Score one against barbarism

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:32 pm

"Kulaf: Mark Fuhrman, when directly asked under oath if he planted any of the DNA evidence, pled the fifth. "

Hmmm.....not what I remember. As I recall he invoked his 5th amendment privilidge to every single question the defense team asked him. This is a rather common practice when asserting the 5th as often showing a willingness to answer any question might waive the right.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:45 pm

I do disagree with Beek and agree with Rsak though on one point, that there is a line one can cross that there is no turning back from. Once crossed these people give up whatever shreds of humanity they had and become no better than any predatory animal, and thus deserve punishment as any predatory animal that preys on human beings.

I'm willing to accept for the sake of an argument that this is true.

Now the question is, who on this Earth is qualified to say where that line is?

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 2:48 pm

Or, for that matter, who has crossed it?

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:06 pm

Now the question is, who on this Earth is qualified to say where that line is?

The community that is effected by the criminal behavior.

Or, for that matter, who has crossed it?

A jury of their peers seems the most appropriate answer.

The tolerances and standards which must be broken or the lines that must be crossed are different for each society. Some will find themselves more comfortable with imprisonment while others will be more comfortable with execution.

There is no universal answer to the questions and countries such as Sweden or the United States may have vastly differing perspectives due to the differences in their societies and the make up of their communities.

If one society is a Monarchy then the one who determines the line and who has crossed it is the Monarch or those appointed by the Monarch since this is the best way to protect that type of society. There most certainly is room for abuse in such a situation, but that is ultimately a seperate issue.

Which type of government or society is the least likely to allow abuse is an independent question from who should answer the questions you asked.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:09 pm

And that's where we differ. I don't feel anyone on this Earth is morally, perceptually, or intellectually fit to do so.

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:42 pm

You are entitled to that view but you must acknowledge the fact that you are living in a society that disagrees with you.

You have the options to either accept the view of the community, try to change the community, or find a new community.

However if you support sentences of imprisonment without the possibility of parole then you support that we are morally, perceptually, and intelectually fit to do so that very thing by deciding that there is a line which when crossed merits exclusion from the community. The means are different, but the ends are the exact same.

Croinc · Post by **Croinc** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 3:48 pm

We should make North Dakota into one huge prison.

Then we should turn all the current prisons into schools.

Just my 2 cents

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 5:07 pm

You are entitled to that view but you must acknowledge the fact that you are living in a society that disagrees with you.

Thank you for the blinding flash of the obvious. As I said above, IMHO this is one of the things wrong with American society. (Not that it disagrees with me, but that it believes itself fit to judge who should die.)

However if you support sentences of imprisonment without the possibility of parole then you support that we are morally, perceptually, and intelectually fit to do so that very thing by deciding that there is a line which when crossed merits exclusion from the community. The means are different, but the ends are the exact same.

I vehemently disagree with you. Segregation of those believed irredeemably dangerous to society and ending their lives are two very, very different things.

vaulos · Post by **vaulos** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 5:19 pm

Unfortunately for Beeker, we live in a democratic society. That means that he is automatically wrong, since he is in the minority.

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 5:51 pm

As I said above, IMHO this is one of the things wrong with American society. (Not that it disagrees with me, but that it believes itself fit to judge who should die.)

Thank you making me repeat myself. Your options are either accept it (which you seem to be unwilling to do), try to change it, or leave. However it was nice to see who decided to depart civility first!

Segregation of those believed irredeemably dangerous to society and ending their
lives are two very, very different things.

That is only true if the segregation does not continue until that individual dies. But since we are specifically talking about those individuals who do not have the option of parole then the only difference between the two is the speed in which they are killed. One is fast while the other is long and drawn out.

Both cases the individual has been removed from society permanently and result is death.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:51 pm

Unfortunately for Beeker, we live in a democratic society. That means that he is automatically wrong, since he is in the minority.

I hope you're joking.

Thank you making me repeat myself.

I heard you the first time. Thank you for the blinding flash of the obvious and redundant. And please spare me your remarks about civility. That was a very mild wag in the face of a highly pedantic remark.

But since we are specifically talking about those individuals who do not have the option of parole then the only difference between the two is the speed in which they are killed. One is fast while the other is long and drawn out.

A few differences you may have not considered.

1) An individual can still do something useful with his life from behind bars. Many have.
2) Should new evidence come to light, a life sentence can be commuted or reversed during the lifetime of the inmate.
3) A life sentence removes the power of the state to end the lives of its citizens.

Rsak · Post by **Rsak** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 9:23 pm

And you continue the slide into inaccurate generalizations to support your incivlity.

A few differences you may have not considered.

1) An individual can still do something useful with his life from behind bars. Many have.
2) Should new evidence come to light, a life sentence can be commuted or reversed during the lifetime of the inmate.
3) A life sentence removes the power of the state to end the lives of its citizens.

1) Name one thing useful done behind bars by a inmate who was is not eligible for parole.

2) already acknowledge in previous posts. Whether innocents are punished or freed is irrelevant in determining the whether the punishment is appropriate for the criminal act.

3) It does no such thing. The state still takes the life of the inmate by determining the place and condition of that death. The only difference between the two options is control over the time of that death.

You have once more avoided the fact that the end result of both punishments is the same.

vaulos · Post by **vaulos** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 10:00 pm

1) There are many inmates who participate in programs which attempt to get children out of gangs, crime, etc. These inmates talk to the children about life behind bars, and how they will never get out, etc. All this in an attempt to stop these kids from being where they are. I would consider this function to be amazingly useful and positive to society.

2) Keebler isn't (through this particular point) arguing that the Death Penalty doesn't fit the crime. He is arguing that it doesn't admit to being commuted. This is an important difference, which you shouldn't be conflating.

3) This isn't technically true. The state retains the power to restrict the where and what concerning the prisoner's life/activities, but this isn't the same as having the power over life and death. Suppose that you ground your child to his room; and while he is in his room, he just happens to have a brain embolysm(sp?) and dies. Could we seriously suggest that you "took the life of your child by determining the place and condition of his death"? Of course not. The death was happenstance (and was bound to happen eventually). All you did was restrict the child's movements and activities. Death came about because of forces outside your control.

SicTimMitchell · Post by **SicTimMitchell** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 10:41 pm

1) Name one thing useful done behind bars by a inmate who was is not eligible for parole.

Much great writing has been done from behind bars, from the Marquis de Sade to Jack Henry Abbot to the recent "You Got Nothing Coming" by Jimmy Lerner.

vaulos · Post by **vaulos** » Wed Mar 09, 2005 10:48 pm

Who is the guy on death row who recently won a Nobel Peace Prize? I think he was the guy who started up the "Crips" or "Bloods" something.

Riggen · Post by **Riggen** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 12:46 am

Quote:
Unfortunately for Beeker, we live in a democratic society. That means that he is automatically wrong, since he is in the minority.

I hope you're joking.

There's something of a point there. Democracy is a sheep and two wolves voting on dinner. It's very difficult to escape human nature. No government that I know of has ever managed it.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 1:46 am

vaulos wrote:Who is the guy on death row who recently won a Nobel Peace Prize? I think he was the guy who started up the "Crips" or "Bloods" something.

Leonard Peltier was a Nobel Peace prize nominee in 2004. He's not on death row, but he is serving two consecutive life sentences. He the guy you're thinking about?

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 1:53 am

vaulos wrote:Who is the guy on death row who recently won a Nobel Peace Prize? I think he was the guy who started up the "Crips" or "Bloods" something.

Ahhhh... my bad. You're thinking of Tookie Williams possibly. Wrote some children's books or something? Was in one of those gangs.. Crips I think. And he was nominated for the Nobel Peace prize some time ago, don't know if he won it or not. Also don't know if he's been executed yet either.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 7:21 am

I guess other people responded to Rsak about my so-called "inaccurate generalizations" (read: words with which Rsak does not agree) as well as I would have.

Aabe · Post by **Aabe** » Thu Mar 10, 2005 9:48 am

Relbeek Einre wrote:1) An individual can still do something useful with his life from behind bars. Many have..

Or an individual can do unuseful things with their lives behind bars, like intentially file frivolous lawsuits to gum up the legal system, direct illegal activities outside and inside the prison, participate in illegal activities inside and outside of prison from the inside, ect. Many have.

Relbeek Einre wrote:2) Should new evidence come to light, a life sentence can be commuted or reversed during the lifetime of the inmate...

Agreed.

Relbeek Einre wrote:3) A life sentence removes the power of the state to end the lives of its citizens.

Well, his arguement was that its death either way one is just slower, soooo perhaps this doesnt directly respond to his ascertion.