stella40
Posts: 417
Joined: 1/11/2006
From: London, UK
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NeedToUseYou
Hey, get rid of the death penalty, give them a choice(I did in my last post already state this), and make them pay there way in jail by working. I have no problem with that. But I still maintain a standard of 100% certainty does not bar anything from being applied, it certainly doesn't apply in any other court cases. You might argue it should, but in reality it doesn't.
Okay, so I'm with you on getting rid of the death penalty, but I strongly disagree with giving any convicted criminal any sort of choice outside of that of their response to the crimes they committed and their attitudes towards reform and to society.
Here I give my own disclaimer. I have never been to nor lived in the United States (this will change shortly) and my views here are of someone who is external to the States, but someone open and aware of American society and culture who has American friends.
I think a word here needs to be mentioned, and it is a word which is often misunderstood and abused, but one which is very relevant to this debate, and the word is freedom.
Freedom in the United States is very precious largely due to the fact that it has come after many years of oppression and many years of struggle and fighting.
I am writing this posting in mid-June 2007, not long before July 4 2007, the 231st anniversary of American Independence. Americans will no doubt celebrate this day, celebrate their independence and their freedom, but the reality is for most Americans by and large their freedom is relative to their position in society, for many freedom is more of an illusion than the truth and most will be celebrating being subject to some form of oppression.
Many years have passed since slavery and segregation, but can we say that black people in the United States are truly free? Is it not the case that they still face a certain degree of oppression for the colour of their skin, but also face oppression within their own community and from people of the same skin colour?
And what of white people and people of other races? Are they free of all oppression? Have women truly managed to achieve equality with men? And what of gays and lesbians? Are they free? And do gays and lesbians really enjoy the same equality of their heterosexual brothers and sisters? And what about poor people? Working people? And what of political correctness? Was this truly meant to make people all equal? Or is it just another form of oppression?
Personally I find that we (meaning we in the Western world) are all people for whom freedom by and large is relative to our circumstances and quite often illusory. And this has been the case for many years ever since the values of the free market, of profit, of competitiveness and of prosperity became the core values of our society. We are all in some ways oppressed, by the government, by the media, by the large multinational corporations, by religion, by banks, often by our employers and by all those bodies and organisations which make up The Establishment.
We have been led to believe we have freedom, we have freedom of choice, and even that we have some say over where our taxes are spent. But why not sit down, try to work it out and do the math? Sit down and work out how much you pay in taxes from your 'competitive salary', then work out roughly how many of your population works, then try and work out how much they pay in tax and and try to add it all up. Then try and work out everything which receives public funding - prisons, healthcare, the military, the war in Iraq, education, roads, transport, sewage, etc and you will quickly realise that amongst all these billions and billions of dollars your tax dollars and those of other people don't quite add up to much.
It's a myth, like the myth that there must be something wrong with people on welfare. It's the centuries old trick, divide and rule - and the division is very clear today - the 'profitable' working class with their perceived disposable income - with the 'unprofitable' others, people on welfare, sick people, disabled people, people in prison, etc and so on. The Establishment prefers the more 'profitable' working people with their disposable incomes and 'happy consumer' attitudes because they are the ones spending the dollars and keeping the economy ticking over and moving. But to keep them working and 'happy consumers' the Establishment with the help of the media must show that it is socially unacceptable to be 'unprofitable' - hence the many stories of the illegal aliens, the lazy bums on welfare playing the system, etc.
Nobody wants to be socially unacceptable. But is being employed the only way to a disposable income and social acceptance? No. There is an alternative. Crime. And this is where the death penalty isn't a deterrent, because many of the prisoners on Death Row are people who have killed others either to gain social acceptance (e.g. to be part of a gang) or for financial or material gain - robberies, burglaries, muggings, or to gain the money from a life insurance policy.
But please don't take my word for it, just visit www.deathpenaltyinfo.org, find the individual websites for each state's department of corrections and go and read through the thousands of listings of crimes committed by prisoners serving time on Death Row. Pick any state from California to Florida - they are all there.
These are all people who have by and large abused the freedoms and rights given to them in society, the right to bear arms, etc. The death penalty isn't a deterrent, because each and every one of them has some sort of defense strategy, they face a two stage trial. We hear about those others who are genuinely innocent who have been released from Death Row, or executed, but do we ever hear about those who have committed capital crimes but got off with a life sentence? Surely these people must exist too?
Not every Death Row prisoner can be characterized by the description I have given above, there are many who I feel should not be on Death Row, but there is a significant proportion of those who fit my description.
I disagree with NeedToUseYou's assertion that a 'small loss' of life is necessary. The death of anyone, no matter whether it is a child, or a brutal sadistic killer has the same value, it is the loss of life. End of.
I also disagree with NeedToUseYou's assertion that there must be some degree of doubt. The death penalty is a special case. Nobody has to be executed. No state prosecutor is forced or obliged to seek the death penalty, it is a matter of choice. And where there is doubt that sentence of death is the right and just sentence it should never be sought.
I am against the death penalty because I believe in justice. I believe that we are all equal in the eyes of the law, and that the law is to be applied fairly in all cases irrespective of who is standing in the dock. Justice is served in my opinion when we punish that person for the crime they committed, and not for the person they are. Hence the value of life of a murderer and the murderer's family is equal to the value of the life of the victim or victims and their families.
I also believe that justice goes hand in hand with freedom. However I disagree here with NeedToUseYou's assertion that a prisoner be given a choice, especially in such a matter as grave as a murder. I strongly believe that someone who has committed a crime - any crime - forfeits any such freedom or choice, and should be subject only to the choice of a jury or a judge.
However where I do agree with NeedToUseYou, and where I agree with him most strongly, is that the criminal must be made to pay for the crime, and pay heavily. While I am anti-death penalty I am also strongly critical of the current criminal justice system, of sentencing and penalties imposed for most crimes. I feel that the majority of crimes are dealt with far too leniently.
I feel that we have the technology to look at other ways of punishing non-violent offenders in ways other than imprisonment, perhaps with greater financial penalties or community work or labour programs. I also feel that lesser violent criminals could be placed in hard labour camps or gulags, and the places in prisons vacated by such measures could be used for longer sentences and LWOP.
I also believe in expanding the role of impact for certain offences - of expanding LWOP for serial rapists, child abusers and paedophiles and to have them devoting their sentences to working to compensate the victims of their crimes, and in specific cases exposing them to face to face meetings with the victims and victims families as a possible deterrent.
In the case of the United States I also feel that looking at the causes of crime more closely would help, and would ask whether Americans really do need the constitutional right to bear arms, and perhaps whether the imposition of gun control would help to reduce violent crime.
< Message edited by stella40 -- 6/14/2007 5:59:39 PM >
_____________________________
I try to take one day at a time, but several days come and attack me at once. (Jennifer Unlimited)
If you can't be a good example then you'll just have to be a horrible warning.
|
RE: Studes Say Death Penalty Deters Crime - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread