One related to the joke thread controversy

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

I'm not advocating public execution, just commenting on how times changed.

---

exactly my point. a hundred and fifty years ago (in this country) it was perfectly moral to hang a man for stealing a horse.

three hundred years ago (in this country) it was perfectly moral to burn a girl who didn't sink when you threw her in the pond.

five hundred years ago it was perfectly moral to challenge a man to a duel and kill him because he insulted you.

a thousand years ago it was perfectly moral to burn at the stake anyone who disagreed with the church.

i could go on, but i think the point is made. "morality" is fleeting because it's made up. it's made up at any given point in time by the social and cultural mores of the people involved in a particular society. it has no meaning or relevance to a different society or even the same society at a different time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

That is one aspect. Another is that closure that Wildtim was talking about. As a kid I would see someone who was quadriplegic and think that I would rather be dead. Then I see someone like Steven Hawking or Christopher Reed who in spite of the handicap makes the best of it and more.

So even imprisoned for life human beings adapt and enjoy life to some extent. I recall Caryl Chessman, the "red light bandit", who became a writer and an artist while incarcerated awaiting execution. Why should someone like the BTK killer feel sunshine and see the seasons change while his victim's lives were heartlessly snuffed out ?

I go along with Judge Roy Bean, "The Law West Of The Pecos" sentencing of a murderer,"You have been tried by twelve good men and true, not of your peers but as high above you as heaven is of hell, and they have said you are guilty.

Time will pass and seasons will come and go. Spring with its wavin’ green grass and heaps of sweet-smellin’ flowers on every hill and in every dale. Then sultry Summer, with her shimmerin’ heat-waves on the baked horizon.

And Fall, with her yeller harvest moon and the hills growin’ brown and golden under a sinkin’ sun. And finally Winter, with its bitin’, whinin’ wind, and all the land will be mantled with snow.

But you won’t be here to see any of ‘em; not by a damn sight, because it’s the order of this court that you be took to the nearest tree and hanged by the neck til you’re dead, dead, dead."

---

Down under,
the last hanging was in the mid 1960's, a chap in Perth Western Australia who had snuck into a number of houses and murdered a number of women. Incidentally his son is a lovely bloke who is oft times a correspondant of the "West Australian" new paper. We have had a number of beastly crimes in subsequent years, ranging from the Backpacker murders, the murder of young boys in Adelaide by pedaphiles, Bryant in Tasmania with the Port Arthur mass shooting, and a few more. As a population the return of the death penalty if put to a refarendum, would be voted back in immediatly. The pollititions , steadfastly refuse to consider it. Interesting as they are our elected members and are supposed to represent our will. As time has gone on and our population has increased, from 12 million. to about 25 million in the last 40 odd years crime has proportionatly increased, crimes against the person have become much more common and more violent. Here in Australia we seem to have become so bloody self riteshouse about the death penalty being used by other countries. Our Prime Minister was ver silent about the Bali bombers being executed.
I am old fashioned I guess," Eye for Eye, tooth for tooth,burning for burning." We seem to have become morally weak, the law here even frowns upon self defence. As we sow shall we reap. I will get back off my high horse !!:rant:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by heelerau

I am old fashioned I guess," Eye for Eye, tooth for tooth,burning for burning." We seem to have become morally weak, the law here even frowns upon self defence. As we sow shall we reap. I will get back off my high horse !!:rant:

---

+1 on a more practical note, years ago the USA Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty as it then existed was 'cruel and unusual punishment'. So for a number of years the death penalty was suspended in the USA. State legislatures had to craft new legislation to reinstate it and that took a decade or more.

In one case I recall a robber went into a loan office in Miami,FL. He robbed the people, about a half dozen, who worked in the office. They offered no resistance. If he were caught committing the robbery he would have been subject to a thirty year sentence.

Being a practical man he shot all of the victims in the head. Less chance of being caught if he couldn't be identified and in the state at the time a life sentence was default 33 years. Unfortunately for him one of the victims survived and he was identified.

Point is that it may not be a deterrent for all criminals but without it murder is that much easier to contemplate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rajagra

A system is flawed if it takes more innocent lives than it saves.

Here are some facts.

"just over six per cent - of mandatory life-sentenced prisoners who were released between January 1 2003 and February 17 2009, were recalled and found guilty of a further offence"

If you read the details, the picture is even worse than that.

We need to compare the percentage of murderers who you believe are wrongly convicted against that 6% chance of a freed killer reoffending.

Some freed killers kill again. So how many is too many for you? How many would it take for you to admit that your system is flawed beyond acceptable tolerances?

EDIT> Just a reminder the above quote is about mandatory life-sentenced prisoners. Arguing that keeping them in prison for life solves the problem is no use unless they are actually kept in prison for life!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jockeys

morality is a human construct. people haven't changed, morality has. morality is no more or less than a set of made up rules that the majority agree to play by. over the millenia the ideas of the majority have changed and so has the idea of morality.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

I wasn't dodging the question. I just never like it when someone insults others who aren't of the same opinion as them by suggesting that their opinion is the morally superior one.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oglethorpe

I'm with Jockey's on this one. Morality is right and wrong as described by the populous. You can't even expand this to "humanity" because in other places in the world, the penal systems are much harsher than ours. Does that make them less moral?

I say no. I say that as a people, they are just less tolerant of "rabid dogs" as GW says.

And as a 2nd point. Capital punishment isn't the problem. Corrupted prosecutors and legal systems are. How many of those cases of innocent death row'ers, Jim, are the result of a cop / detective / prosecutor / judge who were more concerned with "getting their man" than paying attention to the evidence and a fair trial.

Read Grisham's Innocent Man. That's a perfect example.

---

No answer Jim?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

For one to "deserve" death and for it to be morally acceptable for a man (or a state) to pass out said punishment are two things that, at least for me, are entirely separate and distinct.

---

What he said.

In the case of death penalty, enough errors are made by the system that it is not an acceptable system. In that case, one could also sentence life without parole.

It would also be cheaper than the death penalty, which costs a hideous amount of money IF YOU WANT TO DO IT RIGHT. Let me explain. Unless you are content to just anyone who appears guilty (aka what used to be done in ye olden days) then it is cheap. But if you want to be sure that you are killing the right one, you have to have a legal system in place to make sure that the sentencing was correct, and the evidence and witness accounts legit. And that costs money.

From the innocence project:

Quote:

---

About 25% of wrongful convictions overturned through DNA involved a false confession or admission. Christopher Ochoa (left) confessed to a Texas murder he didn’t commit after being threatened with the death penalty. He served 11 years in prison before DNA testing proved his innocence.

---

Quote:

---

17 of the 240 people exonerated through DNA served time on death row

---

Quote:

---

Leading Causes of Wrongful Convictions:

Eyewitness Misidentification Testimony was a factor in 74 percent of post-conviction DNA exoneration cases in the U.S., making it the leading cause of these wrongful convictions. At least 40 percent of these eyewitness identifications involved a cross racial identification (race data is currently only available on the victim, not for non-victim eyewitnesses).

Unvalidated or Improper Forensic Science played a role in approximately 50 percent of wrongful convictions later overturned by DNA testing.

False confessions and incriminating statements lead to wrongful convictions in approximately 25 percent of cases. In 35 percent of false confession or admission cases, the defendant was 18 years old or younger and/or developmentally disabled.

Snitches contributed to wrongful convictions in 16 percent of cases. Whenever snitch testimony is used, the Innocence Project recommends that the judge instruct the jury that most snitch testimony is unreliable as it may be offered in return for deals, special treatment, or the dropping of charges

---

I readily agree that some people do not deserve to live, but I also recognize that we are not able to make a system that works well enough to guarantee that an execution does not become state santified murder of an innocent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

No answer Jim?

---

Since when did this thread become about me, Mark?

My answer is given, the system as it stands kills innocent people. If you truly believe that's ok, then you and I have totally different values, and yours are repugnant to me. In all honesty, I never meant to imply my moral superiority, I am, after all, human. But if you need to believe it, go ahead.

As for morals changing, "change" does not equal "progress." An eye for an eye is not a new idea, is it?

As for the number of cases of false guilty verdicts being a result of cops/judges/etc. doing the wrong thing, I'd have to say all of them? Isn't the point to protect the innocent and punish the guilty?

As for "freed killers kill innocent people", that's why they shouldn't be free. I never said otherwise. Strawmen abound...

My entire point, the only thing I believe about this issue, is that if a society is unable to protect its innocent members without killing some of them, it has lost its way.

and where is the money supposed to come from to support their worthless lives ???

I saw if not death then a labor camp !!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz7m5tvio_A

:roflmao:roflmao:roflmao
I suspect your humor will be lost on some Shawn!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

and where is the money supposed to come from to support their worthless lives ???

I saw if not death then a labor camp !!!

YouTube - Chain Gang - The Supremes

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

:roflmao:roflmao:roflmao
I suspect your humor will be lost on some Shawn!

---

just trying to put a pretty face on the ugly realities of slavery

the simple fact is that money comes from somewhere to fund prisons
the police power of the state is used to take money from someone and run a prison

jailing a man for life makes YOU a slave to HIM for you must be his keeper

there are crimes which should prevent criminals from ever seeing the light of day again

to accomplish this you need only two things

a small caliber pistol
and a pine box

I have just such a weapon in my arsenal and would be happy to donate it for a worthy cause.