Your tax dollars at work

[Lyion]

Brigham Young would be proud.

I expect his massive cash reserve to start funding the political process for polygamy soon.
Which he will win, because Steve is the man.

[Diekan]

ROFL

Hey Ganzo, did you know that you and I are KKK members because we support the death penalty?

Good God Vonk you're one the sharpest people on the board. I KNOW you're smarter than this. I am failing to see the line you're drawing between Ganzo, me and the KKK because we happen to support the death penalty.

So, tell us "how" we're affiliated with the Klan because we want criminals dead. ><

The hard core liberals have so muddied the waters of cruel and unusual punishment that many of you just don't know what an acceptable treatment of a prisoner is anymore.

So let's say we discard the death penalty all together and decide to impose harsher punishments on violent offenders. Let's say we take away their cable TV, reduce their medical “benefits” to allowing them nothing more than the very basic of treatment (meaning NO heart transplants at the tax payers expense), take away their basketball courts, take away their weight rooms, take away their conjugal visits, refuse them the right to pursue a college education while incarcerated (because THAT is paid with YOUR tax dollars)... let's say we do all these things... what do you think would happen? I'll tell you what would happen. The same people who are screaming and kicking for an end to the death penalty would be once again raising holy hell about the mistreatment of prisoners.

It's simple really. You see here me an ma klan brothas dont ritely keer if dat dare def penalty makes people tink twice bout committing dem crimes. We want da sons a bitches killed anyhow.

YOU make the bed you sleep in. YOU KNOW right from wrong. If YOU decide to forcibly rape a woman, kill someone, molest a child... YOU deserve to die. YOU made the choice... it wasn't something born out of a bad childhood, you are not a product of your society. You're just an animal that preys upon the innocent. We have ways of dealing with rabid animals. We kill them.

[Gidan]

So let's say we discard the death penalty all together and decide to impose harsher punishments on violent offenders. Let's say we take away their cable TV, reduce their medical “benefits” to allowing them nothing more than the very basic of treatment (meaning NO heart transplants at the tax payers expense), take away their basketball courts, take away their weight rooms, take away their conjugal visits, refuse them the right to pursue a college education while incarcerated (because THAT is paid with YOUR tax dollars)... let's say we do all these things...

To a large extect that works for me. There are some things that cost next to nothing as far as tax dollars go like basketball and weight lifting. But things like huge medical expenses and college education shoudl be removed. The only education that should be available to inmates is that they should be able to receive their GED.

The worst most violent criminals, they should be in the worst prisons. Have no visitors, have no TV, no recreation time. They should have their cell, food, restrooms, bathing, basic medial attention for common illnesses and books. Nothing more. These are lifers, they will never get out, they will never get anything beter. They will spend the rest of their lives thinking about what they had done and reading books.

The least threatening prisoners with the lowest violations should be in much beter conditions. They should be able to work in those facillities, they should receive compensation for that work in the form of medial benefits, recreations benefits and possible education benefits. The money for this would come from the money your not paying people to do those jobs. Your in a sence paying the prisoners for the work they do with benefits in their prison. This also helps when they do get released, they have held a job, they are in decent medical condition, they may have some education to help them. They will have ther opertunity to become good members of society.

As well as a range in between those of course. There will never be a time where everyone will agree on things like this, you will get cruel and unusual punishment people against this, you will get death penalty people against this. However in my opinion its the way to handly our prison system.

[vonkaar]

Dude, chill out... It's a analogy, not a serious "omg, diekan is a klan member" quip. It falls in line with the 'kill em all' bit... which ya'll seem to be all over.

Stop confusing the issue here... we aren't talking about mistreatment of prisoners or any other whiney liberals vs godly conservative issues... it's a simple 'ethics of the death penalty' debate. Your very last paragraph completely summarizes your whole barbaric stance on things. Murdering a prisoner because he murdered someone does not bring the first victim back. It very rarely brings closure or comfort to the victims family. It costs much more. It's highly culturally and racially biased. We kill children when the rest of the world finds it appalling. We kill the mentally handicapped - people who don't even understand that they are being killed - while the rest of the world looks on in disgust. The current judicial system consistently convicts the innocent. Despite all of this, your solution is to kill more - and quicker. You would deny people their constitutional right to due process, because of an ACCUSED crime.

Your 'solution' is sickening. Cruel and unusual, indeed.

[Lyion]

We kill the mentally handicapped - people who don't even understand that they are being killed - while the rest of the world looks on in disgust. .

Hey, I just realized Diekan fully supports the 'W' judicial and execution system in Texas. Ironic given his dislike for our President, that his philosophy on things is so inline with GW's.

What you want exists, Diek. It is Texas! :texas:

[Ganzo]

I am sick barbarian.

I do not care that killing a rapist/murderer, etc. will not bring victim back.

I do not care that killing a rapist/murderer, etc. costs more than keeping him comfortably housed for rest of his life.

I do not care if convict understands that we are killing him for comiting crime.

I do not care if rest of world looks at us as barbarians.

I do not care if killing convict will not stop others from comiting same crime.

I do not care if Vonkaar thinks i'm KKK founding father.

All i do care about is seeing murderer, rapist, drug dealer, terrorist, etc. is put down, like any animal that became a danger to society. There is no reforming them so why keep them alive.

Now you can go on hatin me

[Lyion]

Vonkaar is just is on the opposite side of the fence and uses abrasive methods of setting up his point. He does the same thing to me when we are on the opposite side of issues <which is quite often>

To see how close our views really are, compare this to what your view is:

All i do care about is seeing murderer, rapist, drug dealer, terrorist, etc. is put away, like any animal that became a danger to society. There is no reforming them so keep them in jail for life

We all want the same things, but we just have variations based on our belief of what is morally right or wrong. Given your background, Ganzo, you of all people should be able to respect variations of peoples beliefs, and understand that the end does not justify the means.

[Ganzo]

Given your background, Ganzo, you of all people should be able to respect variations of peoples beliefs, and understand that the end does not justify the means.

Ahh but when did i say you were not entitled to your opinion on this issue. We disagree on this but it does not mean that i do not respect your opinion.

[vonkaar]

I am sick barbarian.

So long as we are clear .

[Ganzo]

I am sick barbarian.

So long as we are clear .

I used to be gnome

[Narrock]

Vonkaar thinks with his heart. That's not a bad thing... it's just rather short-sighted.

[Yamori]

Do you people honestly think the judicial system should exist for your (or anyone's) emotional appeasement?

Is there any other operation of government that you could apply this same deranged reasoning to?

You're letting your emotions cloud your judgement folks.

[xaoshaen]

Murdering a prisoner because he murdered someone does not bring the first victim back.

Neither does imprisonment. Perhaps we should just let murders roam our streets, because punishment won't bring their victims back.

It very rarely brings closure or comfort to the victims family.

This is also entirely irrelevant. If the death penalty doesn't bring closure, than neither does imprisonment.

It costs much more.

It doesn't have to, in a properly implemented system.

It's highly culturally and racially biased.

It doesn't have to be, in a properly implemented system.

We kill children when the rest of the world finds it appalling. We kill the mentally handicapped - people who don't even understand that they are being killed - while the rest of the world looks on in disgust.

Fortunately, we're not governed by the rest of the world.

The current judicial system consistently convicts the innocent.

Prove this, or is it simply rhetoric?

Despite all of this, your solution is to kill more - and quicker. You would deny people their constitutional right to due process, because of an ACCUSED crime.

Nobody is advocating the termination of due process, or of killing accused people... just convicted people.

[Lyion]

Murdering a prisoner because he murdered someone does not bring the first victim back.

Neither does imprisonment. Perhaps we should just let murders roam our streets, because punishment won't bring their victims back.

except if the government makes a mistake, life imprisonment allows us the ability to give that person part of their life back. Execution does not.

It very rarely brings closure or comfort to the victims family.

This is also entirely irrelevant. If the death penalty doesn't bring closure, than neither does imprisonment.

So it comes down to personal morals and appropriate punishment. For those of us who do not agree with Capital Punishment the answer is simple. Logically speaking Life Imprisonment or the Death penalty enacts a similar toll

It costs much more.

It doesn't have to, in a properly implemented system.

The only way to lessen the cost is to lessen the appeals process, and that would give less dilligence to a system that already has admitted mistakes.

It's highly culturally and racially biased.

It doesn't have to be, in a properly implemented system.

Again thats moreso the difference between reality and fantasy. The system right now is racially biased and will remain so with our current lawset.

We kill children when the rest of the world finds it appalling. We kill the mentally handicapped - people who don't even understand that they are being killed - while the rest of the world looks on in disgust.

Fortunately, we're not governed by the rest of the world.

But we are accountable to our own goals of the spread of freedom and democracy. Nothing is less Democratic and Free than putting to death innocent people.

The current judicial system consistently convicts the innocent.

Prove this, or is it simply rhetoric?

You can find links like this all over the place, and many more that are not uncovered. The nature of our judicial system puts away many who are circumstantially convicted and not guilty.

Despite all of this, your solution is to kill more - and quicker. You would deny people their constitutional right to due process, because of an ACCUSED crime.

Nobody is advocating the termination of due process, or of killing accused people... just convicted people.

Except we've already established that our system has many, many flaws. Some are still convicted who are innocent, and your goal of streamlining and lessening costs needs to have those costs removed from somewhere. Where is it?

While we still have wrongly convicted people, the death penalty is not wise. Even if our system was flawless some of us are morally opposed to this, and view it as cruel and unusual punishment.

[xaoshaen]

except if the government makes a mistake, life imprisonment allows us the ability to give that person part of their life back. Execution does not.

Which is entirely irrelevant to Vonk's argument that I was refuting.

So it comes down to personal morals and appropriate punishment. For those of us who do not agree with Capital Punishment the answer is simple. Logically speaking Life Imprisonment or the Death penalty enacts a similar toll

Which is entirely irrelevant to Vonk's argument that I was refuting.

The only way to lessen the cost is to lessen the appeals process, and that would give less dilligence to a system that already has admitted mistakes.

Not entirely true. Right now the appeals process is slow and bloated.

Again thats moreso the difference between reality and fantasy. The system right now is racially biased and will remain so with our current lawset.

We're talking about fundamentally changing the system as it is. In the case of the Death Penalty system I advocated, bias doesn't come into play in the sentencing. You'll notice that every time this discussion comes up I advocate a death penalty used consistently and equitably.

But we are accountable to our own goals of the spread of freedom and democracy. Nothing is less Democratic and Free than putting to death innocent people.

Which is entirely irrelevant to Vonk's argument that I was refuting.

You can find links like this all over the place, and many more that are not uncovered. The nature of our judicial system puts away many who are circumstantially convicted and not guilty.

Actually, our judicial system is incredibly biased towards the defendant. It's much more likely that a guilty person goes free than that an innocent is convicted. The fact of the matter is that innocents are not routinely or consistently convicted.

Except we've already established that our system has many, many flaws. Some are still convicted who are innocent, and your goal of streamlining and lessening costs needs to have those costs removed from somewhere. Where is it?

Which is entirely irrelevant to Vonk's argument that I was refuting.

While we still have wrongly convicted people, the death penalty is not wise. Even if our system was flawless some of us are morally opposed to this, and view it as cruel and unusual punishment.

The wisdom of the death penalty is not dependant upon a faultless conviction rate, but on the deterrence value saving more innocent lives than the system takes.

[Lyion]

I was discussing your points, not Vonks.

[Eziekial]

We need to work on the entire judicial system before we can address the death penalty issue.

[Gidan]

How can you give your views on something, and then when somone challages then, come back and say its irrelivent because you were arguing somone elses views? Are those your views on this only when arguing with Vonk, or is that really how you feel. If its really how you feel about the subject then they are very relivent. If you dont really beleive in them, what is the point in posting, is it just for the sake of arguing with Vonk?

[vonkaar]

Which is entirely irrelevant to Vonk's argument that I was refuting.

Are you fucking serious? That's some of the weakest shit CA has had since Leadaira's Christian reign of terror.

Lyion answered almost precisely as I would have.

How would it have made any difference coming from me? We are morally opposed to the death penalty - I listed some of the reasons why we feel this way.

[10sun]

Seriously, I am all for raising the general public's average IQ. Lets kill everybody with an IQ below 90.

-Adam

[Ironfang]

There are a few issues that are quite substantial missing from this arguement.

Up front, I am, and will remain in favour of the death penalty for those who have proven that they are hopelessly non-redeemable and are going to be a giant drain on our pocketbooks. This, for example, includes Charles Manson, Paul Bernardo and the many other sick fucks who have killed numerous people, show no remorse (because they do not have the emotions of a normal person), and who will never be let out of jail.

I also think these truly sick types should be shot in the head and have their corpses burned to remove their stain from humanity.

The issue that has not been raised above by the pro-death camp, nor by the anti-death camp, is that a large percentage of the people that have committed terrible crimes against others (rape, murder) do not have the same mental wiring as a normal person. They do not feel guilt for what they do, or if they feel guilt, it does not make the change their actions. As a result, they are very likely with our current system to be repeat offenders, either before they are caught, or after they fool the system and get back out on the streets again.

The second type of person that is a real risk is the large percentage of very poor desperate people that have nothing to lose. This group, typically urban ghetto dwellers and black or hispanic, get out of jail for some relatively minor offense and cannot get a life. They are hardened, tough men who are treated like shit and and bitter and angry at both life and society. As a result they are likely to go out and kill/rob to get what they feel they need and/or are owed.

This type of person might not have been like this before they committed the first crime, but the prison system, and the numbers of hard asses in jail have turned them into a repeat offender.

The current prison system is really screwed up. It is heavily black and hispanic. Made up of generally poor city kids who have nothing, and contains far too many people who should not be in jail if society would get off this shit of making minor drug possession/usage illegal. This is a lot like prohibition all over, society in general has said yes, and the government and the older, white majority, have said NO. It is a waste of time and resources that should be used for a more productive purpose than sending so many to jail.

Hard drugs should be banned and criminals given huge sentences. Soft drugs should be made legal and taxed like tobacco and liquor.

Really nasty violent criminals should be destroyed, they are a menace and cannot be rehabilitated. How you determine who is in this type of treatment has to be determined, but if they cannot get out of jail ever, why pay to keep them alive?

The biggest problem that any of these arguements on the death penalty have is that the fight is not as much over whether someone should live, but rather what make someone enough of a "non-human" such that they are a danger to everyone. If we could figure out who these people are, and if they have committed the crime(s), would even a liberal really think that there is a use to keeping them alive rotting in a jail somewhere?

[Ironfang]

The other point that all prisoners should be treated as "slaves" and made to work went away with the liberals. For some reason it was determined that it is unfair to make prisoners in jail have to work. Instead they said let them do nothing.

That was one of the worst moves in history. My uncle had a very good friend who was a prison warden in Canada who said that when this changed he "lost" a large percentage of the younger offenders as they did not work any more. This lack of work led down the path of the inability to build up a personal pride in what they could accomplish, even making license plates or gardening, cost more money as the prisoners had more soul destroying time on their hands, and kept them bitter instead of trying to act like they had a chance to rehab themselves before they tried to make it in the real world.

If they made prisoners have to do things like work, doing whatever a normal manual labour job they could get, I personally think that at least some of these criminals would be far better off. Think about how much of crime is committed by people who refuse to obey anybody else in anything? If these people are made to understand, in no uncertain terms, that they HAVE to work, they might begin to understand how to at least act closer to what the average person has to deal with on a daily basis for their entire lives.

There always is someone who will tell you what to do. If you live acting like there is nobody who is in charge of you, you begin to think that you make all the rules. If you think that, it is a small step to committing a crime because you refuse to accept societys rules that are typically enforced in a court of law.

[Tossica]

Ohhhh... those damn liberals again.

[xaoshaen]

I was discussing your points, not Vonks.

My points existed solely in the context of Vonk's posts. I was refuting some of Vonk's logic, not formulating my own. Furthermore, you didn't actually address what I said, simply stated your viewpoint and pretended that I said something that contradicted it.

Vonk says that the Death Penalty won't bring back victims and thus shouldn't be used. I point out that by that logic, imprisonment shouldn't be used, since it won't bring back victims either. Lyion jumps in with the corrective argument which is utterly tangential to the point at hand.

[xaoshaen]

How can you give your views on something, and then when somone challages then, come back and say its irrelivent because you were arguing somone elses views? Are those your views on this only when arguing with Vonk, or is that really how you feel. If its really how you feel about the subject then they are very relivent. If you dont really beleive in them, what is the point in posting, is it just for the sake of arguing with Vonk?

Because I didn't give my views on anything. I pointed out the gaping rents in Vonk's logic. Furthermore, Lyion didn't actually challenge what I said, he just posted his own views regardless of whether they were relevant to the point at hand. That's how I can describe them as irrelevant... because they were.