|
|
Post by laurenmaree on Oct 21, 2007 11:54:41 GMT -5
I'm not quite certain how I feel about the death penalty... I've never been exposed to either a crime 'befitting' this punishment, nor have I ever been exposed to a person who was given the death penalty. The one thing which would make me tend to 'accept' the death penalty is the VERY REAL possibility that a maniac would serve 10-20-30 years... fall through the cracks, let loose into the world... and then begin to kill others. So, if not death... then what? In my humble opinion, the only very real alternative would be to dedicate a facility for 'complete and total life terms', and 'no chance of EVER even being considered for parole'. I understand the prisons in the States are over-run, crowded, under-funded, under-staffed, and over-utilized... but this should in no way affect the heart wrenching tragedies of not only the victims of the horrendous crimes being committed... but the additional murders of others as well... Please, what do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Oct 23, 2007 17:14:13 GMT -5
I'm not quite certain how I feel about the death penalty... I've never been exposed to either a crime 'befitting' this punishment, nor have I ever been exposed to a person who was given the death penalty. The one thing which would make me tend to 'accept' the death penalty is the VERY REAL possibility that a maniac would serve 10-20-30 years... fall through the cracks, let loose into the world... and then begin to kill others. So, if not death... then what? In my humble opinion, the only very real alternative would be to dedicate a facility for 'complete and total life terms', and 'no chance of EVER even being considered for parole'. I understand the prisons in the States are over-run, crowded, under-funded, under-staffed, and over-utilized... but this should in no way affect the heart wrenching tragedies of not only the victims of the horrendous crimes being committed... but the additional murders of others as well... Please, what do you think? Without the death penalty there would be money to ensure the prisons aren't over-run, crowded, under-funded, under-staffed, and over-utilized. It's an easy thing for lazy politicians to do to get elected - support the death penalty. Only those who are involved know how completely compromised the process is and how expensive. |
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Oct 27, 2007 15:27:27 GMT -5
I'm not quite certain how I feel about the death penalty... I've never been exposed to either a crime 'befitting' this punishment, nor have I ever been exposed to a person who was given the death penalty. The one thing which would make me tend to 'accept' the death penalty is the VERY REAL possibility that a maniac would serve 10-20-30 years... fall through the cracks, let loose into the world... and then begin to kill others. So, if not death... then what? In my humble opinion, the only very real alternative would be to dedicate a facility for 'complete and total life terms', and 'no chance of EVER even being considered for parole'. I understand the prisons in the States are over-run, crowded, under-funded, under-staffed, and over-utilized... but this should in no way affect the heart wrenching tragedies of not only the victims of the horrendous crimes being committed... but the additional murders of others as well... Please, what do you think? That kind of ticks me off too when I hear about a maniac getting too light of a sentence. A rapist/child molestor getting a 10 - 15 year sentence and then being released. Then, their back on the streets and this time they kill. Those kind of guys need to KEPT in prison. Releasing them is just asking for more children/people to end up missing and killed. No one here is saying that we wish to let criminals walk free again, or get released from prison on an earlier term. That's not what being against the death penalty is about. I do think LWOP(life without parole) sentences should be given out more often in certain cases. Like in the case of the woman who kills her husband and gets a 15 month sentence, or even a 10 year sentence! Why take a life for a life? It's not necessary. And in a sense, for some criminals, executing them is the easy way out. Prison is punishment, a place of darkness in which the inmate can sit and reflect on their crimes, and think about those they have hurt, and the lives and suffering they have inflicted on others. Or to sit in an overall discusting atmosphere, getting only a shower or two a week. Life without parole would replace death sentences if the death penalty were to be abolished. I don't think those who get life sentences are more likely to walk free than those who get death sentences anyway. Those who get the death penalty still have many appeals ahead of them before their execution. So, it's more humane and logical not to take a life for a life. |
|
|
|
Post by janet on Nov 8, 2007 17:22:26 GMT -5
There really isn't a crime that befits death.
|
|
terri
Settlin' In
Posts: 45
|
Post by terri on Jan 16, 2008 17:54:14 GMT -5
In my opinion rapists and killers should get life. And I mean life, none of this bullsh*t 15 years then up for parole. Not everyone deserves a second chance. Victims don't get a second chance at life and neither should those who took it. However, I don't believe in the DP for moral reasons. I have no sympathy whatsoever for killers or rapists but I don't believe in killing people period.
|
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinpie on Jan 17, 2008 10:59:06 GMT -5
In my opinion rapists and killers should get life. And I mean life, none of this bullsh*t 15 years then up for parole. Not everyone deserves a second chance. Victims don't get a second chance at life and neither should those who took it. However, I don't believe in the DP for moral reasons. I have no sympathy whatsoever for killers or rapists but I don't believe in killing people period. Hi Terri, Nice to see you back and posting more lately! I'm with you on this one, and against the death penalty for moral reasons... but also for logical reasons too. I see no logic in it, only revenge. |
|
|
|
Post by michaelstoker78 on Jan 20, 2008 5:26:16 GMT -5
In my opinion rapists and killers should get life. And I mean life, none of this bullsh*t 15 years then up for parole. Not everyone deserves a second chance. Victims don't get a second chance at life and neither should those who took it. However, I don't believe in the DP for moral reasons. I have no sympathy whatsoever for killers or rapists but I don't believe in killing people period. That´s, I´d say, a good attitude. I think what most pros don´t want to realize, or maybe they are not capable of realizing, is that the question is not whether or not to punish murderers, but in which way. And personally I´m quite fed up with the preaching that I´ve received too often, death would be the logical and only punishment for murder. That´s what I say is bullshyt. I´m comfortable when the punishment for murder is life. I wouldn´t say from a start that it has strictly to be life without parole. But I wouldn´t fix a period of time until parole either. Life should be generally regarded as life - for adults. If someone makes extraordinary changes in prison then - who knows.. possibly there is a chance of parole after 20 or 30 years. It´s the way it works over here in Germany. And I´m sure most people are rather comfortable with it. It can´t bring the victim back - but no punishment can - and still we have a much much lower murder rate than the enthusiastically killing USA. Perhaps starting to become a less violent nation would be the first step to save possible future victims of crime over there. But it´s hard to believe that this will happen. |
|
|
|
Post by andie on Jan 20, 2008 20:28:35 GMT -5
i'm a pro but all for lwop meaning a person spends their entire life till death in prison..and even more in favour of miserable conditions and no contact with the outside world....
|
|
|
|
Post by andie on Jan 22, 2008 17:33:06 GMT -5
I'm fine with LWOP because dp or not ewither way they leave prison in a body bag. But don't start changing it so that murderers can get out on good behaviour. They have to accept their punishment and that's it. In my opinion rapists and killers should get life. And I mean life, none of this bullsh*t 15 years then up for parole. Not everyone deserves a second chance. Victims don't get a second chance at life and neither should those who took it. However, I don't believe in the DP for moral reasons. I have no sympathy whatsoever for killers or rapists but I don't believe in killing people period. That´s, I´d say, a good attitude. I think what most pros don´t want to realize, or maybe they are not capable of realizing, is that the question is not whether or not to punish murderers, but in which way. And personally I´m quite fed up with the preaching that I´ve received too often, death would be the logical and only punishment for murder. That´s what I say is bullshyt. I´m comfortable when the punishment for murder is life. I wouldn´t say from a start that it has strictly to be life without parole. But I wouldn´t fix a period of time until parole either. Life should be generally regarded as life - for adults. If someone makes extraordinary changes in prison then - who knows.. possibly there is a chance of parole after 20 or 30 years. It´s the way it works over here in Germany. And I´m sure most people are rather comfortable with it. It can´t bring the victim back - but no punishment can - and still we have a much much lower murder rate than the enthusiastically killing USA. Perhaps starting to become a less violent nation would be the first step to save possible future victims of crime over there. But it´s hard to believe that this will happen. |
|
|
|
Post by janet on Jan 23, 2008 13:19:40 GMT -5
Terri, I totally agree. The death penalty never resurrects the victim. This is why I am so vehemently opposed to victim impact statements. The introduce an element of emotion into the courts when, I feel, the arguments should be academic and based upon principles of law.
For those criminals who have committed crimes for which rehabilitation is impossible, then, LWOP is the only appropriate sentence.
Imagine if Nelson Mandala, considered a terrorist, had been executed. What a poorer world it would be.
|
|
|
|
Post by andie on Jan 23, 2008 19:16:05 GMT -5
I'm not opposed to victim impact statements. I think it gives the family a chance to tell the defendent what they took away. I feel it gives the family away to vent their anger and fustration out to the defendent: without taking the law into their own hands so to speak. Terri, I totally agree. The death penalty never resurrects the victim. This is why I am so vehemently opposed to victim impact statements. The introduce an element of emotion into the courts when, I feel, the arguments should be academic and based upon principles of law. For those criminals who have committed crimes for which rehabilitation is impossible, then, LWOP is the only appropriate sentence. Imagine if Nelson Mandala, considered a terrorist, had been executed. What a poorer world it would be. |
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Jan 23, 2008 22:08:41 GMT -5
I'm not opposed to victim impact statements. I think it gives the family a chance to tell the defendent what they took away. I feel it gives the family away to vent their anger and fustration out to the defendent: without taking the law into their own hands so to speak. Why should the killers of 'cute' people be punished more than those who kill the not so attractive? |
|
|
|
Post by janet on Jan 24, 2008 14:02:08 GMT -5
It's so true that this often happens. The killer of an attractive person oftentimes does receive harsher punishment than those of the not so attractive. Who, in any victim impact statement, would speak for the homeless, marginalized, or disenfranchised? It's really so much about 'who' is killed.
|
|
|
|
Post by andie on Jan 24, 2008 16:09:14 GMT -5
why are looks so important? Regarldess of looks they are still murder victims a family should have the right to speak on behalf of their loved one. I also hope that you guys are not implying that regardless of victim impact statements or not that a murder victim is not important because they are.
I also don't think that if someone was prettier, the person who killed them would get a harsher punishment then if it was a homeless person....regardless of socioeconomical backgrounds they deserve to have the same amount of justice.
Is it not the same for those who advocate for prisoners on dr....they claim they are innocent of the crime and bring in personal information on how this person has changed and so on and so on.
To me that is the same as a victim impact statement. The only difference is an innocent person was taken from their time.
|
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Jan 24, 2008 17:17:21 GMT -5
why are looks so important? Regarldess of looks they are still murder victims a family should have the right to speak on behalf of their loved one. I also hope that you guys are not implying that regardless of victim impact statements or not that a murder victim is not important because they are. ... But that's what happens - those without friends or relatives are given less 'justice' than others. Is that fair? |
|
