|
Post by mcdude on Sept 20, 2008 8:42:57 GMT -5
people can be honest whatever their religious beliefs. As a Christian married to an agnostic, I know that there are good and bad people whatever their ideas are. I even know someone who was a racist and belonged to the BNP but was a really nice guy in spite of that. I spent a year working on him till I converted him to decent attitudes to people of other ethnic groups. I suppose I've got a vested interest in anit-racism being a gypsy myself Hello bigLinda, Interesting you use the phrase 'gypsy' Do you not subscribe to the view that gypsy is an unflattering term? Just curious, I find the traveller culture fascinating. Are you Romany gypsy or Irish? Or something else. I think you are correct in your view though. I personally would find it hard however to equate state condoned murder as being in line with forgiveness preached by Jesus, but thats just my interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by biglinmarshall on Sept 20, 2008 15:44:41 GMT -5
Hello McDude
Well, of course I don't call myself a gypsy any more than Cosa Nostra call themselves Mafia! It's just a shorthand term that people know.
I'm what's known as a posh-rat (halfbreed) with a Roma mother and an Ulster gadje father.
I also married a gadje and my kids are thus even more diluted.
People are people and I have friends and foes among both gadjes and my fellow-Roma.
I am teaching my kids Romanes and as much of the culture, history, legends, songs, stories and poems as I can.
On the specific question of the death penalty, like I said in my intro, I'm an extremely reluctant pro. Temperamentally I'm anti-authority, anti-cop, anti-judges, and anti-establishment in general which ought to make me an anti.
I used to be anti till my dear friend was raped and murdered when I was 15 years old. I am still friends with her parents. THEY have received a life sentence of their own; thankfully they had another child to ease the pain a tiny amount.
I can forgive people most things but to me cruelty is the worst of all things. I find that almost impossible to forgive.
I can only speak from the heart; I say what I mean and I mean what I say.
To me, executing brutal murderers is a necessary evil at times.
What good does it do allowing the likes of Richard Ramirez and Christa Pike to go on breathing the same air as other people?
On the other hand, most murderers are NOT like that which is why I OPPOSE the execution of the MAJORITY of murderers.
I'm what's disrespectfully known by extreme pros as a 'wowie.'
I would like to take exception to the loaded language of your last sentence. Execution is NOT murder.
Murder is what happened to my friend.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 21, 2008 1:13:48 GMT -5
To me, executing brutal murderers is a necessary evil at times. What good does it do allowing the likes of Richard Ramirez and Christa Pike to go on breathing the same air as other people? The death penalty is the most arbitrary punishment, driven by race, poverty and mental competence, not by the quality of the crime. The Green River killer, the BTK killer, Charles Manson and so many more truly horrid avoid it - while others receive it, many provably while innocent. "People who are well represented at trial do not get the death penalty." -Ruth Bader Ginsburg "Imposition of the death penalty is arbitrary and capricious. Decision of who will live and who will die for his crime turns less on the nature of the offense and the incorrigibility of the offender and more on inappropriate and indefensible considerations: the political and personal inclinations of prosecutors; the defendant's wealth, race and intellect; the race and economic status of the victim; the quality of the defendant's counsel; and the resources allocated to defense lawyers." -Gerald Heaney, former appellate judge www.antideathpenalty.org/quotes.htmlThe US is simply not, and never has been, in a position where it can and will apply the penalty fairly.
|
|
|
Post by mcdude on Sept 21, 2008 6:08:01 GMT -5
Hello McDude Well, of course I don't call myself a gypsy any more than Cosa Nostra call themselves Mafia! It's just a shorthand term that people know. I'm what's known as a posh-rat (halfbreed) with a Roma mother and an Ulster gadje father. I also married a gadje and my kids are thus even more diluted. People are people and I have friends and foes among both gadjes and my fellow-Roma. I am teaching my kids Romanes and as much of the culture, history, legends, songs, stories and poems as I can. On the specific question of the death penalty, like I said in my intro, I'm an extremely reluctant pro. Temperamentally I'm anti-authority, anti-cop, anti-judges, and anti-establishment in general which ought to make me an anti. I used to be anti till my dear friend was raped and murdered when I was 15 years old. I am still friends with her parents. THEY have received a life sentence of their own; thankfully they had another child to ease the pain a tiny amount. I can forgive people most things but to me cruelty is the worst of all things. I find that almost impossible to forgive. I can only speak from the heart; I say what I mean and I mean what I say. To me, executing brutal murderers is a necessary evil at times. What good does it do allowing the likes of Richard Ramirez and Christa Pike to go on breathing the same air as other people? On the other hand, most murderers are NOT like that which is why I OPPOSE the execution of the MAJORITY of murderers. I'm what's disrespectfully known by extreme pros as a 'wowie.' I would like to take exception to the loaded language of your last sentence. Execution is NOT murder. Murder is what happened to my friend. hanks for the history . I hope as I get to know you I will also learn more of your culture. I agree with much of what you say, however I must also take exception to a few things. Execution IS murder, it still makes victims of families and hands out the 'life sentences' you spek of. I guess we are just looking at things from different perspectives. Crista Pike's mother, since you use her as an example, is not culpabale and will be made a victim too, unless you subscribe to the view of some extreme pros that her parents made her a killer, however i get the impression you are too intelligent for such easy answers. I would also like to draw your attention to the excellent point made by happyhaddock above. Great to meet you, I anticipate we will be good cyber buddies, but buddies who argue plenty.
|
|
|
Post by biglinmarshall on Sept 21, 2008 10:40:28 GMT -5
I am married to an anti and am a former anti myself. I certainly don't take the simplistic view that many pros do. On the other hand, I don't take the simplistic view that many antis do either.
Happy haddock is simply using emotive language to try to make the executioner as guilty as the murderer. That's like putting the hangman at Nuremberg on the same level as the Nazi war criminals.
Not only is it WRONG, I find it personally offensive.
For what it's worth, I do NOT regard all intentional killing as murder NOR do I believe that the MAJORITY of murderers should be executed.
I'll tell you a story about my uncle. At the tender age of 5 his father, mother, sister and elder brother were rounded up and murdered in Auschwitz by the Nazis because they were Roma. They managed to smuggle him - the baby of the family - out of Poland and eventually to safety in Andorra.
During the course of their great escape his protectors had to kill two Germans and a Vichy French cop who would have betrayed them to the Nazis.
I DON'T regard what they did as being MURDER. I'm divided between calling it self-defence and justified homicide.
If Georg Elser had succeeded in assassinating Hitler in 1939, instead of simply killing some minor Nazis, the history of the world would have been infinitely better.
I'm quite prepared to DEFEND both assassination and vigilante justice in certain cases.
I also think that it's an insult to people like my uncle to regard either what his protectors did or what was done at Nuremberg as MURDER.
MURDER is what the Nazis did.
What happened at Nuremberg was a partial JUSTICE for the victims.
I am well aware that even murderers have families and that they too become victims. One of the saddest aspects of life is that sometimes it's necessary to kill other people. Whether it's war, self-defence, execution or whatever, it's a very sad but sometimes unavoidable act.
You don't know me well enough yet to make assumptions about me but I have signed hundreds of petitions, am a strong supporter of Amnesty International, Liberty and the Howard League for Penal Reform, regularly visit prisons and try to help people make something of their lives.
I do NOT treat prisoners with contempt or hatred; I know that, as the saying goes, 'there but for the grace of God go I.'
For what it's worth I've TWICE nearly killed another human being. In the first instance it was under circumstances where both of us were required to attack each other and in the second it was self-defence against three guys who were trying to rape me.
You will soon discover that I do NOT fit into any of the comfortable stereotypical boxes.
I'm not right-wing, I support prisoners' rights and alternatives to prison wherever possible, and the qualities I value most in other people are compassion, sincerity, fair-mindedness and tolerance.
Watch this space - people who try to fit me in boxes soon discover their labels don't define me!
|
|
|
Post by mcdude on Sept 21, 2008 10:54:06 GMT -5
What a terrible story. I too would not label your uncle.
As for murder, he had no choice, we do have a choice when we have a person in prison. The weakness in your argument is that yes in war/ defense we may have to kill, when apprehending a murderer we may have to, but not when they are caught. What possible good could it do?
you are obviously a person who very quickly gives lots of information on yourself. Beware not to presume others haven't been through the same, only are less willing to talk about it publicly .
I would also read HH's post again, thats not the point being made.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 21, 2008 13:26:43 GMT -5
... Happy haddock is simply using emotive language to try to make the executioner as guilty as the murderer. That's like putting the hangman at Nuremberg on the same level as the Nazi war criminals. ... That hangman himself said that the death penalty was of no use: BRITAIN’S last official Chief Hangman was convinced capital punishment didn’t prevent a single murder.
Albert Pierrepoint executed more than 400 people in a 25-year career.
But Mr Pierrepoint, who died in 1992 aged 87, said: “Executions solve nothing and are only an antiquated relic of a primitive desire for revenge.
“If death were a deterrent, I might be expected to know. I’ve looked into the eyes of men and women in their final moments.
“I can’t say the death penalty acted as a deterrent for any of them.
“All the men and women whom I have faced at that final moment convince me that in what I have done I have not prevented a single murder.”
And I note that the manner of death for all of the executed is notated as 'homicide'.
|
|
|
Post by biglinmarshall on Sept 21, 2008 14:47:19 GMT -5
What a terrible story. I too would not label your uncle. As for murder, he had no choice, we do have a choice when we have a person in prison. The weakness in your argument is that yes in war/ defense we may have to kill, when apprehending a murderer we may have to, but not when they are caught. What possible good could it do? you are obviously a person who very quickly gives lots of information on yourself. Beware not to presume others haven't been through the same, only are less willing to talk about it publicly . I would also read HH's post again, thats not the point being made. I don't actually give nearly as much as I used to because some people have used things against me as a result. That's why I haven't gone into detail about the first time I nearly killed someone else. Of course we have a choice. My own point of view, especially as someone who lost a dear friend to murder when I was only 15, is that the RIGHT choice in around 10% of cases is to EXECUTE. Morally speaking, it's dishonest to pretend that the actions of a public executioner are on the same level as the actions of the Nazis, Ramirez, Sutcliffe, Pike, Allitt, or ... the list could go on. When you look at the appalling murders people committed, AND the fact that the parents of my friend are STILL suffering A LIFE SENTENCE imposed on them by a heartless murderer, how can it NOT be right to execute them? I wouldn't hurt them in any way; I'd give them BETTER treatment than they already get in prison, to be honest. At the end of the day with the likes of people like that I'd still be willing to hoist the rope myself. (I'm a traditionalist - I favour hanging which is the most humane method of execution.)
|
|
|
Post by biglinmarshall on Sept 21, 2008 15:01:27 GMT -5
... Happy haddock is simply using emotive language to try to make the executioner as guilty as the murderer. That's like putting the hangman at Nuremberg on the same level as the Nazi war criminals. ... That hangman himself said that the death penalty was of no use: BRITAIN’S last official Chief Hangman was convinced capital punishment didn’t prevent a single murder.
Albert Pierrepoint executed more than 400 people in a 25-year career.
But Mr Pierrepoint, who died in 1992 aged 87, said: “Executions solve nothing and are only an antiquated relic of a primitive desire for revenge.
“If death were a deterrent, I might be expected to know. I’ve looked into the eyes of men and women in their final moments.
“I can’t say the death penalty acted as a deterrent for any of them.
“All the men and women whom I have faced at that final moment convince me that in what I have done I have not prevented a single murder.”
And I note that the manner of death for all of the executed is notated as 'homicide'. Happy haddock, I am married to an anti. I have heard lots of people on both sides of the fence and at the end of the day one thing you have to understand is that people make their own moral decisions based on how things seem to their conscience. I HATE the mindless moronic pros who virtually masturbate online at the thought of an execution; I HATE the mindless moronic antis who post hateful messages to the families of murder victims. (I'm not making that up, I've seen them myself.) I am NOT in favour of mandatory sentencing for murder, and I am as opposed to the 'sizzle circus' antis who favour mandatory life whatever the circumstances as I am to the 'fry circus' pros who want to execute whatever the circumstances. When you speak from the heart you can upset people. I do hope I won't do that but I am a passionate person and I do have a temper which has got me into trouble more than once. There just isn't any moral equivalence between the act of removing a murderer like Hoess or Ramirez from the world and between the actions they took to destroy other human lives. I really do feel that antis who use that argument are being, consciously or unconsciously, dishonest. For what it's worth I DON'T think the death penalty is a deterrent except possibly in a tiny handful of cases; I DON'T favour its use for any crime other than premeditated murder; I DON'T favour its use even then for the MAJORITY of murders. Anyone can throw about words like 'arbitrary' and 'racist' when it comes to the death penalty. On the strict criteria of racism, it's undoubtedly true that more non-whites than whites get given a capital sentence but it's equally true that more whites than non-whites actually get executed. Where there really IS a big divide is on the question of sexism. If they were men the likes of Christa Pike, Michelle Tharp and Antoinette Frank would have been executed long ago. As a strong feminist, I find it pathetic and insulting that women who commit murder get treated with kid gloves by the male chauvinist establishment. It simply is NOT the case that 'all murders are equal.' The murder of a child, or the horrific torture-slayings, or the crimes of a serial killer, or murder for the most despicable of all motives - money - are obviously WORSE than the majority of murders which are interfamily crimes and where in the overwhelming majority of cases it would be WRONG to execute the murderer. In life, we are always faced with complex moral decisions which we have to react to on an individual basis. That's not being arbitrary; it's showing moral judgement and behaving like an individual with human feelings rather than some mindless robot. It's always EASIER to argue for mandatory sentencing but just because it's the soft option doesn't make it the RIGHT one.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 21, 2008 19:07:18 GMT -5
The selection of those who are executed owes more to politics and public opinion than to the quality of the crime. As Albert Pierrepoint said, "No one wants everyone hung. But no one can agree on who should be hung." And by doing this, we are making murderers of the prison guards - not a good idea.
I'd be slightly less opposed if they let the family carry out the execution. However in that case, those with no friends get a lesser amount of revenge.
Except for terrorists and war criminals, it is better avoided.
|
|
|
Post by biglinmarshall on Sept 22, 2008 8:06:07 GMT -5
Like I said, haddock, you're confusing 'morally complex' with 'arbitrary.'
The overwhelming majority of people would agree about which murderers are worst and that's the bottom line.
Pierrepoint is also wrong in that the 'fry circus' pros DO want everyone executed - in the same way that the 'sizzle circus' antis DO want everyone serving mandatory LWOP.
BOTH attitudes are indefensible.
|
|
|
Post by mcdude on Sept 22, 2008 10:07:23 GMT -5
Linda,
I know exactly what you mean, such people have no real interest in crime and punishment, only in the drama of the Death penalty. Both for different reasons, but both equally as disturbing. There are also on many of these sites, posters who claim to fall into neither category and yet the sub text of their posts clearly reveal that they do. Murder is not entertainment, something to be indulged in for sport by the media circus and bored housewives/househusbands. There are sites out there that virtually salivate at the prospect that a death could be a murder, some overtly, sub much more covertly, but the voyeurism is there none the less. Personally I will not join such boards or buy such publications.
the question you ask is a big one, how indeed can it not be right? My argument is that while it may appeal to every aspect of our psyche that wishes for vengeance, it IS still wrong.
Let me elaborate....
You say...
Both points I agree with you on. therefore, if the DP does not deter others, which it is madness to claim that it does and you don't see the point in executing for ALL murders, why bother to make victims (lets argue about the equality of the victims later ie is the mother of a killer as much as victim of the mother of a murdered child) of the killers family. What does it achieve? It certainly doesn't save money. It doesn't deter. So why then put them to death when they can be easily controlled in Prison?
Perhaps not, but two things can both be unpalatable, even if one is more unpalatable. I am just not seeing what society gains by executing Ramirez. If LWOP really means LWOP what do we get out of it?
I also have an issue with the mental competence of some of the 'worst of the worst' offenders. I once exchanged letters with one such individual. She was, in my professional opinion, seriously mentally ill. She needs confining and keeping from the public, but should we kill the sick? She exhibited such symptoms before she was a killer and everyone thought she should be protected and treated, then she kills and everyone wants her dead. What is the answer there, I certainly don't have the answer, but nor do i see execution as a solution.
Thanks for your posts, they raise big questions which is what this thread and this board really need.
You are passionate and that is to your credit, your arguments are not water tight (nor are mine) but again this is to your credit as you argue from the heart, not from some 'retribution by numbers' package deal that I read so often elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 22, 2008 11:42:51 GMT -5
Like I said, haddock, you're confusing 'morally complex' with 'arbitrary.' There is no confusion in MY mind. Only a tiny percentage of those who 'deserve' death will receive it. Far too many who do not will also be sentenced. The process is hopelessly polluted with prejudice and cannot be justified. The overwhelming majority of people would agree about which murderers are worst and that's the bottom line. No, it isn't. Almost all agree that Scott Peterson should be executed. Many want to see his parents killed as well. However he is clearly innocent, so your 'method' fails miserably as a determinant. Pierrepoint is also wrong in that the 'fry circus' pros DO want everyone executed He is right and you are wrong. Republican 'enemies' were punished severely for minor crimes - Scooter Libby walked free for a grave crime. Wrong reasons are endemic in all of these processes. in the same way that the 'sizzle circus' antis DO want everyone serving mandatory LWOP. BOTH attitudes are indefensible. No, we don't. I want appropriate punishment, that which protects. The public's desire for revenge is no more worthy of validation than the public's desire to see humans eaten by lions.
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 22, 2008 11:56:17 GMT -5
... I also have an issue with the mental competence of some of the 'worst of the worst' offenders. I once exchanged letters with one such individual. She was, in my professional opinion, seriously mentally ill. She needs confining and keeping from the public, but should we kill the sick? She exhibited such symptoms before she was a killer and everyone thought she should be protected and treated, then she kills and everyone wants her dead. ... I agree. If an employee of a manufacturer of a product is aware that, due to a defect, it will kill a certain number of victims per year but decides it is cheaper to pay compensation than to fix the product, rather than facing sentence he will often receive a bonus. Isn't he more guilty than some demented dweller of the lowest reaches of society? More deserving of death? Study this case, the Sampoong Department Store collapse and ask yourself who should face death? Summary: 501 people died and 937 sustained injuries.
Trial: Lee Joon, the chairman, was charged for negligence and received a prison sentence of ten and a half years. His son, Lee Han-Sang, the store's president, faced seven years for the same charge. City officials dispatched to oversee the construction of the building were also found to have been bribed into concealing the illegal changes and poor construction of the building. As a result, the participating officials, including a former chief administrator of the Seocho-gu district, were also jailed for their part. Other parties sentenced included a number of Sampoong Department Store executives and the building company responsible for completing the building.No one was executed.
|
|
|
Post by biglinmarshall on Sept 23, 2008 6:47:39 GMT -5
Dear Haddock
In the first place I'd like to make it clear that I'm NOT some kind of missionary trying to convert people to my own point of view.
On the other hand, I do get annoyed when people - and you've been guilty of this in your reply to me - can't tell the difference between a FACT and an OPINION. It is, for instance, a FACT that the US and Japan have the death penalty on their statutes; it is an OPINION whether or not that is a good or bad thing.
Too many people, on BOTH sides of the fence, seem completely unable to tell the difference between facts and opinions.
I'm lucky enough to have married a middle-class man who is a philosopher. Sometimes he helps me out with my arguments even though he's an anti himself.
I'll try to simplify some basic points. To start with, you can't PROVE the truth of a moral statement, and NO ethical judgement CAN, even in principle, be true or false. It can be defended by rational or empirical arguments but it CAN'T be proved true or false like you can with a factual statement.
For example, let's assume the temperature is 88 Fahrenheit, 31 Celsius. Two people could both agree about the temperature and yet one calls it hot and the other not. Moral judgements are like that.
If morality was OBJECTIVE, like science or other things you can prove the truth or falseness of, then only lunatics would ever disagree and we'd look on them like flat earth believers or at best colour blind people.
To say that the death penalty is morally right or wrong is obviously NOT a statement of the same type, any more than claiming Bach is a greater composer than Handel.
Nor can it be LOGICALLY demonstrated that it's true or false. If all French males are Europeans it does NOT follow either that all French are male or that all Europeans are French.
Because moral judgements can't, even in principle, be shown to be true or false, all we can do is follow the voice of our consciences and speak from the heart.
MY heart tells me that life is sacred and that murder is a violation of the most fundamental of all human rights and that therefore murderers deserve to die. Other people's hearts tell them that to execute a murderer is an equal violation of the same right to life.
Whether I, my husband Mike, Albert Pierrepoint or anyone else expresses our view on the subject, we are ALL simply expressing our own feelings and it remains IMPOSSIBLE, even in principle, to prove that what ANY of us is saying is the TRUTH.
You claim that Pierrepoint was 'right' but actually he was only expressing his own opinion.
There was NO truth or falsehood in what he said.
|
|