Question About DP Alternative

[WankerMcGoo]

sylviasdaddy said:

1. You have yet to show your qualification to diagnose sadism
2. You have yet to show that my proposal is un-American
3. You have yet to explain why you want to coddle criminals

And you have yet to show me why your nonsense is worthy of a moment of my time!

[guest]

You have yet to show that my proposal is un-American

Proposing to do away with the Bill of Rights is un-American and ridiculous, too, since it is never going to happen.

[Donnie]

guest said:

You have yet to show that my proposal is un-American

Proposing to do away with the Bill of Rights is un-American and ridiculous, too, since it is never going to happen.

That means that Congress, the Supreme Court and the President are all unAmerican then, because they created and approved a llaw that clearly violates the freedom of speech; the McCain-Feingold law.

[legal eagle]

There is no alternative to the death penalty since the liberals will always attempt to get Life without Parole declare unconstitutional by the courts, repealed by the State Assembly or seek gubnertorial clemency. Capital punishment should be applied to every person aged 10 years of age or older who commits cold blooded murder.


PDT Los Angeles (AP)

A teen who shot and killed a California Highway Patrol officer outside a Pomona courthouse two years ago will not get reprieve from the California Supreme Court, which refused to review his sentence for life in prison without parole.


The state's highest court last week rejected a petition to review the case against Valentino M. Arenas Jr., who pleaded guilty in December 2004 to murdering CHP Officer Thomas Steiner.


Arenas was 16 during the killing, making him ineligible for the death penalty.


The teen admitted killing the officer to impress a street gang. His lawyer has since argued that the teen's low IQ and heavy drug use should have been considered as reasons to give him a straight life sentence.


In May, an appellate court panel found Pomona Superior Court Judge Philip Gutierrez weighed all factors and did not abuse his discretion when he imposed the sentence.


"Officer Steiner was shot and killed, not in a traffic stop or in a confrontation with a suspect where he would be on his guard, but in a most cold-blooded and cowardly manner," Associate Justice Kathryn Doi Todd wrote in the ruling.


The 35-year-old highway patrol officer was married and the father of a nearly 3-year-old boy and 13-year-old stepson. He worked out of the CHP's Santa Fe Springs office and lived in Long Beach.

regards the legal eagle.

[Deleted]

guest said:

You have yet to show that my proposal is un-American

Proposing to do away with the Bill of Rights is un-American and ridiculous, too, since it is never going to happen.

It's just happening, step by step. So be careful.

[bee]

1/ At present the DP is very inefficient. Any debate comparing the deterrent effect of the DP versus LWOP must acknowledge that if the DP was enforced more readily, it is possible that the deterrent effect would be far greater than at present.

or it might be the opposite. or it might have no effect at all.

2/ Where there is hope there is less deterrent. At any time during a LWOP sentence the inmate may get a reprieve, it may be a small chance, but the chance is always there. If an inmate is executed, his chances of release diminish to zero. Therefore, the deterrent effect of the DP should be higher than LWOP.

that's assuming that the definite nature of the death sentence has any sort of deterrence.
and is deterrence the main reason why death sentences are carried out?

3/ Proving any LWOP sentence is genuine would take a long time. How long would it take before the public and criminals alike believed LWOP really meant LWOP? 20 years? 40? 100? How many 18 years olds would have to die in prison before there was trust in the system? A system that could still change at any time? On the other hand, execute %99 of all murderers in less than 2 years and you would find out very quickly if the DP was an effective deterrent. Abolishonist's should take up this challenge if the truly and honestly believe the DP has little or no deterrent value.

two years is not nearly enough time to make that kind of judgement. people that point to a spike in murders after capital punishment was abolished are making the same kind of mistake. they start with the premise that there is only one factor influencing murder rates, yet no one has ever demonstrated that this is the case.

besides, suppose you are wrong. suppose more executions raise the murder rate? look at the harm you've done!

4/ A change in behavior (deterrent) may well come from 'long and repeated impressions', however what is more likely to happen is that LWOP'ers will be forgotten. In fact, this is a current 'Anti' argument ; that it is better to lock killers away and forget them, rather than give them the attention of an execution. Even if this argument is valid, how do you convey it to the general public in a practical and effective manner? Besides, if 'long repeated impressions' is the way to go, what could make more of an impression than 10 executions a day?

i'm not sure what you're trying to say here. are you supporting capital punishment because it "teaches" or "informs" the public about right behavior? i really think the public in general knows what right behavior is already.

i also think a drug dealer or a mafioso (like in the godfather or the sopranos) doesn't give a flip about right behavior because wrong behavior profits him more.

i guess i think people are always going to get so angry that if they have the opportunity and the means they're going to murder someone. i do think gun regulation could cut down on a lot of this kind of thing but that alone will never stop it. people will always get angry.

but i also think that murder is profitable or a way to survive among the sharks for some people. they don't pay attention to those lessons you want to teach and as long as it's more profitable they are going to take their chances, not with the death penalty but with not getting caught.

[bee]

donnie said:

That means that Congress, the Supreme Court and the President are all unAmerican then, because they created and approved a llaw that clearly violates the freedom of speech; the McCain-Feingold law.

there's a process for appealing that decision. several things have been approved by one court and reversed by another. but you have to make a better argument and i doubt anyone will ever think that money is the same as speech.

[bee]

legal said:

There is no alternative to the death penalty since the liberals will always attempt to get Life without Parole declare unconstitutional by the courts, repealed by the State Assembly or seek gubnertorial clemency.

don't you know that "liberals" worry that if you guys get an inch you'll start executing deadbeat dads?

hint: you obviously aren't a liberal so accept it. you have no clue what liberals will do.

[Donnie]

bee said:

there's a process for appealing that decision. several things have been approved by one court and reversed by another. but you have to make a better argument and i doubt anyone will ever think that money is the same as speech.

It has been appealed to the Supreme Court. The issue is not whether or not money is speech. Political speech is what is forbidden. If you are wealthy enough to own a newspaper than you can work around the law.

[Wickedlyamoral]

sylviasdaddy said:

When the Constitution was written, "cruel and unusual punishments" were such things as disembowelment, the rack, and boiling in oil.

The bleeding-heart knee-jerk liberals have made such hash of the criminal justice system that it is almost ineffective.

One way to put things right would be to amend the US Constitution, and each State's constitution, as follows:

No person who has been convicted of a felony by any State or Federal court shall enjoy any rights whatsoever under this Constitution until his sentence shall have been served in full.

Under the terms of this amendment:
• A convicted felon shall not have freedom of religion.
• A convicted felon shall not have freedom of speech.
• A convicted felon shall not have freedom of the press.
• Convicted felons shall not have the right of assembly.
• A convicted felon shall not have the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
• A convicted felon shall not have the right to keep and bear arms.
• A convicted felon may be subject to unreasonable searches and seizures.
• A convicted felon may be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime without presentment or indictment of a grand jury.
• A convicted felon may be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.
• A convicted felon may be compelled in criminal cases to be a witness against himself.
• A convicted felon may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
• A convicted felon is not entitled to a speedy and public trial.
• A convicted felon is not entitled to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
• A convicted felon is not entitled to be confronted with the witnesses against him.
• A convicted felon is not entitled to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.
• A convicted felon is not entitled to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
• A convicted felon may be required to post excessive bail.
• A convicted felon may be required to pay an excessive fine.
• A convicted felon may be required to suffer cruel and unusual punishment.
• A convicted felon is not entitled to vote.
• The failure of this list to deny a right to a convicted felon shall not be construed to bestow such right.

That would muzzle the bleeding-heart knee-jerk liberals. Criminal justice could do what it takes to punish criminals. Those criminals who would benefit from light consequences can receive light consequences; those who require sterner measures could receive those sterner measures -- as stern as necessary to achieve the desired end.

I agree with part of this list but not all. It is like most laws anyway....what protects the bad guy also protects the good guy. And you would want it there for the good guy as well. This would be setting up 2 sets of law for people. Granted inmates have too many rights but there are some that do not need replaced.

[Donnie]

bee said:

hint: you obviously aren't a liberal so accept it. you have no clue what liberals will do.

But I was a liberal for many years, I can read what liberals write, hear what liberals say and see what liberals do. Right now liberals are attempting to eliminate LWOP in the US. So there is no mystery for me.

[gman]

bee said:

1/ At present the DP is very inefficient. Any debate comparing the deterrent effect of the DP versus LWOP must acknowledge that if the DP was enforced more readily, it is possible that the deterrent effect would be far greater than at present.

or it might be the opposite. or it might have no effect at all.

True. But the point is still valid, it is still 'possible'.

2/ Where there is hope there is less deterrent. At any time during a LWOP sentence the inmate may get a reprieve, it may be a small chance, but the chance is always there. If an inmate is executed, his chances of release diminish to zero. Therefore, the deterrent effect of the DP should be higher than LWOP.

that's assuming that the definite nature of the death sentence has any sort of deterrence.
and is deterrence the main reason why death sentences are carried out?

Yes, true. I am also assuming that most people would prefer life over death. If you prefer one thing over another then, I argue, you will have a tendency to avoid confronting the less preferred option, especially if the second option is a swift death. As for your second question, that is a separate issue. This particular thread is asking whether LWOP has a greater probable deterrence factor when compared to the DP.

3/ Proving any LWOP sentence is genuine would take a long time. How long would it take before the public and criminals alike believed LWOP really meant LWOP? 20 years? 40? 100? How many 18 years olds would have to die in prison before there was trust in the system? A system that could still change at any time? On the other hand, execute %99 of all murderers in less than 2 years and you would find out very quickly if the DP was an effective deterrent. Abolishonist's should take up this challenge if the truly and honestly believe the DP has little or no deterrent value.

two years is not nearly enough time to make that kind of judgement. people that point to a spike in murders after capital punishment was abolished are making the same kind of mistake. they start with the premise that there is only one factor influencing murder rates, yet no one has ever demonstrated that this is the case.

Again, this argument, overall, is comparing the deterrent effect, if any, of a sentence of LWOP compared with a sentence of death. Simply put, it would take a far shorter time to determine if an aggressive DP policy had a measurable impact on murder rates compared to an aggressive policy using LWOP alone. You are right though, two years is a little short. Perhaps 5 or 10 years would offer a better spread. If after 5 years, under the above conditions, murder rates did not significantly drop, then we can assume swift-sure-aggressive execution of the DP provides no extra deterrence.

besides, suppose you are wrong. suppose more executions raise the murder rate? look at the harm you've done!

True. Either two things would happen. Either the murder rate would drop, saving countless innocent lives, or, the DP argument would be fatally wounded; saving countless innocent, and countless guilty, lives in the long term. Of course, this depends on whether your support of, or opposition to, the DP is based on the 'protection' argument. If you oppose, or support, the DP on moral grounds none of the above argument should matter.

[gman]

bee said:

4/ A change in behavior (deterrent) may well come from 'long and repeated impressions', however what is more likely to happen is that LWOP'ers will be forgotten. In fact, this is a current 'Anti' argument ; that it is better to lock killers away and forget them, rather than give them the attention of an execution. Even if this argument is valid, how do you convey it to the general public in a practical and effective manner? Besides, if 'long repeated impressions' is the way to go, what could make more of an impression than 10 executions a day?

i'm not sure what you're trying to say here. are you supporting capital punishment because it "teaches" or "informs" the public about right behavior? i really think the public in general knows what right behavior is already.

I apologise for lacking clarity. The OP was basically arguing that the daily drudgery associated with LWOP provides a deterrent, possibly a greater deterrent, than that associated with the DP. For that to happen we, the public, would have to empathise (or sympathise) with the LWOP inmate to a greater degree than the inmate facing execution. After all, isn't that really the essence of the deterrent argument - fearing that what is happening to someone else could happen to me if ... ? I am only arguing that getting that 'message' across, transferring that 'fear deterrent', is more difficult with LWOP - because ultimately most people see death as a worse thing than confinement.

i also think a drug dealer or a mafioso (like in the godfather or the sopranos) doesn't give a flip about right behavior because wrong behavior profits him more.

i guess i think people are always going to get so angry that if they have the opportunity and the means they're going to murder someone. i do think gun regulation could cut down on a lot of this kind of thing but that alone will never stop it. people will always get angry.

but i also think that murder is profitable or a way to survive among the sharks for some people. they don't pay attention to those lessons you want to teach and as long as it's more profitable they are going to take their chances, not with the death penalty but with not getting caught.

I agree. But neither will these guys above pay much attention to a threat of LWOP. The deterrence argument is not a strong one, but I also strongly disagree with any argument that suggests LWOP is a greater deterrent than the death penalty. And that is what this thread is really all about.

Regards
G