|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 3, 2011 12:45:03 GMT -6
What is your point, Erick. None of my comments contradict what I've been saying today. It is probably human nature to love children unconditionally, or at least it might be for mothers. Castigating the family members of murderers isn't going to increase the average time served for murder. And it sure won't revive a dying death penalty. Honky thinks that we should not execute murderers because of the harm it does to the murderers' families. That's not correct. It seems you have not understood anything. I simply object to your arbitrary application of 'justice'. You think that 'justice' warrants you in killing a murderer since he himself killed, but not killing his son on the grounds that he killed someone else's son. A life for a life is ok, but not a son for a son. You admit that a son for a son IS just, but that we simply cannot punish the son for the father's crimes. But I say we are not punishing the son, we are punishing the father by hurting the son. The son is collateral damage, not the target of the act. You cay that we cannot hurt the son even as collateral damage while trying to punish the father. But in that case we can't execute the POS because it will cause his son agony. You then word weasel about 'diminished interests' and related baloney.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 3, 2011 12:52:58 GMT -6
But I am still trying to fathom what your argument is for this claim. You have at times implied that the murderer is a lesser human and that this implies that the mother has a lesser interest in him. But I know of no legal ruling that counts the convict as a lesser human. Perhaps you do. I did not say he is a lesser human. Rather, I said his mother has a reduced expectation of having a relationship with him due to his crime. Why does she have the reduced expectation? (a) Because we're gonna kill him? (b) Because he is in jail. If (a) then your argument is circular. We can kill him without violating her rights because she has a reduced expectation of a relationship, and she has that because we're gonna kill him. If (b) then you run into your own stipulation that the cause of the reduced relationship ought to match the mother's expectations. If you juice the guy when she was only expecting a reduced relationship because of jail, then you violate her rights.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 3, 2011 13:05:32 GMT -6
Honky thinks that we should not execute murderers because of the harm it does to the murderers' families. That's not correct. It seems you have not understood anything. I simply object to your arbitrary application of 'justice'. You think that 'justice' warrants you in killing a murderer since he himself killed, but not killing his son on the grounds that he killed someone else's son. A life for a life is ok, but not a son for a son. You admit that a son for a son IS just, but that we simply cannot punish the son for the father's crimes. But I say we are not punishing the son, we are punishing the father by hurting the son. The son is collateral damage, not the target of the act. You cay that we cannot hurt the son even as collateral damage while trying to punish the father. But in that case we can't execute the POS because it will cause his son agony. You then word weasel about 'diminished interests' and related baloney. I don't get what you don't understand about substantive due process and the son having a right to life that the Constitution forbids be taken from him as punishment for his father's crimes. You keep saying that it is about agony but it is not. The Constitution does not protect your right to be free from agony. The Constitution protects certain tangible, concrete rights. Thus, the Constitution protects a son from getting juiced for what his dad did. The Constitution does not protect a son from having to suffer grief over his father's execution. To a certain degree the Constitution does protect a son's right to have a relationship with his murdering father, but that right takes a backseat when it is wholly incompatible with the state's important interest in making the father dead. In the event that the state had an interest in killing the son as punishment for his dad's crime, the son's right would not take a backseat to that interest because the balance would come out differently. Simply put, a son's right to have a relationship with his dad would be trumped by the state's interest in juicing the dad, whereas the son's right to his own life would trump the state's interest in killing him to get back at his father. Although some parents might prefer to be executed themselves instead of lose their relationship with their kids, I think it is self-evident that a person's right to his own life is of greater Constitutional importance than that person's right to have a relationship with a loved one who has been convicted of a capital crime.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 3, 2011 13:14:10 GMT -6
As member fuglyville "as an anti" states in all her post, again when she made this thread say's. With all respect that is what mental health professionals are for. Meaning the MVS faimly.
Well, then that should apply to the murderers familys too, if their son or daughter recieved the DP. Well then with all due respect that is what mental health professionals are for also no?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 3, 2011 13:32:03 GMT -6
I would have difficulty explaining to the mother of a murderer why her son or daughter needs to be executed It is not your job to explain that to them that is what mental heath professionals are for. Member Fuglyville(an anti) will explain that to you, be it the family who lost a loved one. So that should apply also in my mind tor a family that had a family member commit murder and recieves the DP.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 3, 2011 13:36:12 GMT -6
It is not your job to explain that to them that is what mental heath professionals are for. It's not te mental health professional killing her child. It's me. Member Fuglyville (an anti) will explain that to you, be it the family who lost a loved one. A mental health professional explained moral philosophy to them?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 3, 2011 14:00:04 GMT -6
It is not your job to explain that to them that is what mental heath professionals are for. It's not te mental health professional killing her child. It's me. Member Fuglyville (an anti) will explain that to you, be it the family who lost a loved one. A mental health professional explained moral philosophy to them? Moral? who's morals philosophy? The shrinks morals?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2011 14:21:10 GMT -6
Honky thinks that we should not execute murderers because of the harm it does to the murderers' families. Good lord now the murderers family !! Actual victims even further out of the picture Well, I cannot say how any other mother would feel ~ only me. I can say with absolute certainty that if my son was a murderer rather than a victim, my grief would be tenfold. Yet, given that death is only every now and then thrown at murderers, I would hope (pray, beg) for a lifetime ~ LWOP, to visit him and encourage him to find ways to (at least in part) make right his wrong (perhaps encouraging other youths not to walk his walk).
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 3, 2011 14:23:00 GMT -6
Moral? who's morals philosophy? The shrinks morals? The question is why one murderer has to be executed while we spare the lives of 240 murderers. Anyone who finds murder to be abhorrent, including the mother of a condemned murderer, would not be out of line in asking such a question. It is a question for all citizens, since the citizens of a death penalty state are the ones imposing death as punishment for murder -- well, as punishment for something, anyway, since only a tiny fraction of murderers are executed.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 3, 2011 15:30:37 GMT -6
Moral? who's morals philosophy? The shrinks morals? The question is why one murderer has to be executed while we spare the lives of 240 murderers. Not by morals, evaulated by mental health professionals as to possible future threat, some cannot be helped by meds or mental help maybe? High risk? When we say murderers does that include manslaughter? Why we do not execute them? Or are we staying with capital murder? Anyone who finds murder to be abhorrent, including the mother of a condemned murderer, would not be out of line in asking such a question. It is a question for all citizens, since the citizens of a death penalty state are the ones imposing death as punishment for murder -- well, as punishment for something, anyway, since only a tiny fraction of murderers are executed.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 3, 2011 16:14:05 GMT -6
You're trying to say something, Ms. Diamonds. I just know it.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 3, 2011 16:18:17 GMT -6
You're trying to say something, Ms. Diamonds. I just know it. I'm trying to understand you by pushing. First please tell me where do you stand on a manslaugher charge, dead is dead.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 3, 2011 16:56:30 GMT -6
First please tell me where do you stand on a manslaugher charge, dead is dead. That's a good question. I will concede the fine line between premeditation and irresistible impulse. I can offer examples of provocation sufficient to break down an ordinary person's moral restraint to the point where that person reacts with deadly force. I submit, however, that premeditation takes but an instant and that most people serving time for "manslaughter" are actually murderers.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 3, 2011 16:58:32 GMT -6
First please tell me where do you stand on a manslaugher charge, dead is dead. That's a good question. I will concede the fine line between premeditation and irresistible impulse. I can offer examples of provocation sufficient to break down an ordinary person's moral restraint to the point where that person reacts with deadly force. I submit, however, that premeditation takes but an instant and that most people serving time for "manslaughter" are actually murderers. I agree with this. I would also say most people doing time for voluntary manslaughter and 2nd degree murder are actually 1st degree murderers, all worthy of execution.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 3, 2011 17:22:59 GMT -6
That's a good question. I will concede the fine line between premeditation and irresistible impulse. I can offer examples of provocation sufficient to break down an ordinary person's moral restraint to the point where that person reacts with deadly force. I submit, however, that premeditation takes but an instant and that most people serving time for "manslaughter" are actually murderers. I agree with this. I would also say most people doing time for voluntary manslaughter and 2nd degree murder are actually 1st degree murderers, all worthy of execution. I agree too, but Rev why only some are executed? You know yourself we will never execute all. In the US we have exonerated 273 some from DR some from a LWOP sentence. The average" time spent was 13 yrs inside.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 3, 2011 17:40:28 GMT -6
First please tell me where do you stand on a manslaugher charge, dead is dead. That's a good question. I will concede the fine line between premeditation and irresistible impulse. I can offer examples of provocation sufficient to break down an ordinary person's moral restraint to the point where that person reacts with deadly force. I submit, however, that premeditation takes but an instant and that most people serving time for "manslaughter" are actually murderers. With the examples of provocation sufficient to break down an ordinary person's moral restraint to the point where that person reacts with deadly force... how much time should he/she serve? LWOP or lesser even though they still are murderers no matter what. The victim is dead. Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 3, 2011 17:53:48 GMT -6
In the debate between Rev, Joe and Smart Bear. I have one thing also I do not understand. Smart Bear is the one I am sure, who states us pro's are using the victims meaning the MVS's. To have a DP Yet, the debate on the anti side is using the murderers family as victims to make their stance too for no DP . Or am I misunderstanding?
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 3, 2011 20:05:38 GMT -6
That's not correct. It seems you have not understood anything. I simply object to your arbitrary application of 'justice'. You think that 'justice' warrants you in killing a murderer since he himself killed, but not killing his son on the grounds that he killed someone else's son. A life for a life is ok, but not a son for a son. You admit that a son for a son IS just, but that we simply cannot punish the son for the father's crimes. But I say we are not punishing the son, we are punishing the father by hurting the son. The son is collateral damage, not the target of the act. You cay that we cannot hurt the son even as collateral damage while trying to punish the father. But in that case we can't execute the POS because it will cause his son agony. You then word weasel about 'diminished interests' and related baloney. I don't get what you don't understand about substantive due process and the son having a right to life that the Constitution forbids be taken from him as punishment for his father's crimes. You keep saying that it is about agony but it is not. The Constitution does not protect your right to be free from agony. In which case it would be permissible to apply electric shocks to the son to punish the father. The principle is the same. I just did a search on the constitution for the word 'trumping'. Couldn't find it. Is there a synonym? Constitution schmonstitution. I wouldn't mind but it 'self-evidently' says whatever you want depending on what you are arguing for. Would you, Agave, support 'a son for a son' as a principle of justice? If that requires a constitutional amendment, so be it. Would you support such an amendment?
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 3, 2011 20:06:13 GMT -6
In the debate between Rev, Joe and Smart Bear. I have one thing also I do not understand. Smart Bear is the one I am sure, who states us pro's are using the victims meaning the MVS's. To have a DP Yet, the debate on the anti side is using the murderers family as victims to make their stance too for no DP . Or am I misunderstanding? You are misunderstanding.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 3, 2011 22:02:40 GMT -6
Would you, Agave, support 'a son for a son' as a principle of justice? If that requires a constitutional amendment, so be it. Would you support such an amendment? No I would not. Personally, I do not want to risk being executed for something someone else did. Also, if the principle applied vice-versa (a father for a father) I would be even more reluctant to have kids than I am now. If such an Amendment were created, people would have a huge disincentive to procreate. It would also unfairly advantage those parents who don't care about the lives of their children. Indeed, under such an Amendment, Casey Anthony could have killed someone else's kid and then had the state kill her kid (who she wanted dead) and thus achieved her goal without risking anything of value to her. It would also give abusive family members leverage over their wives, parents, or children, i.e., "do as I say or I'll kill Jimmy's dad so the state executes you as my punishment." Not a good policy.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 3, 2011 22:17:16 GMT -6
Would you, Agave, support 'a son for a son' as a principle of justice? If that requires a constitutional amendment, so be it. Would you support such an amendment? No I would not. Personally, I do not want to risk being executed for something someone else did. Also, if the principle applied vice-versa (a father for a father) I would be even more reluctant to have kids than I am now. If such an Amendment were created, people would have a huge disincentive to procreate. It would also unfairly advantage those parents who don't care about the lives of their children. Indeed, under such an Amendment, Casey Anthony could have killed someone else's kid and then had the state kill her kid (who she wanted dead) and thus achieved her goal without risking anything of value to her. It would also give abusive family members leverage over their wives, parents, or children, i.e., do as I say or I'll kill Jimmy's dad so the state executes you as my punishment. Not a good policy. So 'justice' is sometimes outweighed by practical considerations against it. The possibility of being executed for what someone else did. The possibility that a murderer could, by framing someone else for a crime, use the state as the tool of murder (as with Timothy Evans). The possibility that the DP brutalizes the mind set of the population and inspires more murders. The fact that, no matter how 'just' it might be, it is simply wrong to kill a son for a son anyone. You're finally getting it.
|
|
|
Post by Rev. Agave on Oct 3, 2011 22:25:40 GMT -6
No I would not. Personally, I do not want to risk being executed for something someone else did. Also, if the principle applied vice-versa (a father for a father) I would be even more reluctant to have kids than I am now. If such an Amendment were created, people would have a huge disincentive to procreate. It would also unfairly advantage those parents who don't care about the lives of their children. Indeed, under such an Amendment, Casey Anthony could have killed someone else's kid and then had the state kill her kid (who she wanted dead) and thus achieved her goal without risking anything of value to her. It would also give abusive family members leverage over their wives, parents, or children, i.e., do as I say or I'll kill Jimmy's dad so the state executes you as my punishment. Not a good policy. So 'justice' is sometimes outweighed by practical considerations against it. The possibility of killing innocents. The possibility that a murder could, by framing someone else for a crime, use the state as the tool of murder (as with Timothy Evans). The possibility that the DP brutalizes the mind set of the population and inspires more murders. The fact that, no matter how 'just' it might be, it is simply wrong to kill a son for a son anyone. You're finally getting it. I think some risks are worth taking, especially if you have a nearly perfect jury system like Texas. But killing a son for a son would not even require fooling the justice system. It would just require making the choice that having your son killed is worth it to kill someone else's son. Although some murderers might think it is worth getting executed to do the murder, I think that would be a rarer occurrence than situations involving fathers sacrificing their children's' lives instead of their own.
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 3, 2011 22:44:16 GMT -6
So 'justice' is sometimes outweighed by practical considerations against it. The possibility of killing innocents. The possibility that a murder could, by framing someone else for a crime, use the state as the tool of murder (as with Timothy Evans). The possibility that the DP brutalizes the mind set of the population and inspires more murders. The fact that, no matter how 'just' it might be, it is simply wrong to kill a son for a son anyone. You're finally getting it. I think some risks are worth taking, especially if you have a nearly perfect jury system like Texas. But killing a son for a son would not even require fooling the justice system. It would just require making the choice that having your son killed is worth it to kill someone else's son. Although some murderers might think it is worth getting executed to do the murder, I think that would be a rarer occurrence than situations involving fathers sacrificing their children's' lives instead of their own. You don't understand. A son for a son would be in addition to the regular DP. You get 'a son for a son' to square you with the people you bereaved, then, just when you are beginning to move on, you get juiced yourself to square you with the victim. It's all about justice in its pure form. So killing someone else's son to get your own son killed would be dumb, since you're gonna get killed too. Any other objections, or are you on board?
|
|
|
Post by honkybouffant on Oct 3, 2011 22:48:44 GMT -6
I should add that threatening to kill people's kids would make a marvelous deterrent. Saddam used it to great effect. If you are serious about bringing down the murder rate like Arizonavet you should be all in favor.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 3, 2011 23:35:27 GMT -6
With the examples of provocation sufficient to break down an ordinary person's moral restraint to the point where that person reacts with deadly force... how much time should he/she serve? LWOP or lesser even though they still are murderers no matter what. The victim is dead. Thoughts? That's another good question. I don't know, because in my opinion true manslaughter almost never happens. If a provocation is truly irresistible, why is the reaction even a crime? It can be said that the provocateur is 100 percent responsible for his own death. Making the reaction a crime implies that the reaction should have been resisted at least a little. You probably don't remember how Marvin Gaye, Jr. died, but I certainly do. (I was the one that typed up the legal notice following his death.) He was shot to death by his father after a bitter, vehement argument. In a fit or rage, the father shot his son once, paused, and then shot him again. In my opinion the father should have been charged with first degree murder, at least after the second shot. The murderer never even went to jail. He pleaded guilty to "manslaughter" and did five years of probation. I'd do away with the classification of second-degree murder entirely and make the punishment for voluntary manslaughter the same as what it is for second degree murder now.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Oct 3, 2011 23:52:55 GMT -6
In the debate between Rev, Joe and Smart Bear. I have one thing also I do not understand. Smart Bear is the one I am sure, who states us pro's are using the victims meaning the MVS's. To have a DP Yet, the debate on the anti side is using the murderers family as victims to make their stance too for no DP . Or am I misunderstanding? The average time served for murder is shamefully small. Very few people, and especially very few "pros," really give a sh#t about murder victims. A murder victim is a murder victim is a murder victim. Until we start thinking of them that way, as members of a group, we will never see a drop in the murder rate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2011 23:55:58 GMT -6
With the examples of provocation sufficient to break down an ordinary person's moral restraint to the point where that person reacts with deadly force... how much time should he/she serve? LWOP or lesser even though they still are murderers no matter what. The victim is dead. Thoughts? That's another good question. I don't know, because in my opinion true manslaughter almost never happens. If a provocation is truly irresistible, why is the reaction even a crime? It can be said that the provocateur is 100 percent responsible for his own death. Making the reaction a crime implies that the reaction should have been resisted at least a little. You probably don't remember how Marvin Gaye, Jr. died, but I certainly do. (I was the one that typed up the legal notice following his death.) He was shot to death by his father after a bitter, vehement argument. In a fit or rage, the father shot his son once, paused, and then shot him again. In my opinion the father should have been charged with first degree murder, at least after the second shot. The murderer never even went to jail. He pleaded guilty to "manslaughter" and did five years of probation. I'd do away with the classification of second-degree murder entirely and make the punishment for voluntary manslaughter the same as what it is for second degree murder now. when i was 16, my friends older brother was hit and killed by an off duty police officer while he was walking drunk on the freeway where pedestrians are strictly prohibited. I am not sure if the law has changed since then, but this officer stood trial for manslaughter. The only reason he got off is because my friends parents testified in his defence and pleaded for him to not be punished.
|
|
|
Post by arizonavet on Oct 4, 2011 6:43:58 GMT -6
Considering the resources used to prosecute capital cases, pay for the defense and all the separate appeals - is it really worth it? Given the fact that several states are striving with the economy - are there really nothing more meaningful those money could be used for? An argument often given in favour of the death penalty is that it gives those left behind "peace of mind" and to let them "move on" - with all respect, that's what you have mental health professionals for. If they're given LWOP, that should have the same effect upon those left behind as if the murderer were killed. They have all the right in the world to feel bothered by the state not acting upon their feelings, but that does mean that the state should act upon those feelings . Another argument is "knowing they would never hurt anyone again" - should they do so, that's a matter of failed prison security; it is not and should not be an excuse to kill them. Whether death penalty acts as a deterrent is still nowhere near a proven fact - the statistics seems to say the exact opposite. Thus - when neither deterrence, economy, protection and those left behind are valid reasons... What's left? Failed prison security? Excuse to kill? 99% of all prisons in the WORLD....have escapees...so this is a rediculous statement. It's a fact...get over it...it will happen. Here's just one classic example: ************************************************************************************************ Nearly two decades ago, for 12 steamy monsoon days in August of 1978, police combed the Southwest for two escaped Arizona murderers and the three sons who sprung them from an Arizona state prison. In those more easygoing times, Arizona's medium security facilities apparently offered little trouble to Gary Tison's three sons -- Donald, 20, Ricky, 19, and Raymond, 18 -- when they decided to sneak in an ice chest containing revolvers and sawed-off shotguns on visitors' day. They broke out their father, Gary Tison, serving a life sentence for killing a Phoenix jail guard in 1967. Randy Greenawalt, serving his own life term for shooting a Flagstaff truck driver through the head in order to rob him in 1974, tagged along. The five raced for the California state line, but suffered a flat tire near Quartzite. When Marine Sgt. John Lyons, 24, of Yuma stopped with his family to help, the five fugitives shot and killed them all. Lyons' 15-year-old niece, Theresa Tyson, survived longest. Mortally wounded when a bullet shattered her thigh, sending bone fragments into her abdomen, she crawled a quarter mile into the desert to escape. Her body was found five days later, huddled over the small dog with whom the family had traveled, as though to protect it. The dog was also dead. In July, the Western Arizona sun can kill within hours. Also murdered were Sgt. Lyons' 23-year-old wife, Donnelda, and the 22-month-old infant she clutched in her arms. *************************************************************************************************** If Tyson & Greenawalt had been executed...as they should have been...this Marine Sergent's family, including the 22 month-old infant....would be alive today. Also, they killed another family....the just-married..Judges... Yes, failed prison security....just like all prisons...all over the world. We don't need an "excuse to kill them"......it's a logical reason, and we have plenty. These worst of the worst monsters escape & kill.. They maim & kill prison DOC officers... They maim, kill & rape, young, first time offenders in prison.... If any anti's believe that this is an "isolated incident"....just say so...I've got many more reasons to execute.....where this one came from. Another absolute joke....is that execution is no deterrent.... So I suppose "life" or lwop isn't either? (if execution isn't a deterrent.....lwop sure wouldn't be) Oh hell, lets just give up & let them kill all they please, since nothing is a deterrent No offence....but you...are living in a dream world.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Oct 4, 2011 7:57:12 GMT -6
With the examples of provocation sufficient to break down an ordinary person's moral restraint to the point where that person reacts with deadly force... how much time should he/she serve? LWOP or lesser even though they still are murderers no matter what. The victim is dead. Thoughts? That's another good question. I don't know, because in my opinion true manslaughter almost never happens. If a provocation is truly irresistible, why is the reaction even a crime? It can be said that the provocateur is 100 percent responsible for his own death. Making the reaction a crime implies that the reaction should have been resisted at least a little. You probably don't remember how Marvin Gaye, Jr. died, but I certainly do. (I was the one that typed up the legal notice following his death.) He was shot to death by his father after a bitter, vehement argument. In a fit or rage, the father shot his son once, paused, and then shot him again. In my opinion the father should have been charged with first degree murder, at least after the second shot. The murderer never even went to jail. He pleaded guilty to "manslaughter" and did five years of probation. I'd do away with the classification of second-degree murder entirely and make the punishment for voluntary manslaughter the same as what it is for second degree murder now. Thank You Joe for answering my question's. In the Marvin Gaye death I feel his Dad commited murder in the 1st degree. The pause and shot him yet again took it out of manslaughter as far as I personally am concerned. Agree. To add: I also agree make voluntary manslaughter the same as what is 2nd degree is now, & doing away with the "classification" of 2nd degree.
|
|
|
Post by arizonavet on Oct 4, 2011 8:25:02 GMT -6
If we're still talking about true justice for a child raping pig like Kennedy.... I'd have him wait for about a hundred aids-ridden "bubba's" to rip him from a-hole to elbow.... THEN let nature take it's course... without medical aid of any kind... THEN...just before he expires.....execute him!!! Ah....so I can get unrealistically emotional too ;D Naw, just execute him...let God deal with the real punishment/justice. For those who find it difficult to identify the "worst of the worst"..... read about Kennedy....he "qualifies"... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_v._LouisianaRead what he did, the actual medical report....and tell me if you disagree with my first thoughts on his punishment. Or would you actually give him a chance to escape & do it all over?
|
|