|
Post by judywaits4u on Dec 1, 2005 13:49:44 GMT -5
Rain, Disrepecting the people who get murdered by the State is not acceptable here. You can ask Tracey if you wish to. All those stupid smileys just make you look like a silly child.
|
|
sdl
New Arrival
Posts: 0
|
Post by sdl on Dec 1, 2005 21:41:55 GMT -5
So where are your other pals like Phillips The Skinhead and Blakeley..no they are too scared to be here... To sdl and to whom it may concern! Please choose from below one of the following response! A ) I refuse to burden blakely and josephdphillips with any "inappropriate utterances". B ) Blakely and josephdphillips refuse to dignify such inappropriate utterances with a response. to quote the Cadbury Easter Bunny... Bk Bk Bk...BKAAAWK!
|
|
|
Post by sclcookie on Dec 3, 2005 8:55:20 GMT -5
Here are some interesting numbers. I counted the best I could with the information available on the TDCJ site the no. of inmates received on Texas Death Row these random years (I don't guarentee accuracy, so if anyone has any better numbers, please post them and the source). 1976= 38 1980 = 25 1985= 38 1990 = 27 1993 = 35 1995= 42 1999= 46 2000 = 29 2002= 35 2003 = 27 2004= 24 The following information can be found here: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/* During 1993, 282 prisoners under a sentence of death were received by State prison systems from the courts. Forty-eight women were under a sentence of death in 1998, up from 35 in 1990. ยท Fifty-one women were under sentence of death in 2001, up from 36 in 1991 At the same time, last year was the fourth straight year in which death row admissions dropped -- 304 were admitted in 1998, 282 in 1999, 232 in 2000 and 163 in 2001. During 2002, 159 persons received a death sentence, the lowest number since 1973, when 44 persons were put on death row. During 2004, 125 inmates entered prison with death sentences, which was the lowest number since 44 were admitted in 1973. This was the second year in which death row admissions dropped --169 were admitted in 2002 and 152 in 2003. This is from a 2004 report and of the violent offenders, the number of murderers is specified in the press release: According to previously published reports, the increasing number of violent offenders accounted for 63 percent of the total growth among state inmates from 1995 to 2001 (the most recent available data). State sentencing reforms increased admissions to prison (from 522,000 in 1995 to 615,400 in 2002) and increased average time served in prison (from 23 months in 1995 to 30 months in 2001). The percentage of surveyed inmates in state prisons sentenced for various crimes in 1986 and 1991 were as follow: 1991 1986 Violent offenses ............... 47% 55% Murder..................... 11 11
|
|
|
Post by judywaits4u on Dec 3, 2005 10:18:52 GMT -5
It is obvious to any normal person that the death penalty does not deter murderers. What the death penalty does do however is to glorify violence, which leads to more violence. When the impressionable mind sees what many murderers do, they are not thinking "Oh James is going to be executed", they are more likely to think "If only I had that power over life and death".
America cannot get enough violence, now that American Wrestling has been shown up to pure theatre, the Americans had to invent something called "Cage Rage" so they could see some real blood and guts violence. It would not be so bad if they kept it to themselves but they are now intent on infecting the rest of the world with this filth.
Many Americans do not see capital punishment simply as a punishment, they see that the State says that life has little or no value. If the State does not value life, then why should we.
America will always be a violent country until it gives up its guns. Certain Americans will tell you that "Guns don't kill, people kill". If people did not have guns so readily available, then most of those people would not kill. I do not know how many myself but how many people in the 20th Century in America were killed from being shot by a woman? I can tell you for sure that Ailleen Wuornos alone killed more than the total for the United Kingom because it is a fact that the only woman that ever used a gun to kill here in the 20th century was Ruth Ellis and personally I believe that was not anyway. The law here was actually changed after she was hanged because even the people who make our laws did not think she was guilty of murder.
If you want to stop murder, then stop being violent as a nation.
Love and hugs, Judy
|
|
|
Post by judywaits4u on Dec 3, 2005 14:11:28 GMT -5
"It is obvious to any normal person that the death penalty does not deter murderers." Try to look at deterrence as it applies to the one specific murderer executed. We can guarntee that person will never again kill another. "America will always be a violent country until it gives up its guns." Who ya gonna call the next time the Krauts get frisky, Judy? ;D I think if you look we in the UK have the best Army in the world but we do not have people roaming the streets with guns. My grand father loved America....Not He was a Colonel in the last war and he used to describe the American effort during WWII as "America our friends, the late bast@rds". America only came into WWII after you were attacked by the Japs at Pearl Harbour.
|
|
|
Post by skyloom on Dec 3, 2005 17:21:08 GMT -5
Try to look at deterrence as it applies to the one specific murderer executed. We can guarntee that person will never again kill another. Is that the best you can do? Because you're only playing catch-up. You need to think about how to stop people from murdering in the first place. As it is, for every one that you execute, ten more spring up to fill his/her shoes. Here's a question for you... does Texas have so many executions because so many people in Texas are out murdering their fellow Texans, or are so many Texans out murdering because Texas has capital punishment? Oh, when will you guys quit that nonsense? The Germans were already well on their way to losing when the U.S. came into the war with some fresh troops to help the exhausted Allied troops that had been fighting for years before... and the U.S. wouldn't have helped the Allies at all if not for the fact that Hitler declared war on the U.S. Sure, we would have fought the Japanese in the Pacific, which would have helped take the pressure off the Russians especially, but Hitler? There were too many wealthy businessmen who stood to lose their investments in Germany (like the Ford, the Rockefeller, and the Bush businessmen) for the U.S. to go in against Germany until it really had no choice. Even then, our GIs were captured and kept in concentration camps and slave labor camps until they dropped dead working for the German businesses in which these U.S. families had heavily invested... until our government threatened them hard enough to make them stop. If the Germans had won, heaven forbid, it would have been with the help of some of the wealthiest families in the U.S. whose investments helped to keep German industry going, even while our own servicemen were dying. The British only have to worry about what will happen if the Yanks get frisky. Why do you think Tony Blair is giving the Chimpster oral sex these days?
|
|
|
Post by judywaits4u on Dec 3, 2005 17:49:43 GMT -5
"I think if you look we in the UK have the best Army in the world..." Find a new crack house? Remember Dunkirk? Singapore? "but we do not have people roaming the streets with guns." We've been fond of them ever since we used them to run you Brits out. You must admit that your stupidity is on a par with GWB. He said "Since the ban on assualt weapons, gun crime had reduced by about 90%, therefore I am going to lift the ban on the sale of assault weapons to private citizens"!!!!!!! Brains or what? ?? Or what?
|
|
|
Post by judywaits4u on Dec 3, 2005 18:42:05 GMT -5
"Is that the best you can do?" Facts confuse you, don't they? "Oh, when will you guys quit that nonsense? The Germans were already well on their way to losing when the U.S. came into the war with some fresh troops to help the exhausted Allied troops that had been fighting for years before..." Oh, RIGHT! Guess who said this in a famous speech? "We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, THE NEW WORLD, WITH ALL IT'S POWER AND MIGHT, STEPS FORTH TO THE RESCUE AND THE LIBERATION OF THE OLD." I'll give ya a hint: he was half American. Lucky for you guys. We cannot help if Churchill had false faith in the American Government. Good job for us that Germany were never able to occupy mainland Britain as we would end with a Nazi Government and American firms getting all the contracts for the reconstruction. What you forget is that Churchill was making that speech on the basis that the American's would not come to help us until we were occupied by the Germans. If my mother was alive she could tell you about German occupation.
|
|
|
Post by kathy on Dec 3, 2005 23:21:36 GMT -5
Anna, I have read Amy's story many times. I am very thankful that her Murderer was caught. I am just as thankful that he spent the rest of his life in Prison and was not executed. I think your anger is a bit mis placed. Why are you not angry with the people who kept putting him back out on the street? These people knew what he was and yet they kept releasing him to molest and murder more children. Had this man been locked up in the beginning and kept that way there would not have been all those victims. Don't get me wrong, I do not condone what this man did. But I see that he was a very sick man. The things he wrote in his journal were a cry for help. What difference does it make if they spend their lives in prison? By locking this man up how many children were saved? Would killing him have prevented what happened? Would it have brought Amy back to her parents? No it would not have. You have stated that the Prisoners on DR have more than adequate medical attention. Other than the Pro Board, where are the facts for this. Yes they are suppose to have it but if you would do some reading you would hear from the prisoners themselves. They get very minimal medical treatment. You said you did not understand an Antis triumph when a DR Inmate was not executed. Well gee Anna, I suppose it is the same triumph that you feel when they are! And Anna........Just because you start a thread doesn't mean you own it!
|
|
sdl
New Arrival
Posts: 0
|
Post by sdl on Dec 4, 2005 1:51:07 GMT -5
So where are your other pals like Phillips The Skinhead and Blakeley..no they are too scared to be here... To sdl and to whom it may concern! Please choose from below one of the following response! A ) I refuse to burden blakely and josephdphillips with any "inappropriate utterances". B ) Blakely and josephdphillips refuse to dignify such inappropriate utterances with a response. Let's see..Blakely has just called me a racist... (link deleted by Suzanne)
|
|
|
Post by judywaits4u on Dec 4, 2005 3:16:12 GMT -5
To sdl and to whom it may concern! Please choose from below one of the following response! A ) I refuse to burden blakely and josephdphillips with any "inappropriate utterances". B ) Blakely and josephdphillips refuse to dignify such inappropriate utterances with a response. Let's see..Blakely has just called me a racist... (link deleted by Suzanne) He cannot help it, the Gnat asked for its brain cell back.
|
|
|
Post by judywaits4u on Dec 4, 2005 3:17:11 GMT -5
Dear Anna, Did you know that in most states people on death row have to pay for medical care?
Love and hugs, Judy
|
|
|
Post by judywaits4u on Dec 4, 2005 12:00:05 GMT -5
Do you really believe that the number of paedophiles is less because some states because they have these law? No what it does is to encouurage them to murder more often in the hope that they will not get caught.
|
|
|
Post by distel on Dec 4, 2005 13:35:26 GMT -5
Is this conclusion not a little premature? This is a debate wether or not DP deters murder, this sounds to me like it is already proven that it does, and additionally, you're calling "having no DP" = "experimenting with human lives". This sounds quite exaggerated to me.
Let me rephrase it: You are saying that keeping a killer in prison without killing the killer is the same as experimenting with human lives, with lives of people outside prison who have nothing to do with that individual detained killer. You mean that not killing the killer is an acute and actual danger to everyone's lives. This is just very very hard to understand, it doesn't make sense to me. This very killer is inside prison walls and can not harm anyone outside.
So this is where the deterrence factor comes in. If you wish to maintain that point - that the Supreme Court did experiment with human lives - you will have to prove that the DP significantly deters murder. But I would suggest that you don't do this on some internet discussion board with some stats picked up here and there, contradicting other stats picked up somewhere else, and you don't do it just as a hobby - why not do it in a full time job, get some university to pay for your study and if you succeed, present this to officials in Non-DP states, maybe they will reinstate the DP then.
It is so hard to understand why anti-DP-people are often accused as if they were just murdering innocent people themselves, or at least not caring about innocent people being murdered. And this is so very hard to understand because the deterring effect of the DP is far from proven. If it was proven, why would people have to post some stats on online discussion boards, why is it not scientifically researched and published and discussed and explained by the media and in schools?
;D
This topic could be actually two topics. 1st topic is: Does DP deter murder? 2nd topic is: If it would, would you support DP?
The second question makes me think about deterrence in general and how it can legitimize certain forms of treatment of human beings. For example, if total surveillance would deter crimes, would you support total surveillance? If torturing people would deter certain crimes, would you support torture? Would you support a state like George Orwells "1984" state, if this could save the lives of people who are not getting in conflict with the law?
The problem is that you are wheighing lives, the life of a killer is worth nothing in your eyes. And this is - in my eyes - not justice, but barbaric. If we would follow this viewpoint very consequently, there would be nothing wrong with torture and other medieval forms of bringing "justice" and saving the community from "evil".
Humanitarian philosophy is not just a luxury but the core of a belief system, which abolished legal torture, which forbids disabled people to be "disposed of" like the Nazis did, which led to the writing down of the declaration of human rights and to the constitution of the USA and other countries. It's not a luxury of "naive liberals".
Many countries and states have found a way to funcion without the DP. Murder is still committed in states with the DP and without DP. But - as the deterring effect of DP remains to be proven - many countries have proven that abolishing the DP is a "humanitarian luxury" humanity can afford and still live in peace together.
I personally do think that many other factors play a very much more important role in influencing crime statistics than the existence of DP or not. Having DP or not is just a very very small variable in the whole calculation, for a lot of reasons, some being: - DP can't be significantly more deterring than lifelong imprisonment, because it's far from nice to be in prison for the rest of your life. - There is little or no connection between people who are going to be executed and people who are maybe able to commit a capital crime, many other circumstances and things are closer to them. - The Chance of being caught and charged with crime is maybe the most deterring factor, because if you commit capital murder and are not caught, you are not punished at all. Has anyone thought about the deterring factor of being caught because of DNA analysis and other evolved methods yet?
If the effect of DP is so small that it can't even be proven that it deters murder, even some types of murder, why not just say: Ok abolishing it is a humanitarian action, which will make the whole place better?
Another question: If it is true, and there are also stats saying so, that rich people with very good attourneys don't get the DP, why are rich people not running around mass-murdering in a significantly higher proportion than poor people?
?
Distel
|
|
|
Post by judywaits4u on Dec 4, 2005 14:03:25 GMT -5
I think that if you have lived as long as I have you will that the pattern of murder is more closely linked to the economy than to the presence of capital punishment.
The reason why rich people do not go around committing mass murder is because they have no need to, if you are rich enough you can get anything that your heart desires by legal or illegal means.
If you at the death rows in America they are by and large filled with poor, illiterate, mentally ill, minority race people and not many that do not fit into one of those catagories.
Like impact statements in penalty phases, you also have people telling the court about the convict and if you are rich you do not have to have friends, just be able to pay enough people to talk up for you in court and you will get spared from the death chambers.
Love and hugs, Judy
|
|