This story shows why we need to expand death penalty

[craigfarmer]

Here is a story of a 91 year old woman who was raped

The punishment given was too lenient.

We shouldn't accept that our culture will continue to define deviancy downwards. We can and should wage a valiant struggle to save the best country ever created.

As a newliberal democrat, I believe the activists in our party should focus more on preventing crime, and assisting those already victimized, rather than dwelling on those convicted of these terrible acts. We should always be a voice in favor of an accurate criminal justice system, but we need to ensure a clear message to the guilty.

The politicians should stop supporting the current system as a defensive measure, and do what's right:

The death penalty should be made fair and effective. Part of this includes applying Capital Punisment to ALL 1st degree murders, RAPES, and other heinous crimes. We need to drastically expand the use of executions to state what we value, and to reduce crime.

Most people are rational and can be deterred from criminal behavior. If the punishment is severe, swift, and consistent, we can change future behavior.

As democrats we should recognize we can improve healthcare, education, and pursue other goals better and easier within a safer society, where so many resources aren't used in law enforcement.



Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again!

 

[Willoughby]

We need to drastically expand the use of executions to state what we value, and to reduce crime.

no it doesn't reduce crime

why don't the US get what nearly all other democracies recongnise...the death penalty doesn't work and most democracies have scapped it..why doesn't the US

 

[cherokee]

Here is a story of a 91 year old woman who was raped!

Call me a violent person BUT...
The person who raped the 91 lady and any other person who think they can prey on the innocent (like rape and murder) should never be allowed to keep on living.

When got out of the military I thought I wanted to be a cop. While I was working my AS degree in Criminal Justice I started doing the Rider Programs. I had ridden several times with my cousin who was a deputy.
The last time I went out it was about ½ way thru his shift when he was called to a residence for double D. (Domestic Disturbance.). A man answered the door about drunk off his a$$ with blood on the front of his shirt and short pants. At the same time as my cousin asked the man to come outside two other units arrived. We could hear someone crying so the man was asked if a deputy could go inside. A few moments later you could hear the panic in the deputies voice as he called out over the radio for an ambulance NOW!
The man started to run away when my cousin tagged his a$$ to the ground. Cuffed him and put him inside the car.

I wasn’t allowed to enter the house but I could see the faces on the deputies. I thought maybe he had tried to kill someone.
When the paramedics brought out the 9 year old boy who this man just raped my eyes swelled up with tears. Followed by the most hateful, sadistic feeling I have ever felt.
I wanted to kill this man, I wanted to rip out his throat with my own teeth.

My cousin saw how this affected and made me ride to the jailhouse with another deputy.
After he was booked I asked my cousin “How do you do it?” I told him that at the house I all I thought about was how to kill this person.
I knew I didn’t have what it takes to be a good cop because I would have shot him while he was in the back of the car...

Anyways the man was convicted and received 15 years. He was out in 6 years.
Was justice served?

 

[Willoughby]

wanted to kill this man, I wanted to rip out his throat with my own teeth

.
should justice be doled out on the basis of revenge?

 

[cherokee]

.
should justice be doled out on the basis of revenge?

Should a person who takes anothers life away, by murder or rape be aloowed to live?
Maybe kill or rape again?..hmm?

Its not about revenge its about taking a sick SOB out of this world so they can never do it again.

 

[Willoughby]

Should a person who takes anothers life away, by murder or rape be aloowed to live?
Maybe kill or rape again?..hmm?

Its not about revenge its about taking a sick SOB out of this world so they can never do it again.

oh come on..from your post it looks to be entirely revenge. Lock the man up for the rest of his life but there is no need for killing him

 

[cherokee]

oh come on..from your post it looks to be entirely revenge. Lock the man up for the rest of his life but there is no need for killing him

ok buddy whatever you say....:roll:

By the way how did you feel about Ted Bundy?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I would support adding rape to the list of capital crimes, in some cases.

This would easily be one of them.

 

[Willoughby]

By the way how did you feel about Ted Bundy?

not a very nice man but i strongly feel that it should never had been killed

 

[craigfarmer]

oh come on..from your post it looks to be entirely revenge. Lock the man up for the rest of his life but there is no need for killing him

One purpose of capital punishment is retribution, but the main one for me is to send a message to society that we won't tolerate certain behavior. This makes a better, safer world for all of us.

The idea that we reserve the D.P. for the most horrendous murders today is ridiculous because they are often committed by people who don't and won't ever care about themselves or anything else. For them the D.P. is simply punishment and the safety that they won't be around to do it again.

But we also have a class of people who knowingly commit horrible crimes including "regular" murder without the fear of the punishment. They don't fear jail, but their behavior shows they want to live.

We can persuade the person who wants the life insurance policy of a loved one, or a person in a "road rage" incident, a bank robber who hasn't yet hurt anyone to stop short of violent behavior if they are certain there is a swift, and certain D.P. coming to them.
Esp. with crimes that clearly show risk/benefit analysis, where the perp. carefully plans and chooses the victim. If we severly increase the "cost" of such an act, people will choose it much less often.

This may take a Constitutional Amendment to both expand the applicable crimes and to get rid of the technical appeals.

 

[Willoughby]

This makes a better, safer world for all of us.

don't the facts stack up in the other direction. The death penalty doesn't work! If you really want to make the US a safer place you would get rid of all the guns>

 

[craigfarmer]

don't the facts stack up in the other direction. The death penalty doesn't work! If you really want to make the US a safer place you would get rid of all the guns>

First of all, I support strict gun-control. Even if that means a Const. Amendment because of some bizaare interpretation of the Const. by many today.

If we can regulate car seats, cigarettes, vitamins, swimming pools, etc. We should regulate the most dangerous product on earth. I would support registering each gun just like a car. I would ban many if not most people from ownership, and I would hold people accountable for what happens to their weapon. I would hold gun-stores accountable for the ultimate user of the purchased weapon if it can be known.

I support strict enforcement of gun-laws so that criminals wouldn't carry them around so wantonly.

We wouldn't let people own chemical weapons, (I hope) because they are so dangerous. Well , guns have proven to be just so likewise.

But we also could use a strong Death Penalty:

here's why the DP doesn't work in reducing crime today:


1. It is "limited" in every state to 1st degree murder WITH special circumstances. There is NO STATE in the union where regular "murder" results in the DP. the special circumstances include multiple killings, involved in other felonies, killing police etc.

Out of the tens of thousands of murders each year, only hundreds are subjected to the DP.


This means we tolerate killing, and reserve the DP for the truly depraved who often can't be reasoned with by definition. In fact we need to increase the penalty on "regular murders" because normal people would stop before they acted.


2. There are so many appeals that a sentence can't be carried out within 10 years or so if the person is willing to file them. This eliminates the most important feature of SWIFTNESS to punishment. The deterrence is rendered moot when you're asking a person to think 10-15 years from now he MAY be executed, if he does this really bad thing today.



3. There aren't any pro D.P. forces that effectively work in favor of the D.P. They only surface in "the worst cases". Whereas the anti- D.P. work year round on any case. This leads to political pressure not to impose it, and to give the benefit of the doubts to the convicted. Which leads to a lessening of the D.P. effectiveness.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

So, you want to expand the role of the death penalty, abolish due process, and disarm law-abiding citizens?

Don't suppose you could spot us a few bucks so we could finish building these crematoriums, could you?

I don't have any objections to the death penalty, but due process is necessary for proper oversight of our criminal justice system, and an armed citizenry is our only protection from overzealous government.

 

[Willoughby]

an armed citizenry is our only protection from overzealous government.

well thats bollocks for a start. Lots of countries in the world don't have an armed citizenry, why does the US need it?. maybe its because you are afraid of the idiots you keep on voting itno office

 

[talloulou]

The death penalty is barbaric. There is a way to deal with monsters without becomming one.

 

[talloulou]

If you really want to make the US a safer place you would get rid of all the guns>

Good heavens NO! That's crazy talk.

 

[talloulou]

I support strict enforcement of gun-laws so that criminals wouldn't carry them around so wantonly.

Criminals by definition don't obey laws:mrgreen:

 

[Willoughby]

Three things would help solve crime problems in the US:

1 Stop the free circulation of guns. Strict gun control

2 Scrap the death penalty

3 after a period of years start to reduce the numbers of cops with guns

 

[cherokee]

craigfarmer]First of all, I support strict gun-control. Even if that means a Const. Amendment because of some bizaare interpretation of the Const. by many today.

We do have strict gun control.
Bizaare interpretation? whatever...:roll:

If we can regulate car seats, cigarettes, vitamins, swimming pools, etc. We should regulate the most dangerous product on earth. I would support registering each gun just like a car. I would ban many if not most people from ownership, and I would hold people accountable for what happens to their weapon. I would hold gun-stores accountable for the ultimate user of the purchased weapon if it can be known.

So by your thinking Car makers should be held accountable..

I support strict enforcement of gun-laws so that criminals wouldn't carry them around so wantonly.

Sorry buddy but WE DO! You make it sound like everyone is packing on their hips. Do you know what it takes to get a CC permit?

We wouldn't let people own chemical weapons, (I hope) because they are so dangerous. Well , guns have proven to be just so likewise.

So are knives, cars, baseball bats, and doctors.

But we also could use a strong Death Penalty:

yes

here's why the DP doesn't work in reducing crime today:
1. It is "limited" in every state to 1st degree murder WITH special circumstances. There is NO STATE in the union where regular "murder" results in the DP. the special circumstances include multiple killings, involved in other felonies, killing police etc.
Out of the tens of thousands of murders each year, only hundreds are subjected to the DP.
This means we tolerate killing, and reserve the DP for the truly depraved who often can't be reasoned with by definition. In fact we need to increase the penalty on "regular murders" because normal people would stop before they acted.
2. There are so many appeals that a sentence can't be carried out within 10 years or so if the person is willing to file them. This eliminates the most important feature of SWIFTNESS to punishment. The deterrence is rendered moot when you're asking a person to think 10-15 years from now he MAY be executed, if he does this really bad thing today.
3. There aren't any pro D.P. forces that effectively work in favor of the D.P. They only surface in "the worst cases". Whereas the anti- D.P. work year round on any case. This leads to political pressure not to impose it, and to give the benefit of the doubts to the convicted. Which leads to a lessening of the D.P. effectiveness.

This is by state . Rape and Murder someone in someone in Florida and see what you get. 1st degree murder is all you need here...
A jury decides if they are guilty or not and a jury can recommend the DP.

 

[cherokee]

Criminals by definition don't obey laws:mrgreen:

:rofl :rofl :rofl


I dont think it will matter to them..lol...
Maybe they can write a Criminal code of Conduct for our Criminals..lol

 

[craigfarmer]

Criminals by definition don't obey laws:mrgreen:

First of all, Criminals obey many if not most laws. A criminal is a person who is breaking ONE (or more) law(s) not every law. That they follow a few or most laws show that most are rational and can be reasoned with.

Second,We all make decisions based on our expectations of the outcome. Most people who commit crimes don't view themselves as "criminals". In fact, they follow most laws. Yet, they "choose" to break one or some laws at one point. If we increase the "cost" of certain crimes, we will decrease their existence.

This simple economic principle works in all aspects of life.

If the jail term (cost) for carrying an illegal gun was, let's say, life in prison without parole. There would be less criminals carrying guns. That is not debatable.

You need to remember most people (criminals) who carry illegal guns, don't use them daily, weekly, or regularly. So many of them wouldn't risk paying such a high price, if they were convinced of vigorous enforcement.

Right now, the penalties in many jurisdictions are at most something like:

5 years with an illegal weapon
10 years if used in a crime

etc.

If there is no prior record, or no violent incident, then they are eligible for parole and other programs to shorten their time.
There are thousands who don't feel that is a deterrent. I know this because they keep carrying illegal guns.


The people who would carry a gun under the threat of life in prison are determined to do other things that would get them there anyway. The result would dramatically lower the crime rate.

This same thinking works with the D.P., many so called rage killings aren't so.
People can control themselves when the choices are clear.

Our Criminal Justice system, especially the D.P. needs rational changes.

 

[Willoughby]

We do have strict gun control.

just as....

 

[craigfarmer]

quote:

1st degree murder is all you need here...
A jury decides if they are guilty or not and a jury can recommend the DP.

In fact according to

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=10&did=144



you are right that 1st degree murder is a "death eligible crime' in some states technically, but the facts show otherwise:


Between 1979 and 2005 only 60 people have been executed in florida.
As of 3/6/2006 only 366 are on death row in florida .

This is in a state where the avg. numbers of murders EACH YEAR during this period has been over 1,000 per year. That would be over 26,000 murders( not all 1st degree).


People who say the DP doesn't deter are right, but it hasn't been given a chance.

 

[talloulou]

The people who would carry a gun under the threat of life in prison are determined to do other things that would get them there anyway. The result would dramatically lower the crime rate.

This same thinking works with the D.P., many so called rage killings aren't so.
People can control themselves when the choices are clear.

Our Criminal Justice system, especially the D.P. needs rational changes.

I think they should just make bullets ridiculously expensive like Chris Rock said. That would work better than the death penalty or gun control.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Lots of countries in the world don't have an armed citizenry, why does the US need it?

Yeah, why don't you spit out a list?

Funny how many of those are the same as the ones on the "death penalty" list, that everyone uses to point out how barbaric the death penalty is.

While I'll admit that several democratic nations have disarmed their citizens over the last century, I think it's more telling that every genocidal dictatorship has.

And, for that matter, since you believe that gun control prevents crime, why don't you go ahead and name a single country whose crime rate has gone down in the years following a gun ban?