Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2009 19:38:50 GMT -6
Many antis say they favor LWOP, but if it isn't an option and they know dangerous killers will be released do they still oppose the DP.
|
|
|
Post by beej76 on Jan 26, 2009 21:18:12 GMT -6
I would take the death penalty over 30 years. A first degree murderer shouldn't see freedom again - period. A lot of these guys are 19, 20, 21...30 years only puts them in the late 40's to early 50's. If you said 50 years, I would be a bit more torn - that puts people pretty old...but 30 years - not enough.
Am I stepping into a trap? Probably - but heck, ask any anti if they'd rather have the DP, or no prison at all, and all the people at PTO would say, oh wait...never mind.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Jan 26, 2009 21:32:40 GMT -6
No option, but 30 years, I'd vote death too. Just by the nature of the penalty, however, I believe a death sentence is much more likely to be overturned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2009 21:32:49 GMT -6
I would take the death penalty over 30 years. A first degree murderer shouldn't see freedom again - period. A lot of these guys are 19, 20, 21...30 years only puts them in the late 40's to early 50's. If you said 50 years, I would be a bit more torn - that puts people pretty old...but 30 years - not enough. Am I stepping into a trap? Probably - but heck, ask any anti if they'd rather have the DP, or no prison at all, and all the people at PTO would say, oh wait...never mind. I picked 30 for a reason. In Canada 1rst degree murder is 25 years. So I wanted to be in that neighborhood.
|
|
|
Post by beej76 on Jan 26, 2009 21:35:21 GMT -6
I would take the death penalty over 30 years. A first degree murderer shouldn't see freedom again - period. A lot of these guys are 19, 20, 21...30 years only puts them in the late 40's to early 50's. If you said 50 years, I would be a bit more torn - that puts people pretty old...but 30 years - not enough. Am I stepping into a trap? Probably - but heck, ask any anti if they'd rather have the DP, or no prison at all, and all the people at PTO would say, oh wait...never mind. I picked 30 for a reason. In Canada 1rst degree murder is 25 years. So I wanted to be in that neighborhood. Canada? Why the stink are we talking about Canada? Are you guys still a country?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2009 21:45:29 GMT -6
I voted 30 years. I would prefer LWOP but without that as a choice, I voted 30........30 years is still better than a life sentence here in Australia. I couldn't vote death, sorry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2009 21:47:06 GMT -6
Yes and we are sending you more cold weather I picked 30 for a reason. In Canada 1rst degree murder is 25 years. So I wanted to be in that neighborhood. Canada? Why the stink are we talking about Canada? Are you guys still a country?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2009 21:48:31 GMT -6
Is this a trick question?
Since we're perfectly capable of doling LWOP, I want to know why LWOP isn't a sentencing option, but doling death still is. *If* we get rid of LWOP we're dumber than dirt, IMNHO. Then again, since DP supporters are the majority, I'd want to know if LWOP was offed so that DP could be awarded to murderers more often? ~ You know, kinda like Tx was (one of) the last holdout(s) to put LWOP in as a sentencing option, preferring death vs release over death vs LWOP. If LWOP goes I believe it'd be because pros don't like it because when juries choose between those two, they're less likely to dole the 'ultimate' punishment... nevermind that to drop LWOP as a sentencing option in favor of 30 years would create more murder victims.
|
|
|
Post by beej76 on Jan 26, 2009 21:49:34 GMT -6
Yes and we are sending you more cold weather Canada? Why the stink are we talking about Canada? Are you guys still a country? Woke up this morning and it was 15 below. 15 below! Talk about keeping crime low. The Twin Cities had their first murder of the year a couple of days ago. Probably had something to do with the weather.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2009 22:03:02 GMT -6
Yes and we are sending you more cold weather Woke up this morning and it was 15 below. 15 below! Talk about keeping crime low. The Twin Cities had their first murder of the year a couple of days ago. Probably had something to do with the weather. Umm. It's HOT weather that steams people up.
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Jan 26, 2009 22:33:21 GMT -6
Is this a trick question? Since we're perfectly capable of doling LWOP, I want to know why LWOP isn't a sentencing option, but doling death still is. In Canada, for instance, there is no such thing as LWOP. Paul Bernardo can apply for Parole in 25 years. Can you believe that? No wonder why I am pro. He won't get it, obviously, but, a serial murder still has the chance to apply.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2009 22:42:19 GMT -6
Actually I think he has a good chance of getting out. Eventually some bleeding heart judge will let him out on the faint hope clause, or on a compassionate release. Is this a trick question? Since we're perfectly capable of doling LWOP, I want to know why LWOP isn't a sentencing option, but doling death still is. In Canada, for instance, there is no such thing as LWOP. Paul Bernardo can apply for Parole in 25 years. Can you believe that? No wonder why I am pro. He won't get it, obviously, but, a serial murder still has the chance to apply.
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Jan 27, 2009 11:22:13 GMT -6
Actually I think he has a good chance of getting out Frick. Double Frick.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Jan 27, 2009 12:30:58 GMT -6
As long as we are simply talking about punishment I believe that 30 years are just and right. That's why I voted for 30 years. If we're talking about the potential danger of a serial killer for example who would have to be released after 30 years I would rather pick the DP. But I see a difference between punishment and protection of the citizens. The first can end after 30 years in my opinion but the latter may require remaining in prison after the punishment is over if experts can proof that the person still is dangerous.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2009 13:04:35 GMT -6
As long as we are simply talking about punishment I believe that 30 years are just and right. That's why I voted for 30 years. If we're talking about the potential danger of a serial killer for example who would have to be released after 30 years I would rather pick the DP. But I see a difference between punishment and protection of the citizens. The first can end after 30 years in my opinion but the latter may require remaining in prison after the punishment is over if experts can proof that the person still is dangerous. Thats the thing though Peanuts, the sentence is complete after 30 years and they are still a threat to society. However they cannot be locked up once their sentence is completed. A violent rapiest murderer is locked up at 20, he is 50 when he is released. It is only a matter of time till he hurts or kills someone again.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jan 27, 2009 13:26:31 GMT -6
I think you all are focusing too much on preventing some conceptual likelihood of re-offense, as opposed to punishing the original crime of murder.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Jan 27, 2009 14:04:42 GMT -6
I think you all are focusing too much on preventing some conceptual likelihood of re-offense, as opposed to punishing the original crime of murder. That's exactly the difference I want to make and which the German criminal law actually does make. Murderers are sentenced to life imprisonment which means that they can get out on parole not before 15 years have been served. The court sets a minimum time that has to be served which is above those 15 years if the crime fulfils certain criteria. If the criminal is considered dangerous he will stay in prison after his punishment is over though when the court orders preventive detention. One might argue that there's no difference for the inmate if he gets a real life sentence/LWOP (the latter was ruled unconstitutional here) or "normal" life (in average 20 years here) with consecutive preventive detention. But for the society it is not. It's quite a consensus among many people here that at some point the punishment needs to be over. Still there's a need to lock dangerous people away which can be done with a prison sentence and preventive detention. As I said one might find that mind boggling but if you look at it closely it's actually mind boggling to mix up punishment and public safety. Public safety is not the purpose of punishment, it can only be a side effect. If it were about public safety nobody could get away with insanity, intoxication, history of abuse etc.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jan 27, 2009 16:54:07 GMT -6
Public safety is not the purpose of punishment, it can only be a side effect. If it were about public safety nobody could get away with insanity, intoxication, history of abuse etc. Only my point. It's both a distraction and a detraction. I believe that if a murderer is sentenced to anything less than death, society inevitably must wring its hands over the decision. LWOP is no guarantee of anything resembling the definition, either. As long as the murderer exists, someone in officialdom will be compelled to render an opinion on his potential threat to public safety, however unlikely legal theory assures us that his release might be. While he lives, albeit immured, we must go on speculating as to his true motives, devising and interpreting increasingly unknowable (and non-repeatable) rules for how we will handle his continued incarceration, e.g. has he been there long enough, should he get a cell phone, etc. In many important ways, once he becomes a prisoner, he ceases being a killer. Most people are ok with that.
|
|
|
Post by missy on Jan 27, 2009 16:58:44 GMT -6
I would take the death penalty over 30 years. A first degree murderer shouldn't see freedom again - period. A lot of these guys are 19, 20, 21...30 years only puts them in the late 40's to early 50's. If you said 50 years, I would be a bit more torn - that puts people pretty old...but 30 years - not enough. Am I stepping into a trap? Probably - but heck, ask any anti if they'd rather have the DP, or no prison at all, and all the people at PTO would say, oh wait...never mind. Wow! You have come a long way from the old days, beej Very good answer
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Jan 27, 2009 17:25:44 GMT -6
In many important ways, once he becomes a prisoner, he ceases being a killer. Most people are ok with that. Yep. And all he has to do is say he's sorry. Most people are OK with that, too.
|
|
|
Post by beej76 on Jan 27, 2009 18:28:36 GMT -6
Public safety is not the purpose of punishment, it can only be a side effect. If it were about public safety nobody could get away with insanity, intoxication, history of abuse etc. Only my point. It's both a distraction and a detraction. I believe that if a murderer is sentenced to anything less than death, society inevitably must wring its hands over the decision. LWOP is no guarantee of anything resembling the definition, either. As long as the murderer exists, someone in officialdom will be compelled to render an opinion on his potential threat to public safety, however unlikely legal theory assures us that his release might be. While he lives, albeit immured, we must go on speculating as to his true motives, devising and interpreting increasingly unknowable (and non-repeatable) rules for how we will handle his continued incarceration, e.g. has he been there long enough, should he get a cell phone, etc. In many important ways, once he becomes a prisoner, he ceases being a killer. Most people are ok with that. I think you need to say though that until the death penalty is carried out. LWOP is no guarantee, but the DP is even worse. I'd love to know what percentage of DP sentences actually end in execution. Heck, I wonder how many end up with a guy on the streets. There's so many sticky appeals that it seems to me that if you want out of a murder sentence, take your chances with the DP over LWOP.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Jan 27, 2009 19:45:46 GMT -6
I'd love to know what percentage of DP sentences actually end in execution. Heck, I wonder how many end up with a guy on the streets. Certainly more than end up executed. I'm as unfamiliar with LWOP appeals as I am only anecdotally aware of DP appeals. But your assertion strikes me as a not unreasonable strategy for an accused killer. Although I doubt that the vast majority of suspects have the ability to process that kind of calculus under the stress of an indictment, the hyper-aware suspect would know that the odds of him actually being executed, despite the threats of the DA, are miniscule.
|
|
Tim S
Old Hand
Posts: 567
|
Post by Tim S on Jan 28, 2009 1:05:00 GMT -6
I do not understand how a person can be given a death sentence but lwop is not an option?
There are some people who deserve to be executed. But I am totally convinced that executing them does not make this world a better place to live in.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Jan 28, 2009 1:31:38 GMT -6
Life should mean life, period. Doc, Everyone is capable of murder, if a guy/gal kills and gets sentenced to 30 years and does the time then they deserve the chance, they are probably institutionalised by then anyway. They do deserve a chance, if they kill again, fry them.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Jan 28, 2009 11:11:40 GMT -6
But I am totally convinced that executing them does not make this world a better place to live in. too bad you can't pose that question to the 11-12 women killed by Arther Shawcross AFTER he was NOT executed for previously committed murders and there's more, pick any one of them
|
|
|
Post by phatkat on Jan 28, 2009 11:37:01 GMT -6
But I am totally convinced that executing them does not make this world a better place to live in. too bad you can't pose that question to the 11-12 women killed by Arther Shawcross AFTER he was NOT executed for previously committed murders and there's more, pick any one of them He should've never been paroled, and most antis here (myself included) would never have been in favor of his parole.
|
|
|
Post by Lauren on Jan 28, 2009 12:02:35 GMT -6
He should've never been paroled, and most antis here (myself included) would never have been in favor of his parole. Ontario was not happy with Karla Homolka's parole either, and she is by all means, a serial killer. If Canada had not abolished the DP, Karla would be where she belongs, rotting away in a prison until she dies, and not living it up somewhere in Cuba. The deal karla would have made [if DP was around] would have spared her from the DP. Most coutnries are not as fortunate with their justice system as America is. Here, as soon as your 25 years are up (a life sentence), your out. There is no such thing as LWOP. So, would you hypothetically, knowing that a serial killer would be out in 25 years, oppose the DP sentence, if you lived in Canada, where LWOP is not an option in sentencing?
|
|
|
Post by brumsongs on Jan 30, 2009 7:37:34 GMT -6
I like the British system of license. Lifers, once released, have to check in with police first daily then weekly for life, they can be recalled to prison at any time for any reason at all. Just looking at someone threateningly is reason enough. I do, however, wish they spent longer in jail than they do.
|
|
|
Post by phatkat on Jan 30, 2009 7:49:57 GMT -6
He should've never been paroled, and most antis here (myself included) would never have been in favor of his parole. Ontario was not happy with Karla Homolka's parole either, and she is by all means, a serial killer. If Canada had not abolished the DP, Karla would be where she belongs, rotting away in a prison until she dies, and not living it up somewhere in Cuba. The deal karla would have made [if DP was around] would have spared her from the DP. Most coutnries are not as fortunate with their justice system as America is. Here, as soon as your 25 years are up (a life sentence), your out. There is no such thing as LWOP. So, would you hypothetically, knowing that a serial killer would be out in 25 years, oppose the DP sentence, if you lived in Canada, where LWOP is not an option in sentencing? If we're splitting hairs, Canada doesn't have the DP either. But the answer is that I would rather see a murderer's death (if there's solid evidence of his guilt) than a murderer's eventual release. But if I lived in a country where those were the only two options, I'd be campaigning hard for the replacement of the DP with LWOP.
|
|
Tim S
Old Hand
Posts: 567
|
Post by Tim S on Jan 30, 2009 8:06:29 GMT -6
But I am totally convinced that executing them does not make this world a better place to live in. too bad you can't pose that question to the 11-12 women killed by Arther Shawcross AFTER he was NOT executed for previously committed murders and there's more, pick any one of them The question you should be asking is: Why was he let out? The dp is not the cure for everything.
|
|