RE: Mental Health (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Kirata -> RE: Mental Health (7/19/2011 10:16:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

That is an interesting point erie, those who advocate the loudest for limiting the powers of government tend to also be the most adamant supporters of giving the government this ultimate power of life and death. There seems to be a disconnect here. This really does call for some deep thinking. Thanks.

Are there any staunch conservatives here who would like to explain how they reconcile this apparent contradiction?


I'm not a "staunch conservative" but the answer isn't difficult to find. In any democratic society, if the people decide they don't care to add insult to injury by providing free room, board, cable TV, and medical care to serial killers and rapists for the rest of their lives, then the power being exercised is the power of the people, not that of some abstract "government".

And frankly, it has always struck me as unspeakably peculiar that we have ill and needy homeless poor living on our streets, uncared for, with little to no broad public outrage, while there is never any shortage of exceedingly shrill voices ready to argue that hordes of violent criminals should unfailingly chow down on taxpayers money and sleep in warm beds.

K.



BitaTruble -> RE: Mental Health (7/19/2011 10:20:28 PM)

fr

I have to admit that I have been staunchy anti-death penalty for most if not all of my life.. which is almost a crime in and of itself being a born Texan! That said, I wavered after 9/11. In my heart of hearts, I wanted Bin Laden to pay the ultimate price for his organization of the attack on my beloved country. I wanted him dead.

That, however, was a knee-jerk reaction stemming from pure emotion. I was angry and in that moment, if I had a gun available, I very well may have pulled a trigger if given the opportunity.

I'm not proud to admit that though.

Time has tempered me and my reasons for being opposed to the death penalty remain. First, there are high crimes other than murder in which the death penalty may be brought into effect. I believe that to be repugnant. A life for a life.. I can almost buy that one. I can't deny I felt it myself regarding Bin Laden ... but a life for something other than another life, no. That I can't buy no matter how much it may pain me given the horrific acts that one human can perpetrate on another.

More so than that, though.. in the last 30 years over 120 people have been released from death row because they were innocent.

Innocent.

That's enough of a reason for me to be against it for even one person because .. what if we're wrong. That's too high a price to pay or to ask someone to pay for vengence or as some sort of deterent or revenge. We got it wrong, as jurors or as prosecutors, as policemen.. what have you. We got it wrong over 120 times and that's just the ones we know about. Those folks got released.. how many times have we been wrong .. and it was too late?




Kirata -> RE: Mental Health (7/19/2011 10:40:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

in the last 30 years over 120 people have been released from death row because they were innocent...

how many times have we been wrong .. and it was too late?

We got it wrong a helluva lot more often than that, and a lot of innocent people have died as a result, if you count the number of violent criminals released back into society who killed again. By your own logic, we should never risk letting any person who has ever killed another human being walk free.

Because how many times have we been wrong... and found out too late?

K.



HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Mental Health (7/19/2011 10:56:01 PM)

I'm afraid I just can't be as cold hearted as you about it, I find it distasteful to be considering money when deciding if people should die or not. I feel the question is too important to be determined by economic factors. For what its worth, I feel the same way about helping the destitute.

Maybe when I've been paying taxes for a while I'll see things differently. I certainly hope not, but I have to admit the possibility.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Mental Health (7/19/2011 10:59:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

quote:

Example? On my part.
Your posts fairly drip with self righteousness, you have posted several times in a manner that to me would count as foot stomping, and you have been insulting. Go back to your first post and start reading if you don't believe me.



I did. I don't believe you. I couldn't begin to compete with the insults, foot stomping and self righteousness of some of the posters on here.
Can't wait to see how Canada decides to come down on this issue. In the meantime, the next execution scheduled in this country is tomorrow. I won't lose any sleep over that.



LafayetteLady -> RE: Mental Health (7/19/2011 11:04:36 PM)

~Fast Reply~

Wow, talk about a thread hijack, lol.

All the countries being discussed here have prisons, of that we can all agree. Typically, the prisons in the US compared to those in other countries do seem like luxury hotels. I'm not going to dispute that. However, we aren't really talking about the prison system in in and of itself, are we. We are specifically debaing (more like arguing) whether the death penalty is right or wrong.

It would seem in European countires, the death penalty does not exist any longer, and we know that it exists in at least some of the state in the US. In actuality, there are still a couple of countries in Europe who do exercise the death penalty. My personal theory is that so many wars have been visibility fought there, that people have seen enough death and destruction, and chose to stop it. But that is just my theory. One thing I do know is that those countries abolishing the death penalty has absolutely nohting to do with them being "more civilized."

In either case, the death penalty exists here. It does NOT exist for Levi Aron in New York, regardless of his crimes. It should have been reinstated for Charles Manson when California reinstated the death penalty. But hey, we don't claim to be the perfect county, merely the one everyone wants to escape to. There must be a reason for that.

The law in the US is what it is. Bunch of kinksters, or right to lifers or NAMI freaks aren't going to change the law. Mostly because they go about trying to affect change wrong, but that, too is another thread.

The problem with mental illness (the lost forgotten subejct of this thread) is two fold. You have Donna Simpson, and many here are qualified to make armchair "diagnosis" as to why she is why she is.

With Levi Aron, many are doing the same thing, but so few have even a basic working knowledge of the law, that they lack the understanding how "mental Illness" in is case will make a difference.

When that knowledge doesn't exist, all you have is a bunch of people forming opinions on totally biased news articled designed to inflame your emotions, and that lack of knowledge that keeps you from understanding why it can't be tried and completed in a couple of weeks. Pure ignorance.

Again, I will watch and see how things play out. See what the defense brings forth in discovery. Anything esle is speculation.



HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Mental Health (7/19/2011 11:12:53 PM)

See, you couldn't resist getting one more dig in could you. I never said you were the worst of the offenders, merely pointed out the hypocrisy of you complaining about it. And in this post, you have quite adequately confirmed my assertions. Thank you.

Keep your wishes of luck, I don't need or want them from you. I am already very lucky, thank you very much.

You wish to define Hanners and her suitability as a partner based solely on the way she posts on an internet forum? That's perfectly alright by me, however, please keep in mind that the mere fact that you would do so, pretty much convinces me that your opinions are unworthy of consideration.




BitaTruble -> RE: Mental Health (7/19/2011 11:15:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


We got it wrong a helluva lot more often than that, and a lot of innocent people have died as a result, if you count the number of violent criminals released back into society who killed again. By your own logic, we should never risk letting any person who has ever killed another human being walk free.

Because how many times have we been wrong... and found out too late?

K.[/font][/size]


I'm not seeing any contradiction here. I have no problem with putting violent murderers in jail for life. Why in the hell should violent murderers ever be allowed to walk free?

If it later is found they were actually innocent (dna testing, new evidence or what have you), then by all means.. they should be given back their freedom and compensated to boot. That would be a bit harder to do if we had already executed them though.

I'm guess I'm just not getting your post.



Kirata -> RE: Mental Health (7/19/2011 11:22:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

I'm afraid I just can't be as cold hearted as you about it, I find it distasteful to be considering money when deciding if people should die or not.

My point was the incongruity. We consider money when it comes to aiding the innocent poor (there's never enough) but not when it comes to making sure violent convicted criminals have regular meals, medical care, and warm beds.

I'll say, however, that for the members of a society victimized by crime to be victimized again by the burden of paying for the room, board, and medical care costs of the very criminals who rape and murder them strikes me as about as bizarre a state of affairs as I've ever heard.

That's not an argument for the death penalty, mind you. But sentencing violent criminals to life of leisure at public expense makes absolutely no fucking sense.

K.



HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Mental Health (7/19/2011 11:45:36 PM)

quote:

That's not an argument for the death penalty, mind you. But sentencing violent criminals to life of leisure at public expense makes absolutely no fucking sense.
If that isn't an argument for the death penalty, I'd be interested in knowing what other option there is to sentencing them to the "life of leisure" as you put it.

And I'm afraid that doing so makes perfect sense to me.



Kirata -> RE: Mental Health (7/19/2011 11:45:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

I'm not seeing any contradiction here. I have no problem with putting violent murderers in jail for life. Why in the hell should violent murderers ever be allowed to walk free?

I agree, and this is not directed at you, but it is a common observation that the "usual suspects" who sanctimoniously rant against the death-penalty, righteously citing the possibility of making a mistake, are never seen to raise their voices over the many more mistakes we make every day by releasing violent criminals who kill again, which leaves one to wonder, don't those victims matter?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

If it later is found they were actually innocent (dna testing, new evidence or what have you), then by all means.. they should be given back their freedom and compensated to boot. That would be a bit harder to do if we had already executed them though.

I agree. The question I would raise, though, is which is more cruel and unusual a punishment, execution, or having to spend the rest of your life in a cage? It seems a legitimate question, because I have heard people say that the death penalty would be "too good" for someone.

So are we really being kinder by condemning them, all of them, to life in a cage? Or are we doing it because we want to keep them alive for our sake, "just in case," so we don't have innocent blood on our hands. And doesn't it matter that the price of our peace of mind is inflicting decades of unnecessary cruelty on all the others?

K.



BitaTruble -> RE: Mental Health (7/19/2011 11:54:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


I agree. The question I would raise, though, is which is more cruel and unusual a punishment, execution, or having to spend the rest of your life in a cage? It seems a legitimate question, because I have heard people say that the death penalty would be "too good" for someone. So are we really being kinder by condemning them, all of them, to life in a cage? Or are we doing it because we want to keep them alive for our sake, "just in case," so that we don't have innocent blood on our hands? What about the decades of unnecessary cruelty we committed against the guilty?

K.
[/font][/size]

I'm not exactly a bleeding heart liberal here, so probably the wrong person to ask.. but.. fuck em. We are talking about violent murderers here? Let 'em suffer. We are way to soft on crime and coddle prisoners with television and HBO, ping pong tables and shit like that. I'm cool with a basketball or something for exercise and some classic literature for reading material (donated, of course!) and then put the fuckers to work to earn their keep. They can make something.. produce something which helps out the general populace.. like, license plates. I think some states do that if I'm not mistaken. But, anything along those lines would be good. Things like furniture would be good or shoes.. we can probably even set up donations for materials when it comes down to it. They can make furniture for places like Habitat or women's shelters, shoes for working poor mothers, coats for kids etc.

As far as I'm concerned, this is an untapped labor force and I have no qualms at all about using them that way.. if we grow a set as a nation and just decide to do it.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Mental Health (7/19/2011 11:55:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeathe
Keep your wishes of luck, I don't need or want them from you. I am already very lucky, thank you very much.
You wish to define Hanners and her suitability as a partner based solely on the way she posts on an internet forum? That's perfectly alright by me, however, please keep in mind that the mere fact that you would do so, pretty much convinces me that your opinions are unworthy of consideration.


You are right, that was inappropriate. Which is why I edited that post almost immediately.



Kirata -> RE: Mental Health (7/19/2011 11:59:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather

quote:

That's not an argument for the death penalty, mind you. But sentencing violent criminals to life of leisure at public expense makes absolutely no fucking sense.

If that isn't an argument for the death penalty, I'd be interested in knowing what other option there is to sentencing them to the "life of leisure" as you put it.


Good question. How about we turn those exercise yards into vegetable gardens? Those who work, eat.

I think we're creative enough to figure out ways.

K.



Kirata -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 12:02:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BitaTruble

As far as I'm concerned, this is an untapped labor force and I have no qualms at all about using them that way.. if we grow a set as a nation and just decide to do it.

There's the bit of trouble I know! [:)]

K.



Iamsemisweet -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 12:07:33 AM)


[/quote]
They can make something.. produce something which helps out the general populace.. like, license plates. Things like furniture would be good or shoes.. we can probably even set up donations for materials when it comes down to it. They can make furniture for places like Habitat or women's shelters, shoes for working poor mothers, coats for kids etc.

[/quote]
They did something like this in Oregon. The inmates made jeans. Prison blues they were called and they were pretty popular. Private companies raised hell though, because they didn't think they should have to compete with what was basically slave labor, and the program was shut down.
Not that there aren't some things prisoners can't do. I have already mentioned the prison near where I live, where the inmates maintain the state forest and fight forest fires. There was talk this year of shutting that prison down because of budget constraints. Fortunately, local people recognized the value of the programs at that prison, and successfully lobbied to keep it open. There are ways to make this work.



HeatherMcLeather -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 12:38:49 AM)

I've got no trouble with that basic idea . I think prison farms are a very good idea. On another thread a suggestion was made to put all the basic upkeep duties in the hands of the inmates. I also support that idea.



WyldHrt -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 3:06:47 AM)

quote:

There's where we differ Lilly, I believe that morality is universal. Individual moral codes may differ, but if something is wrong, then it is wrong. I'm really sorry, but any other position, is to me, simply making excuses rather than facing up to the reality of what one has done. I honestly cannot comprehend how anybody could disagree with this. To do so, simply renders the entire concept of right and wrong moot and irrelevant. Good and evil cease to have any meaning whatsoever.

Where I do see plenty of room for disagreement is in determining just what is right and what is wrong. Individual moral codes can differ, but the underlying principle of the universality of right and wrong is the fundamental necessity of any such code. If you believe that an act is wrong, then you must believe that it is equally wrong for everybody, regardless of how they may view it. Without this, right and wrong merely become empty labels we apply at whim to whatever we like or dislike. Which, as I said, renders them meaningless.

I really tried to stay out of this mess, but the above is a bit much. Do you eat meat, dairy products (including eggs), or fish, Heather? Because I can point you to a very large group of people who are firmly convinced that eating or using any animal product is the same level of 'evil' as murdering a human being.

In the words of Ingrid Newkirk, "A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy". Do you agree? If not, I'm pretty sure the people who believe the above would say that you have no morals. In their world, eating a steak equals the murder of a human.

So, what makes you right and them wrong?








PeonForHer -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 3:40:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
My point was the incongruity. We consider money when it comes to aiding the innocent poor (there's never enough) but not when it comes to making sure violent convicted criminals have regular meals, medical care, and warm beds.x
K.[/font][/size]


Perhaps we should consider money more often. I've been trying to find evidence to show that the death penalty is cheaper than life imprisonment, but it seems pretty scant. On the other hand, there seem to have been quite a few studies in the USA that have shown that the opposite is true. It's cheaper to keep them in prison, even for life.

I do realise that supporters of the death penalty have a strong emotional attachment to the idea - but isn't it now time to try to be more coolly reasonable about the issue? That is - to do what's best for society - not to mention the economy - rather than what feels most emotionally satisfying in the short term?



Kirata -> RE: Mental Health (7/20/2011 4:59:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Perhaps we should consider money more often... It's cheaper to keep them in prison, even for life.

I do realise that supporters of the death penalty have a strong emotional attachment to the idea - but isn't it now time to try to be more coolly reasonable about the issue? That is - to do what's best for society - not to mention the economy - rather than what feels most emotionally satisfying in the short term?

It is condescending, at best, to characterize supporters of capital punishment as people with a "strong emotional attachment" to an idea that is merely "emotionally satisfying in the short term," as if it was a view devoid of reason or sufficient consideration.

There are a lot of innocent people in graves who wouldn't be if the felon who killed them had been executed the first time he murdered someone. Every single one of them is a reason. To prefer the option of incarceration to execution, even at the price of the innocent lives that are lost when violent felons are released and kill again, does not strike me as a position with any claim to the moral high ground.

The only solution I can see that would provide society with the same assurance that execution affords is mandatory life sentences without parole. But locking a human being up in a cage for the rest of his life is not a solution with much claim to the moral high ground either.

Especially if we're doing it because "it's cheaper."

K.



Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125