[rant]
Okay, here we go (and apologies in advance for both the long post and the possible tone some parts of it may take).
To Joel--thanks for the info. The numbers do seem compelling. However, as I said, I think that making the statement that the death penalty does not prevent future crimes and pointing to the fact that Canada does not have the death penalty while exhibiting lower numbers of crimes (per capita) as evidence of this ignores other contributing factors. Some of them economic, some of them political, and some of them sociological.
Unfortunately, I haven't figured out the best way to follow up that point and present those factors without sounding like an elitist jerk, so I'll have to get back with you on this one.
alhoon wrote:I am against Death Penalty as a legal punishment. While sometimes it can be useful, I have certain points against it:
- Mistakes cannot be corrected, and a legal system should be aware of that.
- Death penalty leaves no chance for redemption and a legal system should first and foremost attempt instruct the criminal, not just dissuade others from similar crimes.
- Killing isn't legal, so death penalty shouldn't be legal.
No, mistakes cannot be corrected. But it seems that (in the American system of justice, at least) it takes more than a decade before all legal appeals and other avenues are exhausted. Given this length of time, it seems far less likely to me that the "mistakes" you refer to will not be discovered and addressed. Especially with advances in technology and the aforementioned DNA profiling and similar techniques.
To your second opinion, I respectfully disagree. While I believe that certain criminals can indeed be "redeemed" and become productive members of society (and there are mitigating circumstances in some crimes, a la Jean Valjean in
Les Miserables), I don't think the point of the legal system is to instruct the criminal--at least not the way I think you mean. Who grows up not realizing that murdering a convenience store clerk for the few hundred dollars he may have in the cash register is wrong? To that, it seems the point of the legal system may well be to "instruct"... but to do so in a way that illustrates the point through punishment (or "negative reinforcement" to use a psychological term) rather than trying to help the criminal find his inner child.
To your third opinion--isn't that like saying (as others seem to do later on in the thread) that even though violent criminals have firearms to shoot at police, the police shouldn't have the tools to respond in kind?
Sir T wrote: I have 0 sympathy with those who scream that the death penalty is a deterant, and then wave the worst asshole they can dig up in your face as a reason. Guess what, most people who commit even murder are not monsters. They are depressingly ordinary people who made a bad, bad BAD decision. The vast majority of murderers are not serial killers either.
Sure. A "bad, bad BAD decision" for which they should have to deal with the consequences.
And yet again, if that "worst a**hole" is executed, he won't kill anyone else. Ever. You can keep someone in jail for twenty years (which seems to be the maximum that most so-called "life sentences" seem to be these days anyway), and they can still kill again when they get out. However much counseling they get. However many people sympathized with them and got them to talk about how their parents didn't love them enough. But if they're executed, they won't. Period.
To use your words, I have zero sympathy with people who try to explain
why Jeffrey Dahmer killed and ate more than a dozen people. I don't care that he had a tough homelife. I don't care that he felt misunderstood. I don't care that he had difficulties with the various urges and desires that bubble up as part of adolescence. There are hundreds of other people who had much the same start in life who DIDN'T become serial killers. Or even one-time murderers.
On the other hand, I DO care that he committed those crimes. Statements he made in court showed that he knew what he was doing was wrong, so there's little reason to analyze further. I think most would agree, he was in fact a "monster."
And I don't know too many people who cried because he died in prison.
Sir T wrote: The reason we don't kill them is not to protect them. Its to protect ourselves from becoming them.
Beautifully put, but somewhat naive in my opinion.
maraudar wrote:This ia called an ASP. Comes in sizes from 12 inches long to 26 inches. I carry the 26 myself. It is a pain compliance device and is a wonderful piece of equipment. It is used for nonlethal situations.
Because of some of the views expressed about those of us in law enforcement I was going to write more but I couldnt with out it sounding very pissed off. So I will wait a while to see if I can write something with out coming off as jerk or worse.
I'm familiar with the weapon. It is very solid in construction, and very effective even if used by someone who doesn't really know what they're doing.
Maraudar, I'm not in law enforcement, so I can't say that I understand what you're probably trying to say. Nonetheless, I'll give it a try, as my best friend's brother is a police officer.
There are probably a lot of bad police officers, and many who start out with good intentions but become worn down by the job itself. Seeing human beings at their worst every single day would take the shine off even a paladin's aura--and these guys don't even have the benefit of a Holy Avenger sword or the ability to heal by laying on hands. Nonetheless, these people are doing a job that most of us don't have the courage to do.
Imagine going to work each day, knowing that there's a distinct possibility that you won't come home that night. Kissing your wife or husband good-bye in the morning and knowing that the next time they see you may be in a morgue. And I'm not talking about a terrorist attack or the odd chance that a fired office co-worker may go on a shooting spree. I mean that in the course of your normal job duties, you may be shot, stabbed, blown up, run over, etc.
Imagine that you are told that in protecting yourself and your fellow officers, you must nonetheless be concerned with anyone who might have a camcorder going and will certainly provide it to the court when the criminal who has waved a gun or knife in your face is suing you because you used an ASP to break his kneecap and take him down.
Imagine that the criminal you are arresting makes a grab for a fellow officer's gun. You have only a fraction of a second to act. So you do--you're in danger, and so is your fellow officer, so you shoot. And while a criminal can claim police brutality, few people want to believe you when you claim self defense because you supposedly
should have been able--in that fraction of a second--to "shoot to wound."
I feel very strongly about this, because my best friend's brother Rod actually had this happen to him. He and his partner were arresting a young man who was obviously on drugs (or was jonesing for his next fix) because the young man broke into a department store after-hours to steal some televisions or DVD players. As they were arresting him, the young man resisted arrest and went for the officer's gun. He got it, fought free of both officers, broke Rod's nose with an elbow, and then turned the gun on his partner (shooting him once in the shoulder). In that moment, tears streaming from his eyes and blood gushing from his nose, Rod shot the guy in the chest.
He saved his partner's life, but there was still a long and very public investigation where his name was dragged through the mud and the criminal's family tried to sue him. In the end, it was ruled justified, but it didn't change what had happened. Rod had been a cop for about 12 years and had never shot anyone in the line of duty... but when the time came, he was able to make the choice and save both his life and his partner's life.
So before you talk about how trigger-happy most cops are, think about what they're doing each day. Think about how--like soldiers--they're putting their lives on the line every time they punch the clock. It isn't for the money (around where I live at least, they don't make much more than teachers), and it isn't because (for the most part at least) they enjoy violence. They do it because it needs to be done.
So how about saving up some of that sympathy for convicted murderers and spreading it over to the police officers instead? I think they'd appreciate it.
[/rant]
“I let out a battle cry. Sure, a lot of people might have mistaken it for a sudden yelp of unmanly fear, but trust me. It was a battle cry.”
― Harry Dresden
