|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 4, 2011 17:34:55 GMT -6
Life. In. Prison. To thine office fair and true, I beg: how doth thee define malice? I guess I don't understand why we can't kill them, preferably in public. Because you can't define malicious premeditated homicide as 'murder', then punish murder with malicious premeditated homicide. To grant an exception for the state is to let the legitimacy of the act depend on who is performing it. This irreparably compromises any stance against the act.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 4, 2011 17:36:56 GMT -6
Because the alleged pros haven't the stomach for it. People like thinking of themselves as residents of a death penalty state. That makes them feel better. They passively want very bad murderers executed. They just don't want to be a part of the process, or to even think about it. I'm not so sure. I think people are distant from the DP and feel powerless to change it. But ask any citizen to borrow some rope for a public hanging, and he'd probably be happy to oblige. I've hardly met anyone in real life (outside of these boards) who would oppose a law to execute all murderers. Yet when those same people are put in positions of power, on juries, as judges, as prosecutors, etc, they together retreat from imposing the ultimate punishment. In other words, folks are happy for *somebody else* to kill murderers.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 4, 2011 17:37:09 GMT -6
I guess I don't understand why we can't kill them, preferably in public. Because you can't define malicious premeditated homicide as 'murder', then punish murder with malicious premeditated homicide. To grant an exception for the state is to let the legitimacy of the act depend on who is performing it. This irreparably compromises any stance against the act. Why can't we simply add the word "unlawful" to the definition of malice so that executions don't qualify?
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 4, 2011 18:00:28 GMT -6
I'm not so sure. I think people are distant from the DP and feel powerless to change it. But ask any citizen to borrow some rope for a public hanging, and he'd probably be happy to oblige. I've hardly met anyone in real life (outside of these boards) who would oppose a law to execute all murderers. Yet when those same people are put in positions of power, on juries, as judges, as prosecutors, etc, they together retreat from imposing the ultimate punishment. In other words, folks are happy for *somebody else* to kill murderers. Make me National Minister of Executions. Open executions to the public and give me the ability to bring these things to the people free from FCC constraints. Let me build a gallows on the 50 yard line in Texas Stadium, and I'll launch a campaign of lethal justice for all that will clean up this country good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2011 19:42:27 GMT -6
Any society which houses murderers in medium security prisons allowing a cooler filled with guns to be brought in are idiots. I mean, how could they not see that spelled disaster? So, it proves something. We can't house them properly because we are idiots. I don't think that makes us all idiots just those who are in charge of such things idiots. Yes, I agree that is stupid, but prisoners do escape from maximum security prisons and do kill correctional officers. That has nothing to do with idiots. It's just something that happens because bad things happen. If it's any consolation, I'm more likely to be killed walking down a city street than a correctional officer while on the job. I've yet to read about a single CO being murdered on the job that couldn't have been prevented.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 4, 2011 19:44:11 GMT -6
Because you can't define malicious premeditated homicide as 'murder', then punish murder with malicious premeditated homicide. To grant an exception for the state is to let the legitimacy of the act depend on who is performing it. This irreparably compromises any stance against the act. Why can't we simply add the word "unlawful" to the definition of malice so that executions don't qualify? One word ain't gonna do it. If you lived in a country that had only the law: No premeditated, malicious, unlawful homicides. That doesn't rule out anything, since what's to say that killing my enemy is unlawful?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 4, 2011 19:52:33 GMT -6
you can't define malicious premeditated homicide as 'murder', then punish murder with malicious premeditated homicide. State-sanctioned killing is lawful and therefore not malicious. To grant an exception for the state is to let the legitimacy of the act depend on who is performing it. This irreparably compromises any stance against the act. It doesn't, because the stance is against murder, not against killing.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 4, 2011 19:57:03 GMT -6
I'm not so sure. I think people are distant from the DP and feel powerless to change it. The public is indifferent, not despondent. It is not something people talk about around the water cooler, or at church, or at parties. It is no coincidence they don't like talking about murder victims, either. But ask any citizen to borrow some rope for a public hanging, and he'd probably be happy to oblige. I've hardly met anyone in real life (outside of these boards) who would oppose a law to execute all murderers. Not opposing something doesn't mean they're actively for it. They care a lot more about being able to buy a beer on Sunday, or about the price of gasoline than about the murder rate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2011 19:57:33 GMT -6
Uh-huh. ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) Funny, you see it as saving the lives of monsters, I consider it saving the lives of (potential) murder victims ~ the lives of those people who will be lost. Get back to me when you can speak to what I say rather than your twisted version. Talk about convoluted "logic".... ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png) If we don't execute murderers.....we will save lives of future potential victims ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) No twist whatever....isn't it true that you wouldn't execute any murderers? wouldn't that be saving their lives? Remember, keeping them in jails.....never to escape, or be pardoned...or kept from killing DOC guards..... Is a dream....a prohibitively expensive one. Get back to me when you can come up with a realistic, viable plan, that saves more victims lives than execution. Untill then, allowing them to "steal oxygen" saves no lives, outside or inside the prison. George, you have stated numerous times that you wouldn't execute all murderers ~ only the "worst of the worst" whatever that means today. You also wouldn't dole LWOP at them. So, while you're offing 50, the rest you'd release. Further, you say over and over and over again, that the cost of housing murderers properly would be too great. Meanwhile, we catch and prosecute maybe 60% of murderers (last I checked). I think the money we spend pursuing DP on a few would be better spent trying to catch more. I think we do a great injustice to murder victims ~ past, present, future.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 4, 2011 20:02:10 GMT -6
Why can't we simply add the word "unlawful" to the definition of malice so that executions don't qualify? One word ain't gonna do it. If you lived in a country that had only the law: No premeditated, malicious, unlawful homicides. That doesn't rule out anything, since what's to say that killing my enemy is unlawful? OK, so add "without a judicially approved death warrant."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2011 20:11:26 GMT -6
Because you can't define malicious premeditated homicide as 'murder', then punish murder with malicious premeditated homicide. To grant an exception for the state is to let the legitimacy of the act depend on who is performing it. This irreparably compromises any stance against the act. Why can't we simply add the word "unlawful" to the definition of malice so that executions don't qualify? Because this is Honky's kingdom and he sayeth that the act is so unacceptable that even his government won't indulge........... I think ![:-/](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/undecided.png)
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 4, 2011 20:12:44 GMT -6
I'm not so sure. I think people are distant from the DP and feel powerless to change it. The public is indifferent, not despondent. It is not something people talk about around the water cooler, or at church, or at parties. It is no coincidence they don't like talking about murder victims, either. People usually don't stand around the water cooler talking about cancer, either. That does not mean the issue is unimportant. Besides, I have heard people talk about executions at such places (expect church, which I don't attend). I have also heard many people talk about murder victims, which often entails talk about stringing up the murderer and lamentations about the appeals process. Moreover, we had a non-binding public referendum here a few elections ago where a very solid majority voted to bring back the DP. It still has not happened, but when put to a direct vote, it was overwhelmingly clear that most people support it. Sadly, the will of the people often gets lost in politics.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 4, 2011 20:15:23 GMT -6
you can't define malicious premeditated homicide as 'murder', then punish murder with malicious premeditated homicide. State-sanctioned killing is lawful and therefore not malicious. Nothing that is lawful is malicious? The Nazis could not create a malicious law no matter how they tried? Of course it is malicious. The aim is to kill, to do harm to someone who has done harm. The intent to do harm is the very essence of malice. And murder is premeditated, malicious homicide. Executing a man on a predetermined date is definitely premeditated, and the intent is to harm, hence malicious.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 4, 2011 20:18:23 GMT -6
One word ain't gonna do it. If you lived in a country that had only the law: No premeditated, malicious, unlawful homicides. That doesn't rule out anything, since what's to say that killing my enemy is unlawful? OK, so add "without a judicially approved death warrant." The term 'murder' has been with us longer than judicially approved death warrants, so nothing of the sort could have been in any original definition. You are simply re-engineering the term so that your favorite murders don't count.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 4, 2011 20:23:57 GMT -6
OK, so add "without a judicially approved death warrant." The term 'murder' has been with us longer than judicially approved death warrants, so nothing of the sort could have been in any original definition. You are simply re-engineering the term so that your favorite murders don't count. Who cares about the original, colloquial definition? When writing a statute, there is nothing wrong with taking a word and giving it a specific meaning that might differ from common usage. Besides, kidnapping and incarceration have a lot in common. We can take guidance from the kidnapping statute when drafting a law to exclude executions from the legal definition of murder.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 4, 2011 20:44:16 GMT -6
The term 'murder' has been with us longer than judicially approved death warrants, so nothing of the sort could have been in any original definition. You are simply re-engineering the term so that your favorite murders don't count. Who cares about the original, colloquial definition? When writing a statute, there is nothing wrong with taking a word and giving it a specific meaning that might differ from common usage. Perhaps. But if the only difference from the common usage is an exception for the state, then that is pernicious. You might as well redefine 'lying' as deliberately deceiving, except when the state does it. 'Theft' as 'seizing the property of another, except when the state does it'. 'Torture' as 'the deliberate infliction of pain as a means of persuasion or of sadistic gratification, except when the state does it'. When I complain that you are crafting an Orwellian newspeak in order to grant rights to a monster state, you say "who cares about the colloquial definition?"
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 4, 2011 20:53:54 GMT -6
Who cares about the original, colloquial definition? When writing a statute, there is nothing wrong with taking a word and giving it a specific meaning that might differ from common usage. Perhaps. But if the only difference from the common usage is an exception for the state, then that is pernicious. You might as well redefine 'lying' as deliberately deceiving, except when the state does it. 'Theft' as 'seizing the property of another, except when the state does it'. 'Torture' as 'the deliberate infliction of pain as a means of persuasion or of sadistic gratification, except when the state does it'. When I complain that you are crafting an Orwellian newspeak in order to grant rights to a monster state, you say "who cares about the colloquial definition?" Honky, the common usage of the term "murder" already implies an exception for state executions. Most people by and large automatically assume that state executions are not murders.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 4, 2011 20:54:37 GMT -6
This dude eloquently sums up most peoples' thoughts:
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 4, 2011 21:24:49 GMT -6
Perhaps. But if the only difference from the common usage is an exception for the state, then that is pernicious. You might as well redefine 'lying' as deliberately deceiving, except when the state does it. 'Theft' as 'seizing the property of another, except when the state does it'. 'Torture' as 'the deliberate infliction of pain as a means of persuasion or of sadistic gratification, except when the state does it'. When I complain that you are crafting an Orwellian newspeak in order to grant rights to a monster state, you say "who cares about the colloquial definition?" Honky, the common usage of the term "murder" already implies an exception for state executions. Most people by and large automatically assume that state executions are not murders. After a while of having an exception for the state when it comes to torture, people would come around to using that word differently too.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 4, 2011 21:28:21 GMT -6
This dude eloquently sums up most peoples' thoughts: Yes he is both eloquent and persuasive. If I were a pro, I'd take his line, right down to the public executions. Two things though: First, I don't think most pros are in favor of public executions, so I am not sure about your claim that this guy speaks for the man on the street. Second, I thought he went a bit quickly from the persuasive argument that he used against the silly liberal woman that sometimes killing is necessary to his claim that we should execute crooks that have already been restrained. I don't think he included all the steps in his reasoning there.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 5, 2011 5:52:32 GMT -6
Nothing that is lawful is malicious? Correct. The Nazis could not create a malicious law no matter how they tried? Strictly speaking, no. But that was Nazi Germany. There was no rule of law. There was only Hitler. Of course it is malicious. The aim is to kill, to do harm to someone who has done harm. The intent to do harm is the very essence of malice. It isn't, because one can harm someone else for entirely legitimate, sanctioned reasons. And murder is premeditated, malicious homicide. Executing a man on a predetermined date is definitely premeditated, and the intent is to harm, hence malicious. Malevolent maybe, but not malicious. The legal definition of malice is harm that is not lawful. The point of law is to transfer moral authority to the state and deny it to individuals. The state -- any state, any country -- has always had the moral authority to kill on behalf of, and in the name of, its citizens. Not every state exercises that authority, but it's there, like it or not.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 5, 2011 6:08:43 GMT -6
People usually don't stand around the water cooler talking about cancer, either. That does not mean the issue is unimportant. Besides, I have heard people talk about executions at such places (expect church, which I don't attend). I have also heard many people talk about murder victims, which often entails talk about stringing up the murderer and lamentations about the appeals process. Moreover, we had a non-binding public referendum here a few elections ago where a very solid majority voted to bring back the DP. It still has not happened, but when put to a direct vote, it was overwhelmingly clear that most people support it. Sadly, the will of the people often gets lost in politics. You're putting lipstick on a pig, Erick. In this country the people are supreme. Look what happened when liquor was banned. In short order, people rose up and repealed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They could just as easily repeal the Eighth Amendment and start hanging people in the streets again, which is what you claim they want to do. Decades have passed, and they haven't, however, done a thing about capital punishment. It's just not that important. Why? Because the people getting murderered are "those" people. There is a conspicuous and contemptible dearth of righteous indignation about murder in the United States, which is why people here have such a hard time executing murderers. The voters love the law, in theory. That's as far as they want to go.
|
|
|
Post by arizonavet on Oct 5, 2011 6:19:26 GMT -6
I guess I don't understand why we can't kill them, preferably in public. Because you can't define malicious premeditated homicide as 'murder', then punish murder with malicious premeditated homicide. To grant an exception for the state is to let the legitimacy of the act depend on who is performing it. This irreparably compromises any stance against the act. Because you can't define malicious premeditated false imprisonment then punish false imprisonment with malicious premeditated imprisonment. OF COURSE we execute murderers.....for murder... Just like we imprison.....for false imprisonment.... Examine the content of these cutesy little anti-dp sayings....and they fall apart like a cheap suit.
|
|
|
Post by arizonavet on Oct 5, 2011 6:26:17 GMT -6
People usually don't stand around the water cooler talking about cancer, either. That does not mean the issue is unimportant. Besides, I have heard people talk about executions at such places (expect church, which I don't attend). I have also heard many people talk about murder victims, which often entails talk about stringing up the murderer and lamentations about the appeals process. Moreover, we had a non-binding public referendum here a few elections ago where a very solid majority voted to bring back the DP. It still has not happened, but when put to a direct vote, it was overwhelmingly clear that most people support it. Sadly, the will of the people often gets lost in politics. You're putting lipstick on a pig, Erick. In this country the people are supreme. Look what happened when liquor was banned. In short order, people rose up and repealed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They could just as easily repeal the Eighth Amendment and start hanging people in the streets again, which is what you claim they want to do. Decades have passed, and they haven't, however, done a thing about capital punishment. It's just not that important. Why? Because the people getting murderered are "those" people. There is a conspicuous and contemptible dearth of righteous indignation about murder in the United States, which is why people here have such a hard time executing murderers. The voters love the law, in theory. That's as far as they want to go. Joe, you're just as bad as they are... You're not really serious about murder.... If you were reallly serious about murder, you would be an activist to execute 10 year old murderers by torturing them to death.... Until then, you're not really serious about murder. ![::)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/eyesroll.png)
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 5, 2011 6:39:28 GMT -6
I don't think that makes us all idiots just those who are in charge of such things idiots. Yes, I agree that is stupid, but prisoners do escape from maximum security prisons and do kill correctional officers. That has nothing to do with idiots. It's just something that happens because bad things happen. If it's any consolation, I'm more likely to be killed walking down a city street than a correctional officer while on the job. I've yet to read about a single CO being murdered on the job that couldn't have been prevented. Like saying I never met a victim that could not have prevented it, maybe we should all get a job in prison, since we will be safer?
|
|
|
Post by arizonavet on Oct 5, 2011 8:06:34 GMT -6
If it's any consolation, I'm more likely to be killed walking down a city street than a correctional officer while on the job. I've yet to read about a single CO being murdered on the job that couldn't have been prevented. Like saying I never met a victim that could not have prevented it, maybe we should all get a job in prison, since we will be safer? Correct Whitediamonds..... It is entirely unrealistic to to expect prisons to utterly end all attacks on CO's.....OR escapes...OR pardons from governors & presidents..... Personally, I'm not willing to "pay the frieght" to even attempt to insure such an unrealistic "quest". Realistic expectations......are rewarded with realistic results...it's the best we can do.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2011 8:23:38 GMT -6
If it's any consolation, I'm more likely to be killed walking down a city street than a correctional officer while on the job. I've yet to read about a single CO being murdered on the job that couldn't have been prevented. Like saying I never met a victim that could not have prevented it Not at all what I was saying. I blame the state and/or institution who'd house murderers (and other violent offenders) in less than maximum security. I blame the state and/or institution that pays so little to COs that the turn-over is great, that gives COs less than optimal training. I blame the state for protecting institutions when they fail to protect their COs. Well, if the only consideration is safety, there are many jobs and careers that are less safe.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Oct 5, 2011 9:02:41 GMT -6
I don't think that makes us all idiots just those who are in charge of such things idiots. Yes, I agree that is stupid, but prisoners do escape from maximum security prisons and do kill correctional officers. That has nothing to do with idiots. It's just something that happens because bad things happen. If it's any consolation, I'm more likely to be killed walking down a city street than a correctional officer while on the job. I've yet to read about a single CO being murdered on the job that couldn't have been prevented. That's easy enough to say when you are the one not doing the job.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2011 9:11:00 GMT -6
That's easy enough to say when you are the one not doing the job. If it's any consolation, I'm more likely to be killed walking down a city street than a correctional officer while on the job. I've yet to read about a single CO being murdered on the job that couldn't have been prevented. Huh?
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Oct 5, 2011 9:25:43 GMT -6
That's easy enough to say when you are the one not doing the job. Huh? It is easy to say that killing a correctioal officer could have been avoided when you're the one not doing the job. Most things in life can be avoided. But as we go about living life and doing our jobs it is easy for something to happen. Remember correctional officers do this probably 40 hours a week. So they like the rest of us get used to doing their jobs. Criminals, on the other hand have time to think and make plans so they get time to carve something into a weapon, or appear to behave well until they have time to launch their plan. They're not there because they are nice people. It's easy to judge a correctional officer who has been killed until maybe you have walked in his or her shoes.
|
|