[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I’m talking about locking these folks up and damn near forgeting about them. 10x10 rooms with no windows, no bed, only a shitter, etc. No working out, no tv ever again and no outside visitors. Thats the kind of life sentence I’m talking about. That would give anybody enough time to consider what was done and possibly regret their actions.
Possibly death is too good for these individuals. Maybe this kind of hard time would satisfy the need for punishment, and yet at the same time serve as a deterent.[/quote]
For once, we agree on something…
Actually, what you describe – which I’ll call Solitary Confinement – is not used enough, IMHO. Namely, many Gang Leaders get to run their gangs from prison – putting them in Solitary Confinement would solve that.
In fact, Solitary Confinement is a MUCH harder punishment than death, whether you believe in an afterlife or not. Most people will, as you mention, wish they were dead after just a few weeks in it… Our brains were just not designed for that, and we quickly lose our minds in that environment.
It can be easily morally justified too: confining a gang leader and/or murderer to solitary is as efficient as execution in preventing further crime (even in prison), without all the moral problems of killing somebody (as EViL as that person may be).
The problem is that it’s such a strong punishment that it does not, however, completely solve the problem of the wrongfully convicted: if you send an innocent person to Solitary Confinement for too long, the damage is done: they will never recover from it, and will live very miserable lives if they get released…
[quote]sasquatch wrote:
Political Correctness=Free OJ
Not sure that=braggin’ rights[/quote]
Honestly, I don’t think OJ’s acquittal has anything to do with Political Correctness, but with a completely different phenomenon, which I would call the “Star-Struck Factor”. The fact that he happened to be black had very little to do with it. But that’s a completely different thread…
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
This is the idea of justice. It is respecting the value of the lives of the victims… just like the free throw represents the respect we have for the rules of the game.[/quote]
So, it should never be questioned or changed because…?
LOL I love this… hspder just made my day. The “soft-hearted liberal guy” here doesn’t want to use the death penalty because it’s too easy. He’d rather torture our convicted criminals with a lifetime spent in solitary confinement, hopefully turning the convict into a drooling maniac, just so we don’t get our justice system’s hands all dirty!
Sweet. hspder is even more of a cold-hearted bastard than I am. How do you “high five” over the internet?
[quote]hspder wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
Political Correctness=Free OJ
Not sure that=braggin’ rights
Honestly, I don’t think OJ’s acquittal has anything to do with Political Correctness, but with a completely different phenomenon, which I would call the “Star-Struck Factor”. The fact that he happened to be black had very little to do with it. But that’s a completely different thread…[/quote]
OJ’s case was very much about race. Every black person who felt they had ever been harassed by law enforcement felt a little peace just because he wasn’t treated like most other black men would have been if brought to court under similar circumstances. Does anyone think that, even with money, if this exact same case had taken place in Mississippi that he would ahve gotten off? Even if he didn’t do it, does anyone think he would be free right now?
That was the first case America saw as a whole that showed money is the only thing that seems to blur the color line, especially in the 90’s when that took place.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
This is the idea of justice. It is respecting the value of the lives of the victims… just like the free throw represents the respect we have for the rules of the game.
So, it should never be questioned or changed because…?[/quote]
Dude, question the shit out of the death penalty if we are executing someone who may not be a murderer. If there’s even the slightest doubt… question the shit out of it.
This particular case is not, er… was not in any question. So, sack up and do the right thing. Give Kobe the ball.
Cold blooded killers have been released before and turned around and killed again. Not that Williams would have ever been released, but it proves most cannot be reformed. Besides, this guy ran a gang! It’s not like he’s a random person off the street that flipped his lid. It wasn’t manslaughter or 3rd degree murder, he executed those people. If we could truely see all the bad he’s done besides killing 4 people, there would be no one who believes he should have been saved.
[quote]K O N G wrote:
If we could truely see all the bad he’s done besides killing 4 people, there would be no one who believes he should have been saved. [/quote]
On a different note… is “life” itself sacred or not?
Let’s get this straight. Out of one side of your mouth you can argue that life is sacred, then out of the other you want to have people killed for justice.
Again, I’m shedding no tears that Tookie is dead and gone. It just seems a bit strange to consider life sacred but feel it so important that criminals be killed for some crimes.
They do need to be punished. And if life isn’t truly sacred, then sure, I suppose killed as well. If life sacred or not?
Isn’t the whole problem about allowing people to choose when to end a life playing out in another arena?
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Just wondering: when you’re watching the game, and Kobe gets fouled, do you wonder why they are letting him get a free throw? After all, it’s not going to get the game back the way it was before he was fouled, right?
This is the idea of justice. It is respecting the value of the lives of the victims… just like the free throw represents the respect we have for the rules of the game.[/quote]
Did you actually just compare putting someone to death to getting 2 shots at the line for being hacked while driving the lane? Just want to be clear here…
[quote]K O N G wrote:
Cold blooded killers have been released before and turned around and killed again. Not that Williams would have ever been released, but it proves most cannot be reformed. Besides, this guy ran a gang! It’s not like he’s a random person off the street that flipped his lid. It wasn’t manslaughter or 3rd degree murder, he executed those people. If we could truely see all the bad he’s done besides killing 4 people, there would be no one who believes he should have been saved. [/quote]
But does this actually prove most cannot be reformed? I’m not saying I know the answer to that question, but that seems like quite a leap to make in logic. I think anyone has the [i]potential[/i] to repent or reform… whether our prison system actually makes that possible (or should even make that possible) is a different story entirely.
So here’s the question that we keep touching on in the thread, but not necessarily directly addressing:
Is prison solely for punishment, solely for rehabiliation or some combination thereof? Does the answer to that question depend on the crime?
So, for instance, maybe some think Tookie needed the ultimate punishment for his crimes with either life in prison or the death penalty. But what about those committing crimes far less heinous than murder? If you work from the assumption that they will be released again at some point, doesn’t that inherently require some effort at rehabilitation?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Does anyone think that, even with money, if this exact same case had taken place in Mississippi that he would ahve gotten off? Even if he didn’t do it, does anyone think he would be free right now?
That was the first case America saw as a whole that showed money is the only thing that seems to blur the color line, especially in the 90’s when that took place. [/quote]
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say…
Sasquatch was implying that OJ was acquitted BECAUSE he was black (due to CA trying to be over-the-top PC). I disagreed, and said that he was acquitted essentially because he was a star. Much like Robert Blake (white) or Michael Jackson.
Of course, as I mentioned in a previous post, I do agree other states are in fact biased against blacks, so I completely agree that, say, in Mississipi, money wouldn’t be enough to make up for that bias…
[quote]hspder wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Does anyone think that, even with money, if this exact same case had taken place in Mississippi that he would ahve gotten off? Even if he didn’t do it, does anyone think he would be free right now?
That was the first case America saw as a whole that showed money is the only thing that seems to blur the color line, especially in the 90’s when that took place.
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say…
Sasquatch was implying that OJ was acquitted BECAUSE he was black (due to CA trying to be over-the-top PC). I disagreed, and said that he was acquitted essentially because he was a star. Much like Robert Blake (white) or Michael Jackson.
Of course, as I mentioned in a previous post, I do agree other states are in fact biased against blacks, so I completely agree that, say, in Mississipi, money wouldn’t be enough to make up for that bias…[/quote]
Then I agree with you. The belief that “over the top PC” is what got him acquitted makes no sense at all. You would have to be blind to what many blacks have been saying for years regarding the entire judicial system to even believe that.
[quote]Kuz wrote:
…
So here’s the question that we keep touching on in the thread, but not necessarily directly addressing:
Is prison solely for punishment, solely for rehabiliation or some combination thereof? Does the answer to that question depend on the crime?
So, for instance, maybe some think Tookie needed the ultimate punishment for his crimes with either life in prison or the death penalty. But what about those committing crimes far less heinous than murder? If you work from the assumption that they will be released again at some point, doesn’t that inherently require some effort at rehabilitation?[/quote]
I think the penal system should be a combination of the two, with rehabilitation being paramount with lesser offenses, but with punishment becoming more important with the severity of the offense. This continuum goes up to life imprisonment and the death penalty, which in both cases are about punishment pretty much exclusively.
However, that assumes that rehabilitation can be effective - there are definite doubts on this w/r/t some crimes. That also assumes that they aren’t being imprisoned for the utilitarian reason of keeping them away from the law-abiding in society – essentially, to prevent them from committing more crimes. This justification holds fairly well for long prison sentences meted out for violent offenders (the assumption being they will be less prone to violence when they are older), but not as well for financial criminals.
I agree that depending on the severity of the crime, that person either gains the right for reforment and parol or loses it. Clearly killing 4 people in cold blood should not be considered for parol at any time. I’m begining to wonder if this is becoming yet another racial issue. There were African Americans surveyed here by a local radio show and all of the ones surveyed said Williams should not have been executed and some even asked why a white guy like Charles Manson was not executed yet. I don’t think of this as black or white at all. It’s about the crime that was done! If Charles Manson was on the block for execution, I would feel the same way.
One individual even said that Williams was not remorseful or applogetic because he should have received forgivness from the victims families first!
Prof X- God may forgive him, he may not.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
K O N G wrote:
Prof X- God may forgive him, he may not.
But isn’t that God’s decision?[/quote]
Absolutely and I’m sure he’s made that decision already. Now, the other decision is whether he will forgive his followers for putting someone to death. According to the commandments, No. Does God have his own form of punishment for criminals and does not want it left in the hands of Man?
[quote]K O N G wrote:
Professor X wrote:
K O N G wrote:
Prof X- God may forgive him, he may not.
But isn’t that God’s decision?
Absolutely and I’m sure he’s made that decision already. Now, the other decision is whether he will forgive his followers for putting someone to death. According to the commandments, No. Does God have his own form of punishment for criminals and does not want it left in the hands of Man?[/quote]
It was never in our hands from the moment his word was accepted as “Christian Law”. The question is, when did so many bypass The Bible, and in a world where the Christian Conservative Right seems to want to scream their adherence to “morals and values”, when did it become OK to kill someone? I am still waiting on the Christian Conservative response to this.
[quote]K O N G wrote:
…There were African Americans surveyed here by a local radio show and all of the ones surveyed said Williams should not have been executed and some even asked why a white guy like Charles Manson was not executed yet. … [/quote]
This is pure ignornance of history. The only reason Charles Manson has not been executed was that all prisoners who were on death row when the USSC declared the death penalty unconstutional in the early 70s had their sentences commuted to life in prison. When the USSC reversed itself on the death penalty’s constitutionality, those commutations to life imprisonment were not reversed - I believe there was an argument made that reinstating the death sentences was unconstitutional (due to double jeopardy I think, but I am going on memory).
Thus, Charles Manson, Sirhan Sirhan and others on CA’s death row at the time are now prisoners for life, rather than queued for execution.
