not violate others unalieable right to life. murderers do.


But they do violate one's inalienable right to happiness. They are unredeemable ergo they can never become functional members of society. They will continue to rape and molest no matter what. It's my opinion that paedophiles and serial rapists should be sentenced to life in prison.


however, once the crime is over the victim is still around to excercise the right to 'the pursuit of happiness'. murder victims are not. also, pedophiles cannot continue to abuse children while in prison, but murderers can continue to kill in prison.

Like I said before life imprisonment is just as effective as the death penalty. And since we know the death penalty won't do anything to reduce prison violence (as it is a matter of gang violence and drug-trafficking) then you've gone and got yourself in a Catch-22.


and like i said before, the goal is not to reduce violence overall, it is to eliminate violent individuals. how is this a catch-22?

But I'll play devil's advocate and say that if one's goal is merely to kill Americans, and not necessarily anyone in particular, and not for any particular purpose other than to kill Americans, then that would be classified as terrorism.


in just about every mass murder or serial killing that has happened in the states, the victims have been americans...

and making exceptions for a death penalty ban for terrorists still doesnt address individuals who continue to kill in prison.
when they ask how you feeling
you tell em you feeling like something important died screaming
you tell em you feeling like something even more important arrived breathing
something you should probably try feeding
User avatar
kilroy
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 5691
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 7:34 am
Location: Alabambam

Postby patriot » Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:38 pm

however, once the crime is over the victim is still around to excercise the right to 'the pursuit of happiness'. murder victims are not. also, pedophiles cannot continue to abuse children while in prison, but murderers can continue to kill in prison.


Ok, I'll concede this point, though it is a bit of a slippery slope.

and like i said before, the goal is not to reduce violence overall, it is to eliminate violent individuals. how is this a catch-22?


Because imprisoning someone for life in a super-max facility is just as adequate as eliminating them. They are no longer a threat to society, and your contension that it also serves the purpose of eliminating a threat to other prisoners is merely relative to the massive amounts of violence commited by gang members, rapists, and drug-dealers.

So...you say that life in prison isn't adequate enough because they still pose a threat to their fellow prisoners, but death row doesn't account for much violence among criminals, so therefor it's somewhat of a Catch-22.

in just about every mass murder or serial killing that has happened in the states, the victims have been americans...


Yes, this is a bit of a pickle, but I'd leave that classification up to law-makers. If they considered taking an AK into a crowd and letting loose a terrorist attack I suppose I'd support their classification. Nine-Eleven has changed things, and this is a relatively new debate even among politicians, so I don't know how I would classify it.

and making exceptions for a death penalty ban for terrorists still doesnt address individuals who continue to kill in prison.


Once again, candidates for death row aren't the ones commiting murders in prison. Death row is a facility all to itself.
User avatar
patriot
BFCus Regularus
 
Posts: 1092
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:35 pm

Postby SoloPilot » Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:18 pm

Look, the only two reasons to kill someone are A), they are doing something that you need to stop them doing RIGHT NOW, even if they die from it, or B), they have done something like A and will do it again when they get the chance.

Age doesn't enter into it. If you are an 11-year old pointing a gun at me, you will never be a 12-year-old if I can get my shot off first.
SoloPilot
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:02 pm
Location: There I was, flat on my back, outta fuel, outta ammo, no commo . . .

Previous

Return to Black Flag Cafe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 22 guests