Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: East Texas, with the Clan of the Cave Bear
3,266 posts, read 5,639,394 times
Reputation: 4763
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonestar2007
Well, obviously if they committed the crime, the threat of the death penalty didn't deter them. Put them to death and that will at least deter that particular criminal from committing the crime again. As I said, a slow process, but a step towards cleaning house.
You are not being forced to administer the lethal injection.
I respect your views concerning "thou shalt not kill", but the playing field needs to be leveled to include "an eye for an eye". There has to be both man made rules and God's rules to maintain a civilized society. So let's keep it simple, shall we? "Thou shalt not kill" has already been committed upon an innocent person by the criminal and the "eye for the eye" is the resulting justice. Not difficult at all to understand now, is it?
Exactly! Obviously, it seems impossible to get this across on here. Sometimes, C-D and logic shore have a hard time meeting up!
Keep trying to rep you but this C-D system is too controlling! Just know that my heart is there!
Child predators are diseased subhuman pieces of garbage that need to be put down like we put down rabid dogs. It's the humane thing to do.
Great minds think alike!
It shocks me how people believe people like Ted Bundy and Charles Manson can make it through rehabilitation. These people are of a different mind and do not live in reality.
I seriously doubt it, and I cannot imagine the costs to the taxpayer for lifetime monitoring, which is what would be needed.
As Lonestar said, what is the point in keeping these people alive? They serve absolutely no purpose other than to dole out pain and misery to others.
Actually the price is very cheap, GPS and tracking software does the work. I am not trying to down play the seriousness of such crimes. Just looking at the practical application of solutions. More death sentences is not the obvious answer, it takes too long, too many appeals and hearings, and changing any laws would lead to nothing but years if not decades of legislative squabbles and court battles and cost too much. I think it's difficult for most people to look past the knee jerk response of this topic to think about the application of an efficient answer to the problem (one that doesn't cause even more problems and controversy). I just don't want laws that would give government more power to torture, or kill it's citizens reguardless of what they have done. It may start out as only doing that to molestors and rapest, but it's a slippery slope, once people become used to that for that group, then who's next?
Actually the price is very cheap, GPS and tracking software does the work. I am not trying to down play the seriousness of such crimes. Just looking at the practical application of solutions. More death sentences is not the obvious answer, it takes too long, too many appeals and hearings, and changing any laws would lead to nothing but years if not decades of legislative squabbles and court battles and cost too much. I think it's difficult for most people to look past the knee jerk response of this topic to think about the application of an efficient answer to the problem (one that doesn't cause even more problems and controversy). I just don't want laws that would give government more power to torture, or kill it's citizens reguardless of what they have done. It may start out as only doing that to molestors and rapest, but it's a slippery slope, once people become used to that for that group, then who's next?
That is the major problem with a death sentence--the cost and the drawn-out endless procedures that go with it.
The process was shortened somewhat awhile back, but it needs to be culled yet more so that it's not so expensive to implement.
I was thinking the same thing. Coupled with the other goofball's idea of inmates only being allowed to read books of a religious nature (heh) and we're starting to sound like Iran.
Since I am the other "goofball" you seem to be referring to? Then just step up the plate.
You don't read very well and comprehend very well, do you? So who is the real goofball here? LMAO.
What I said/intended was that I could possibly be persuaded that life without parole might be a better option -- in terms of true justice -- for those who commit the most heinous and callous of murders -- than the death penalty. PROVIDED, that the life without parole would be a very harsh and hard life. And that would mean hard labor, isolation from the general populace, and no superficial entertainment...save books of a religious nature. And I stand by it. Matter of fact, I would even be in favor of letting the guilty party choose which sentence they prefer!
So where in the hell did you take away the notion that I meant this for all inmates regardless of crime, as you seem to imply? But if I read that one wrong, then say so...and I will stand corrected if so.
Quote:
Zepheyr wrote: Child molesters and rapists are going to molest and rape regardless of punishment. Prison and/or execution is not a deterrent, and pedophiles and rapists will exist no matter how severe the punishment is for a crime. If you truly want to get rid of them, you should advocate aggressive rehabilitation and awarness programs, with mandatory medication and therapy.
LMAO again. Yeah, that has worked wonderfully over the years, hasn't it? Hell, you even contradict yourself, seemingly, by saying they will commit their sick crimes regardless...EXCEPT of course (viola'!) your magical formula (which of course we all know has never been attempted before ).
But still, to be fair, do you have some earth-shaking new approach that works on these types? If so, what is it? You are cheating the world if you don't reveal it!
Quote:
People who committ crimes are not usually deterred by the thought of prison or execution, because people don't commit a crime expecting to get caught.
That's right... in most cases. Or else they wouldn't commit the crime to begin with. What sort of blinding revelation is that supposed to be? But whether jail or prison deters the crime itself, it does remove them from society at large (for whatever time the crime calls for), so they cannot commit future harm.
Quote:
You really want to protect your kids? Then don't expect sexual inclination to go away by hanging the threat of prison time over someone's head. It didn't work for homosexuality and it won't work for pedophiles. Instead, offer them a way out and a method of realistic control. This nonsense about torturing and murdering people for their crimes is nothing more than short-sighted public revenge. It will never fix the problem.
You are ranting now.
Who is talking about torturing and murdering people? What is being discussed is the appropriate punishment for those who absolutely violate one of the most sacred premises of civilized man ala' respecting innocent human life. Those who violate it in the most outrageous manner (such as the just recent in the Oklahoma case) deserve the harshest punishment possible...within the confines of the constitutional prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment." Of course, what punishment bumps up against the barrier is up to each individual to work out for themselves. For some, the death penalty fits in some cases. For others, life without parole may be as far as they will go....and on down to those who really don't believe in the concept of punishment at all.
Also (alluding to bold part above), revenge/vengeance is a personal thing. Appropriate justice is a societal thing. That is why when charges are brought against someone, it doesn't read like a civil suit as in John Doe vs. Richard Roe.
No, it would read The State of Texas vs. Richard Roe. Because the actions of the latter have violated the standards of morality the collective people -- thru their representatives -- have set for themselves, based upon a majority consideration of what is right and what is wrong.
you are right, their is no place in society for those type of acts, but putting someone to death is something I don't feel I have a moral right to do. I'll leave that final judgement for someone's life in a higher authorities hands. Last time I checked "thou shall not kill" didn't have a side note attached saying "Oh yeah you Texans go ahead and kill people according to man's laws however you see fit" I mean come on, everyone's gut reaction to that type of crime is that they should be put to death, but I take the time to think about the big picture.
This one needs some clarification (bolded part). The "Thou Shall Not Kill" has been a problem for years and thankfully, many modern day versions of the New Testament are correcting what, for quite a while. was a mis-translation.
The actual and accurate translation from Hebrew was/is "Thou Shall not Murder." Which refers to the unlawful taking of a human life, not an absolute "ban" on killing under any circumstances. And that only makes sense. If the "kill" was taken as the gospel (no pun intended! LOL), then it would mean a person would be in violation of the commandment if they used deadly force to defend their own life or that of a family member, as well as that a member of the armed forces could not defend our country in time of war.
I can certainly respect your beliefs on the subject as in that you don't feel yourself capable of making a judgement as to whether or not to take a human life. But I did want to give the other side of it in terms of proper translation of the 6th commandment, if that is going to be an factor/issue in the discussion...
Also (alluding to bold part above), revenge/vengeance is a personal thing. Appropriate justice is a societal thing. That is why when charges are brought against someone, it doesn't read like a civil suit as in John Doe vs. Richard Roe.
No, it would read The State of Texas vs. Richard Roe. Because the actions of the latter have violated the standards of morality the collective people -- thru their representatives -- have set for themselves, based upon a majority consideration of what is right and what is wrong.
Mandating religious-only reading for prisoners and executing people for offenses other than murder very much sounds like a Sharia-based penal system, yes.
And you're never going to stop sex crimes with prison, it's just not going to happen. Governments have been trying to do it as long as civilization has existed and it has never worked. These people have deeply-rooted motivations that are more powerful than their fear of jail-time. And you're never going to be able to execute people for sex crimes, not in this country, unless a murder was the end result. That only leaves the current system in place, which is totally reactionary. We just wait until someone gets raped or a child gets molested and then we throw these guys behind bars and don't make any effort to rehabilitate them. Then they get out if jail and do what? Exactly.
You can bark all you want about executing prisoners because that makes "one less offender," but you're forgetting that there had to be a victim in the first place for that guy to go to prison. Your deterrent has already failed.
The goal should be to fix the problem before it occurs. Prison does not do that (though hey should most definitely go to prison if they commit a crime.) Many people CAN have their behavior and cognitive-thinking changed, and even if it's only a few and the rest are beyond hope, that's still a few less victims. Maybe even your kids. The current system doesn't save anybody.
The issue here is that people with sexual deviancies are ostracized before they even commit a crime. If someone feels they might be a pedophile, telling a therapist puts them on a list of "potential sex predators" and if their family and friends find out, most of them will want nothing to do with the person, making them feel isolated and alone. If a guy really wants help, medication, therapy, etc., he's going to he pushed out of all his social circles and lose his support network, without even having done something wrong, so where is the motivation to get better? I work in sex crimes, and a lot of the offenders want help long before their problem grows to the point of being uncontrollable, but they are typically scared to death of their friends and family finding out, and instead bottle it up without dealing with it. Rarely at any point in their thought process is prison a consideration, because they never think they're going to hurt anyone. These people need help before they reach the point of hopelessness where they finally commit a crime. This whole "they're scum of the earth, burn them at the stake" mentality just keeps them in the shadows until they do something terrible.
I'm with everyone in saying people should do the time if they commit the crime, after all I'm a cop. But if you really want your kids to be safe, you need to be open to the idea of rehabilitating people before they have a chance to hurt someone. Believe it or not, a lot of pedophiles are not happy with who they are.
I checked "Yes. I am absolutely in favor. Sometimes it is only justice". But it bothers me that it has become more expensive to pursue a death sentence then to give them "life without parole".
So these days I am leaning more towards "life without parole" just because I think we should minimize the burden on the tax payers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sometimes, C-D and logic shore have a hard time meeting up! 
What is being discussed is the appropriate punishment for those who absolutely violate one of the most sacred premises of civilized man ala' respecting innocent human life. Those who violate it in the most outrageous manner (such as the just recent in the Oklahoma case) deserve the harshest punishment possible...within the confines of the constitutional prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment." Of course, what punishment bumps up against the barrier is up to each individual to work out for themselves. For some, the death penalty fits in some cases. For others, life without parole may be as far as they will go....and on down to those who really don't believe in the concept of punishment at all. 
