Do we even believe in ourselves, or not? (Capital punishment or true life without parole not happening) (legal, serial killers)
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.
IDK about Charles Manson, but maybe parole for S.S. because he's been in prison all this time. Don't you think he may have paid his debt to society? Do you think he's likely to attempt murder again? Do you know anything about his case for parole at all, e.g. did the prison admin present statements that he had become a model prisoner, had shown great remorse eventually, and the like? If you have such info at your disposal, please share.
The issue is not whether Sirhan is going to murder again. He probably won't since his June 5, 1968 killing of RFK was "mission accomplished." He was not like Sirhan or David Berkowitz, who killed because their inner demons forced them to kill people.
The issue is whether Sirhan is fit for membership in society. The premise of this thread and my similar posts is that one can forfeit that right.
The Jewish view is that for sins, one must atone to G-d, and resolve matters with the person against whom the sinner sins. For murder this is not possible, which means, in the view of observant Jews, that murder is unatoneable. I am not firmly decided, but I lean towards this view.
The issue is not whether Sirhan is going to murder again. He probably won't since his June 5, 1968 killing of RFK was "mission accomplished." He was not like Sirhan or David Berkowitz, who killed because their inner demons forced them to kill people.
The issue is whether Sirhan is fit for membership in society. The premise of this thread and my similar posts is that one can forfeit that right.
The Jewish view is that for sins, one must atone to G-d, and resolve matters with the person against whom the sinner sins. For murder this is not possible, which means, in the view of observant Jews, that murder is unatoneable. I am not firmly decided, but I lean towards this view.
While I admire our Jewish view that there can be no forgiveness for murder because the murderer is forever unable to seek the forgiveness of his victim, I don't think that an inability to atone is the only means for judging whether or not a criminal is fit to re-enter society. Nor do I think that an aging criminal can no longer present a threat to society.
Certain criminals are capable of rallying their followers to their "cause" or beliefs or general craziness, regardless of how long they've been imprisoned and how old they've grown while imprisoned. If anything, they may be even more dangerous when released into society, as their fans and followers may have increased over the years. Because of the notoriety of Sirhan or Manson follower Bruce Davis, I think it's best to keep them locked up for as long as they still breathe.
First you must telll me that you believe execution has some measurable benefit to society and show me empirical data that it deters or rehabilitates or in some other way influences anyone's future behavior.
Failing that, your position is reduced to revenge. If your own blood-lust is such that you wish to kill in revenge, we have nothing to talk about. You have forever forfeited your right to call yourself compassionate.
I think we need to back up the point a bit to whether there should be the availability of the death penalty which is what has been taken away in a number of places.
As solid empirical evidence of it's use, I put forth the Green River Killer who killed dozens of women. Upon capture and facing the death penalty they negotiated life-no-parole in exchange for him solving all of these missing womens cases as part of the plea deal as they only had him on maybe a half dozen known killings.
As such, I'd propose that the DP be available for use but that it has to be accompanied by an automatic plea deal option for life-no parole. Then if the trial goes forward, there has to be irrefutable proof of guilt and not just something like a shaky eye-witness etc.
I believe that states that have banned the DP have done a great disservice to their residents without considering reforms to the application of the DP as I have put forth.
P.S. Anyone citing costs of DP prosecution, note that in the above scenario with plea agreements instead you'd get a societal benefit not just in the closure for other victims and their families but not having to sit through a long expensive trial due to the plea.
I think we need to back up the point a bit to whether there should be the availability of the death penalty which is what has been taken away in a number of places.
As solid empirical evidence of it's use, I put forth the Green River Killer who killed dozens of women. Upon capture and facing the death penalty they negotiated life-no-parole in exchange for him solving all of these missing womens cases as part of the plea deal as they only had him on maybe a half dozen known killings.
As such, I'd propose that the DP be available for use but that it has to be accompanied by an automatic plea deal option for life-no parole. Then if the trial goes forward, there has to be irrefutable proof of guilt and not just something like a shaky eye-witness etc.
I believe that states that have banned the DP have done a great disservice to their residents without considering reforms to the application of the DP as I have put forth.
P.S. Anyone citing costs of DP prosecution, note that in the above scenario with plea agreements instead you'd get a societal benefit not just in the closure for other victims and their families but not having to sit through a long expensive trial due to the plea.
Whichever way a state goes with this, it goes based on the elected representatives of that state. And 'the people' can re-elect or reject those legislators and the governors in the next election.
One of the questions we need to start asking when we look at the polls taken on this (or any topic) is not just who says they are for or against, but how strongly do they feel the way they do. We don't usually ask that question, and in this case, there are so many conditions (like the ones you cite) that make yes/no answers not very meaningful.
First you must telll me that you believe execution has some measurable benefit to society and show me empirical data that it deters or rehabilitates or in some other way influences anyone's future behavior.
Failing that, your position is reduced to revenge. If your own blood-lust is such that you wish to kill in revenge, we have nothing to talk about. You have forever forfeited your right to call yourself compassionate.
First you must tell me that you believe the prison system has some measurable benefit to society and show me empirical data that it deters or rehabilitates or in some other way influences anyone's future behavior.
I do know that studies have looked at recidivism rates based on type of crime, length of incarceration, etc. and show both positive and negative impacts. Life in jail would not prevent that criminal from committing other crimes such as assault, theft, fraud, etc., some of which can and do impact victims outside of the system. Execution would prevent further victimizing by this criminal, but there are a lot of issues with both our justice system and our prison system that need a lot of fixing.
But to simplify it to "You just want revenge" is a gross simplification of a very complex issue.
First you must tell me that you believe the prison system has some measurable benefit to society and show me empirical data that it deters or rehabilitates or in some other way influences anyone's future behavior.
I do know that studies have looked at recidivism rates based on type of crime, length of incarceration, etc. and show both positive and negative impacts. Life in jail would not prevent that criminal from committing other crimes such as assault, theft, fraud, etc., some of which can and do impact victims outside of the system. Execution would prevent further victimizing by this criminal, but there are a lot of issues with both our justice system and our prison system that need a lot of fixing.
But to simplify it to "You just want revenge" is a gross simplification of a very complex issue.
But there are a lot of people who do "just want revenge". Every time someone says -- and I have heard many say this -- "An eye for an eye...", that's just revenge.
Over many years I have had a few in-person conversations with people about the death penalty, and what I found was that more often than not, they really hadn't thought very deeply about the topic. That it was more or less a knee jerk reaction by many. And, by the way, I have not settled the matter in my own mind. At various times in my life, I have been on both sides of the issue. But when I hear people say stupid things like, "Why should get live free? It's almost like a country club" or "Why should they be pampered?" I think that doesn't show a very realistic understanding of the prison system. And I see just as much lack of understanding about our legal system, overall.
Whichever way a state goes with this, it goes based on the elected representatives of that state. And 'the people' can re-elect or reject those legislators and the governors in the next election.
One of the questions we need to start asking when we look at the polls taken on this (or any topic) is not just who says they are for or against, but how strongly do they feel the way they do. We don't usually ask that question, and in this case, there are so many conditions (like the ones you cite) that make yes/no answers not very meaningful.
I hear you about the legislature. The problem is that in some states there is effectively one-party rule. Whoever is funding the dominant party has more of a "say" than the average, workaday voter. The minority party and candidates are often running campaigns on a shoestring whereas the dominant party candidates have lavish budgets. Cuomo left office, after a more-or-less forced resignation, with $48,000,000 in his war chest. The GOP candidates in 2014 and 2018 started the campaigns broke. So that works imperfectly, if at all.
What is needed is for public officials to stop relying on "wokeness" and start doing their jobs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
But there are a lot of people who do "just want revenge". Every time someone says -- and I have heard many say this -- "An eye for an eye...", that's just revenge.
When it comes to killings or severe beatings, or even serious animal cruelty, what's wrong with revenge?
What is needed is for public officials to stop relying on "wokeness" and start doing their jobs.
When it comes to killings or severe beatings, or even serious animal cruelty, what's wrong with revenge?
Really? You don't think people should awaken themselves to the truths that face others not like them? Because that's pretty much all that "woke" means.
What's wrong with revenge? All you need do is look at the history of the Middle East, and it gives a great lesson on what revenge results in -- back and forth, on and on.
If you start out from the position that killing is OK if justified in your own mind, what distinguishes you from the axe-murderer? Anyone's "own mind" can be manipulated to believe anything. For example, Vietnam GIs who set children on fire and watched them burn.
DP advocates start out from the vindictive position that "we mus kill", and then scurry around making up justifications for it. But none of the arguments float. There is no empirical evidence that DP influences social behavior.
"The "Great Debate" question is whether society has totally lost its belief in itself... "
That seems not to be the question. Rather it seems the debate is focused on the death penalty itself.
You can't resolve this question based on extreme cases. There is always going to be someone who commits an unthinkable crime. It is the more common cases that make up the bulk of death penalty considerations. It is occasionally discovered that a prisoner was convicted in error. There is a recent case of an executed inmate being pardoned (too late for him). With over 20 years in criminal justice I am opposed to the death penalty for several reasons. Mainly there are too many places along the way were the decision can be corrupted by accident or even intentionally. You cannot bring a wrongfully executed person back to life. I used to work for a parole board and they struggle over these release decisions. They devise research-based guidelines to introduce objectivity and guard against bias and require detailed and thorough investigations into background and release plans. Sure, occasionally there will be a high profile case that comes for review. Some of the Manson family members still in prison have been approved for release but the decision was reversed by the governor. There are some released Manson family members living quiet and productive lives without any further criminal activity. They are all over 70. If they have served their sentence and are up for parole, are low risk, meet the release criteria, and have an acceptable release plan which includes parole supervision, it seems that the only reason not to release is for revenge or political cowardice. Either you have a system or you don't.
Sirhan Sirhan was denied parole 15 times and recommended for parole on the recent 16th review. This is subject to the Governor's approval so he is still months away from any possible release. He is 77.
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.
