D. PENALTY IS ABOUT REVENGE NOT JUSTICE - OWN UP - Dead Man Walking (1996) Discussion

[–] Rube8201 17 years ago

Sean Penn's character deserved to die.Why should he have the right to live to be old.If the crime is bad enough i say why waste the money Kill them.

reply

[–] ItSaysKeds 17 years ago

it costs more money to put someone to death than it does to keep them imprisoned for life.

reply

[–] james-1959 17 years ago

You're right, they really should look into finding a much more cheaper way to do it.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] james-1959 17 years ago

Yeah, but would you feel that way if somebody tortured and mutilated somebody you love and then sodomised their dead body?

reply

[–] james-1959 17 years ago

And they masturbated over their pain and suffering wilst laughing in their face. Do you think you would feel all peaceful and loving to that person?

reply

[–] petitprince-3 17 years ago

no man, i would feel terrible and probably would want to kill that person but these would be my personal feelings at that given scenario, what iam saying is that i woulnd't want to live in a society that is geared up to calculatedly execute that person

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] james-1959 17 years ago

I understand what you are saying, and while I don't agree, I respect your opinion. It's true that unless somebody goes through a situation like that I dont think anybody can be sure of how they would react, so this is all conjecture. I dont believe every person who commits murder should then automatically be given the death penalty, rather that each specific case be judged on its own circumstances and details. I beleive that every persons most fundamental right is that of the right to life. But I also believe that when a person intentionally and sadistically (specifically sadistic sexual murders) takes another persons life, they immediately lose their own right to life. That person doesn not have the same rights as the rest of the non-murdering society. Call it revenge if you like, but in my opinion these people who commit such heinous crimes against humanity, deserve no mercy, the way they display no mercy for their innocent victims. They do not deserve to be looked after or paid for. That is the way I see it.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] james-1959 17 years ago

Well, that is terrible, obviously. I only know of one case of that happening - in the uk back in the 50's I think. Do you know how many times an innocent person has been killed in this way?

reply

[–] stayup_all_night 16 years ago

Seems to me that the death penalty was the best thing that could have happened to Penn's character. Knowing he was going to die was the only thing that finally got him to admit to Jesus what he'd done.

reply

[–] lornamd-1 16 years ago

"Knowing he was going to die was the only thing that finally got him to admit to Jesus what he'd done"

No. It was Helen Prejeans guidance that got him to admit what he had done. Before she became his spiritual advisor he denied his part in the murders and planned to verbally abuse the victims families in his last words.

reply

[–] mradam-3 15 years ago

Impending death played a big part in his eventual admission of guilt and remorse.

reply

[–] Livana_Faolan 10 years ago

no man, i would feel terrible and probably would want to kill that person but these would be my personal feelings at that given scenario, what iam saying is that i woulnd't want to live in a society that is geared up to calculatedly execute that person

No matter what, "you're saying," you just exposed your hypocrisy. You admitted that you would, "probably want to kill that person." And yet, here you are, ranting and raving against the death penalty, which you consider to be a form of revenge and not justice! Hypocrite!!

I believe that what Penn's character did warranted the death penalty. However, I do not think it's fair that he was sentenced to death while his partner-in-crime, who is guilty of the exact same thing, was sentenced to life in prison. They both should have been sentenced to the death penalty. Or, if they weren't sentenced to the death penalty, they should have been sentenced to life in prison.

reply

[–] kwacka2 15 years ago

Yes.

I would not be bothered about justice - I'd go for revenge.

Thank God that civilised countries are able to discriminate between the two.

reply

[–] getsomeusmc 17 years ago

So, if someone started to stab a child in front of you, you would let the child die rather than shoot the SOB in the head, because "...it is absoulutley WRONG to kill anybody, no matter what they have done or are going to do!!!!!" What kind of SICK, sociopathic COWARD must you be to take such a morally reprehensible position?!? Murder is the taking of INNOCENT life; taking the lives of convicted murderers is SELF DEFENSE, not "murder".

"People on 'ludes should not drive" Jeff Spicoli

Nor should they post their Pollyanna, Serial-murderers-are-just-misunderstood, infantile DRIVEL on the Internet.

reply

[–] thecalverts1-1 17 years ago

More PC bleeding heart liberalism at its worst! Peace and love and flowers, la, la, la. Pathetic!

reply

[–] sportbri 17 years ago

It's not murdering. It's putting down an animal.
They don't qualify as human beings.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Nomasain 17 years ago

I think it is SICK some people call others SICK(or stupid) for not sharing the same opinion. And it’s bias to think every Republican is coldhearted. However, I DO AGREE there is a better way. I’m against death penalty since it’s irreversible when proven innocent afterwards, yet mainly because it’s bad economy: Make all criminals pay in cash for what they’ve done wrong, multiplied by the chance of getting caught. (It is difficult to put a prize on a man’s life, but give it a try.) Whether it’s shoplifting or murder, including police and justice costs, including their imprisonment and interest. Let them work on the chaingang for as long as it takes; they’ll beg their relatives and crimepartners to chip in. If injuries were inflicted, keep them at least inside for the time it takes their victims to heal. (this way, murder and permanent injuries automaticly result in permanent imprisonment, regardless of what they pay.) If they REFUSE to work, don’t feed them and take away the roof over their heads (This happens to the vast majority of the world population when they don’t HAVE a job. And they are INNOCENT). When exposed to the elements for longer time, don’t allow their organs to detoriate. Donate them to the ill-stricken, and feed the remains to the fish. Heck, if they stole a car, they could VOLUNTAIRY sell a kidney to get out of jail. This way CRIMINALS CAN SAVE LIVES, instead of taking them. And the really “tough guys”, who killed a little kid or bombed a building, can VOLUNTAIRY choose to fight a fellow murderer to death. Instead of sports, we watch ancient Roman games (sponsoring, tickets, internet and broadcast-rights easily make millions to financially support the relatives of the murdervictims). This way he/she/it can also earn privileges in prison (if he/she/it is the lucky survivor...as if I care). You think I am sick for saying this? Think again: It’s all on voluntairy bases, while nowadays all INNOCENT LAW-OBEYING CITIZENS ARE FORCED TO PAY for all the damage, insurance, police, justice-system and prisons. Oh, that’s “just” money? People have to trade LIFE-time for this money; it’s called work. In the mean time GOVERNMENTS SUPPORT CRIME by not presenting the bill to the criminals, therefore making crime economical!
If criminals are presented the REAL bill, they’d rather get a job or go to the psychiatrist first, before doing a crime. Including pedophiles and cleptomaniacs. (I’ll have to add though, a basic social security-system might be needed to justify these harsh actions against stealing for life support.) I’m all for PEACE and LOVE, but don’t hand it out when facing a lion; I wonder how FORGIVING you are while he has his lunch.... Just my 2 cents and yes, English isn’t my native language.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Nomasain 16 years ago

Hi Ian,

thanks for reading, but I'm afraid you missed the "social security" part at the end?

Basic social security takes away any excuse for people to shoplift. (unless their ill, which means healthcare should pick up the check and the cops should be allowed to search their houses anytime.)

And the rich will spend their lives in prison just as any other who's a danger to society.
EVERY drunk driver loses their license, EVERY murderer goes to jail for life.

Rich folks only advantage is, they can reimburse their victims more easily. But we can't blaim them for being rich, can we? The poor can also ask others to chip in, including charity...
What happens if all, rich and poor, are OBLIGATED to WORK IN PRISON in order to pay the damage? Will there be enough work for everyone?

If you have a better way to fight crime, without letting innocent people (poor and rich) pay for it,
then please tell me, I do have an open mind.

Ronald

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bothpartiessuck 16 years ago

Get a rope!!

Or bring back the chair. I had no problem with the chair!!!

reply

[–] DADrake 15 years ago

it costs more money to put someone to death than it does to keep them imprisoned for life.

That's not entirely true. You're referring to the cost of trying a capital murder case where the death penalty is involved. Due to the cost of the trial being more, it's more expensive.

But that's a problem with the way the legal system works, not with the death penalty itself. After everything is said and done, and the cost of the trial is taken out of the equation, the cost of an actual execution is significantly lower than keeping someone in prison for life.

"It's not the years, honey. It's the mileage..."

reply

[–] godwallop 17 years ago

What was it Gandhi said about "an eye for an eye"? I think it was something along the lines of, "It's an awesome idea".

Yes, that sounds right.

reply

[–] A_Fistful_of_Pennies 15 years ago

By making murder illegal, we acknowledge that the taking of someone's life against their will is wrong.

How is the death penalty not exactly the same as murder, and exactly as evil?

reply

[–] mradam-3 15 years ago

"we acknowledge that the taking of someone's life against their will is wrong."

No, YOU acknowledge that the taking of someone's life against their will is wrong. I acknowledge no such thing.

Murder is the UNLAWFUL taking of a life. The death penalty (in those places that carry it out) is IN the law. Therefore, the death penalty is NOT murder. And it's not the same either. Because criminals torture and mutilate their victims, and their victims didn't do anything wrong. The death penalty strives for less pain, no mutilation, and the person who receives DID do something terrible and he deserves it.

So, the death penalty and murder are NOT the same, not even close. And the death penalty is not evil, not at all.

reply

[–] Tommen_Forever 7 years ago

Murder is the UNLAWFUL taking of a life. The death penalty (in those places that carry it out) is IN the law.

This just illustrates the hypocrisy. The fact that capital punishment is lawful doesn't change the fact that it contradicts the values embedded in

Because criminals torture and mutilate their victims, and their victims didn't do anything wrong.

Your naivete and blind trust in the criminal justice system is disturbing. Not everyone on death row is a serial killer. They haven't all tortured and mutilated their victims, and DNA technology has proven that we've sentenced innocent people to death with capital punishment. None of that seems to bother its bullheaded apologists though.

The death penalty strives for less pain, no mutilation, and the person who receives DID do something terrible and he deserves it.

You sit on death row and tell us how humane it is.

-------------
Live Deliciously! http://bit.ly/2gD7xFP

reply

[–] katiewon 15 years ago

The taking of a life does not justify the taking of another. The death penalty is not justice, but revenge and committed by "christians" for the most part. The Bible is used as justification "an eye for an eye." But this refers to the vengence of God as retribution for sin, such as using profanity on the sabbath, homosexuality, adultery.

The other justification is the family of the deceased receives some type of peace by the execution. I don't see this, ever. It only promotes the hatred which in itself is destructive - causing more pain and despair.

If the death penalty was eliminated, life in prison is much worse. Rape, murder, complete control of that criminals life. What a rotten existence. Many of us that grow old look back at some of the things committed in the past. Imagine looking back and knowing you are responsible for taking the life of another. Having to live with that. Death would be a relief.

Then there is the issue of an innocent condemned person. Lousy lawyers, indifferent judges, bad science. Our legal system is repleate with these injustices. Look at the work of Barry Sheck and Peter Neufeld's "Innocence Project." Hundreds of innocent convicts have been save from the death penalty. I can only imagine how many were not so lucky. Read John Grisham's "The Innocent Man" and the horror of what I described here. The main focus of the book, Ron Williams (it's a true story) was 5 DAYS FROM EXECUTION. He was later exonerated but after coming so close to death and spending 10 years in hell knowing he was innocent.

Then there is the cost if instituting this form of "justice." All the lawyering, appeals cost more than life in prison. So it is purely vengence, not justice as it's justification.

In this movie, what this character was unbelievably cruel and it makes me sick. I personally worked with a condemned man as assistance of another murder he committed, not the one he had already been condemned. He was disgusting, and was eventually murdered on death row. His life had been hell before the crimes 99% of the experience of all rapists and murderers.

These people are not born this way, they are created by horrible experiences mostly as young people. Where were their families, and the system in place that helped create these monsters? It's almost ironic to think that a justice system that fails them kills them.

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Yalmuk 10 years ago

Here we have another liberal not wanting to take responsibility of their own actions.

It's a choice to kill someone unless you are severely mentally ill.

reply

[–] JohnnyDoe (1712) 3 years ago

committed by "christians" for the most part

???

reply

[–] Knightoutblood 17 years ago

I think it's ok to give someone the death penalty. It might give the people who lost a family member or close friend some satisfaction. The goverment should hang people instead of using methods that cost a lot of money. I think the death penalty should only be used in very few cases but it is also good in that way that the prisons doesn't get over populated.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nataliehartley 17 years ago

To me, it's avery simple equation.

Justice = Fairness = equality = if you take a persons right to life = you lose your own.

And I can only think of one occassion where an innocent man has been executed - not that that's an excuse, it's very sad.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mradam-3 15 years ago

Oh yes, because a noose is so expensive. I get what you mean. 100,000 meals, years of medical care, this entertainment and that entertainment, education programs, exercise equipment, so much cheaper. The noose though, is more expensive than all those things put together. I get it. I really do get it.

reply

[–] Lord_Nosfuratu 17 years ago

If their spending their life in prison why not kill them now. They obviously did something bad enough to die for, i dont want my taxes paying for them to live. They murder someone horribly, they take a life, we should take theirs. We need to do things more like China or something and just give them a trail, if guilty, go shoot em out back minutes later.

reply

[–] klutzinpink 17 years ago

You've got to be kidding me, right? Let them spend their lives in prison, thinking about what they did wrong? Oh yeah, that's how I want to spend my tax dollar.

I'd like to know the name of the program you saw. 75% of the black males executed were innocent? In what state? Nixon abolished the death penalty in the early 70's, which caused those on death row to have their sentences commuted to life, as in the case of Charles Manson, Susan Atkins, etc.. Then, when it was reinstated these people were not put back on death row. Oh no! It was considered "cruel and unusual" punishment to have to once again face execution! And to this day, we continue to shell out tax dollars for Charles Manson and the like. I read the book "Helter Skelter", which was written by the DA who prosecuted Manson. Prior to being charged with the Tate-LaBianca killings, Susan Atkins, who was in jail for a minor, unrelated offense, gave a detailed description of the murders to her cellmate. She told her cellmate how Sharon Tate, who was eight months pregnant, pleaded for her life, and the life of her unborn child, and Susan Atkins, with great enthusiam, described her response to Sharon Tate, which was to stab her to death. I wonder how Sharon Tate's mother felt, knowing that year after year, her tax paid to keep her daughter's and grandchild's killer alive, safe in protective custody, out of harm's way from fellow inmates? And that's the life you want to spare? Someone who will never be a productive member of society? Do you think Manson has "learned" his lesson?

We are not the only country with a death penalty. Have you never heard of China? The middle East? If you steal, you lose your hand, if you lie, you lose your tongue and if you murder, you die. America is the only country that allows the lengthy appeal process, prior to an execution. We no longer hang, we no longer electrocute, no more gas chamber. We have lethal injection, which allows the most heinous of killers to peacefully draw their last breath, which is a far cry from what they provided to their victims. Look at David whatever is last name is, who killed little Danielle VanDamme. He was a neighbor, kidnapped her from her bed, raped her, strangled her and attempted to dispose of her body by burning it! And all through his trial, the defense was allowed to expose her parents sexual life and their occasional use of marijuana, as if their daughter's death was their fault! Their private life was exposed to cover the atrocity of the fiend who killed her, and yet he is alive today, in prison. What about Scott Peterson? Why are these murderer's lives any more sacred than those that they chose to kill?

We have the death penalty and yet people still commit murder, knowing that if caught they could be sentenced to death, without the death penalty, even that small fear would be removed and murderers could have a field day, killing until caught!

Every one is entitled to their own opinion, but in my opinion, and it's only mine, I say let the monsters die the same way they kill, no peaceful sleep. I believe in Jesus Christ, redemption, repentance and forgiveness, but all I can say is that I have one child, a twenty year old daughter, and should someone purposely take her life, that person should only hope that the law find them first! Call the death penalty revenge or call it justice, as long as we still have it, I say use it, and that's MY all American opinion!

reply

[–] lois_must_die123 17 years ago

Well Said Klutzinpink...I completely agree!

reply

[–] Chaotic_Serenity 17 years ago

It just never made sense to me. You kill someone, its bad but it's okay when they do it as a punishment?? They're playing God. As did the person who did that crime, I agree with that but it's okay when the law says it is?

"Dude. I just full-on Swayzed that mother."

reply

[–] sportbri 17 years ago

As soon as IT kills someone IT is no longer a person, and therefore no longer a someone.

reply

[–] sweetasanutmoosh 17 years ago

I believe that the above argument is a cop-out. Unfortunately, once "IT" kills someone, "IT" really is still a human being. Granted "IT" is a human being that has committed the foulest most horriffic act possible, yet "IT" is still human! De-humanising a murderer just makes it easier for those who belive in it to justify the death penalty.

Ethically, I'm against it...killing is viewed as the ultimate crime, so how can killing be justified as punishment for that crime? It doesn't seem to make sense to me and seems uncivilised. That's not to say that I don't see the validity in arguments concerning the cost of imprisoning criminals for life, but I just don't believe that killing to relieve costs or space is an answer to that problem. Therefore I think that any civilised society has no choice but to lock them up for life, regardless of the cost/space issues.

Also, it seems pretty clear that the death penalty is (at least in the case of the U.S.) no deterrent at all. Its true (I think, I'm no expert) that even though the U.S. is one of the few (if not the only) Western societies that still has the death penalty, it also has one of the highest murder rates.

Therefore the only reason for the death penalty(at least in the U.S.) is as punishment part of which is rooted in revenge.

BTW I think the film is great. Perfect acting performances from the two leads, and a story which makes you think and question your beliefs.

reply

[–] mradam-3 15 years ago

Justifying the death penalty doesn't need to be made any easier. It's just a given.

reply

[–] natthebrat88 17 years ago

The reason why Charles Manson wasn't put back on death row was because it was about something dealing with Double Jeopardy. I don't think killing a murderer solves anything. In some ways I believe giving the death penalty is the "easy way" out for them. Just look at Charles Manson, he has to be in solitary for the rest of his life. Thats a hell of its own. In the words of Ghandi," An eye for an eye makes the world go blind." I do believe some of these murderers feel remorse for what they did. I'm not saying all of them do. I felt so sad when Mathew's mother couldn't even touch him or hug him. Thats just wrong.

reply

[–] LoveMyRatBoys 9 years ago

Charles Manson should not be given the death penalty... he didn't kill anyone... he wasn't even there... but he should get life, which he has for orchestrating the whole thing..

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] linds_nz 17 years ago

Fairness = Equity (equitable) not Equality, and equity is of opinion.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sportbri 17 years ago

I think they should have put him in a sex offenders unit where he could be sodomized for the rest of his life...

reply

[–] siwilson34 17 years ago

I have to disagree with the original poster of this topic, the death penalty is not about Revenge, and its not a Deterrent for others. Its about Punishment, plain and simple. You commit the ultimate crimes (murder/rape) you pay for it with the ultimate punishments (unless of course you are a celebrity of sorts and have the money to buy lawyers who will get you absolved of your crimes).
Its sad to say that in this day, this country is one of the few in the world who caters more to the aggressors of crime than the victims of it. Very little attention is ever paid to the victim families or the victims themselves of crime, but our systems of media over-indulges the public with too much focus on the rights of the criminal. Shouldnt the criminal forfeit their rights upon conviction? News, films, tv all glorify the criminals, while the victims fall to the backseat of obscurity.
The death penalty is about justice. Justice for those who can no longer speak for themselves, justice for those families who have to watch their family members killers paraded around like star celebrities.
Yes, there have been mistaken executions, its bound to happen. But they pale to the number of murders where the killers have simply walked away and smirk at the camera.

Yes, I did like this film. But I still felt no sympathy for the death row inmate. They are there for a reason.

reply

[–] klutzinpink 17 years ago

By the way, siwilson34, thank you, my thoughts exactly.

reply

[–] klutzinpink 17 years ago

Read your history books, Manson was not placed back on death row because of "Double Jeopardy". He, and any others who had their sentences commuted to life were not returned to death row because it was considered extreme cruel and unusual punishment to have to face execution, be relieved of it and then face it again. Plain and simple. Which is a bunch of bull. Do you really think Manson feels remorse for his actions? If so he's certainly never expressed those feelings. Solitary confinement is a hell itself? Hardly! Waking up daily, knowing your child was brutally butchered, and that his killer continues to live on your tax dollar, that's hell.

I'm all for forgiveness, and actually even the ability for a criminial to be rehabilitated, but sometimes one must truly pay the ultimate price for their crimes - even if they are remorseful. And, by the way, statistics show that most death row inmates who are truly remorseful, and repentful, accept that they must lose their life to atone for a life they've taken. That's true remorse.

Why do we always get so wrapped up in sympathy for the killer to the point the victims and their families and their pain is forgotten? When did that become okay? By not carrying through with the death penalty we are saying it's okay to take a life, society will house you until you die peacefully of old age. Some of these murderers had no life outside of prison. Sending them to prison is just sending them home. Sending them to the executioner is sending them on their way to meet their final judgement. I'm all for helping a murderer meet Jesus - up close and personal.

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bunburina 17 years ago

Life is the basic human right of all. Everyone deserves to live, simply, because we are all human beings. Period. Whether it is a small innocent girl or a serial killer, human life is something beyond our control. Murder, of course, is dehumanizing, it simply goes against our very nature of survival. When someone commits a crime, a very awful, ugly crime, is it ok for us, who pride ourselves to know better, to know the difference between right or wrong, to committ the exact same crime? Is it ok for us, in our supposed moral superiority, to be murderers as well? I don't think so.

If you support death penalty, then you don't understand human rights at all. Human rights are certain liberties that can not be taken away at any time, simply because they respond to the very nature of being a person. If you rape or kill someone, that doesn't stop you of still being a person. That is something we can't mess with. It is a fact.

Death penalty is babrbaric and broderline medieval. Someone said before that other countries like China and the Middle East also perform the capital punishment. Well, congratulations! You guys are at the same level of those countries who have absolutely no respect for human life or civil liberties at all. Other industrialized countries, like Europe, have already banned death penalty from their legal system in observance of common international treaties on human rights.

Some of you are saying that it is cheaper to kill the criminal. A criminal is a seriously disturbed person who needs to be put away from society in order to prevent him or her of doing any more harm. If your main concern is to save money, then, why not killing all the mentaly ill who can not offer anything to society? It is the same principle, disturbed people who need to be taken away to prevent them of making any harm to themselves or to the society. What the heck, a lot of money will be saved. You do spend a lot on mental institutions. And you will not be alone. A lot of people around the world kill their babies when they find out they have Down syndrome. Ancient Greece also used to kill the mentally challenged.

Why do we respect the mentally ill then? I'll tell you why: becaue life is the basic human right of all. The sign of the progress of today's modern society is the respect of human rights, the respect for life and human dignity. The abolition of slavery, freedom of speech, the protection to the weak meaning children, women and the elderly etc.

reply

[–] sweetasanutmoosh 17 years ago

Well said bunburina, I couldn't agree more with all the points raised in your argument.
Adding to your point regarding the fact that it is cheaper to kill a criminal than imprison them for life I'd also like to say that any argument based on the financial benefits of the death penalty is just ethically and morally wrong! Anyone justifying killing purely to save "tax dollars", no matter what that person did, is messed up, plain and simple.

reply

[–] klutzinpink 17 years ago

Give me a break already! Mentally challenged? Who said anything about killing the mentally challenged? There's a huge difference between a person who is mentally handicapped and a person who is morally handicapped. It's not really a matter of saving money - that's not what I meant when I said I don't want my tax dollars spent supporting the life of a murderer. However, what a bitter pill to swallow, daily, knowing you go to work, pay your taxes, and your loved ones murderer is housed through those taxes. Provided medical care, dental care, television, "recreation" time, visits with THEIR families, while the victim's family suffers forever. Is that justice? Think about that for just a moment. A murderer in prison is allowed visitors, their parents, children, spouses, siblings, can continue maintaining contact. How right is that?

I'm all for human rights, but sometimes an individual dehumanizes HIMSELF, steps outside of the mores of society and no longer acts like a human. And we're supposed to say poor baby, poor misunderstood soul? I don't think so. You put a rabid dog down. Let's just stretch the imagination a little, say a serial killer escapes, say he's last seen in your hometown. Hmmmm, how well would you sleep at night? Say he crawls through your mother's window and kills her. Would you be singing the same song, or would you wish that he had been put to death before he had a chance to kill again? Not an impossible scenario. Look at Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, just suppose some catastrophe occured and these murderes were loosed on the streets. Also not an impossible scenario.

But let's be realistic, because those situations are unlikely to occur. When a person places himself above society's ways and commits heinous acts, a price must be paid. And sometimes that price is their very life. If human rights means never taking a life, then what about self defense? That's not okay? Is it against human rights to protect yourself and your loved ones by whatever means available? Are you supposed to die rather than survive? Putting to death individuals who themselves have no regard for human rights, is almost a matter of self defense, because there is no 100% guarantee that they will never be granted freedom. It's almost a way of giving security to the masses, if you will. I know that's a long stretch, but not too long of a stretch.

Look at Richard Singleton, the man who kidnapped, raped and cut both arms of a girl (Mary something, I don't remember her last name), he left her for dead. He meant for her to die. And because she didn't, he wasn't sentenced to death. He was RELEASED from prison. As a matter of fact, no community wanted him and he had to be housed just outside of the prison for his parole. And he ended up brutalizing another woman!!! I don't remember if she died or not, I'd have to look it up, but how well do you think Mary slept after his release? Why were his human rights so much more important than hers? We need to start looking at the pain and suffering the victims and their families endure before we get so caught up in "saving" a cold blooded psychopath's human rights!

Come on little pup. Step back on the porch and let the big dogs play.

reply

[–] sweetasanutmoosh 17 years ago

Yes there is a huge difference between mentally handicapped and morally handicapped, but clearly bunburina was using it as a tool (somewhat tenously I agree) by which to show how ridiculous any argument concerning the saving of money versus human life is. You say that saving money is not what you meant regarding "tax dollars spent" yet you then go on to say pretty much that. Perhaps you could explain exactly what you did mean?

Anyway I don't say poor baby, misunderstood soul... I say lock him up for life. Deprive him not only of his freedom forever, but of all except the most basic human necessities. No internet, no conjugal visits, no book deals or media interviews, no luxuries or extras whatsoever.

Yes, you do put a rabid dog down. That's a dog that is sick. Almost back to the mentally handicapped argument again, this time for different reasons. So shall we start "putting down" rabid people? Sick people? No, of course not, because human life is worth more than that right? Because its sacred? That's why we see murderers as the worst of the worst. Becuase we (supposedly) value human life above all else and see the taking of that human life as the ultimate crime.

It's not about self defence, read the dictionary for definitions of both that and murder. The difference between protecting your life in self defence and protecting it by killing someone who has already murdered another must be plain to see. The death penalty just isn't self defence. By definition it is actually closer to murder because of the pre-meditation involved. But in true cases of self defence of course it's okay to take life to protect your own or your loved ones. That's (again) because human life is sacred and valued and you have a right to protect it. By locking up a murderer for life you have also protected society by ensuring life cannot be taken by that person ever again. If that person then escapes or is allowed for some insane reason to be freed then that is a problem with the system that should seperately adressed; it has no actual bearing on whether it is right or wrong to take their life.

It's not about murderers or their families' rights being any more important than that of their victims or their families. Depriving a murderer of their right to freedom for life and removing all but the bare essentials is an act of removal of their rights isn't it? It isn't giving them anything. Society glorifies and glamorizes murderers at the behest of victims and their families and fails to sympathise with them and that is wrong but is a problem with society that, again, needs to be adressed separately.

It's not about it being a deterrent either, look at the murder rates in countries who have the death penalty versus those that don't.

If someone commits any serious enough crime, mostly we lock them up. We don't punish them by doing what they did to their victim. That would be barbaric. We don't steal from thieves, rape rapists, run over drunk drivers or beat up violent offenders. That's because we live in a civilised forward thinking society. We may personally want to do those things, especially if we are affected by the crime, but we don't, and even if we did that surely doesn't mean that society should condone such behaviour. So why do some societies murder murderers?

Its about punishment and vengeance, plain and simple.

Ask yourself what do the following words and concepts actually mean... justice, revenge (or vengeance), murder, killing and self defence? Referring back to the original post the only conclusion can be that the death penalty is about justice, but only if you come from a society where it forms part of the law. Why does it form part of the law...partly for revenge, mostly for some barbaric, uncivilised punishment. So, as the original poster kindly requests, why don't people stop hiding behind the emotive smokescreens and worthless arguments and OWN UP?

reply

[–] klutzinpink 17 years ago

First of all, the statement "Society glorifies and glamorizes murderers at the behest of victims and their families". The word behest means at the request or bidding of, therefore, I highly doubt that the glorifying and glamorizing of murderers is at the "behest" of the victims and their families, especially since the victims are typically, um shall we say, dead?

As to your statement about the problems being with society and what it allows, unfortunately, we live in such a "civilized, forward thinking society" that those locked up for life ARE allowed conjugal visits, regular visits, communication with the outside world, purchases from commissary, which include personal televisions, fans, radios, Walkmans, candy, et cetera. So, their life sentence isn't all bread and water, hard labor, working on a rock hill. As a matter of fact, their life imprisonment can be quite tolerable. Most of society looks at the loss of freedom as punishment unfathomable, but most murderers are repeat offenders and quite acclimated to prison life and find it not only tolerable but preferrable to life outside those walls they've come to know so well. I've met with convicts and have heard more than one say it's like "going home", as a matter of fact, I knew of one man who said he could do time easier than standing on his head! While it is a sad statement of our justice system that inmates become institutionalized, it is a fact nonetheless.

I am well aware of the definition of self defense and murder. I was merely using self defense as an example of when the sanctity of life is put aside for one's own self preservation, which in my opinion, is the same as the death penalty. We put murderers to death for the preservation of the way of life for society. Why risk the smallest chance that a cold blooded killer would ever even possibly be freed? Did you read the case of Lawrence Singleton and Mary Vincent? That she suffered years, and years because of this fiend is reprehensible. What type of society allows a man who did what he did to walk free? And what happened? He took the life of a mother of three children.

Yes, the death penalty is punishment, and in the eyes of many revenge. But some of us look at is as a means of balancing the scales of jusitice. A father cannot, without the judicial system, wreak havoc upon the person of the one who killed his loved one, so we have the death penalty, to show that life IS valuable, that there is a cost for committing the most unholiest of crimes. Vengenance is mine, sayeth the Lord, and the death penalty is just, sayeth society, which has used their vote as the voice for those no longer able to speak for themselves. Apparently, the majority of society believes in "an eye for an eye".

Nothing I say will convince those who are anti-death penalty, anymore than I can be convinced to not be a proponent of the death penalty. You are entitled to your opinion. All I can say is stay on your knees, and ask God to have mercy and grace on you and your loved ones lest it happen to you. As for me, I will do the same and continue to use my vote to ensure that those desiring to live outside the law pay the price. In addition, if you feel so strongly about life sentences, than perhaps you can lobby for harsher punishment while incarcerated, lobby for the loss of ALL priviledges for inmates convicted of heinous crimes. Maybe then, when society sees criminals as truly suffering while incarcerated, maybe then society will be more willing to consider abolishing the death penalty. It is my opinion however, that while society is aware that murderers continue to have access to liberties their murdered loved ones are no longer alive to enjoy, the death penalty is just and will stand.

Come on little pup. Step back on the porch and let the big dogs play.

reply

[–] sweetasanutmoosh 17 years ago

Thanks, klutzinpink for pointing out my grammatical error. Of course using the word behest was wrong, making a nonsense out of that sentence. I guess what I meant was "without conideration for the feelings or memory of". Anyway, not so important in the grand scheme of things.

I respect your opinion (although when you mentioned China and the Middle-East that was a challenge) and have enjoyed reading your posts on this subject. I agree that nothing anyone could say would convince you not to be a proponent of the death penalty, and vice-versa. We could debate the problems with the system, society and quote "what ifs" ad infinitum. We could easily pick further holes in our arguments but what would be the point?

Regardless of the detail my view is fundamentally simple and does not rely on emotive examples, religous references or opinion that doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny..... intentional, pre-meditated killing is wrong. It's murder. Thats it. Whether it is commited by an abhorrent individual or by the state it is degrading, dehumanising and cruel. Apparently, most of your society does believe in "an eye for an eye". Not so the majority of the free-thinking world. Why exactly is that do you think?

I'm just glad that I live in a society where the death penalty was outlawed two generations ago.

By the way, you may be interested to know that America leads the way (along with Iran) in the illegal execution of child offenders. If I were you I'd be ashamed.

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-statistics-eng

reply

[–] klutzinpink 17 years ago

Would you care to give reference to those illegal executions of child offenders? Because I haven't been able to come up with any examples. America leads the world on stays of execution and length of appeal process before execution - some as long as twenty three years after sentence has been pronounced. I don't know about Iran, I don't live in Iran and I don't plan on living in Iran, although world affairs do concern me. I do like the way the execution of Saddam Hussein was handled - quite promptly. But, in America we allow every opportunity to exhaust all avenues before lethal injection, and in my opinion, and it's only my opinion, it's this appeal process that helps to eliminiate the possibility of someone unjustly being put to death. I'm not saying it never happens, unfortunately it has, but not with the frequency that anti-death penalty people would like to portray.

Anyway, I'd love to have you get back with me regading those illegal executions of child offenders. And, you cite the reference and I promise to look it up. Maybe that would change my opinion, who knows?

Come on little pup. Step back on the porch and let the big dogs play.

reply

[–] sweetasanutmoosh 17 years ago

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-children-stats-eng
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-statistics-eng
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty_International

Not sure if I agree with you on the Saddam issue either... if I was forced to change my views on the death penalty, then it would be reserved for those like him, Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin etc. However, I feel on this occasion, and perhaps it is something that perfectly underlines the argument of the original poster, that justice was not served. What did he get executed for after all? Was the trial flawed in any way? Perhaps he did deserve to die, but was justice served for all those who suffered at his terrible hand? So why was he so publicly and swiftly executed?

Anyway, I hope you find the above links interesting.

Edited to update links

"Jing Jing"

reply

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] klutzinpink 17 years ago

Um, excuse me, but I was responding to a post in which Iran was mentioned, not Iraq! Perhaps I caused you confusion because I cited the execution of Hussein in the same paragraph as my response to the post in which Iran mentioned. I certainly did not mean to imply that Hussein was from Iran. Sorry for any confusion.

Come on little pup, stay on the porch and let the big dogs play.

reply

[–] klutzinpink 17 years ago

I need to correct myself. I just looked up the Singelton case and his name was Lawrence Singleton, not Richard, and his victim's name is Mary Vincent. He was sentenced to fourteen years, of which he did eight, with six years off for good behavior!!! He ended up brutally stabbing a woman to death after that and obviously imprisoned once more, where he died. And do you know how he died? Of cancer - not the death penalty. Of natural (so to speak) causes!! Go to the website: http://crimeshots.com/VincentNightmare.html and you'll get a perfect example of the importance of the death penalty. Her story is really something. I suggest all of you opponents of the death penalty visit this site, then get back with us. If you're still against, then all I can say is, you're not as pro human rights as you claim.

Come on little pup. Step back on the porch and let the big dogs play.

reply

[–] smith2505 17 years ago

I hate the death penalty. I'll say it - it is a ceremonial killing of a human being, full of protocols that mask the deed. It is hideous to me. It is the most base instinct of a government to kill or allow killing of a defenseless person for the worst mistakes that person has made. The death penalty does nothing to curb violence, and it sends a message that killing is alright in some circumstances.

That being said, calling the death penalty an act of revenge is futile to the movement, and at every aspect of the arguement, it is wrong. The only people who are avenged are the victims of the murderer. The people who feel REVENGE is the friends and family of the murder victim, not the state, not the government, not the judges, not the prosecutor.

Let's talk about what the death penalty is, aside from its horrific nature:

The death penalty is the law of the land. People who commit murders, especially tragically cruel murders or heinous murders should have some knowledge of what the punishment for their crime is. Because the death penalty is in effect, and dealt out so rarely that it is newsworthy whenever it happens, the general population knows about it. Chances are, the murderer knew it too.

The death penalty is performed rarely. Even the busiest capital punishment states have murder rates that far outnumber the instances the death penalty is used.

The death penalty is mostly given for truly heinous murders, such as serial killings, premeditated killings involving rape or sodomy - especially of children, killings that happen in the commission of another felony - such as during a bank robbery, killing of a a uniformed or identified police officer, and we will see more death sentences handed down to terrorists in the future. Evidence taken into account when delivering the sentence of death deal with criminal history of the murderer, remorse (or lack of remorse) from the murderer, the facts and evidence of the case, etc.

The death penalty is regularly given to murderers that still pose a threat to society, even within the prison walls. Some murderers got the death penalty for killings they performed in prision. Some murderers continue to harass their victim's family from the jail cell.

It is really important to have passion against the death penalty. But don't let passion cloud your judgment or learning about the topic. Labels like "revenge killing", "state-sponsored murder", etc., only serve to motivate the ADP crowd, and antagonizing the PDP crowd. The great mass of undecideds are turned off by the extremists of both sides. Emotion-based language is transparent to the opposing side - and that side is in the majority right now. What the Anti-death penalty position needs is more clear-headed, articulate, critical thinkers who can present an arguement that does not immediately alienate the majority of the pro-death-penalty people and people who are undecided on the issue.

No matter what position you come to, try to have empathy for the views of the other side. Try to see their perspective. Think how you would feel if a loved one close to you was murdered, and the murderer was caught before you got your hands on them.

reply

[–] shadowbabe423 17 years ago

No its not about revenge. Think about the people that are on death row or have had the death penelty, why were they there? they killed someone or multiple persons. Why should they be allowed to live when they killed someone else? Also we pay for the people in prison. We pay for there food, T.V., etc. So basically if we didnt have the death penalty we are just telling those who kill people that when they do murder, they get a free ride afterwards. They dont have to pay for it. So no its not about revenge it is justice.

reply

[–] lrcdmnhd72 17 years ago

By: shadowbabe423. "So no its not about revenge it is justice."

AGREED!

reply

[–] Mr_McLaurel 17 years ago

Okay, so we should execute people because it's cheaper. God Bless America.

What's the spanish for drunken bum?

reply

[–] averagejoeman 17 years ago

Lol.. Fringomania.

I actually laughed when I read your post. It kind of reminded me of something you'd hear in a Beavis and Butthead episode... or maybe an older Mel Brook's movie.

I could see a scene with homeless people and addicts being forced to partake in a sort of gladiatorial type combat for the masses.

--
Rachel Corrie (the pancake girl) finally learned what "progressive movement" truly is.

reply