New Stanek poll: Does a protracted, painful execution bother you?
I have a new poll question up:
Does a protracted, painful execution during the death penalty process bother you?
Executions have allegedly gone awry three times this year. In Arizona it took two hours for Joseph Wood to die by lethal injection. There have also been complaints about the executions of Dennis McGuire in Ohio and Clayton Lockett in Oklahoma.
Does news like this bother you? See the poll on the right side of the home page.
For the previous poll question you overwhelmingly swung in favor of the pragmatic, the known…
As always, make comments to either the previous or current poll here, not on the poll site.
Aug.03, 2014 10:08 am |
Polls |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Nope, can’t honestly say it ever caused me to lose any sleep.
I’m far more concerned with what the victims suffered.
Be sure to vote! :)
Protracted and painful bothers me, but I’m not sure the three botches qualify. To me, painless and instantaneous are not requirements.
What bothers me is that we’ve gone to such lengths and invited such controversy over lethal injection (a method if execution that strikes me as terrifying). I personally think these botches and the problems with sourcing are excellent arguments in favor of simpler, more reliable, less expensive techniques, like the firing squad or the guillotine.
Um, being anti-death penalty overall of course a protracted death for convicts bothers me. It’s also unconstitutional.
I’m very disturbed by any pro-life person who doesn’t care about someone suffering like that.
In agreement with Mary and Rachel here.
Does a protracted, painful execution bother you?
As stated, no. In no way is it the norm, and the presence of the current minuscule number of such executions (even presupposing that conscious suffering is present, which is not always the case) is due to shortages of certain drugs and the fact that many states are having to try “new stuff,” due to lawsuits over methods used in the past.
On one hand, I’m thinking, “Well, if you don’t want to run the vanishingly-small risk of a painful execution, then how about not committing the crimes that would set you up for that?”
On the other hand, it’s gonna be far down my list anyway. This country has plenty of prevalent, pervasive problems that pose a threat to all but the very few, rather than the other way around.
Does anyone here remember the horrid death of James Byrd? He was a black man walking home from work when 3 white men pulled up in a truck and offered him a ride. Mr Byrd was an older man and a harmless soul who knew one of the 3 men. So he thanked them and accepted the ride. Instead they tied Byrds ankles to a chain and took off as he pleaded for his life. They found this hilarious! They dragged him until they finally hit a curb and he was decapitated. Dennis Rodman paid for the funeral and other celebrities paid so his kids could attend college. Texas charged them with Capital murder and at least one has been executed. The night before his execution whats his face ordered steak eggs toast 2 different desserts and a few other heaping helpings of his favorite foods. That story makes me cry. What was Mr Byrds last meal? Rot in hell you heartless killing ba*****!!! I hope you died in agony!
As a consistent pro-lifer, any execution bothers me – whether it is in the womb or on a table in a prison.
Also a triple meat bacon cheeseburger and BBQ ribs were on the menu. A fudge brownie with peanut butter topping was one dessert. Adding to matters Mr bYRDS FACE WAS SPRAY PAINTED BLACK AND HIS THROAT WAS SLASHED!. Larry Brewer was executed after 13 years in prison. His final words were “I have no remorse and if given the chance Id do it all over again.” Sorry about the caps.
Come on Heather, tell us how you really feel. :P
We seriously need to clean the prisons out.
Welcome, Jasper! Long may your posts prosper!
However, could you kindly please select a unique username? We already have a “Jasper” on board. – Mod
Heather, Wikipedia says that Brewer’s huge last meal was not eaten, and afterwards, Texas no longer gives them such a choice.
Hi Doug thats not what Id read. I went to several sources. Also Byrd was handicapped. Hi Jasper…nice to see you as always.
Hi Doug….and Texas no longer offers them such a choice….well thats good news. But a needle in the arm is more humane than a slashed throat a beating and a spray painted face as he cried and pleaded for his life.
The thing about prisons is that a lot of the people in them could be diverted to other places. I think prisons should be reserved for murder rape child molesters.
Heather, Byrd’s death was so horrific that I don’t think any of us can really fathom it.
The one guy who in effect said, “I did it, I’m not sorry, and would do it again” – if it were up to me, he’d just be shot, no messing around, and certainly none of the spending millions of Dollars on the mandatory court appeals process, which in such cases is insanity, IMO.
I mean cases where there is not just “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt,” but cases where there is no doubt at all.
Another case – 2005, a 9 year old Florida girl, Jessica Lunsford, is kidnapped by a 46 year old guy who does terrible things to her, then buries her alive in a plastic bag, suffocating her. He confessed.
He died in prison 4 years later from cancer, which IMO is not such a bad way for it to go, but still, it was a waste to keep him alive that long.
Oh Doug I remember that case too. He kept her in his closet for a few days only removing her to rape her. She wanted her daddy and she had her doll. She was scared. I saw her dad on Jane Velez Mitchell along with other surviving parents of what Mr Lunsford had to endure. One man had 2 daughters raped and their throats were slashed by his ex wifes boyfriend. One survived and is now a cop. Her sister died and the dad cried recalling how back in 88 he had to ID her on a morgue slab. I cried with them. Elizabeth Smarts dad was on there also. He said he felt bad because his daughter came home. The other kids did not.
Mr Smart was happy for himself but then felt bad for the other parents.
I want to clarify that I think there are degrees of “protracted and painful”. Many things in life fall under those categories, including child birth. These convicts didn’t face anything comparable to the pain endured by a terminal cancer patient, for example. The pain was not intentionally inflicted, nor was the protraction. Just because a death is not completely painless does not make it an inappropriate execution. We are not talking about torturing people to death. Execution should be quick and implemented without emotion (without the intent of terrorizing the convict). Beyond that, I’m not too concerned.
As for whether the death penalty can be supported by pro-lifers, the Bible instructs that the murderer who falsely pleads manslaughter should be “killed in hate” by the victim’s avenger. The Bible also instructs us to implement the death penalty for those who cause a woman to miscarry, and is significantly protective of children. The two concepts are distinctly compatible for the religious.
Regarding the death penalty: Troy Davis and Lawrence Brewer were both executed on the same day, at the end of our thorough, if immoral, due-process methods for death penalty here in the States.
You can look up both cases on wikipedia or Google or wherever. Plenty of info.
The Troy Davis situation became a world-wide cause celebre. The story is that he was railroaded to the death penalty because he was Black. Witnesses are supposed to have recanted their testimony that led to the guilty verdict, but the recantations had no effect on the inexorable march of the legal/penal process.
A tragedy. If we are going to have the death penalty, it should not have to depend on shifty versions of eyewitness testimony. It should have to depend on more firm evidence.
I paid attention to the Davis case. So, I heard a lot of the rhetoric.
The Marxists were all over the social justice angle. They are against the death penalty – as long as racism is involved.
Many argued that we should not have a death penalty because the law can make a wrong decision.
Others argued that it is not morally acceptable at all to put someone to death.
If it is not morally OK to put someone to death, then the killer of James Byrd, Lawrence Brewer, should not have been put to death.
The activists were all over the Davis case, saying it is not OK to put anyone to death. They were in Georgia on Sept 21, 2011, but not in Texas.
Why not? To show support for the idea that no one should be put to death, what better than to defend the life of Brewer with the same intensity as Davis?
We progressives are not guided by logic. We are guided by the Marxist theme of oppression and exploitation. If that theme does not fit a situation, we will invent it.
Hence, great attention for Davis and none for Lawrence.
A compelling Christian argument against the death penalty is that a clearly guilty person might still have some good in him. Paul after killing Christians, turned and brought many people to Christ directly, and has had untold impact indirectly.
“a clearly guilty person might still have some good in him.”
Or more bad. 3/4+ of people released from prison get arrested for subsequent crimes within 5 years.
Who here has not heard of rapists, out of prison, re-offending? Child molesters, etc. One such subsequent crime outweighs any number of “might still have some good in him”s.
Most of the comments on this thread disgust me.
John you are only talking about the US. We have some of the worst recidivism rates in the world. Our prisons are abusive and do nothing to help society, victims, or the criminals themselves.
But never mind let’s just talk some more about how great human suffering is (if it’s the RIGHT kind of people) and forget about how innocent people sometimes get put to death, forget about the fact that other western countries don’t have near the murder rates we do and maybe we are doing something wrong.
Yeah. Let’s do that. Y’all sound like a bunch of pro-aborts.
I am kind of stunned to be saying this, but I agree with Ex-GOP’s 3:49 post.
“As for whether the death penalty can be supported by pro-lifers, the Bible instructs that the murderer who falsely pleads manslaughter should be “killed in hate” by the victim’s avenger. The Bible also instructs us to implement the death penalty for those who cause a woman to miscarry, and is significantly protective of children. The two concepts are distinctly compatible for the religious.”
Well if we are going to go all Old Testament up in here, why haven’t you been calling for the death of men sleeping with men, and those who commit adultery, etc? If you’re going to use Levitical laws to justify killing people let’s go all out.
Eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, and all.
Every Christian on this thread thirsting for blood raise your hand if you’ve ever committed a capital crime according to Leviticus, etc? My hand is up. For goodness sake people. We’re not Jewish (and they have other scriptures as well and aren’t bound by many of those laws), Jesus gave us different standards.
The difference between a dead baby from abortion is that the mother paid to have the baby killed. Baby didnt have free will but mom did. Jack i agree with you to a point. I watched my own husband go in and out of prison. Prison doesnt rehabilitate it recycles. And ik a rapist who did 20 years. They let him out and he raped again. He was a cousin of a woman I knew. He was 44 or so and he raped a 17 year old after abducting her. He gave me a ride once so I was alone with that man both in my home and his car. I was unaware of his crime at the time but he asked me if I watched porn. Anyway he was even married with 3 kids. Seemed like an okay guy. Id see him shooting pool at the bar. He will never be released from prison Child molesters WILL do it again. Just like some guy raped A 3 MONTH old baby! Im sure for all of you saying we are being too hard on some criminals would have a change of heart if one of them raped your child!!
And weve had the conversation before about women being victims of abortion and should they go to jail. Some women are victims. Some women are cold blooded killers.
Sounding like pro aborts? Hold up. Imagine if you were walking home from work and a familiar friendly face offered you a ride. Poor humble unsuspecting Mr Byrd was probably happy to get off his feet. We know racism exists and it isnt going away. So if these men hated Byrd for his skin color why not just leave him alone. Wave and keep going. But put yourself in his shoes. They draggged his body until there was nothing left but tattered clothing and his body in pieces for miles. He tried to hold his elbows to the road as long as he could knowing he would die. Then suddenly they hit the curb that severed his head from his body. I couldnt even imagine doing that to an animal.
As for the rapist mentioned in my above post….he raped a woman and did 20 years and 6 months after his release he abducted a 17 year old girl from a bus stop….cameras caught it….and raped her. He will never leave prison. He was married and had kids.
somebody is using my name. That comment was not me…
The criminals commit atrocities that make the stomach churn. These stories are as hard to read as the pictures of abortion children are to look upon.
And yet…. killing the criminals solves nothing.
The children deserve lives of freedom and hope.
The criminals deserve lives of penance and confinement.
The argument for abortion and for capital punishment is essentially the same: Other persons (the mother or the victims or the public) are entitled to their deaths more than the children and the criminals deserve to keep their lives.
The mitigating difference is that the children are innocent and always fully deserving of our protection. The criminals are guilty of heinous crimes — which leads us into arguments about degrees of guilt and fitting justice and the imperfections of our justice system.
I stand by the pro-life principle that killing is never a good solution to any problem. Killing the murderer does not bring the victim back to us.
I think there’s two Jaspers now. No idea which is which is which.
I had a quick drive by post earlier…fuller thoughts.
I think we start to get in trouble anytime we have a situation where we could choose life, and we opt for death. When we, as a society, justify that somebody would be better off dead – the thinking too closely mirrors abortion or euthanasia.
The general ‘vibe’ of this thread is that we should kill them because they really did something so awful, they’ve made us really angry. Is that the line we’ve got to cross to kill somebody these days?
Fact is, life in prison without parole is a cheaper alternative, gives the prisoner less exposure, and shows that as a society, we are better than the murderer.
And those going nuts with the old testament law…bringing new wives into the house anytime soon? Or are we picking and choosing here…
“Im sure for all of you saying we are being too hard on some criminals would have a change of heart if one of them raped your child!!”
Well, like I’ve said before, I’ve had capital crimes committed against me, very sadistic crimes at that. In Florida it’s a capital crime to rape a child under twelve. I am sure if I ever had a mind to actually describe to y’all what was actually done to me for years on end you’d all be calling for my father’s blood too (don’t worry, he had a seriously painful death from liver disease, I’m sure you are all happy about his suffering). I’m not. I don’t want to be like him, sadistically happy when people suffer and die. I am never going to rejoice in human suffering and death, no matter the disgusting, horrifying crimes they may have committed. It’s not the person I want to be, and it’s not the way I think our justice system or society should work. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, and all that.
We have the ability to put child rapists, adult rapists, mass murderers, serial killers, etc. in prison for life where there is very, very little chance they will be able to damage anyone again. And like I pointed out, innocent people have been put to death before. It’s heavily racially biased, black and Hispanic people are put to death disproportionately for the same crimes white people commit. It’s more expensive.
And if all you are about is vengeance, then think about being in a cage for the rest of your life, versus your life being cut short. I know which one I’d prefer. I’ve been to jail and it’s an unpleasant place. Prison is worse (though I believe there should be separate prisons for severe violent offenders and we should have different interventions for criminals who have done like drug and theft crimes).
Ex, thanks for backing me up on the Old Testament stuff. Let’s start prescribing the death penalty for LGBT people and adulterers, girls who lie about being virgins, prostitution if your dad is a priest, worshiping idols, apostasy, breaking the Sabbath, being a stubborn son, perjury in some cases, ignoring the verdict of a judge or priest, and the list goes on.
I’d be dead several times over, how about all you?
Oh and when people talk about the 75% recidivism rate, most of those are drug and theft offenders. Take it from someone with a possession with intent to distribute conviction on the record (I was eighteen!), it’s difficult to find jobs and people (especially cops, if you get pulled over or whatever), will treat you differently and it makes it much easier to get pulled back into the criminal life if you have no other way to survive. That type of “justice”, punishing people repeatedly for most of their lives for a mistake or crime, even when they did the time or community service or rehab or whatever was required, does nothing good for our society and greatly increases our recidivism.
This doesn’t apply to violent, probably predatory and likely to reoffend criminals, especially murderers and particularly serial killers, I just wanted to expand on John’s comment about “bad” people who re-offend. And when it comes to sex offenses, we need to have an honest, non-reactionary look on how to deal with these people. We either need to lock them up forever or figure out a way to keep people safe. The registry isn’t working at all. It either punishes people who committed minor, non-predatory offenses too harshly (like eighteen year old boys who sleep with their sixteen year old girlfriends), and does basically nothing to stop the true predators that are going to reoffend.
John Wayne Gacey killed all those men and boys. He was executed. His final words were “Kiss my a**!” Idk sometimes I think sitting in prison would be worse. Personally Id rather die but I live in a police state so the prisons are busting at the seams.
I’ll tell you what – we have to get in there and do some good old-fashioned killing.
Totes pro-life.
“I stand by the pro-life principle that killing is never a good solution to any problem. Killing the murderer does not bring the victim back to us.”
This is a hard question for me because I have had people in my family raped, murdered etc. Nonetheless, I’m on the fence about the death penalty. I remember once when I was rethinking my stance on abortion someone asked me if I were a doctor, if I would perform an abortion and I immediately said “no.” The person who I was talking with said “why not? and I couldn’t answer. Similarly, someone asked me if I were a governor would I sign a death warrant. Once again, my answer is no because I don’t want blood on my hands. Ironically, my pro-abort sister, the pharmacist, said she would gladly compound the chemicals used to kill prisoners. I love her but I guess she’s consistently pro-death.
I was talking with a death penalty supporter and he said that life in prison is not a good choice for violent murderers becauses they often kill prison guards. Do you remember that young woman in Arizona who was stabbed and brutally raped by an inmate? He was a lifer. Since they are in there for life, they have nothing to lose. Interesting point.
Jack, it’s amazing how low the recidivism rate is in the US for murder. It is virtually zero. I would have never believed it…
Yeah, we’ve executed people who are later proven to have been innocent. I don’t advocate a quick death in cases where that is possible.
—–
Our prisons are abusive and do nothing to help society, victims, or the criminals themselves.
I would not say “nothing,” but I take your point. What, though, do we do? We already spend $20,000 to $60,000 per inmate, per year. We are different than other countries, and there is no going back, no stuffing the genie back in the bottle. We can’t force a different culture on people, really, and that applies even in prison to an extent.
—–
maybe we are doing something wrong.
I’m sure we are doing some things wrong. Yet if it were just a matter of “different,” don’t you think it would have been tried? I do favor non-violent offenders being cut loose a lot earlier, in some cases. But as to when we see that “the system is really not working well,” then what the heck do we do?
Phillymiss: I was talking with a death penalty supporter and he said that life in prison is not a good choice for violent murderers because they often kill prison guards. Do you remember that young woman in Arizona who was stabbed and brutally raped by an inmate? He was a lifer. Since they are in there for life, they have nothing to lose. Interesting point.
True, so again, what do we do?
“I’m sure we are doing some things wrong. Yet if it were just a matter of “different,” don’t you think it would have been tried? I do favor non-violent offenders being cut loose a lot earlier, in some cases. But as to when we see that “the system is really not working well,” then what the heck do we do?”
Well, we could start with treating the issues that make criminals. I was lucky enough to have a father in law (well he was my girlfriend’s dad, not father in law yet) who got me a good lawyer and I got rehab (good rehab, my FIL is wealthy) and probation for my drug crime. And it worked, I didn’t re-offend and with help from him I found jobs to support my family and not return to the streets. Problem is not everyone dates a girl who has a dad who doesn’t want his princess with a junkie dealer and has the money to help. We need stuff like that. I’m still amazed at the people who think ten years in prison would have helped anyone in my situation or situations like mine. Locking people up makes better criminals! I learned how to hot wire old cars and disable crappy security systems on cars in jail, among other things.
“We can’t force a different culture on people, really, and that applies even in prison to an extent.”
You’re basically saying “we can’t help criminals become functioning members of society”, and that’s outright false. We can at least attempt to prevent the abuses like gang rape and beatings in prison, we can work on rehabilitation instead of punishment, we can work on the child abuse and socioeconomic conditions which a lot of convicts come from in the first place. There are things that can be done to help. They are just difficult.
And we can’t really get into the death penalty. I will never think it’s okay to kill people when there are other options.
Del: The criminals deserve lives of penance and confinement.
Do they even deserve life at all? It takes the income tax receipts from between 5 and 15 average US families, to support one inmate. Why should we be giving them free room and board?
I think in some cases we should not. As Phillymiss noted, sometimes they kill guards or other inmates in prison. In those cases, I think a quick death for them would have been better. Hindsight, I realize.
For the ones we keep in prison – I am not saying they should just be breaking rocks all day, but how do we make them pay their own way? Any help would be better than what we’ve got now.
—–
The argument for abortion and for capital punishment is essentially the same: Other persons (the mother or the victims or the public) are entitled to their deaths more than the children and the criminals deserve to keep their lives.
No it’s not. When the pregnant woman wants to end a pregnancy, it’s her decision.
Then, whether it’s execution or imprisonment for criminals, we are putting people out of society. It’s acknowledged that in general we value freedom, but when one goes beyond the bounds of what is considered acceptable behavior in society, to a large enough extent, then you’re either gonna get whacked or put away for a long time.
There is no necessary “entitlement to the death” – many states don’t even have the death penalty. Either way, what is really happening is that they’re being removed from society.
Jack: I was lucky enough to have a father in law (well he was my girlfriend’s dad, not father in law yet) who got me a good lawyer and I got rehab (good rehab, my FIL is wealthy) and probation for my drug crime. And it worked, I didn’t re-offend and with help from him I found jobs to support my family and not return to the streets. Problem is not everyone dates a girl who has a dad who doesn’t want his princess with a junkie dealer and has the money to help. We need stuff like that.
Okay, so who pays for it? We are the world’s biggest debtor nation. We are faced with gov’t doing less for us, in the future, rather than more. We are far down the road to the destination where it’s going to be such a “whole new world” for most Americans that comparatively small targeted questions like the above will cease to be meaningful.
Not saying that ultimate collapse is tomorrow, but we are vastly, vastly closer to the end than the beginning.
“There is no such thing as a free lunch.” Most of us alive now in the US are used to gov’t doing more and more, and we expect that. Now we’re faced with not only just no “more” but an actual “less.”
Back to prisons – I am not at all opposed to change, but want to see changes that mean the inmates are more paying their own way.
—–
“We can’t force a different culture on people, really, and that applies even in prison to an extent.”
You’re basically saying “we can’t help criminals become functioning members of society”, and that’s outright false.
Hang on, here, Buckaroo… I wasn’t saying that – I was talking about the differences between the US and other countries, re how our prisons treat the inmates.
We can point to other countries that do some things differently, but that doesn’t mean that those things would work here.
We have an often prevalent tribal/gang culture, in and out of prison (while some other countries are more homogeneous), and some of our prison conditions are due to that. What I meant is that we can’t force a big change, there. Unless we lock them all up in solitary (and if we’re talking about doing “better” for the inmates, that’s not usually going to fly) then that genie is not going back in the bottle.
—–
We can at least attempt to prevent the abuses like gang rape and beatings in prison, we can work on rehabilitation instead of punishment, we can work on the child abuse and socioeconomic conditions which a lot of convicts come from in the first place. There are things that can be done to help. They are just difficult.
Agreed, Jack, and while I know you’re not simply advocating throwing money at the problems, it does sound like more guards, at the least, to quell the rapes and beatings. Single-occupancy cells?
“Instead of punishment”… There is the given that imprisonment is the punishment for some crimes, but our prisons cannot be said to be “punishing” the inmates, beyond that, compared to most countries in the world. I bet most inmates the world over would love to trade their prisons for American ones.
As for making “societal corrections” like your suggestions for outside of prison, while I agree those would be good things to accomplish, it seems to me that this again is expecting gov’t to do more and more, and increasingly this isn’t going to be possible.
The execution was NOT botched. The convicted and condemned murderer is dead.
I am not concerned that it took longer than planned for him to die.
I am concerned that it took so long to actually execute him, especially when he had confessed to the crime and showed absolutely no remorse in the years leading up to his date with death.
Some good discussion.
Something else to add in there: scientifically, we know that life begins at conception.
We also know this: one of the arguments presented here for capitol punishment is that the perpetrator may otherwise continue his or her evil deeds. As illustration, genuine anecdotes have been mentioned.
Add to all of this:
One of the arguments for abortion is that it will lower the crime rate. Indeed, some empirical analyses have been done to support this idea.
That is quite “Minority Report:” the long arm of the law will get you before you commit your crime.
I guess this fits right in with the top-down totalitarian-thinking we-know-better pro-choice Marxists.
Ken: I am not concerned that it took longer than planned for him to die.
Makes sense. This was just something that screwed up. It’s not like from now on we are deliberately going to make executions last a long, painful time.
—–
I am concerned that it took so long to actually execute him, especially when he had confessed to the crime and showed absolutely no remorse in the years leading up to his date with death.
Agree – in situations like that, when there can be no doubt, what is the point with the incredibly expensive, years, often decades-long appeals process?
TheLastDemocrat: One of the arguments for abortion is that it will lower the crime rate. Indeed, some empirical analyses have been done to support this idea.
Oh come on TLD, even if one were given to placing any importance on that fact in the first place, how could it be anything but a massively secondary consideration, whether one is pro-life or pro-choice?
On a raw-numbers basis, then of course there would be less crimes; less people = less crimes. It would also be less researchers, rocket scientists, pizza chiefs and saints…
Yet for the real crime rate, the case would have to be made that people resulting from unwanted pregnancies, versus wanted, would commit more crimes on a per-capita basis. While there is some obvious logic at work with respect to that, what difference are we talking about? And how, as above, could that in any way rival the more primary considerations (regardless of one being pro-life or pro-choice)?
“Agreed, Jack, and while I know you’re not simply advocating throwing money at the problems, it does sound like more guards, at the least, to quell the rapes and beatings. Single-occupancy cells?”
Problem is that the guards are often committing the abuses. I would suggest more screening for guards,no imprisonment for many drug and petty crimes, and single occupancy cells for a start. Working the inmates in a non-exploitative way might help too, getting them job skills and hope. Some violent offenders will always be violent, I know, and I’m not sure how to deal with that. But killing them isn’t the answer.
“We have an often prevalent tribal/gang culture, in and out of prison (while some other countries are more homogeneous), and some of our prison”
Dude I came from that culture, it CAN be helped. And I never said government. The things that helped us street kids the most were usually volunteers and non profit stuff. I’m not saying government is the answer to it all.
And dude everyone needs to stop acting like I’m a communist or something. I’m half Cuban and half white redneck for goodness sakes, I was raised to hate that stuff lol. I don’t think throwing government money at it will help much, I think we need an overall on how we reach at risk youth, early intervention is going to be the best solution really.
Problem is that the guards are often committing the abuses. I would suggest more screening for guards,no imprisonment for many drug and petty crimes, and single occupancy cells for a start. Working the inmates in a non-exploitative way might help too, getting them job skills and hope. Some violent offenders will always be violent, I know, and I’m not sure how to deal with that. But killing them isn’t the answer.
Less prisoners is good, but more guards and one person per cell is enormously expensive, and we need to look to “less” versus “more.” In the end, one way or another, this will be forced on us.
“Non-exploitative work,” – well, we have a ton of room to operate in, here, while still treating inmates better than do most countries.
Disagree about killing some of the inmates, Jack, but beyond a relative few, I don’t have even what I would consider a perfect solution.
——
Dude I came from that culture, it CAN be helped. And I never said government. The things that helped us street kids the most were usually volunteers and non profit stuff. I’m not saying government is the answer to it all.
Sounds good, Jack.
I’m observing over 4+ decades (as a person old enough to understand such things), and there have been volunteers and non-profit stuff all along. What I see are things getting worse, not better.
—–
And dude everyone needs to stop acting like I’m a communist or something. I’m half Cuban and half white redneck for goodness sakes, I was raised to hate that stuff lol.
Have to laugh – I know you’re not, Jack. No Marxism attributed….
Well, it’s all a hard topic. We live in “interesting times,” as they say, and I predict that the situation will be more impacted by external events – of crisis proportions to our country – than it will be by our efforts to effect change in the interim.
I’m on the fence about the death penalty. I think you can certainly be pro-life and support the death penalty b/c the children are innocent and the criminals are not.
But to an extent I agree with DLPL when he criticizes the blood lust. It’s not that we don’t all feel it (I do), but I don’t think a lust for revenge is a good reason to have the death penalty. It does cost a fortune to put someone to death due to the safeguards and appeals, but we need those. Even with them in place, we have executed innocent people. Completely innocent people! That can’t be taken as lightly as some people here seem to take it. Given that it’s cheaper to keep people in prison for life, we probably can handle most criminals without the death penalty.
That said, I do think there are people who cannot be safely imprisoned nor safely returned to society. We have a right (and a duty) to execute such people. Once we make the decision to do that, I think we should do it as quickly and humanely as possible, but botched executions would not change my support for the principle. Rather, I’d just be committed to fixing the issue. The reason executions are so complicated and faulty (as opposed to say euthanizing a pet) is because of the difficulty in taking even a guilty human life (not forcing any one person to live with the knowledge of having actually killed the person).
I will end with a quote from Tolkien that I think sums it up: “Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”
Thanks CT. I was going crazy watching pro-lifers with the blood lust. I will always think its creepy and wrong to rejoice in someone’s death.
“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends.”
Ya, good quote. I have another one.
“Some people just need killin.”
Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord.
I already agreed that some people can be justly killed by society (or just need killin if you prefer). But it’s a serious decision, not a flippant one.
COs and abuse. Yes I wonder how often that goes on. I am old enough to remember the Susan Smith case. First of all Smith was post abortive and had been molested by her step father. I believe her own father committed suicide. For those of you who arent familiar Smith rolled her car into John D Long lake with her boys in the back seat. She lied for 9 days saying the boys had been abducted by a strange man. She had no idea but cops were already onto her and knew she was lying. Shes been in prison since 95 and wont be elidgible for parole for another 10 years. She was transfered to another prison after coming down with an STD. The CO fessed up to having sex with Smith and he was fired.
Also back to the Jessica Lusford case. Doug did you know the man who did that to her had molested his own kids? They were letting him stay with them in the trailer park around his own grandkids! When cops began searching the park his family covered for him. He was a RSO. He was another one who wasnt sorry. He said “Yeah I slashed her throat and I dont really know how long it took her to die.” ” I dont really care how long it took her to die.”
Heather, I didn’t know that about the guy. That case sticks in my mind (like James Byrd) because it is so horrific. Almost ten years ago now, but that was one of those times when I felt like, “We are going to spend millions of Dollars on this dude…?”
—–
Jack: Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord.
Okay, even accepting that, there is more at work. We do see some screaming for vengeance, but no matter what we do, as Del said – the victim is not coming back to us.
I think it’s just human nature that some will feel that way. I don’t even think it has to matter much, overall, because things are set up ahead of time. We have a society, and there are things like “the social contract,” etc. Some of it is very plain, written down, word for word, and some of it is more nebulous, but in general the deal is known: “You do this, and (in some states) we’re gonna kill you.” Or, “You do this and you’re gettin’ locked up.” This is fact long before any feelings of vengeance or wanting criminals to suffer come into it.
—–
Ex-GOP: When we, as a society, justify that somebody would be better off dead – the thinking too closely mirrors abortion or euthanasia.
The general ‘vibe’ of this thread is that we should kill them because they really did something so awful, they’ve made us really angry. Is that the line we’ve got to cross to kill somebody these days?
How is that necessarily the case? Who is really saying that “Mister X will be better off dead”? I don’t see us thinking about the perpetrator in that way – we’re not concerned with “better” for him at that point. What we are saying is that he’s “out,” whether by death or imprisonment.
Sure, there is anger, sometimes, but that’s not why we execute or lock people up. We do it because we have a system and we’ve said how it works, before the perpetrator involved himself.
As a Catholic and pro-lifer, I am pro-life without exceptions. Irregardless of age, race or criminal history life is not something we create, so it’s not ours to take. Should criminals be locked up for life in isolation etc? Yes. To be executed? No.
Doug says:
August 4, 2014 at 7:25 pm
TheLastDemocrat: One of the arguments for abortion is that it will lower the crime rate. Indeed, some empirical analyses have been done to support this idea.
Oh come on TLD, even if one were given to placing any importance on that fact in the first place, how could it be anything but a massively secondary consideration, whether one is pro-life or pro-choice?
On a raw-numbers basis, then of course there would be less crimes; less people = less crimes. It would also be less researchers, rocket scientists, pizza chiefs and saints…
Yet for the real crime rate, the case would have to be made that people resulting from unwanted pregnancies, versus wanted, would commit more crimes on a per-capita basis. While there is some obvious logic at work with respect to that, what difference are we talking about? And how, as above, could that in any way rival the more primary considerations (regardless of one being pro-life or pro-choice)?
This is great.
Population control IS all about having fewer of the babies that are considered “undesirable” by the intellectuals in charge.
There is a long history back to about 1300AD, with the Poor Laws in England.
As England pondered what to do with vagrants and ne’er-do-wells, a leading issue was the matter of how to get these low-class females to have fewer babies.
When Darwin came up with the law of natural selection, yet another Brit intellectual right away came up with the idea of “positive eugenics” – the right people having more babies – and negative eugenics – the wrong people having fewer babies.
Elitist totalitarians – however pleasant-appearing or scientifficky-appearing – have advocated many means to achieve the goal of those lazy, shiftless, thieving lower-classes having fewer of their annoying children.
Voluntary and involuntary sterilization, free birth control, abortion, education, getting them into church to inculcate some morals, etc.
Margaret Sanger’s writings are full of this stuff.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2009 in NYT let it slip that this is what we elitist intellectuals are worried about –
“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&
There is plenty more where that came from. Population control is largely about us in the middle and upper classes trying to have fewer of those welfare-dependent, lazy, thieving, lower-class people to have to take care of.
The “individual choice” argument is a different phenomenon, and works for those of us in the classes that prefer smaller family size naturally.
Also here is another thing to add. We have a facility called Youngstown Supermax. Inmates have no human contact. To me id rather have the death penalty than to pace back and forth in a cell all day. They are let out for 1 hr a day to shower or exercise. There has been at least one suicide there. Ohio had a man called ‘ The volunteer’ annd he told his lawyers to hurry up with the death penalty already. He got his wish and his execution was carried out. That would be me. Id rather die than live in prison.
TLD: This is great.
Thanks. ;)
Population control IS all about having fewer of the babies that are considered “undesirable” by the intellectuals in charge.
Well, it can be. It can also be about the total burden on the earth and the survival of the human race, etc., but let’s go with the notion of cutting down on the “undesirables.” I grant you that past and present, there are those who felt it’s a good idea. But it’s still nothing at all to rival the main motivations among pro-choicers.
Heck, there are pro-lifers who bemoan the fact that the white birthrate in the US is less than that for Blacks, Hispanics, etc. There too – the things you brought up are relatively minuscule considerations, i.e. it’s no big thing within “pro-life.”
While abortion obviously is “population control,” that doesn’t mean that a given pro-choicer will care. Usually, they just think the woman should be able to decide for herself.
—–
There is a long history back to about 1300AD, with the Poor Laws in England.
As England pondered what to do with vagrants and ne’er-do-wells, a leading issue was the matter of how to get these low-class females to have fewer babies.
When Darwin came up with the law of natural selection, yet another Brit intellectual right away came up with the idea of “positive eugenics” – the right people having more babies – and negative eugenics – the wrong people having fewer babies.
Elitist totalitarians – however pleasant-appearing or scientifficky-appearing – have advocated many means to achieve the goal of those lazy, shiftless, thieving lower-classes having fewer of their annoying children.
Voluntary and involuntary sterilization, free birth control, abortion, education, getting them into church to inculcate some morals, etc.
Margaret Sanger’s writings are full of this stuff.
Okay, but you’re trying to work things backwards. Legal abortion may appeal to people with the attitudes you describe, above, but that does not mean that people in general who are pro-choice would have those attitudes.
—–
Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 2009 in NYT let it slip that this is what we elitist intellectuals are worried about – “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2& There is plenty more where that came from.
She didn’t let anything “slip,” she just didn’t clarify what she meant, i.e. did she actually support that, or was she describing that mood at that time. The interviewer later regretted not getting clarification.
A good bit of Ginsburg’s life has been in advocating for women, and notably for poor women. It’s a ludicrous stretch to pretend like “it’s her feeling,” there.
Ginsburg later did clarify it with that same interviewer. She has never made a population control argument for abortion. She was noting that there were groups like Zero Population Growth that did. (Such was made before the Supreme Court in and around the time of Roe, but the Court never accepted such arguments.)
—–
Population control is largely about us in the middle and upper classes trying to have fewer of those welfare-dependent, lazy, thieving, lower-class people to have to take care of. The “individual choice” argument is a different phenomenon, and works for those of us in the classes that prefer smaller family size naturally.
The individual choice argument is made for all women. If you see somebody saying that poor women should be forced to have abortions against their will, then obviously that person is not pro-choice.
And again – it would be a logical fallacy to pretend that anybody who is pro-choice would be motivated by feelings that that population needs to be controlled. Of course that would not be the case. It’s not any big part of “pro-choice,” in the first place.
So if being pro-life, how would agreeing with the death penalty be ok and abortion not ok? Both kill a human. One human may have been innocent, but the courts judged guilty OR he/she may have been guilty due to a terrible deed. The latter with abortion, did nothing…just existed, but according to the mom-was-to-be, existed at the wrong time because “she wasn’t aware that having sex can lead to pregnancy.” I was being snarky in that last part. I don’t know, just thought that “thou shalt not kill” meant, don’t kill one another, don’t kill a living human and don’t kill yourself. Thoughts?
Hi Megan,
I don’t believe either are remotely okay so I cannot answer your question. No killing humans (or animals) unless there is no other option.
You can kill another human in self defense and that’s basically when the death penalty is permissible. When society cannot protect its citizen’s from harm through non lethal means. These are very narrow circumstances.
You can kill another human in self defense and that’s basically when the death penalty is permissible. When society cannot protect its citizens from harm through non lethal means. These are very narrow circumstances.
Hmmm: So if being pro-life, how would agreeing with the death penalty be ok and abortion not ok?
The abortion debate between pro-lifers and pro-choicers is understood to involve the unborn, not the born.
The capital punishment or not debate is a separate deal, and there’s nothing wrong with being pro-life as far as the unborn and also being in favor of the death penalty for certain criminals.
Otis: I’ll tell you what – we have to get in there and do some good old-fashioned killing.
Where, Otis? What if you were in there?