Options

Capital Punishment thread

145791018

Posts

  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    When the state has you and imprisons you for life with no parole, you are no longer harming anyone. That's the purpose of shooting someone in self-defense, to get them to stop attempting to harm people.

    Except that anything from a ban on life sentences without parole, to a prison break, to a pardon could put that person back out on the street. At which point they could harm people again. A death sentence is actually the only way you can guarantee they won't hurt anybody else.

    Heck, even from inside they could maim or kill guards or fellow inmates.

    Just playing devil's advocate, of course. I agree that the idea of executing an innocent person takes away the death penalty as an option for me. But I do wholeheartedly agree with it in theory, if not in practice. For prevention, rather than as punishment or deterrent.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Except that anything from a ban on life sentences without parole, to a prison break, to a pardon could put that person back out on the street.
    Prison breaks and pardons happen maybe once in a blue moon for murders.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Except that anything from a ban on life sentences without parole, to a prison break, to a pardon could put that person back out on the street.
    What better incentive to break out of prison than the death penalty? And how many people have been pardoned, then gone on to commit murder? And who's to say that the guy spending the night in jail for urinating in public isn't going to murder someone when he's let out the next day?

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Feral wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    the point is, we condone killing people in certain situations. defense of self, defense of others, trespass into one's home, war, etc.

    Seems to me we were down this road once before and you got your ass handed to you on a plate.

    Oh, right, you did.

    Yeah, we condone killing people in certain situations. The death penalty should not be one of those situations, for reasons that have been well-established for the last 10 pages (and for 17 more pages the last time we had this discussion). If you disagree with those reasons, you need to address them. The ball's in your court.

    actually as i recall, you guys were the ones who had your asses handed to you.

    so again, how do we deal with gang leaders with multiple life sentences who are organizing and conducting murders and violent crimes from within prison?

    edit: also as ive stated before, i think state sponsored retribution is a perfectly good reason for killing people because horrible people should get what they deserve (as determined by a judge and jury).

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    Except that anything from a ban on life sentences without parole, to a prison break, to a pardon could put that person back out on the street.
    Prison breaks and pardons happen maybe once in a blue moon for murders.
    This is true. But assaults on other inmates and guards are a bit more common. Either way, my point is that FCS was acting as though a life sentence with no parole guaranteed that somebody wouldn't harm anybody else. This is wrong, on several levels.
    What better incentive to break out of prison than the death penalty? And how many people have been pardoned, then gone on to commit murder?

    Pardoned? Probably zero. But sentences can be reduced short of an actual pardon, I was just using that as an example. Basically my point was that A) life in prison without parole is not a guarantee that somebody will never get out of prison (though yes, it is unlikely) and that B) people can still assault and murder others even from inside prison.
    And who's to say that the guy spending the night in jail for urinating in public isn't going to murder someone when he's let out the next day?

    O_o

    Irrelevant, since at this point all he's done is urinate in public. I'm guessing people serving sentences ranging from multiple decades to "forever" aren't serving them for urinating in public.

    Of course, in my world they wouldn't be serving them for simple possession or distibution of drugs, either.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I agree that the idea of executing an innocent person takes away the death penalty as an option for me.

    this is another thing i could never understand.

    you can't reverse 30 years in prison, prison rape, stds, etc., either.

    not being able to reverse death is a stupid reason to be against the death penalty. it's like saying you're also against incarcerating people because we can't reverse time either or like saying that cops cant shoot people because the perp might be carrying a toy gun.

    innocents are sacrificed for the greater good all the time.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    you can't reverse 30 years in prison, prison rape, stds, etc., either.
    But you can give him compensation and let him go free.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I agree that the idea of executing an innocent person takes away the death penalty as an option for me.

    this is another thing i could never understand.

    you can't reverse 30 years in prison, prison rape, stds, etc., either.

    not being able to reverse death is a stupid reason to be against the death penalty. it's like saying you're also against incarcerating people because we can't reverse time either or like saying that cops cant shoot people because the perp might be carrying a toy gun.

    innocents are sacrificed for the greater good all the time.

    We might as well kill everyone who's sentenced to jail for any length of time, eh? I mean, we can never give them back the time that was taken from them. They're as good as dead anyway.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    so again, how do we deal with gang leaders with multiple life sentences who are organizing and conducting murders and violent crimes from within prison?
    What we are supposed to be doing with most violent offenders. Guards are supposed to monitor them.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I agree that the idea of executing an innocent person takes away the death penalty as an option for me.

    this is another thing i could never understand.

    you can't reverse 30 years in prison, prison rape, stds, etc., either.

    I think the government has a responsibility to do everything in its power, which is much more than it does now, to prevent prison rape.

    And while you cannot give a person back the years of their life they've lost, you can give them the ones they have left (and at least attempt to monetarily compensate them). All you can do for a dead person is put a nice bouquet on the grave.
    not being able to reverse death is a stupid reason to be against the death penalty. it's like saying you're also against incarcerating people because we can't reverse time either or like saying that cops cant shoot people because the perp might be carrying a toy gun.

    Self defense against somebody who appears to be armed with a deadly weapon is a horrible analogy for the death penalty. It's a split-second judgment. Unless you've actually had to point a loaded weapon at somebody, and make a snap judgment on whether or not to shoot them, you should just shut up on this one. And even if you have, I'd still recommend shutting up, since you obviously didn't learn anything from it. Speaking from experience.

    With the death penalty we have all the time in the world to decide whether or not to kill somebody. And in theory that somebody is most definitely not armed and not threatening to kill another person. It should be an easy decision.
    innocents are sacrificed for the greater good all the time.

    Doesn't mean we should be going out of our way to do so. Also, I'm generally not fond of the idea in general...at least if it's not voluntary.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    And who's to say that the guy spending the night in jail for urinating in public isn't going to murder someone when he's let out the next day?
    O_o

    Irrelevant, since at this point all he's done is urinate in public. I'm guessing people serving sentences ranging from multiple decades to "forever" aren't serving them for urinating in public.

    Of course, in my world they wouldn't be serving them for simple possession or distibution of drugs, either.
    It's totally relevant. What is the likelihood that someone who is convicted of a crime and sent to prison for life without possibility of parole gets out and kills again in the U.S.? How many times has it happened? How many times have people sent to prison/jail for relatively innocuous crimes gotten out and killed someone?

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    titmouse wrote: »
    so again, how do we deal with gang leaders with multiple life sentences who are organizing and conducting murders and violent crimes from within prison?
    What we are supposed to be doing with most violent offenders. Guards are supposed to monitor them.

    i havent really provided you with much information so im guessing that's why you've responded as you have. the real meat of this discussion was held a few months ago in a similar thread. i'll just post the most relevant article here: http://www.alternet.org/story/27726
    Law enforcement authorities and prison officials have until now been unable to destroy the Aryan Brotherhood, mainly because so many top leaders of the gang are serving life or multiple life sentences with no possibility of parole. These men laugh at criminal penalties that only add more time to their already infinite sentences.

    Isolating the gang's leaders in solitary confinement hasn't worked either, because they always find way to communicate with each other and to transmit and receive reports, requests, and orders from prison to prison and down through the ranks, whether by bribing guards, subpoenaing each other to appear at court hearings where they employ hand signals and speak in code, or writing letters in a form of invisible ink made with their own urine.

    These methods are time consuming. But time is one luxury the leaders of the Aryan Brotherhood possess in abundance. One sure way to stop them is to kill them, which is exactly what the federal government is threatening to do in a sweeping racketeering indictment that has drawn a rogue's gallery of 40 Aryan Brotherhood members and associates, including virtually all of the gang's veteran leaders, or "shot callers," to the Nuremberg room in Santa Ana.

    Twenty-one of the defendants are eligible for the death penalty, making the Aryan Brotherhood indictment the largest death penalty case in the history of the American justice system. It is a decapitation attack.

    "Capital punishment is the one arrow left in our quiver," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Jessner, who is spearheading the Aryan Brotherhood prosecution. "I think even a lot of people who are against the death penalty in general would recognize that in this particular instance, where people are committing murder repeatedly from behind bars, there is little other option."

    The indictment alleges that over the past quarter century, Aryan Brotherhood members either personally committed or solicited 32 murders and attempted murders in order both to promote the gang's stature in prison and to maintain the AB's iron-fisted control of narcotics trafficking, male prostitution, gambling, and extortion among white inmates.

    In one example, the indictment alleges that in 1997, AB leaders responding to an outbreak of racial violence inside the federal penitentiary in Marion issued a "formal declaration of war" on black inmates throughout the federal prison system by using coded phone calls and messages written in a secret double alphabet invented by Sir Francis Bacon in 1652. When they received their orders, AB operatives in the federal pen in Lewisburg, Penn., executed a carefully coordinated, simultaneous attack on black inmates, killing two and severely wounding four.

    "My brothers and I have went to war (make no mistake it is war), with all of mongoloid races at one time or another, using knives, pipes, locks/rocks in socks," a member of the Aryan Brotherhood in Oklahoma who identified himself as "tree 1488" posted to a forum on prison gangs on the white supremacist Stormfront Web site in June. (The numbers 14 and 88 are both common white supremacist identifiers.) "At the end of some of these confrontations somebody is needed to be medi-flighted out, nearly always someone has had to go to medical. I carry my scars/badges of battle. Death is a very real possibility."

    The racketeering indictment further alleges that Aryan Brotherhood leaders in prison have contracted killings and other violence by operatives in the free world to collect debts, silence witnesses, and crush competition. Wives and girlfriends of incarcerated AB commonly help smuggle drugs into prison, and deliver messages back to AB members and minions in the free world. Four women are named in the current federal racketeering indictment for acting as couriers of information, drugs, and money.

    While the precise number of Aryan Brotherhood members and associates is not known, the gang has chapters in virtually every major state and federal prison in the country. Estimates of AB's total strength vary widely, but nearly all exceed 15,000 members and associates nationwide, with roughly half in prison and half out.

    "You gain ranks by battles, by 'missions,' not all of it locked up," explained tree 1488. "Brothers grow as close as vets do when they go into battle fighting for a common cause. We are there for each other even on the outside. I have a high ranking it has taken me nearly seven years of missions to earn."

    The Oklahoma Aryan Brotherhood member went on the explain to the white nationalists on Stormfront that when he was first released from prison, "my neighbors on the outside were taken aback by my tattoos at first -- sleeved out arms with shoulder caps that read 'Aryan Honor,'" but that he gradually won them over with his gardening and baking acumen. "I give them fresh vegetables when they are in season, cakes and so forth. I clue them in to white nationalism if they show an interest. Aryan Honor is the credo I live by."

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I agree that the idea of executing an innocent person takes away the death penalty as an option for me.

    this is another thing i could never understand.

    you can't reverse 30 years in prison, prison rape, stds, etc., either.

    I think the government has a responsibility to do everything in its power, which is much more than it does now, to prevent prison rape.

    And while you cannot give a person back the years of their life they've lost, you can give them the ones they have left (and at least attempt to monetarily compensate them). All you can do for a dead person is put a nice bouquet on the grave.

    so you're satisfied with that? if we wrongly accuse and imprison someone, then just pay them. that's that?

    the point is, you obviously agree that we have to have a penal system and that by having one, we take upon ourselves, as a society, the risk that innocents are caught in the crossfire. the difference between the death penalty and 50 years imprisonment is just one that's a matter of degrees. if you think life in prison without parole is fine, then you are closer to the line than you think.
    not being able to reverse death is a stupid reason to be against the death penalty. it's like saying you're also against incarcerating people because we can't reverse time either or like saying that cops cant shoot people because the perp might be carrying a toy gun.

    Self defense against somebody who appears to be armed with a deadly weapon is a horrible analogy for the death penalty. It's a split-second judgment. Unless you've actually had to point a loaded weapon at somebody, and make a snap judgment on whether or not to shoot them, you should just shut up on this one. And even if you have, I'd still recommend shutting up, since you obviously didn't learn anything from it. Speaking from experience.

    oooh, apeal to authority. fortunately or unfortunately, ive been in life threatening situations, both as a student of a military school (and now my brother is in the special forces) and as a civilian. not only have i pointed loaded weapons at people, ive held knives to people's throats, shaking with fear from what i thought i might have to do.

    im not proud of what i've done and i hate talking about it, but let's just say you can take your smug appeal to authority and shove it up your ass.
    With the death penalty we have all the time in the world to decide whether or not to kill somebody. And in theory that somebody is most definitely not armed and not threatening to kill another person. It should be an easy decision.

    i didnt state it in this thread, because i beat the dead horse so much in the last thread, but i might as well state it again here.

    supporting the death penalty has never been about deterrence or incarceration for me. it's about retribution. evil motherfuckers should pay. that's all.
    innocents are sacrificed for the greater good all the time.

    Doesn't mean we should be going out of our way to do so. Also, I'm generally not fond of the idea in general...at least if it's not voluntary.

    i dont think the death penalty in any way, shape or form can be honestly considered "going out of our way to sacrifice an innocent".

    if anything, it is the longest, most appealed and difficult possible thing to do under our legal system. which is fine and good and the way it should be. but it is difficult. to pretend like it's something that just happens is intellectually dishonest.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    so again, how do we deal with gang leaders with multiple life sentences who are organizing and conducting murders and violent crimes from within prison?
    What we are supposed to be doing with most violent offenders. Guards are supposed to monitor them.

    i havent really provided you with much information so im guessing that's why you've responded as you have. the real meat of this discussion was held a few months ago in a similar thread. i'll just post the most relevant article here: http://www.alternet.org/story/27726
    Law enforcement authorities and prison officials have until now been unable to destroy the Aryan Brotherhood, mainly because so many top leaders of the gang are serving life or multiple life sentences with no possibility of parole. These men laugh at criminal penalties that only add more time to their already infinite sentences.

    Isolating the gang's leaders in solitary confinement hasn't worked either, because they always find way to communicate with each other and to transmit and receive reports, requests, and orders from prison to prison and down through the ranks, whether by bribing guards, subpoenaing each other to appear at court hearings where they employ hand signals and speak in code, or writing letters in a form of invisible ink made with their own urine.

    These methods are time consuming. But time is one luxury the leaders of the Aryan Brotherhood possess in abundance. One sure way to stop them is to kill them, which is exactly what the federal government is threatening to do in a sweeping racketeering indictment that has drawn a rogue's gallery of 40 Aryan Brotherhood members and associates, including virtually all of the gang's veteran leaders, or "shot callers," to the Nuremberg room in Santa Ana.

    Twenty-one of the defendants are eligible for the death penalty, making the Aryan Brotherhood indictment the largest death penalty case in the history of the American justice system. It is a decapitation attack.

    "Capital punishment is the one arrow left in our quiver," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Jessner, who is spearheading the Aryan Brotherhood prosecution. "I think even a lot of people who are against the death penalty in general would recognize that in this particular instance, where people are committing murder repeatedly from behind bars, there is little other option."

    The indictment alleges that over the past quarter century, Aryan Brotherhood members either personally committed or solicited 32 murders and attempted murders in order both to promote the gang's stature in prison and to maintain the AB's iron-fisted control of narcotics trafficking, male prostitution, gambling, and extortion among white inmates.

    In one example, the indictment alleges that in 1997, AB leaders responding to an outbreak of racial violence inside the federal penitentiary in Marion issued a "formal declaration of war" on black inmates throughout the federal prison system by using coded phone calls and messages written in a secret double alphabet invented by Sir Francis Bacon in 1652. When they received their orders, AB operatives in the federal pen in Lewisburg, Penn., executed a carefully coordinated, simultaneous attack on black inmates, killing two and severely wounding four.

    "My brothers and I have went to war (make no mistake it is war), with all of mongoloid races at one time or another, using knives, pipes, locks/rocks in socks," a member of the Aryan Brotherhood in Oklahoma who identified himself as "tree 1488" posted to a forum on prison gangs on the white supremacist Stormfront Web site in June. (The numbers 14 and 88 are both common white supremacist identifiers.) "At the end of some of these confrontations somebody is needed to be medi-flighted out, nearly always someone has had to go to medical. I carry my scars/badges of battle. Death is a very real possibility."

    The racketeering indictment further alleges that Aryan Brotherhood leaders in prison have contracted killings and other violence by operatives in the free world to collect debts, silence witnesses, and crush competition. Wives and girlfriends of incarcerated AB commonly help smuggle drugs into prison, and deliver messages back to AB members and minions in the free world. Four women are named in the current federal racketeering indictment for acting as couriers of information, drugs, and money.

    While the precise number of Aryan Brotherhood members and associates is not known, the gang has chapters in virtually every major state and federal prison in the country. Estimates of AB's total strength vary widely, but nearly all exceed 15,000 members and associates nationwide, with roughly half in prison and half out.

    "You gain ranks by battles, by 'missions,' not all of it locked up," explained tree 1488. "Brothers grow as close as vets do when they go into battle fighting for a common cause. We are there for each other even on the outside. I have a high ranking it has taken me nearly seven years of missions to earn."

    The Oklahoma Aryan Brotherhood member went on the explain to the white nationalists on Stormfront that when he was first released from prison, "my neighbors on the outside were taken aback by my tattoos at first -- sleeved out arms with shoulder caps that read 'Aryan Honor,'" but that he gradually won them over with his gardening and baking acumen. "I give them fresh vegetables when they are in season, cakes and so forth. I clue them in to white nationalism if they show an interest. Aryan Honor is the credo I live by."
    Yes, clearly, our only option is killing people. I mean, really, look at all those other countries with this problem that don't have capital punishment. :roll:

    That's like saying "we have to suspend habeas corpus in order to fight the terrorists."

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    the point is, you obviously agree that we have to have a penal system and that by having one, we take upon ourselves, as a society, the risk that innocents are caught in the crossfire. the difference between the death penalty and 50 years imprisonment is just one that's a matter of degrees. if you think life in prison without parole is fine, then you are closer to the line than you think.

    Yes, it is a matter of degrees. As is almost everything in this world. That doesn't mean that one situation isn't, in the end, preferable to the other. And honestly, I'm not a fan of life without parole either.
    oooh, apeal to authority. fortunately or unfortunately, ive been in life threatening situations, both as a student of a military school (and now my brother is in the special forces) and as a civilian. not only have i pointed loaded weapons at people, ive held knives to people's throats, shaking with fear from what i thought i might have to do.

    im not proud of what i've done and i hate talking about it, but let's just say you can take your smug appeal to authority and shove it up your ass.

    Like I said, you obviously learned nothing from it. If you're comparing having to make an instantaneous kill/no-kill decision under possible threat of death to the long, deliberate process involved in the death penalty, that is.

    It's a fucktarded comparison. Period.
    i didnt state it in this thread, because i beat the dead horse so much in the last thread, but i might as well state it again here.

    supporting the death penalty has never been about deterrence or incarceration for me. it's about retribution. evil motherfuckers should pay. that's all.

    Then save us the "sacrifice the innocent for the greater good" spiel. At that point it's bloodlust, plain and simple. Probably the worst possible reason to take another human life.
    i dont think the death penalty in any way, shape or form can be honestly considered "going out of our way to sacrifice an innocent".

    if anything, it is the longest, most appealed and difficult possible thing to do under our legal system. which is fine and good and the way it should be. but it is difficult. to pretend like it's something that just happens is intellectually dishonest.

    We're making the very active decision to kill innocent people for the greater good. We're doing it slowly, and deliberately. I guess "going out of our way" might not be the best choice of words, but regardless this is the kind of decision I think we should make as seldom as possible. Especially when there is an extremely viable alternative (which isn't always the case with, say, combat).

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Faggot 2 wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    titmouse wrote: »
    so again, how do we deal with gang leaders with multiple life sentences who are organizing and conducting murders and violent crimes from within prison?
    What we are supposed to be doing with most violent offenders. Guards are supposed to monitor them.

    i havent really provided you with much information so im guessing that's why you've responded as you have. the real meat of this discussion was held a few months ago in a similar thread. i'll just post the most relevant article here: http://www.alternet.org/story/27726
    Law enforcement authorities and prison officials have until now been unable to destroy the Aryan Brotherhood, mainly because so many top leaders of the gang are serving life or multiple life sentences with no possibility of parole. These men laugh at criminal penalties that only add more time to their already infinite sentences.

    Isolating the gang's leaders in solitary confinement hasn't worked either, because they always find way to communicate with each other and to transmit and receive reports, requests, and orders from prison to prison and down through the ranks, whether by bribing guards, subpoenaing each other to appear at court hearings where they employ hand signals and speak in code, or writing letters in a form of invisible ink made with their own urine.

    These methods are time consuming. But time is one luxury the leaders of the Aryan Brotherhood possess in abundance. One sure way to stop them is to kill them, which is exactly what the federal government is threatening to do in a sweeping racketeering indictment that has drawn a rogue's gallery of 40 Aryan Brotherhood members and associates, including virtually all of the gang's veteran leaders, or "shot callers," to the Nuremberg room in Santa Ana.

    Twenty-one of the defendants are eligible for the death penalty, making the Aryan Brotherhood indictment the largest death penalty case in the history of the American justice system. It is a decapitation attack.

    "Capital punishment is the one arrow left in our quiver," said Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Jessner, who is spearheading the Aryan Brotherhood prosecution. "I think even a lot of people who are against the death penalty in general would recognize that in this particular instance, where people are committing murder repeatedly from behind bars, there is little other option."

    The indictment alleges that over the past quarter century, Aryan Brotherhood members either personally committed or solicited 32 murders and attempted murders in order both to promote the gang's stature in prison and to maintain the AB's iron-fisted control of narcotics trafficking, male prostitution, gambling, and extortion among white inmates.

    In one example, the indictment alleges that in 1997, AB leaders responding to an outbreak of racial violence inside the federal penitentiary in Marion issued a "formal declaration of war" on black inmates throughout the federal prison system by using coded phone calls and messages written in a secret double alphabet invented by Sir Francis Bacon in 1652. When they received their orders, AB operatives in the federal pen in Lewisburg, Penn., executed a carefully coordinated, simultaneous attack on black inmates, killing two and severely wounding four.

    "My brothers and I have went to war (make no mistake it is war), with all of mongoloid races at one time or another, using knives, pipes, locks/rocks in socks," a member of the Aryan Brotherhood in Oklahoma who identified himself as "tree 1488" posted to a forum on prison gangs on the white supremacist Stormfront Web site in June. (The numbers 14 and 88 are both common white supremacist identifiers.) "At the end of some of these confrontations somebody is needed to be medi-flighted out, nearly always someone has had to go to medical. I carry my scars/badges of battle. Death is a very real possibility."

    The racketeering indictment further alleges that Aryan Brotherhood leaders in prison have contracted killings and other violence by operatives in the free world to collect debts, silence witnesses, and crush competition. Wives and girlfriends of incarcerated AB commonly help smuggle drugs into prison, and deliver messages back to AB members and minions in the free world. Four women are named in the current federal racketeering indictment for acting as couriers of information, drugs, and money.

    While the precise number of Aryan Brotherhood members and associates is not known, the gang has chapters in virtually every major state and federal prison in the country. Estimates of AB's total strength vary widely, but nearly all exceed 15,000 members and associates nationwide, with roughly half in prison and half out.

    "You gain ranks by battles, by 'missions,' not all of it locked up," explained tree 1488. "Brothers grow as close as vets do when they go into battle fighting for a common cause. We are there for each other even on the outside. I have a high ranking it has taken me nearly seven years of missions to earn."

    The Oklahoma Aryan Brotherhood member went on the explain to the white nationalists on Stormfront that when he was first released from prison, "my neighbors on the outside were taken aback by my tattoos at first -- sleeved out arms with shoulder caps that read 'Aryan Honor,'" but that he gradually won them over with his gardening and baking acumen. "I give them fresh vegetables when they are in season, cakes and so forth. I clue them in to white nationalism if they show an interest. Aryan Honor is the credo I live by."
    Yes, clearly, our only option is killing people. I mean, really, look at all those other countries with this problem that don't have capital punishment. :roll:

    That's like saying "we have to suspend habeas corpus in order to fight the terrorists."

    did you read the article?

    just wondering, what other countries have this kind of problem? and why should we care?

    do you have anything to actually bring to the table, like actual discussion? or is it just metaphorical flailing?

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Faggot 2 wrote: »
    Yes, clearly, our only option is killing people. I mean, really, look at all those other countries with this problem that don't have capital punishment. :roll:

    That's like saying "we have to suspend habeas corpus in order to fight the terrorists."
    did you read the article?

    just wondering, what other countries have this kind of problem? and why should we care?

    do you have anything to actually bring to the table, like actual discussion? or is it just metaphorical flailing?
    I don't know of any other first-world, liberal democracy that has that problem, actually. Coincidentally, I don't know of any other first-world, liberal democracy that has capital punishment. The implication that "look, we have this problem, the only possible solution is killing them" seems like a really fucking retarded sentiment.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Yes, it is a matter of degrees. As is almost everything in this world. That doesn't mean that one situation isn't, in the end, preferable to the other. And honestly, I'm not a fan of life without parole either.

    okay. my original point still stands. just because you cannot adequately compensate someone for a mistaken action is not a reason never to take action.
    Like I said, you obviously learned nothing from it. If you're comparing having to make an instantaneous kill/no-kill decision under possible threat of death to the long, deliberate process involved in the death penalty, that is.

    It's a fucktarded comparison. Period.

    let's just drop this unless you actually have something substantive to say. as of now, all you've been doing is concluding a point and then appealing to special authority.
    i didnt state it in this thread, because i beat the dead horse so much in the last thread, but i might as well state it again here.

    supporting the death penalty has never been about deterrence or incarceration for me. it's about retribution. evil motherfuckers should pay. that's all.

    Then save us the "sacrifice the innocent for the greater good" spiel. At that point it's bloodlust, plain and simple. Probably the worst possible reason to take another human life.

    actually, i think it's the best possible reason. what is more satisfying than food, sex, education and justice?
    i dont think the death penalty in any way, shape or form can be honestly considered "going out of our way to sacrifice an innocent".

    if anything, it is the longest, most appealed and difficult possible thing to do under our legal system. which is fine and good and the way it should be. but it is difficult. to pretend like it's something that just happens is intellectually dishonest.

    We're making the very active decision to kill innocent people for the greater good. We're doing it slowly, and deliberately. I guess "going out of our way" might not be the best choice of words, but regardless this is the kind of decision I think we should make as seldom as possible. Especially when there is an extremely viable alternative (which isn't always the case with, say, combat).

    actually, we are making the very active decision to kill guilty people for the greater good. innocents sometimes end up in the mix, but i see that as no different than anything else we do.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »

    so you're satisfied with that? if we wrongly accuse and imprison someone, then just pay them. that's that?

    the point is, you obviously agree that we have to have a penal system and that by having one, we take upon ourselves, as a society, the risk that innocents are caught in the crossfire. the difference between the death penalty and 50 years imprisonment is just one that's a matter of degrees. if you think life in prison without parole is fine, then you are closer to the line than you think.

    You're missing the point. If you find evidence that someone is innocent five minutes after you lock them up and throw away the key, you can call a locksmith and let them out. If you find the same evidence five minutes after you've killed them... Why do I have to explain this?

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Faggot 2 wrote: »
    I don't know of any other first-world, liberal democracy that has that problem, actually. Coincidentally, I don't know of any other first-world, liberal democracy that has capital punishment. The implication that "look, we have this problem, the only possible solution is killing them" seems like a really fucking retarded sentiment.

    1) japan has the death penalty.

    2) when you are dealing with multiple lifers who continue to fail to reform and continue to organize and plan violent crimes in prison, capital punishment really is the only possible solution. unless youve got a better idea?

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    let's just drop this unless you actually have something substantive to say. as of now, all you've been doing is concluding a point and then appealing to special authority.

    Yes, concluding the point that deliberately and slowly putting somebody to death is in no way analogous to making an instantaneous decision in self-defense. This is true with or without any particular call to authority. You know, like, period.

    The appeal to authority was more to head off any "how would you know"-style responses. It's not really relevant to the point that these two things are in absolutely no fucking way similar. At all.
    actually, i think it's the best possible reason. what is more satisfying than food, sex, education and justice?

    :roll:
    actually, we are making the very active decision to kill guilty people for the greater good. innocents sometimes end up in the mix, but i see that as no different than anything else we do.

    Knowing that innocents will get caught in the mix (which, statistically, we do) and continuing anyway is making the active decision to kill innocents.

    It's different than most anything else we do (specifically other situations in which we kill innocents) in that there is no particular rush to take action (unlike, say, shooting in self-defense) and that there are other perfectly viable and (if only somewhat) better options (indefinite imprisonment).

    Also, save us the whole "Aryan brotherhood executing people from inside and what else can we do, man" argument...it also falls flat once you've come out with the "evil motherfuckers need to pay" defense.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Adrien wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »

    so you're satisfied with that? if we wrongly accuse and imprison someone, then just pay them. that's that?

    the point is, you obviously agree that we have to have a penal system and that by having one, we take upon ourselves, as a society, the risk that innocents are caught in the crossfire. the difference between the death penalty and 50 years imprisonment is just one that's a matter of degrees. if you think life in prison without parole is fine, then you are closer to the line than you think.

    You're missing the point. If you find evidence that someone is innocent five minutes after you lock them up and throw away the key, you can call a locksmith and let them out. If you find the same evidence five minutes after you've killed them... Why do I have to explain this?

    five minutes huh? how about five minutes after he's been raped?

    the death sentence usually takes years (sometimes decades) to administer. finding evidence 10 years after imprisonment is what we are talking about.

    please try and be realistic.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Faggot 2 wrote: »
    I don't know of any other first-world, liberal democracy that has that problem, actually. Coincidentally, I don't know of any other first-world, liberal democracy that has capital punishment. The implication that "look, we have this problem, the only possible solution is killing them" seems like a really fucking retarded sentiment.

    1) japan has the death penalty.

    2) when you are dealing with multiple lifers who continue to fail to reform and continue to organize and plan violent crimes in prison, capital punishment really is the only possible solution. unless youve got a better idea?
    1) Yes, but they have a judicial system about on-par with Saudi Arabia's.

    2) Howsabout prison reform? It's amazing that all these other countries somehow magically manage to deal with this without killing people, yet we immediately turn to "fry 'em" as the solution. This would, of course, involve a fundamental sea-change in our prison system, so yeah, why bother, much easier to just kill them.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    five minutes huh? how about five minutes after he's been raped?

    the death sentence usually takes years (sometimes decades) to administer. finding evidence 10 years after imprisonment is what we are talking about.

    please try and be realistic.

    10 years after a conviction you can still give somebody back another 30 years or more of their life.

    Also, that first part is an excellent argument for reducing overcrowding, increasing supervision, and generally upgrading the quality of life in our prisons (so as to prevent rape). Not so much an argument for the death penalty.

    You'll find that most of us that aren't fond of the death penalty also agree that prisoner rape is something we really need to do something about.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »

    so you're satisfied with that? if we wrongly accuse and imprison someone, then just pay them. that's that?

    the point is, you obviously agree that we have to have a penal system and that by having one, we take upon ourselves, as a society, the risk that innocents are caught in the crossfire. the difference between the death penalty and 50 years imprisonment is just one that's a matter of degrees. if you think life in prison without parole is fine, then you are closer to the line than you think.

    You're missing the point. If you find evidence that someone is innocent five minutes after you lock them up and throw away the key, you can call a locksmith and let them out. If you find the same evidence five minutes after you've killed them... Why do I have to explain this?

    five minutes huh? how about five minutes after he's been raped?

    You're right. You can't let someone out after they've been raped. Because... The fuck?
    the death sentence usually takes years (sometimes decades) to administer. finding evidence 10 years after imprisonment is what we are talking about.

    please try and be realistic.

    So you're saying that never happens. Ever. You can completely rule it out, one hundred percent.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Adrien wrote: »
    You're right. You can't let someone out after they've been raped. Because... The fuck?

    I guess he's comparing prison rape to the death penalty because being raped would also cause irreparable damage. So, you know, since somebody might get raped we might as well kill them, or something?

    Basically instead of trying to prevent Bad Thing A, we should just go ahead and do Arguably Worse Thing B instead.

    Or something else stupid like that.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Yes, concluding the point that deliberately and slowly putting somebody to death is in no way analogous to making an instantaneous decision in self-defense. This is true with or without any particular call to authority. You know, like, period.

    and i've never actually said they were similar. but i acknowledge that we kill people in situations that aren't always instantaneous. like life in prison without parole for example. or how about war, sometimes pre-emptive.

    the timing of the kill is not the issue at hand. it's the reasoning behind the kill that makes the difference.
    actually, we are making the very active decision to kill guilty people for the greater good. innocents sometimes end up in the mix, but i see that as no different than anything else we do.

    Knowing that innocents will get caught in the mix (which, statistically, we do) and continuing anyway is making the active decision to kill innocents.

    It's different than most anything else we do (specifically other situations in which we kill innocents) in that there is no particular rush to take action (unlike, say, shooting in self-defense) and that there are other perfectly viable and (if only somewhat) better options (indefinite imprisonment).

    i dont see why you make such a large distinction between killing people quickly (lethal injection) and killing people slowly (lwop).
    Also, save us the whole "Aryan brotherhood executing people from inside and what else can we do, man" argument...it also falls flat once you've come out with the "evil motherfuckers need to pay" defense.

    uh, care to explain? i generally disregard conclusions that have no reasoning behind them.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Faggot 2 wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Faggot 2 wrote: »
    I don't know of any other first-world, liberal democracy that has that problem, actually. Coincidentally, I don't know of any other first-world, liberal democracy that has capital punishment. The implication that "look, we have this problem, the only possible solution is killing them" seems like a really fucking retarded sentiment.

    1) japan has the death penalty.

    2) when you are dealing with multiple lifers who continue to fail to reform and continue to organize and plan violent crimes in prison, capital punishment really is the only possible solution. unless youve got a better idea?
    1) Yes, but they have a judicial system about on-par with Saudi Arabia's.

    2) Howsabout prison reform? It's amazing that all these other countries somehow magically manage to deal with this without killing people, yet we immediately turn to "fry 'em" as the solution. This would, of course, involve a fundamental sea-change in our prison system, so yeah, why bother, much easier to just kill them.

    1) actually, japan has a much, much better judicial system than the u.s. and the rate of recidivism in japan is so low as to almost be ideal. is there something you know about japan's judicial system that i don't? and your original statement is still wrong.

    2) i support prison reform too. but prison reform and capital punishment arent mutually exclusive options. furthermore, you still havent addressed the actual threat i've talked about: aryan brotherhood leaders organzing crimes from prison. what do we do about them?

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Adrien wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »

    so you're satisfied with that? if we wrongly accuse and imprison someone, then just pay them. that's that?

    the point is, you obviously agree that we have to have a penal system and that by having one, we take upon ourselves, as a society, the risk that innocents are caught in the crossfire. the difference between the death penalty and 50 years imprisonment is just one that's a matter of degrees. if you think life in prison without parole is fine, then you are closer to the line than you think.

    You're missing the point. If you find evidence that someone is innocent five minutes after you lock them up and throw away the key, you can call a locksmith and let them out. If you find the same evidence five minutes after you've killed them... Why do I have to explain this?

    five minutes huh? how about five minutes after he's been raped?

    You're right. You can't let someone out after they've been raped. Because... The fuck?
    the death sentence usually takes years (sometimes decades) to administer. finding evidence 10 years after imprisonment is what we are talking about.

    please try and be realistic.

    So you're saying that never happens. Ever. You can completely rule it out, one hundred percent.

    im saying that you can never take away the fact that a man has been abused, raped and treated like an animal for 10 years in prison.

    man you guys are fucking dense.

    seriously, get over your emotions and let's discuss this rationally.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    im saying that you can never take away the fact that a man has been abused, raped and treated like an animal for 10 years in prison.

    So it'd be better to kill him.

    I mean, that's what we're talking about. This is an innocent man, a victim of whatever miscarriage of justice. You think it's better he was put to death by the United States of America than spent whatever amount of time in jail before being freed.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Adrien wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    im saying that you can never take away the fact that a man has been abused, raped and treated like an animal for 10 years in prison.

    So it'd be better to kill him.

    I mean, that's what we're talking about. This is an innocent man, a victim of whatever miscarriage of justice. You think it's better he was put to death by the United States of America than spent whatever amount of time in jail before being freed.

    no, it would be better to never have a false conviction.

    im saying, i dont see that big a difference between accidently killing an innocent man and accidently sentencing him to 10 years of abuse and rape.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    AdrienAdrien Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    im saying that you can never take away the fact that a man has been abused, raped and treated like an animal for 10 years in prison.

    So it'd be better to kill him.

    I mean, that's what we're talking about. This is an innocent man, a victim of whatever miscarriage of justice. You think it's better he was put to death by the United States of America than spent whatever amount of time in jail before being freed.

    no, it would be better to never have a false conviction.

    im saying, i dont see that big a difference between accidently killing an innocent man and accidently sentencing him to 10 years of abuse and rape.

    So there is no value in your mind to the remaining, oh, fifty years of that man's life?

    I can see why you want to avoid an emotional argument here. That's pretty detestable.

    Adrien on
    tmkm.jpg
  • Options
    ServoServo Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    im saying that you can never take away the fact that a man has been abused, raped and treated like an animal for 10 years in prison.

    So it'd be better to kill him.

    I mean, that's what we're talking about. This is an innocent man, a victim of whatever miscarriage of justice. You think it's better he was put to death by the United States of America than spent whatever amount of time in jail before being freed.

    no, it would be better to never have a false conviction.

    im saying, i dont see that big a difference between accidently killing an innocent man and accidently sentencing him to 10 years of abuse and rape.

    you don't see the difference between being dead and not being dead?

    Servo on
    newsigs.jpg
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    okay, ive overstated. of course being dead is worse.

    but the point im making is that people dont just get their lives back, even if they are only 30 or 40. they lose loved ones, they lose dignity, they lose respect and jobs and practical ways to make a living.

    being dead is worse. yes. but we take away so much already through any false conviction.

    false convictions in capital cases are only marginally worse than false convictions in other serious felony cases. death is not the only thing we cant take back. the false conviction concept is an argument for reforming our entire judicial system more than it is an argument for banning the death penalty.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    false convictions in capital cases are only marginally worse than false convictions in other serious felony cases. death is not the only thing we cant take back. the false conviction concept is an argument for reforming our entire judicial system more than it is an argument for banning the death penalty.

    Unless your reforms include a 100% certainty against false convictions, then I fail to see how we do not still have grounds to oppose the death penalty. No matter which way you slice it, being dead - in essentially all practical cases here - is exponentially worse then being alive.

    EDIT: Or, to put a practical spin on it, how many people released after being falsely imprisoned have gone on to commit suicide? I'm guessing a non-zero number, but I'm also guessing it's nowhere near a majority. Clearly these people still feel their lives are worth something and hence it would be wrong in any scenario to otherwise execute them - a risk you run, if you have the death penalty.

    I'm much with mcdermott's opinion - while I can see the utility of the death penalty, the practical aspects of it make it a non-starter.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    i think it just comes down to what cost we are willing to pay for retribution.

    punishing criminals is a worthy enough goal for me that if we sometimes sacrifice innocents, it's nevertheless worth it.

    on the other hand, for example, attempting to secure oil resources through a preemptive war with iraq is not worth the lives of the families and soldiers being sacrificed even now.

    im willing to sacrifice for principles. not so much when it comes to just wanting other people's stuff.

    Ketherial on
  • Options
    ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Faggot 2 wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Faggot 2 wrote: »
    I don't know of any other first-world, liberal democracy that has that problem, actually. Coincidentally, I don't know of any other first-world, liberal democracy that has capital punishment. The implication that "look, we have this problem, the only possible solution is killing them" seems like a really fucking retarded sentiment.

    1) japan has the death penalty.

    2) when you are dealing with multiple lifers who continue to fail to reform and continue to organize and plan violent crimes in prison, capital punishment really is the only possible solution. unless youve got a better idea?
    1) Yes, but they have a judicial system about on-par with Saudi Arabia's.

    2) Howsabout prison reform? It's amazing that all these other countries somehow magically manage to deal with this without killing people, yet we immediately turn to "fry 'em" as the solution. This would, of course, involve a fundamental sea-change in our prison system, so yeah, why bother, much easier to just kill them.
    1) actually, japan has a much, much better judicial system than the u.s. and the rate of recidivism in japan is so low as to almost be ideal. is there something you know about japan's judicial system that i don't? and your original statement is still wrong.

    2) i support prison reform too. but prison reform and capital punishment arent mutually exclusive options. furthermore, you still havent addressed the actual threat i've talked about: aryan brotherhood leaders organzing crimes from prison. what do we do about them?
    1) The reason their recidivism rate is so low is that 99.8% of their arrests result in convictions. You convict that many innocent people, fuck yeah your recidivism rate is gonna be low. Your recidivism rate is gonna be rock bottom, because you've practically got cops acting as judge, jury, and executioner.

    2) You change the prison culture, and you'll see vast improvements in the gang problems. As it stands now, prisons are just large groups of criminals gathered together.

    Thanatos on
  • Options
    ZsetrekZsetrek Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Hahaha. Keth, if you think that Japan's criminal system is anything other than a joke, you've been living there far too long.

    EDIT: And, "people are committing crimes in prison" is a shitty argument for killing them because it's your mismanagement that is enabling them to commit crimes. You're killing them for a fuck-up on your part.

    Zsetrek on
  • Options
    GorakGorak Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    punishing criminals is a worthy enough goal for me that if we sometimes sacrifice innocents, it's nevertheless worth it.

    You are clearly scum.

    Also, no-one should be allowed to advocate capital punishment until they've mastered capital letters.

    Gorak on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited August 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    punishing criminals is a worthy enough goal for me that if we sometimes sacrifice innocents, it's nevertheless worth it.

    You are clearly scum.
    Yeah I hate to say it but this isn't that far removed from the logic process of terrorism really.

    "Let's punish the US for what they've done to our people"
    "But we're probably going to harm some people who really aren't responsible"
    "Fuck it, they're martyrs for the cause"

    I mean come on, let's hold the state to a higher standard then this bullshit. It's fine to advocate your okayness with the non-specific deaths of others, till you are those others and this is hardly a situation where one evil is done to prevent a greater one at that.

    electricitylikesme on
Sign In or Register to comment.