Topic: Why death penalty?

[uzo]

The terms of my employment forbid me from identifying my position, and affiliated facilities.

So we're just supposed to let people in our care, which is what prisoners of the state are since we are the state at least in theory, die then?
I take it you work in a prison? I'm not surprised you've seen awful things and developed these views, people believe what they need to to get them through the night.

So you're suppose to let them drain tax payer money with their wastes of existence? If I had to choose between the two... I think it's pretty clear which side of that fence I'm on.

you keep insisting that we have a romanticised view of prisoners.

You certainly don't seem to mind them, for whatever reason. A criminal is a criminal regardless where they come from.

Really? Because all of the prisons and jails around here have made a ton of money. As someone who works in an institution I'm genuinely interested to hear which rights and privileges you consider too extreme.
I'm also genuinely interested in the conditions surrounding this incident. Could you link me to some info on it?

Strange. One such case I've seen; Striped down to the bare bones essentials, removing every allowance from the inmates possible under the law, being understaffed, and accounting for inmate commissary, it's still over a 4 million dollar blackhole of money. So, what privileges are too extreme? Anything above bread, water, and being in their cell (when not being put to work). This is prison, not fucking Disney Land, but apparently the courts want to make it a comfort resort.

[X]

My Dad always said that if you wanted criminals to reform their ways then re-introduce the old prison system; Prisoners working from dawn till dusk smashing rocks out in the yard. And once they've finished that pile another truck comes in and it's back to square one. a person with a life sentence would get real tired of it and could not wait for the day to get his/Her first parole hearing. Prison should not be a place of comfort. It is an institution where criminals are sent to reform and they can't do that with all the comforts of home. I'm not saying we need to treat criminals like trash as the would violate the human rights act, but by giving the prisoners a little incentive to reform then why not bring back this system?

[Jorge D. Fuentes]

Whatever happened to smashing rocks in the yard in prison?
I always see that in new movies but don't see it anymore. 

[uzo]

Whatever happened to smashing rocks in the yard in prison?
I always see that in new movies but don't see it anymore.

Liberal judges and lawyers.

[Ratty]

Liberal judges and lawyers.

I can only imagine it is very convenient to have one label you can attach to anyone or anything in the world to explain why it's inherently bad the way I see "liberal" commonly used. The only problem with that philosophy is the world doesn't work that way. No matter what group you're blaming for all the problems in society or the world, humans in action and motive are much more complex than that. Both individually and in groups.

You certainly don't seem to mind them, for whatever reason. A criminal is a criminal regardless where they come from.

I just believe that people make mistakes, and that not all crimes are equal. I think some criminals are people just down on their luck or who made a bad choice, and could be better if given another chance. But you seem to believe everyone in prison is a hardened dedicated career criminal, I would never dispute that quite a few of them are, but not all.

So you're suppose to let them drain tax payer money with their wastes of existence? If I had to choose between the two... I think it's pretty clear which side of that fence I'm on.

Call me a liberal, whatever you think that means, but I don't believe in sentencing people to slow agonizing death over petty crimes. We are denying these people access to seek medical care on their own and a job to pay for said care besides. Having a bag of pot might lead to a mandatory minimum sentence of a few years, but I should think even the most adamant of supporters of the "war on drugs" wouldn't say it warrants death*.

Whatever happened to smashing rocks in the yard in prison?
I always see that in new movies but don't see it anymore. 

There are a lot of reasons. The "liberal" reasons he speaks of would be like considering that some inmates might have medical problems from age or other conditions, and could die out in the sun like that. Also that work, having something to do instead of sit around**, is a privilege rather than right in prisons. And their could be problems with exploiting the inmates to be slave labor, though thankfully their are regulations in place to prevent that.

I think this is a good time for me to leave the topic, I don't believe there's really anything else I can say. And it's clear our fundamental philosophies, value systems and worldviews are too different to ever come to a consensus uzo. Ah well such is life, see ya around and take it easy .

*Unless it was a dealer rather than a normal user, I could see people supporting that.
**Not to mention make money to spend on whatever little things the prison puts in stock for you to buy from it.

[Flame]

but I don't believe in sentencing people to slow agonizing death over petty crimes.

We aint talkin petty crimes here, we are talking things like Murder. And I dont mean a one time offender either, who made a stupid decision or killed for a vice. We mean the hardened criminal kind of murderer, the incorrigible one who simply cannot be reintegrated into society.

We are denying these people access to seek medical care on their own and a job to pay for said care besides.

Not really. Prisons have some of the best state funded medical care available.

There was a guy some time ago, late middle aged, who had a whole myriad of health problems and felt bad about being a drain on his sister whom he lived with, and therefore held up a bank for one dollar. he was sentenced for a few weeks or something, and did it again, and promises to do it again if his sentence is too light. He did it to get medical care while in prison, and he apparently got it.

And there are definitely programs that find employment for parole prisoners.

[Ratty]

I know I said I would bow out because there's not much more I can say, and since as I mentioned uzo and I will never agree. Combined with seeing how we represent two worldviews which are so drastically apposed in many ways, I want to end my participation in the discussion before it could get the chance to become heated as that would serve no one. But apparently some of the points on my position need clarification so I'll just hop back in to do that.

We aint talkin petty crimes here, we are talking things like Murder. And I dont mean a one time offender either, who made a stupid decision or killed for a vice. We mean the hardened criminal kind of murderer, the incorrigible one who simply cannot be reintegrated into society.

Maybe you are, uzo only spoke in terms of prisoners generally. And even if you do just mean the worst of the worst- who decides that? Who decides when and how much medical care to provide for someone based on the severity of their crime and a subjective assessment of how likely they are to reform? Do you seriously think families would just sit by and let that happen "Oh since my husband/brother/son is a hardened criminal I don't care if the state keeps him from getting access to his cancer treatment."

Not really. Prisons have some of the best state funded medical care available.

Really, because they are unable to go out and seek medical care on their own. They're not seeking it if they have no other options and it's right there. And I was talking about how we have to have that state funded option for people we incarcerate.

There was a guy some time ago, late middle aged, who had a whole myriad of health problems and felt bad about being a drain on his sister whom he lived with, and therefore held up a bank for one dollar. he was sentenced for a few weeks or something, and did it again, and promises to do it again if his sentence is too light. He did it to get medical care while in prison, and he apparently got it.

Almost makes you think health insurance reform should be looked at doesn't it? But I don't see the broader implications here, someone exploits a system and that means we have to deny even the ability to gain access to a life saving service to 1 out of 100 Americans and climbing?

And there are definitely programs that find employment for parole prisoners.

Their are some programs, but even if the inmate is lucky enough to get in one and wants to reform, that doesn't mean they can get good jobs or adjust to the culture and working life of the outside when all they've known for decades is prison. Or make it any less difficult to start at the bottom of the corporate/fast food ladder when you've just gotten out of prison and you're 40.

[Mooning Freddy]

I can only imagine it is very convenient to have one label you can attach to anyone or anything in the world to explain why it's inherently bad the way I see "liberal" commonly used. The only problem with that philosophy is the world doesn't work that way. No matter what group you're blaming for all the problems in society or the world, humans in action and motive are much more complex than that. Both individually and in groups.

You know, I am quite annoyed by how often Americans misuse the term "liberal", attributing it to the more social-democratic left in USA or to anyone who believes in non-conservative ideas. The definition of Liberal is a person who believes in liberty as the highest value. The Founding Fathers were liberals. The united states was founded on the values of Liberalism. I suppose most, if not all American politicians believe in Liberalism. I am quite certain that most conservatives believe in Liberalism. So why Liberal is used as a derogatory term? Beats me.

[uzo]

I didn't happen to label you as anything, Ratty. What you perceive is all in your mind. It's a little obvious which team you bat for, but that doesn't mean much in a discussion as far as I'm concerned. And the question Jorge asked was answered in full truth, whether its the answer you want to hear or not.

You may be surprised to know I am an actual a registered Democrat, but I do not vote party lines. I have over the years become quite dismayed by the continual practice of the extreme democrats shoving their head in the sand and pulling out these crazy ideas that will just lead into disaster.

I am by no means a conservative right wing knight either though. Both parties have their crazies, and issues to sort out. The only real difference here is, the extreme leftists get heard and actions taken more often than the right wing crazies. The extreme leftists often times do not sound crazy to the public, since the public doesn't really stop to think about what's being proposed. When you really examine the policies and proposals they bastardize any logic they claim to up hold. In this light, it is easy to call out and dismiss conservative crazies, but the dangerous ones are the ones that don't sound crazy at first glance, and no one feels to question it.

As a additional note; I use liberal as a term in the way it is popularized. When I say it, people know what I mean. That is how you use terms. Even if they're bastardized, they have meanings to the people of today.


Since Ratty would like to bow out at this point, here are my final thoughts:

Yes our core philosophies are wildly different. I don't believe in being lazy, and riding the system. I don't take hand outs from the state. I want to measure up based on my own merits. If I fail, don't pick me up and pamper me. If I succeed, don't come and bother me or tie me down. Let me do as I will, as long as I am not harming another. Likewise, if I do cause harm to others, lock me up and throw away the key. I should know better. We all should know better. In our hearts we know when something is wrong, and we choose to ignore it to do the things we should be jailed for.

[cecil-kain]

You know, I am quite annoyed by how often Americans misuse the term "liberal", attributing it to the more social-democratic left in USA or to anyone who believes in non-conservative ideas. The definition of Liberal is a person who believes in liberty as the highest value. The Founding Fathers were liberals. The united states was founded on the values of Liberalism. I suppose most, if not all American politicians believe in Liberalism. I am quite certain that most conservatives believe in Liberalism. So why Liberal is used as a derogatory term? Beats me.

You're thinking of "Classical Liberalism" which in colonial times referred to the classical greek ideals of self-rule and democracy.  These kinds of ideas were a political threat to the Kingdoms of Old World Europe during the colonial era...  Today modern American Liberalism is more closely associated with secularism, entitlement, and socialism.  American Libertarians tend to be resentful of how modern liberals have hijacked their claim to representing personal liberty.  In the case of Executions, those Americans in favor tend to be more politically conservative.

[Mooning Freddy]

.  American Libertarians tend to be resentful of how modern liberals have hijacked their claim to representing personal liberty.

My friend from uni is an American libertarian and he says it's absurd how the term "liberal" is used to describe people who support organized economy. He said they believe Liberalism is about freedom, both in personal life and in the market. So they're takin' it back, lol