Mmmm, some states differ on what you can do in regards to the law about killing. Take for example, me being a resident of Florida, and certain laws about what Florida residents can do in the way of self-defense that differs from other states on the matter -
The above was taken from the Florida Agriculture and Licensing Division website under the article heading "Use of Deadly Force for Lawful Self-Defense". There was another law passed recently that stated something to the effect that a Florida resident could use a gun if he/she felt their life was being threatened, particulary by a non-Florida resident.
I'd look that one up too, but I have to leave my house right now.
Mmmm, I'm not so sure about that Telan. The only readily example I can think of in the world today would be the Russian labour camps, and I don't think the fact that the Russian goverment is controlled by various criminal organizations being a good indicator that that route would work either. Espically since most of the people sent there are innocent or political prisoner types.
Telan, do you understand the meaning of the term excessive force? Again you present a situation as black and white when it is not. In your example, using force to disarm and/or incapacitate an intruder is fine. Excessive force means that once you've incapacitated him, you continue to pump bullets into his body. If an intruder enters your home and you incapacitate him, and then proceed to kill him after he's unconscious, then you've committed murder and you deserve to be jailed. If you shoot him once and happen to kill him, it's debatable. But excessive force is going above and beyond what is reasonable and necessary.
Telan, you've said more than once you consider innocent lives as a justifiable cost. You will never eliminate the conviction of innocent people. And when you give six months for them to prove their innocence before you kill them, it just means more innocent people are going to die, not less.
I would prefer a police sniper to put a bullet in his head before he shoots fifty people, really. But that's a case of killing to prevent further crime. If the deed is done, and life in jail prevents further crime, what end does killing the person achieve? Capital punishment does not deter crime by others. Killing the offender only satisfies your bloodlust - nothing more.
Now there's something we can agree on. But up to now you've presented the Death Penalty as the only alternative to life in prison. Fillet Mignon, Golf, high speed internet... these things do not belong in prisons. But prison reform is a far cry from simply killing people off... The point of jail is not simply to punish, but to (where possible) rehabilitate offenders. Now, whether these offenders deserve rehabilitation is up for debate, and I'm not sure they do. Serial killers and rapists certainly should be punished. But a man who kills his wife because she was cheating on him (as an example)? I think some of them can be rehabilitated, and they need not necessarily spend their life in prison.
Take the case of Robert Latimer. He's a Canadian farmer serving life for the murder of his daughter. His daughter was born with cerebral palsy, and was in constant pain that could not be relieved, and was worsening with each passing day. Robin Latimer is not a threat to anyone - he acted out of compassion, trying to protect his daughter... I think a man like that can be reintroduced to society and contribute greatly still.
By that logic, the US should just kill off all those damn old people who are suffocating the Medicare system... :D
126 people exonerated since 1973. Only 15 of those were exonerated because of DNA evidence, so the technological chance was not a major factor in those cases. The average time between conviction and exoneration was 9.5 years, which means if these inmates had six months they all would likely have died.
A further, unknown number of people have been executed although there is "strong evidence of innocence".
Something I actually got out of my HS civics clas...
If we were in Iran or China, the Death Sentence would be as cheap as the weapon used to kill them, because there is no appeal process. There, it would probably be significantly cheaper than life in prison. But with the US legal system, the cost for the Death Penalty is much higher, not because of state regulations in how these people are killed, but in legal costs. Consider this, according to the Washington State Bar Assocation, it costs the public roughly $137,000 extra per death sentence because many of the inmates keep appealing their cases.
I don't know if the Death Sentence is right or wrong, but that's not a small amount of cash.
Cracker, the point is that killing is only justified if you're life or (in some states) property is at risk. And even then, excessive force regulations apply if you go totally ape shit on someone...
Demos, my example of someone entering your house is quite real, and black and white because, I am not sure which, but in some of the Ami provinces you must withdraw and not fight - escape is the legal option. Legal yes but honourable? No, not at all.
You say that if a man enters your home and you kill him, that is excessive. Why? Beacuse of your morality? A man has entered your home to rape, pillage, and plunder, you know not what. You are certain that if he is allowed to continue he will take and harm and then do it again, no retribution provided the first time. So you shoot him once to incapacitate and another to save your neighbors. You say this is wrong? I say no - I applaud it. At the very least it proves the base reality the criminal now dead will not reoffend.
You say in the bell tower example what end does the killing of the criminal serve? What end? He has killed others so now he too must die. The manner in which he killed was not in the line of duty (as a police officer might) in combat (as a soldier might) by accident (which a doctor might) in a duel of honour (as a jilted might might) or in defense of home hearth and fellow man (as a bystander or homeowner might). Excepting these cases, the execution of the guilty party may very well serve no purpose but it does eliminate the cost of feeding him, it satiates blood lust, it placates the victims families, and it gives some measure of closure to the agreived.
I have conceded that hard labor is neccessary if execution be eliminated. Then fine. Make them work in horrid conditions with no safety devices. Make them stir fecal matter to extract methane and fuel, make them word toil and bleed. This is a service to the people, working to better themselves.
There are ways to make a prison self sufficient, but cannot be implemented because of the liberal minded cowards in the ACLU and others. Prisoners could grow their own food in confined gardens, make their own jumpsuits with thread and cloth, make the paper needed to administrate everything by grinding wood to pulp. It cannot be because some have come out against hard labor. Let me cite an example.
Before moving to Delaware and becoming a police officer I served at the Lehigh County prison in Pennsylvania as an Officer, a facility in and for the third largest city in that Commonwealth. At any given moment there were over a thousand inmates inside. These inmates could have been tasked with cleaning fouled streets, clearing vacant lots, moving dirt around at a construction site. It was even suggested by the county that gangs be drawn up and sent to clean the streets, watched over by armed officers who would fire at the first sign of disturbance. The City, despite an ever worsening condition of litter and filth, said no. The city and other contractors and business were afraid they would be underbid by the prison. And indeed they would have for there is no need to pay the prisoners. That is not a bad thing - those employees and contractors then would have been forced to stop gouging the city and drawing out works projects at tax payers' expense. But again, greed was the motivation here, not the common good, not justice.
No, compared to the almight dollar, Justice and Common Good are punchlines, nothing more.
I can go on with examples but you understand the meaning of them all. Then you have the everpresent NIMBY, or not in my backyard syndrome, where the masses shout build more prisons but then yell even louder but not here. These people need to be told to shut up by the government. I do not believe in zoning and never have. If the land be yours do with it what you wish. Simple. If the city buys a downtown slab and wants to put in a prison then so be it, the cries of wah, my property value will drop must be dismissed by the wave of a mailed fist.
Ironic isn't it then - people want things done but not near them But I digress.
Prisons today are mostly clean and the inmates send all the mail they want which we have to pay for in postage, they are shipped back and forth to court at our expense and languish in prison because court dates are set ridiculously far in the future, they receive medical care the envy of every middle-class worker struggling to pay for his children's glasses, he has protection of training law enforcement officers only a yelp away round the clock, he has access to cable television, games, computers, etc. It is a cosy little life given the alternative of living on the street, according to those Ive spoken to with the option of one or another. What restrictions do they have? They have to be locked in their rooms at time and subjected occasionally the random shake down and strip search. Small price to pay for not freezing or starving. Punishment indeed.
Yes but Demos, my full question wasn't 'who of the innocent died'. It was 'who in total died'. After all, if they executed a million people, but only two hundred innocent then those are damn good odds. Maybe they executed two hundred people in total, at which point the ratio is really freaking bad.
Give me a ratio of innocent to guilty dead, that's all I ask.
I don't really see where that matters a whole lot, Irtar. If even one innocent person dies, then that is a death that should never have happened, nevermind how good or bad the total overall ratio is.
If this is an argument based purely on logic, one must think logically and put aside such considerations as emotion and the morals tied to them.
To do what is best, sometimes requires us to do something we may view as 'wrong'. That is the problems of rulership and why few can truly lead. Generals command people down paths every day, and he knows no matter his choice people WILL die. And so, what if for every person you feed in a jail you could feed one homeless person? Perhaps for every five you could create a new job for a law abiding citizen? Ten you could provide basic housing for someone?
Heck, in Canada they get access to education while being 'rehabilitated'. We could create a new scholarship program that could send hundreds of children to colleges instead of having to turn to crime. It'd help with both the lack of skilled labour in our nation, AND lower the crime rate in the process.
Or perhaps the money would just be pissed against the wall. Dead men for nothing.
