|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 17, 2009 12:58:56 GMT -6
Because they committed one of the worse crimes against humanity.
Could you feel threatened if they entered your home? What if a murderer that had been released entered your home? One that was on deathrow but commuted because the dp was outlawed. Eventually because of overcrowding they were released. Would you wish that they had been put to death?
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 17, 2009 13:01:34 GMT -6
just punishment - unquestionably
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 17, 2009 13:02:29 GMT -6
Most politicians exploit people period. The poor, minority, all get exploited do they not?
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 17, 2009 13:09:57 GMT -6
Most politicians exploit people period. The poor, minority, all get exploited do they not? Tough question. While most people do not agree with any exploitation of any group, it is, sadly, a staple in the political environment. And once a group (poor, minority, or victim) is thrust in the public eye then they become fodder for any agenda. And, while I am not a legal eagle, I think that makes them or their plight some sort of public domain. This means they can be used for any agenda even if the family does not approve and it is in bad taste.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Feb 17, 2009 14:59:21 GMT -6
Could you feel threatened if they entered your home? What if a murderer that had been released entered your home? One that was on deathrow but commuted because the dp was outlawed. Eventually because of overcrowding they were released. Would you wish that they had been put to death? The problem wouldn't occur if the most dangerous were sentenced to Life and not released until it was proven that they are not dangerous anymore or if sentenced to LWOP. In the case given by you I would wish that the person wasn't in my house at that time. Whether this was due to the DP, LWOP or cancer is something I wouldn't spend too many thoughts about. But preventing further victims is also a weak argument for the DP because the overwhelming majority of murderers would not kill again. So it could only be an argument for the DP applied to those who would murder again and even in this case LWOP or what we have in Germany - preventive detention - would do.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 17, 2009 16:06:53 GMT -6
Truthfully, how can anyone prove they are no longer dangerous? Do you know how many violent offenders have been released early because of good record in prison only to get out and be violent again? Have you ever heard of narcissistic psychopath?
I don't know how preventing future victims can be a weak argument. It's a fact that once dead a person can never murder again. Who has Ted Bundy killed since he's been executed?
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Feb 18, 2009 10:25:09 GMT -6
Truthfully, how can anyone prove they are no longer dangerous? Do you know how many violent offenders have been released early because of good record in prison only to get out and be violent again? Have you ever heard of narcissistic psychopath? As far as I know the recidivism rate among murderers is the lowest of all criminals. With good screening and leaving the still dangerous in prison you can reduce it to a minimum. If we always consider reoffending we have to think about not letting out someone sentenced for assault as well. He might be able to kill someone. Sure, but did Ted Bundy kill somebody while on DR?
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 18, 2009 10:40:31 GMT -6
The fact is, they still murdered just one person. They still should be punished with at least prison for the rest of their life.
Nothing is full proof. And it amazes me that you're willing to let out a murderer if you think he or she is safe now with good screening.
Actually I'm not against that. I'm for leaving violent people locked up.
While on DR no. But Ted Bundy escaped jail at least twice. Had he not been sentenced to death row, he would have been sent to the general population where he may have escaped again.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Feb 18, 2009 12:32:18 GMT -6
The fact is, they still murdered just one person. They still should be punished with at least prison for the rest of their life. OK, but that's a question of punishment, not a question of security. When it comes to punishment alone I don't see a necessasity in every murder case to put somebody into prison for the rest of his or her life. I only see the necessasity in the case that the murderer is a continuing threat to the society. If people believe LWOP is just it's something I can live with. I'm not in favour of harsh sentencing but many people are and I accept that. Actually yes, I am willing to let a murderer out. Once a murderer, always a murderer? I don't believe in that. The burden of proof that the murderer is not dangerous anymore should be with the criminal though. I simply see the problem that we cannot prevent everything. My sister is an elementary school teacher and knows her kids. She has seen violent potentials in some of the kids but can we lock them up for this, just in case? I'm willing to give a murderer a second chance after some years. I admit that this could be different if the person killed was somebody close to me. But where do we draw the line, Stormy? What kind of an assault must it be that the person should be locked up forever? One nearly deadly assaults? Two severe assaults? I agree though that some people are so dangerous that they must stay in prison. This needn't only be serial killers or serial rapists but also serial robbers who used deadly force etc. But I cannot say where to draw the line there exactly. But one crime is usually not enough to show a big dangerous potential. Prisons need to get safer, no doubt. It cannot be that a freaking lunatic like Bundy is able to escape jail. Was is jail or prison by the way? I might not be able to respond tomorrow because it's carnival and I might get hammered like there's no freaking tomorrow. I could try to answer while being drunk but I better wait for the next day if I go out and join this crazy crowd. Only have the monk costume here, damn. Let's see whether I'm in the carnival mood tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 18, 2009 12:54:22 GMT -6
Again how do you determine that? If they get out and murder again?
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 18, 2009 12:59:35 GMT -6
Again how do you determine that? What if they sincerely seem rehabilitated but get out and murder than what? Are you willing to risk another life because you don't believe once a murderer always a murderer?
No we can't prevent everything, but if society goes back having wrong be just that wrong, you'll see an improvement. I believe in intervention for kids.
How sweet, you're willing to give a murderer a second chance. Againg how do you determine this? How about the victim of the murderer? When do they get a second chance?
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 18, 2009 13:01:11 GMT -6
Attempted murder, serial rapists, child predators, armed robbers, kidnappers etc. I think that would be a good start.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 18, 2009 13:03:53 GMT -6
I believe it was jail. But prisoners have escaped the general population. Did you ever hear of the escape of the Texas seven? And remember nothing is ever full proof. Crimminals have all day to sit around and think of ways. Most are not stupid.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 18, 2009 13:10:11 GMT -6
Don't you think that might liven things up here? ;D
|
|
mst3k4evur
Inactive
Member of the Month - 4/09
Ameeerrrrrricaaa, F**k Yah!
Posts: 3,701
|
Post by mst3k4evur on Feb 18, 2009 15:10:20 GMT -6
Sure, but did Ted Bundy kill somebody while on DR? No, but Terry Langord, Thomas Knight and Jeffrey Landrigan did.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Feb 20, 2009 11:58:39 GMT -6
Again how do you determine that? What if they sincerely seem rehabilitated but get out and murder than what? Are you willing to risk another life because you don't believe once a murderer always a murderer? The good thing is that I don't have to determine that. It's up to professionals like Felix. I can't help but hesitating to call Felix a professional with all his posts circling around sex in my mind... Let's say it's just up to professionals whoever they are and whatever they are obsessed with. ;D Sorry, I didn't get the middle part about society. Do you mean that if society labels wrong behaviour as wrong there will be an improvement? If so, no doubt about that. Society has to send a message because this structure "society" can only work well with rules which are enforced. The question simply is what the sanctions are like for those who do not play by the rules. I only believe in punishment which is intended to correct the criminal. The DP cannot do that. It is one of the many reasons why I'm against the DP. To me it doesn't have the character of punishment. Of course intervention for kids is the right thing. There's no need for punishment if you prevent the crime in the first place. They don't have a second chance but I don't know how this really matters. It doesn't help the victim in any way to not grant a murderer a second chance or does it? Murder victims are dead and nothing in the world will change that. If killing the murderer brought back the victim I wouldn't bother if he/she gets killed. It's the duty of criminal to do everything to make the consequences of the crime less severe. Also a murderer isn't exactly the role model for the state how to deal with people even if they are criminals. In the end it is not about the victim, although many people claim it is, because nothing will help the victim; it is about the society as a whole and how it deals with crime. In my opinion punishment must fulfil the following criteria: (1) It must intend to correct the criminal and (2) it must show others that the law which was violated by the criminal is still valid and to be followed.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Feb 20, 2009 12:09:35 GMT -6
Don't you think that might liven things up here? ;D I didn't go out to carnival yesterday and I was pretty sober. I wasn't really in the mood for getting into a costume, drinking, drinking, drinking, dancing, drinking, singing, drinking. If you're interested in how carnival in the Rhineland looks like, here's a picture gallery: files.koeln.de/bildergalerien/thumbnails.php?album=382
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Feb 20, 2009 12:12:39 GMT -6
Sure, but did Ted Bundy kill somebody while on DR? No, but Terry Langord, Thomas Knight and Jeffrey Landrigan did. Alright but still I believe you can prevent most prison crimes. And no matter how fast you can make the appeals process the criminal will still have lots of time in prison and thus lots of time to commit crimes before he is eventually executed.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 20, 2009 18:24:22 GMT -6
To me the push in society seems to be that we have to feel sorry for why a person committed a crime; thus making the perpetrator the victim.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 20, 2009 18:26:26 GMT -6
It may not help the victim but see what I mean by wrong not being wrong anymore. You want to downgrade what they did and give them another chance.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Feb 21, 2009 7:50:24 GMT -6
To me the push in society seems to be that we have to feel sorry for why a person committed a crime; thus making the perpetrator the victim. Of course that's not right and I don't like it when human rights organisations do that to argue against the DP. The murderer still is where he is for a reason; he's not a victim. He knew the possible consequences of his behaviour, no doubt about that. He has to be punished and there are no excuses for his behaviour, at least in the vast majority of cases there is no valid excuse. In some cases though one might understand the reasons why a person murdererd. We have a well known case (at least among lawyers) over here: A woman had been terrorized by her husband over years. He humiliated her in front of his friends e.g. by pushing her down to her knees and forcing her to lick his shoes and call him master and herself a worthless bytch. He beat her uncountable times and threatened he would kill her and their kids if she left him. Because he was involved in a criminal sorrounding the woman believed him and thought that even the police couldn't help her. She had been to hospitals for broken bones etc. many, many times. One night she wakes up and realizes her husband is deeply sleeping. She sneaks out the bedroom gets his revolver and shoots six times at his head from a very short distance. She was shaking so badly that only two of the six rounds hit her husband in the head killing him instantly. She was charged with murder which results in a mandatory life sentence here. It wasn't self defense because there was no immediate threat and all other possible excuses didn't fit as well. Still the judges made an analogy in favour of her and only sentenced her to eight years, I think. Would she have deserved the DP or LWOP? No, I don't think so. So, there are rare excuses for murder derogating a murderer's guilt because he/she is a victim as well. The vast majority of murderers of course is as guilty as sin.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Feb 21, 2009 8:00:01 GMT -6
It may not help the victim but see what I mean by wrong not being wrong anymore. You want to downgrade what they did and give them another chance. I really do not want to downgrade what they did. I just believe that after a certain amount of time a punishment needs to be over because otherwhise it will lose its character as punishment. Many of my friends think different as well, some are pro DP, some are pro LWOP but to me a punishment needs to better the criminal making it possible to reintegrate him into society one day. If reintegration isn't possible you cannot let him out but that's not punishment any more, it's protecting the society, which doesn't belong to punishment. If people punish their kids they want a result meaning a change in beaviour at the end. If there's no change in behaviour do you keep on punishing although you know it won't alter anything? No, you simply try to eliminate the reasons for the wrong behaviour for example by checking with which people your kids hang around. This is not punishment, this is protecting your kid, maybe the society if the kid was committing crimes and protecting yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Feb 21, 2009 9:00:47 GMT -6
Again how do you determine that? What if they sincerely seem rehabilitated but get out and murder than what? Are you willing to risk another life because you don't believe once a murderer always a murderer? The good thing is that I don't have to determine that. It's up to professionals like Felix. I can't help but hesitating to call Felix a professional with all his posts circling around sex in my mind... Let's say it's just up to professionals whoever they are and whatever they are obsessed with. ;D Sorry, I didn't get the middle part about society. Do you mean that if society labels wrong behaviour as wrong there will be an improvement? If so, no doubt about that. Society has to send a message because this structure "society" can only work well with rules which are enforced. The question simply is what the sanctions are like for those who do not play by the rules. I only believe in punishment which is intended to correct the criminal. The DP cannot do that. It is one of the many reasons why I'm against the DP. To me it doesn't have the character of punishment. Of course intervention for kids is the right thing. There's no need for punishment if you prevent the crime in the first place. They don't have a second chance but I don't know how this really matters. It doesn't help the victim in any way to not grant a murderer a second chance or does it? Murder victims are dead and nothing in the world will change that. If killing the murderer brought back the victim I wouldn't bother if he/she gets killed. It's the duty of criminal to do everything to make the consequences of the crime less severe. Also a murderer isn't exactly the role model for the state how to deal with people even if they are criminals. In the end it is not about the victim, although many people claim it is, because nothing will help the victim; it is about the society as a whole and how it deals with crime. In my opinion punishment must fulfil the following criteria: (1) It must intend to correct the criminal and (2) it must show others that the law which was violated by the criminal is still valid and to be followed. Bit of a back-handed compliment that? But to be serious, no assessment is ever fool proof. But that said there are known predictors. In my view the foolish and unneccesary stance to take is to opt for either extreme, ie that its not predictable and we should not use the knowledge we have, or that we should be utterly careless with risk assessments. Yes, I know Joe will disagree with all of this but that is all tied up with his personal jealousies of professional people as a whole and nothing to do with established and well rersearched views.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2009 9:15:49 GMT -6
They don't have a second chance but I don't know how this really matters. It doesn't help the victim in any way to not grant a murderer a second chance or does it? You're saying the words and the words pizz me off. But, you're right, that murder victims don't get a second chance doesn't matter. No matter what we do to the POS who removed them from this earth, they'll still be dead. But, maybe it could matter just a little bit that they are dead and oftentimes mourned and allow that it might just matter to their MVS that they not be stepped over, hurled aside, or kicked out the way in an effort to give the person who took them out the world a second chance ~~~ to create another murder victim. Question is: why does that first murder victim matter that little? In almost all cases of murder, that's just what we show ~ murdered victims don't matter ~ in fact, we prove it again and again, when we give that POS a second chance and release the POS.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Feb 21, 2009 9:33:58 GMT -6
They don't have a second chance but I don't know how this really matters. It doesn't help the victim in any way to not grant a murderer a second chance or does it? You're saying the words and the words pizz me off. But, you're right, that murder victims don't get a second chance doesn't matter. No matter what we do to the POS who removed them from this earth, they'll still be dead. But, maybe it could matter just a little bit that they are dead and oftentimes mourned and allow that it might just matter to their MVS that they not be stepped over, hurled aside, or kicked out the way in an effort to give the person who took them out the world a second chance ~~~ to create another murder victim. Question is: why does that first murder victim matter that little? In almost all cases of murder, that's just what we show ~ murdered victims don't matter ~ in fact, we prove it again and again, when we give that POS a second chance and release the POS. I know that it sounds awful but it's the truth. When one has cancer, from a medical point of view it doesn't matter whether the one has loved ones, whether he/she will be missed, whether he/she had plans, it only matters whether the cancer can be cured or not. It's the same with crime. The circumstances make it tragic (like a deadly disease) but the science has to look at the pure facts. It's not satisfying, in no way it is but only looking at the facts gives us the chance to act professionally and make the right decisions. Still I don't see how it matters for the decision whether the murderer should get a second chance or not. If the criminal did everything to ease the pain of the survivors, namely admitting the guilt and showing remorse (I know it's not much but for the family of the victim it can make a difference and sadly he can't do more than that), he should get a second chance if he is considered not dangerous. We as a society must act better than he did. He declined mercy to the victim but we still have mercy on him. It doesn't take the guilt off him; that's something he has to find out for himself, we cannot make his peace for him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2009 10:04:56 GMT -6
I know that it sounds awful but it's the truth. When one has cancer, from a medical point of view it doesn't matter whether the one has loved ones, whether he/she will be missed, whether he/she had plans, it only matters whether the cancer can be cured or not. It's the same with crime. The circumstances make it tragic (like a deadly disease) but the science has to look at the pure facts. It's not satisfying, in no way it is but only looking at the facts gives us the chance to act professionally and make the right decisions. Yes. Pure facts. Yet, more like a plague than cancer. Once contained, shall we deliberately and knowingly inject it back into society? He can do all that ~ admit guilt and show remorse ~ from the comfort of a nine by 12 suite. When we (society) are interested in 'second chances' it seems to me any admission of guilt and showing of remorse are self-serving. If the murdering POS is truly remorseful, such would come even knowing that such would not give us the chance to give him a chance with release. Then, the second chance comes from within, and look at all the people inside the walls they may help on a path to redemption... perhaps we ought consider it his calling.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Feb 21, 2009 10:25:20 GMT -6
Bit of a back-handed compliment that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2009 10:37:59 GMT -6
Bit of a back-handed compliment that? They're murderers. They're not murderers. Supposedly, we learn from history. A murderer's history is he murdered. Setting the murder and the murder victim aside, as it appears we must, why is it 'right' to risk another murder victim? Maybe we oughta give him or her a say in the matter of whether it was worth the risk? a few 'results'. You mean a few murder victims.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 21, 2009 13:50:09 GMT -6
I To me that's downgrading. It's interesting that eventually should be over for murder as if it wasn't that serious. After all they only removed one person or people from this world of 6 plus billion and it didn't affect my life.
How do we know? How do we really know? If they murder again, you might then be willing to lock them up for good. If they, however, murdered one of your loved ones, then you might wished they had never been let out. So are you willing to take the risk with someone else's life including your own or someone you love. Ask yourself that seriously? Or do you think it will never affect your life? Protecting society and punishment ought to be simultaneously.
Are you really comparing a misbehaved child to a murderer? And tell me if you let a murderer out how do you intend to monitor who they hang around so they won't murder again? Do you keep on punishing a murderer? Yes!
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Feb 21, 2009 13:53:40 GMT -6
Bit of a back-handed compliment that? But to be serious, no assessment is ever fool proof. I think you mean "full proof", do you not? But you may have a better definition. I think it is foolish to think we can know if someone has changed.
|
|