Castlevania Dungeon Forums
Off Topic => Off Topic => Topic started by: Mooning Freddy on May 17, 2012, 05:14:57 AM
-
Why does the United States support death penalty? I know that several states abolished it but it seems like a too major issue to be allowed to states' decision.
The way I see it, death penalty, except in some very rare conditions, is not only cruel but also irrational. Does it create any actual deterrence? I find it hard to believe. I read that it actually wastes much more taxpayers' money for judicial purposes than life sentence, plus there's also always the chance the suspect may be innocent. And even if he's not, killing the person won't bring his victims back, and if the suspect is released after a long time he may become a productive member of society again.
So eventually, it seems to me the penalty satisfies nothing but people's bloodlust.
-
Because we're not allowed to do gladiator fights, and that is a shame.
-
Because we're not allowed to do gladiator fights, and that is a shame.
The Declaration of human rights and the Geneva convention have pretty much given any sort of Gladiatorial fight-to-the-death entertainment a death sentence of its own. In terms of america's standpoint on the death penalty, I'd have to say they are still a ways away from "Growing up" if they still hold onto such ideals. The other reason why not all of the states have abolished the death penalty is because they are all independent from one-another while at the same time, being united; hence the united states. As it currently stands whoever is senator in said state makes the rules for that state, though they do have to answer to the president. But I personally don't think they should follow that way of thinking any more. They're supposed to be a single country now and as such having each state have their own set of laws just causes more problems then it solves. What is illegal in one state my be legal in another and vice-versa.
-
Funny thing about Death penalty. Because there are good arguments to both sides.
You have a murderer, serial killer, any kind of scum, the lowest kind, and they deserve death, better to get them out of the way,
but at the same time, what if an innocent man is convicted and killed? Also, if the state executes a man that kills people, how does that make them better than him? eye for an eye just doesnt make anything better, and doesnt set any sort of example. Two wrongs dont make a right.
On taxpayer money- both keeping them alive AND killing them waste taxpayer money. on the one hand, by feeding, clothing, and keeping them in a living space. on the other, you spend money on whatever means of execution. On the Executor themselves, the officials present, and whatever materials are necessary. if I remember right, the only kind of Execution still used in the US is lethal injection, as it's the only one which has not yet been proven without a shadow of a doubt to be cruel and unusual punishment. The general consensus amongst experts is that it puts them to sleep and then kills them. Except since it's a cocktail of different chemicals, it isnt always the case... these days, the argument has been made that in many cases, they are NOT put to sleep, but often simply paralyzed by the paralytic agent, and therefore in silent agony as each organ shuts down, unable to scream or move or show their pain.
either way, you have to pay for those chemicals.
Again, it;s a dilemma. I can understand why one would want the death penalty, and I cant deny at some point or another, I have heard of some monster on the news which I truly wished would be wiped from the earth, and have wondered, "what would putting him behind bars even accomplish?" But at the same time, killing someone who kills others just doesnt seem like such a morally correct choice. Like I said before, it really makes you no better. It doesnt accomplish anything except murdering a man.
IMO the whole Criminal justice system needs to be updated. Youve got all the different kinds of offenders all lumped together in the same prison in most cases, and that often just makes the minor offenders worse than they were before.
Kind of how sending a kid to Juvy will most likely make him a worse kid, or damage him for life.
In all honesty, I dont support the death penalty. There's just no way of justifying it, or even calling any form of execution "humane". It's just eye for an eye. and that philosophy just doesnt work in modern day. It never really worked. Hate creates hate. Better to burden society with a prison full of criminals than to wrongly execute an innocent man who was a victim of police malpractice or simply the lack of today's super accurate and convenient technology.
How many people who have been imprisoned unjustly have been started to be discovered as innocent after something as simple as a DNA test on the prisoner and the victim have proved that they were simply not the correct person?
-
Here's how I see it, and this is all intend to say on what for me is a hot button issue.
If you come to my country and kill a member of my family, I will do my damnedest to kill you right back. Capital punishment is a good way to avoid vigilante justice, which is unregulated, uncontrolled, and arguably a more painful death than lethal injection.
And leaving aside the vengeance motive, some crimes are unforgivable, and must be paid for with the criminal's blood.
If someone blew up a school full of children, I am certain that I and my peers would never rest easy knowing that the one who did it was still alive in some jail cell. What if he escaped? Or worse yet, what if a lawyer pulled off some legal jiggery pokery and secured his release? Such a scenario is hardly unthinkable in the US of A. In fact, criminal scum get released all the time because a lawyer who is paid to ignore his better judgment was able to find a loophole or a technicality that would secure a criminal's release. What then? What would stop such a criminal from repeating that crime, or attempting something even worse?
The simple fact is that there are wicked folk out there who if they are allowed to live will do nothing but prey on the innocent.
These people must be caught, convicted, and brought to a swift end for the good of society.
Yes. Occasionally an innocent man may be wrongfully convicted and put to death; it's not unheard of. Yet these are the exceptions and not the rule. I do not believe we should discard so powerful a tool to protect the innocent because the system occasionally faults. Instead, you feel sorry. You offer condolences and prayer. And then you do everything you can to ensure that such a thing does not happen again.
Fear of death is as powerful a motivation to ensure lawful action as can be found, yet the threat of death should not be so lightly discarded because of a miss now and then.
Drunk drivers kill far more innocents every year than are wrongfully executed, yet we do not ban cars or drinking. Unfortunate mistakes are exactly that. They are unfortunate and they are mistakes. But it is unwise to make policy based on mistakes alone.
Here ends my speech.
-
If you've done something to get yourself on DEATH ROW, then I honestly give ZERO fucks if your end is cruel or unusual.
When you get right down to it, some people just need to die.
And no, the death penalty is in no way shape or form an equivalent to the violent blood letting punishments of the past. In fact, present day US death row executions are completely anti-climatic, and the only spectators are those who legally need to witness it. You can't just go an watch executions for fun.
-
On taxpayer money- both keeping them alive AND killing them waste taxpayer money. on the one hand, by feeding, clothing, and keeping them in a living space. on the other, you spend money on whatever means of execution. On the Executor themselves, the officials present, and whatever materials are necessary. if I remember right, the only kind of Execution still used in the US is lethal injection, as it's the only one which has not yet been proven without a shadow of a doubt to be cruel and unusual punishment.
You must not be from the US.
First off, the argument that the death penalty is too expensive has nothing to do with the cost of the execution itself. The current argument against the death penalty is that it is too expensive because tax payer money is wasted on appeals. When a death penalty is handed down as punishment, the death row inmate more often than not fights the verdict until the day of execution. This is a major drain on civic funds more so than the feeding and housing of the inmate. And if the inmate uses a public defender rather than his own lawyer, that's even more taxpayer money spent.
And no, lethal injection isn't the only form of execution still used in the US. Lethal injection, the gas chamber, the popular electric chair, and the classic hanging by noose are still in popular use in the US. Yes, you can still be executed by hanging. Washington state, where I live, is one of the states taht still relies on it. It's the cheapest form of execution.
-
Yeah, TheouAegis is right about the costs being for judicial purposes.
From what I realized, one of the stupidest things about death penalty is that carrying out the verdict takes YEARS. Sometimes over a decade. That's A LOT of money for attorneys and investigations. Mumia Abu-Jamal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mumia_Abu-Jamal) is a person who was sentenced to death in 1982, and his death sentence was canceled in 2012. Fuckin' 20 years of investigation! What for?
The thing is, the whole death penalty idea is often discussed in my country. In Israel, death penalty is not implemented. (probably because of religious reasons) But often there are cases of gruesome murders in the country and people call for implementing it.
The only exception to the law are Nazi war criminals. I think most of you heard about the Eichmann trial in 1961. Adolf Eichmann was a major SS officer responsible for "the final solution" to " the Jewish problem" in Europe. He was kidnapped by Mossad agents in Argentina where he was living under a false identity and transported to Israel, where he was convicted with crimes against humanity and executed. This was the only execution carried out in the country.
The reason the trial was so interesting is because it was almost political. Eichmann's execution wasn't just accomplishing justice, it was a symbol. A symbol of the Jews' vengeance for the Nazis' crimes.
That is why I think executions are important when they serve a clear political purpose. When they raise important issues.
-
I'm from NYC :P, I just couldn't be bothered to check what death penalty types are still used in the US.
I just hear more about Lethal Injection than I do about the Chair or Gas Chamber. IDK.
I do not believe we should discard so powerful a tool to protect the innocent because the system occasionally faults.
Sounds like a pretty fatal flaw to me. I really cant support something that has such a chance of failure. Not when it's something so sensitive and PERMANENT as a Human life.
Today's technology thankfully has made wrongful executions and such a FAR less occurrence, but they still happen, mainly with older prisoners who have been in there since before modern technology caught up with the justice system.
If you want to instate the death penalty, I just cant really support sentencing someone to death without being 100% sure that they did the crime, or don't just have a really shitty lawyer or really well paid prosecutor against them.
I never really stated that Death penalty was more expensive than keeping them alive, just that, depending on what tupe of execution your state uses, it could still cost money for equipment and materials and shit.
From what I realized, one of the stupidest things about death penalty is that carrying out the verdict takes YEARS. Sometimes over a decade. That's A LOT of money for attorneys and investigations. Mumia Abu-Jamal is a person who was sentenced to death in 1982, and his death sentence was canceled in 2012. Fuckin' 20 years of investigation! What for?
yeeeah that's another thing... sentence someone to the death penalty and it could sometimes be YEARS before they go anywhere with it.
Eh, just my own opinion due to my own morals and beliefs. Im a nice guy and pacifistic person by nature so I hate violence, be it a criminal doing something, or the state killing him. I just dont really trust the justice system to be entirely accurate, so I prefer life sentences. At least, while they may have lost countless years off of their life, they can still walk free WITH that life, if it turns out they were innocent.
just saying "oops, oh well. He was innocent. It's too late, but lets make sure that doesn't happen again." dont cut it for me. Id rather it NEVER happen in the first place.
-
This is a very complex issue with many different factors to consider.
For starters, what is the purpose of the criminal justice system in the united states? Is it to reform wrongdoers and help improve communities? Protect the citizenry by locking away the guilty forever? Is it to deal out retribution for society at large, partly to prevent personal revenge?
There is also the question of fallibility. If you convict and execute the wrong person not only is the actual wrongdoer still out there but you can't undo the punishment you have wrought, and we have collectively as a society killed an innocent man or woman. Statistics seem to indicate that capital punishment is not a stronger deterrent to capital offenses than life in prison. With an appeals process which can take decades, important to lessen the chances of executing the innocent but also very expensive. Those on death row, kept in relative isolation with special guards needing to bring them food etc. cost the state much more than prisoners in the general population. It is a question with no easy answer, but there are a lot of holes on the side of those who claim it is an effective deterrent or cost-effective way of dealing with crime.
Yes. Occasionally an innocent man may be wrongfully convicted and put to death; it's not unheard of. Yet these are the exceptions and not the rule. I do not believe we should discard so powerful a tool to protect the innocent because the system occasionally faults. Instead, you feel sorry. You offer condolences and prayer. And then you do everything you can to ensure that such a thing does not happen again.
Not likely that someone would get off for killing a busload of children unless they were proven innocent later. At most there would be a retrial. Take those guys who kidnapped and buried that schoolbus load of children in the 70s (all of whom survived) as I recall they all got life in prison and none of them have even been paroled.
The reality is that most cases in the United States never go to trial, something like 90% of convictions are the result of guilty pleas for less harsh sentences waiving the right to trial, despite what you may have seen on TV. Many people do this even though they are innocent because they are lied to about the evidence against them by the police, once they have pled guilty it cannot be overturned even if the source of the evidence is later proven bogus. The "justice system" in the united states is not just occasionally fallible, it is badly broken in many respects.
Also as I mentioned statistics show that capital punishment is not a particularly effective deterrent, it's almost like the people who murder aren't thinking rationally when they do it eh?
And prayer and "I'm sorry" doesn't bring back the dead and gone whether they're killed by a single murderer or by all of us collectively. We're not doing everything we can to stop the killing of innocents as long as executions are still taking place.
Yes if I was a family member of a victim I might well feel differently but that's the whole reason that we have a justice system rather than vigilante justice, so we can look at these things objectively, with the hope that all of us will collectively act better than any of us.
-
You cannot blame the justice system, or the police, for anyone retarded enough to plead guilty while not being guilty. That is just complete bullshit.
If you admit guilt to a crime you have decided to take on the sole responsibility for that crime regardless if you did or did not do it.
-
Police have been known to pressure people into admitting to a crime despite being innocent. It's happened before. They keep them at the station for long unending hours, usually overnight, not letting them sleep and consistently pressuring them and telling them that they just have to sign the confession and they will be let go. There's only so much a person can take before they break and accept the offer.
It's a shameful thing, but it has been known to happen.
EDIT: granted, I cant exactly be entirely sure if that has ever happened in regards to a murder or something worth capial punishment.
-
You cannot blame the justice system, or the police, for anyone retarded enough to plead guilty while not being guilty. That is just complete bullshit.
If you admit guilt to a crime you have decided to take on the sole responsibility for that crime regardless if you did or did not do it.
Put someone in a room and say you've got multiple witnesses and physical evidence tying them to a crime (which don't exist, that's the police lying I was talking about) and that they're looking at 10 years in prison if this goes to court, but they'll get 5 years probation (which has a ton of hidden fees and restrictions the person doesn't know about) and can leave the station and go home that night if they just sign a confession and plead guilty. A lot of people are going to crack regardless of whether they're innocent or not. Another tactic is to describe what the person supposedly did that only the criminal would know, "We know that you got out of a green Buick, then shot her twice in the chest" etc. so when repeatedly pressed about it the person's knowledge of the crime and their denials about it seem suspiciously specific for them to have not been there/seen it.
Police have been known to pressure people into admitting to a crime despite being innocent. It's happened before. They keep them at the station for long unending hours, usually overnight, not letting them sleep and consistently pressuring them and telling them that they just have to sign the confession and they will be let go. There's only so much a person can take before they break and accept the offer.
It's a shameful thing, but it has been known to happen.
EDIT: granted, I cant exactly be entirely sure if that has ever happened in regards to a murder or something worth capial punishment.
It has. I know of at least one murder confession that was used in court that was obtained while a guy was going through heavy drug-withdrawal. The details he gave matched those the police had repeatedly recited to him in previous grilling sessions during which he wasn't going through withdrawal and during all of which he denied the accusations. (He had fled the country with his also-addicted girlfriend as he was a native of South America anyway, and just been hauled back when they questioned him while he was withdrawing from a lengthy binge.) A good way to get junkies to either confess to something or get "information/leads" on others out of them (witch hunt style) is to grille them while they're going through withdrawal.
-
The cops are just doing their jobs to find out who did it. Part of that is following up on their best lead and trying anything they can to see it through. If the person is being a dumbass and leading them on that they are guilty, by their dumbass behavior, then it's their own damn fault. If anything the cops are gimped in their abilities to solve crimes.
And you both forget a couple of very important things;
1) You don't have to talk to the cops if you don't want to. You don't have to reply at all.
2) "I want a lawyer." At this point THEY cant touch you, or even speak to you.
They try and say something that's not true? Call the bullshit, or don't reply at all. They don't seem to be getting the message? Lawyer up. Oh boo hoo, I was held at the police station for a day and they said mean things to me. Grow a fucking pair and get over it, or call for a lawyer and walk out of there the same day.
-
The cops are just doing their jobs to find out who did it. Part of that is following up on their best lead and trying anything they can to see it through. If the person is being a dumbass and leading them on that they are guilty, by their dumbass behavior, then it's their own damn fault. If anything the cops are gimped in their abilities to solve crimes.
Being held in a jail cell for days because someone said you did something while your kids are at home and you have to depend on other people you might not even really know to take care of them is "leading the cops on"?
Such deceptive tactics as the ones I've gone over are not neccessary if you're really trying to find the person responsible and not just arrest someone to look like you're doing something about a problem. In a lot of areas law enforcement/"dealing justice" is looked at like an assembly line in that you're expected to ticket or arrest or convict at least a certain amount of people over a certain amount of time. If they can't find enough people doing something warranting a ticket / arrest / conviction to fill their quota guess what happens. Getting someone to confess to a crime "solves" that crime even if the evidence (such as a tip from a junkie just trying to get out while they're in withdrawal) is later proven to be false/unreliable.
And you both forget a couple of very important things;
1) You don't have to talk to the cops if you don't want to. You don't have to reply at all.
2) "I want a lawyer." At this point THEY cant touch you, or even speak to you.
They try and say something that's not true? Call the bullshit, or don't reply at all. They don't seem to be getting the message? Lawyer up. Oh boo hoo, I was held at the police station for a day and they said mean things to me. Grow a fucking pair and get over it, or call for a lawyer and walk out of there the same day.
You don't know how overworked most public defenders are do you? In some urban areas a public defender can have hundreds of clients, not a lot of time to sit and chat with them about their cases. You'll know it's a public defender if they walk into the courtroom and ask for the person they're defending (though they'll ask by name of course, having it written down) to raise their hand. One of the things a police interrogator will say is that the plea deal is off the table if the person requests a lawyer "You can confess right now but if you bring a lawyer in here it'll get a lot more serious and we'll have to take it to court."
Hey, maybe you are too smart to fall for these tactics. But some people are scared and uneducated and they have to be home to take care of dependents. I don't think you can justify these kinds of tactics from a system that is supposed to be protecting just such vulnerable individuals.
-
Being held, and being arrested are two different things.
You cannot be held for over 24 hours. If you are arrested, then you become jailed and you are in a whole other situation all together. If you're at the point where you've been arrested, you should already have called a lawyer. If not, now's the time to do so. The mandatory reading of the Miranda Rights at the time of arrest even instruct you on this. You can't claim there was no good warning, or that they don't know better.
A confession and a plea bargain are not the same things either. You can confess without a plea bargain, and typically that's how police will try and approach it first. Plea bargains are used when the initial interrogation with intent for a confession fails. Both are an incentive to cooperate and save the police and counts time and money.
The police aren't this big demonic organization that you make them out to be. No matter how much you rant and rave, if your girlfriend gets shot tomorrow you'll be singing a wholly different fucking tune. You'll be on your knees begging the cops to do everything they can to assist your helpless ass, despise the shit you're spewing all over their image the day before. Despite that, they won't turn their back on you like you've turned your back on them.
You seriously watch too much TV, and read too much conspiracy theory garbage.
-
Being held, and being arrested are two different things.
You cannot be held for over 24 hours. If you are arrested, then you become jailed and you are in a whole other situation all together. If you're at the point where you've been arrested, you should already have called a lawyer. If not, now's the time to do so. The mandatory reading of the Miranda Rights at the time of arrest even instruct you on this. You can't claim there was no good warning, or that they don't know better.
A confession and a plea bargain are not the same things either. You can confess without a plea bargain, and typically that's how police will try and approach it first. Plea bargains are used when the initial interrogation with intent for a confession fails. Both are an incentive to cooperate and save the police and counts time and money.
The police aren't this big demonic organization that you make them out to be. No matter how much you rant and rave, if your girlfriend gets shot tomorrow you'll be singing a wholly different fucking tune. You'll be on your knees begging the cops to do everything they can to assist your helpless ass, despise the shit you're spewing all over their image the day before. Despite that, they won't turn their back on you like you've turned your back on them.
You seriously watch too much TV, and read too much conspiracy theory garbage.
You assume a lot of things. I learned everything I've been talking about from an introduction to Criminal Justice class which was taught by someone who worked in high administrative positions in the corrections system for decades*. Mostly she worked in Prisons but she also dealt with the secret service in some way I was never too clear on. I think it was when people in prisons (mostly crazies) would send threatening letters to politicians. I don't think Police are evil, I just think the system they have to work in (or against) is set-up to fail right now and we're never going to fix it by pretending these problems don't exist. And yes a confession and a plea bargain are two different things but they go hand in hand a great deal of the time. And yes you can be charged and kept in jail awaiting trial on a flimsy word of a drug addict. Finally as I mentioned earlier a person who is grief stricken needs help, but they can't be expected to act or think totally rationally.
*She said the Attica prison riot happened on her first week working in the Department of Corrections in DC, and that the building was crazy with people running everywhere that week. So you can look up when that happened to see when she started, I think she's just teaching for extra money during retirement now.
PS - And like I said, just because you have the right to an attorney doesn't mean your public defender has more than a few minutes to spend with you or review your case.
-
You cannot blame the justice system, or the police, for anyone retarded enough to plead guilty while not being guilty. That is just complete bullshit.
If you admit guilt to a crime you have decided to take on the sole responsibility for that crime regardless if you did or did not do it.
Sure you can, clerical errors, pressuring, and the justice system is far from perfect, even more so, the jury of your peers.
Have you ever seen this?
Dont Talk to Police (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc#)
It does tell you a lot, it gives you the perspective of the Criminal Defense and in the second half, the Detective's side. Small technicalities can mess you up or let someone guilty free.
-
And if you talk, they can look at your eyes and see what your eyes do while you talk, letting them know if you're lying. If you're not talking, you're just off looking elsewhere or fantasizing about sex with unicorns.
-
Why does the United States support death penalty? I know that several states abolished it but it seems like a too major issue to be allowed to states' decision.
To begin, all 50 states have their own constitutions and codified laws. For example, a murder committed in Florida is under Florida's jurisdiction --that is, the murderer would be subject to Florida's criminal justice system (and also its penalties) Such a case wouldn't become a federal matter unless state lines are crossed --say for example, if a murderer flees Florida and takes refuge in Virginia... That's when the Florida authorities might contact the Virginia authorities, or perhaps the FBI for assistance in bringing the murder to justice. As for the federal (US) government, they don't waste their time prosecuting local criminals unless there is clearly a crime against the US government, its military, or its public officials --cases of domestic terrorism are also prosecuted by the US government as well...
Although the Death Penalties have been challenged through federal courts, the US Supreme Court has consistently upheld their legality. Each state reserves the right to carry out its own system of justice as a matter of sovereignty. An individual state's law cannot be struck down unless it comes into direct conflict with federal interests or otherwise violates the civil rights specifically outlined by the United States Constitution. This is why the Death Penalty is most often an issue of "states' rights" instead of a federal issue.
The way I see it, death penalty, except in some very rare conditions, is not only cruel but also irrational. Does it create any actual deterrence? I find it hard to believe. I read that it actually wastes much more taxpayers' money for judicial purposes than life sentence, plus there's also always the chance the suspect may be innocent. And even if he's not, killing the person won't bring his victims back, and if the suspect is released after a long time he may become a productive member of society again.
So eventually, it seems to me the penalty satisfies nothing but people's bloodlust.
Prisons should be a temporary place for broken people that still have some potential --a place they can learn from their mistakes and clean it up. But for those that are just plain evil and destroy entire lives, that's a different matter. Life Sentences are the American felon's retirement plan. Providing them a lifetime of free food, shelter, medical care, and entertainment drains society of precious tax dollars and provides no benefits in return.
I believe in the Death Penalty. If society has the courage to convict someone of a murder, they should have the courage to put that person to death. The purpose shouldn't be about deterrence or revenge --it should be about eliminating society's cancer, providing closure to the victims, and then moving on. Murderers deserve death. Child Rapists deserve a choice between Castration-Penectomy or death. Appeals should be strictly limited to what the convicted felons and their supporters can afford. If criminal sympathizers and pro-life groups really care about these people, they should be the ones putting their money where their mouths are.
End of Opinion.
-
Life Sentences are the American felon's retirement plan. Providing them a lifetime of free food, shelter, medical care, and entertainment drains society of precious tax dollars and provides no benefits in return.
I disagree with this. Taking away a person's freedom can be a fate worse than death. Many people cannot bear the thought of rotting their entire life and prefer death. Of course, there is the argument that a person can get used to anything, even living in jail. I still disagree. I believe death should only be used as a political tool.
I believe in the Death Penalty. If society has the courage to convict someone of a murder, they should have the courage to put that person to death. The purpose shouldn't be about deterrence or revenge --it should be about eliminating society's cancer, providing closure to the victims, and then moving on. Murderers deserve death. Child Rapists deserve a choice between Castration-Penectomy or death.
Your point makes no sense. If putting convicts to death for murder does not create deterrence than it's a vendetta. If it's neither of those, then it's pointless and achieves nothing.
Murder is not a disease and cannot be "cured". As long as there are people there will be murders. The question is what can be done to reduce it. I would have maybe supported the penalty if it did create deterrence (I don't know the statistics).
Pedophiles are ill and should be treated as such. I know that many of them have serious mental issues sometimes related to being abused as children. If they cannot be cured psychologically, and cannot control their actions, they should choose between being institutionalized or castrated. Why should we treat them differently than regular rapists? Their crime is not being attracted to children, it's abusing children. So they should be punished for the abuse and then treated to see if they can control their actions (both rapists and pedophiles).
-
I personally think the death penalty is nothing more then a modern act for humanity's lust for blood. We have been killing each other for countless millennium, either through wars or petty disputes. Murder begets murder and we're addicted to it. Modern policy would dictate that it's a necessary part of the justice system. But in reality they're participating in the exact same game as the criminal; A blood sport. The perpetrator murders and the populous uses the justice system to murder back and on and on and on... need I go on?
-
Never ran into many criminals, have you Freddy?
Let me tell you, criminals don't mind jail for he most part. For them it is a part of life. Mommy and or daddy went to jail, baby grows up, and then drops out of school to get thrown in jail soon after. They then get released, and repeat the cycle until death. To them it is just part of the life cycle, and they don't necessarily dislike it.
Watch crime rates for states with cold winters. Note the rise in crime just before winter. They do it on purpose, to get a warm place to stay, and food to eat. To them it's almost a break, a vacation. But what about freedom? Eh, at least you get three hots and a cot. It's good enough.
You are NOT dealing with sophisticated, intelligent, people here. You are dealing with lazy scumbags who don't give a shit about accomplishing anything. All they want is to mooch as much as they can so they don't have to work or do anything.
Instead lets start chopping off some fucking hands for burglaries and see how quick that shit stops.
In the case of life sentences? A lot of them learn to enjoy it. Think about it. They no longer care to be responsible. They can do whatever they want. Kill another guy in prison, who gives a shit? What are you going to do, LENGTHEN THEIR TIME? Hah! You have nothing left to punish them with.
-
Never ran into many criminals, have you Freddy?
Let me tell you, criminals don't mind jail for he most part. For them it is a part of life. Mommy and or daddy went to jail, baby grows up, and then drops out of school to get thrown in jail soon after. They then get released, and repeat the cycle until death. To them it is just part of the life cycle, and they don't necessarily dislike it.
Watch crime rates for states with cold winters. Note the rise in crime just before winter. They do it on purpose, to get a warm place to stay, and food to eat. To them it's almost a break, a vacation. But what about freedom? Eh, at least you get three hots and a cot. It's good enough.
You are NOT dealing with sophisticated, intelligent, people here. You are dealing with lazy scumbags who don't give a shit about accomplishing anything. All they want is to mooch as much as they can so they don't have to work or do anything.
Instead lets start chopping off some fucking hands for burglaries and see how quick that shit stops.
In the case of life sentences? A lot of them learn to enjoy it. Think about it. They no longer care to be responsible. They can do whatever they want. Kill another guy in prison, who gives a shit? What are you going to do, LENGTHEN THEIR TIME? Hah! You have nothing left to punish them with.
Your view of the situation is too neat and black and white to fit with reality. The reason the prison population is growing exponentially and something like 1 in 100 adults are in prison in this "land of the free" and "home of the brave" of ours is that they're just stupid and lazy. In fact they like it, of course, why didn't we guess?
You realize we have more people in prison than China right? A supposed police state? Private prisons are a money making business as are to some extent the rest of the criminal justice system. As my instructor put it "the economy would collapse if crime stopped, because everyone in the Criminal Justice system would be out of a job".
This is the reason you see things like Police Unions opposing the repeal of harsh marijuana laws. Just look up the increase in the number of prisons and jails, private and public, in the last few decades along with the incarceration rate. As one man advertising to investors put it private prisons are an industry with "guaranteed growth". The reason private prisons exist, btw, is that they run cheaper because they can ignore humane government regulations federally run institutions must follow. You got a Prison you need more prisoners, you need more prisoners you need more lawyers etc. etc.
Catching and prosecuting white collar criminals is difficult because they can afford better representation and their crimes are generally viewed as less serious, despite the fact that on the whole more people are usually hurt by them. It is much easier and more reliable to go to the destitute neighborhoods and round people up to fill in your quota of arrests/convictions etc. Yes it is a sad fact that in many poor urban neighborhoods youth grow up expecting to go to prison because most of the older men in their community have gone to it at some point. You do see multigeneration gang families and so on. These are kids with no way out, they live in poor areas with terribly underfunded schools where only the worst teachers will go because of perceived danger and very low pay. Is it any wonder these kids turn to drugs and gangs for some kind of escape? Even if only an imagined one.
No, there are wicked people in the world, but the picture you paint is too simplistic.
PS- If I saw a guy committing crimes so he'd have a warm place to spend the winter and food to eat, I wouldn't say he's "cheating the system" so much as I would say that a system in which many states spend more on incarcerating people than on public education might just be a bad idea.
PPS- Yeah there's nothing they could do to punish someone with a life sentence. Except solitary confinement, loss of privileges, loss of the few possessions they were allowing her/him to have, only feeding them nutraloaf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutraloaf)....
-
Watch crime rates for states with cold winters. Note the rise in crime just before winter. They do it on purpose, to get a warm place to stay, and food to eat. To them it's almost a break, a vacation. But what about freedom? Eh, at least you get three hots and a cot. It's good enough.
You are NOT dealing with sophisticated, intelligent, people here. You are dealing with lazy scumbags who don't give a shit about accomplishing anything. All they want is to mooch as much as they can so they don't have to work or do anything.
I support Ratty's point here, UZO. People going to jail because they have no where else to go? What are you proving here? Because it sounds like you're saying that life fu**ed those people up, blaming the system. But you don't. You say that the people are scumbags who don't mind going to jail. Well, I highly doubt anyone likes jail, even in a Western country. ANY job in a western country is better than jail. If people want to mooch off the system, they can use social services, which is a different problem. And there ARE ways to punish people in jail. Solitary confinement for instance can drive a man insane. Eventually, if person is a repetitive offender, I could understand giving him the chair. But many murderers are not. Many people regret their actions and can get back to be good people after serving 15-25 years.
Ratty's got an interesting point here. I really don't understand why are jails privatized. They should belong to the state.
-
What a load of bullshit. Tell me, both of you, have you ever actually been in a jail? Worked around the inmates, and been a part of the system?
I do. This is how it is in reality. They don't care, don't ever want a job, just to keep coming back. In fact some of them CELEBRATE coming back! That's right Freddy, to them jail is much better than any job, they will tell you so themselves. Jail has more comforts than ever now. They get to lounge around all day, play games, go into the rec yard, watch tv, the works. Got some medical issues? Get arrested! They have to take care of it! Pregnant??? Just get arrested. They will have to cover it all! Think it's BS? Ive SEEN it. I LIVE this travesty every day. It happens and you can spew bullshit all you want but it DOESN'T change this fact.
And if you're on life you don't give a fuck about solitary half the time. Makes them insane? Are you kidding me?? You have no idea do you. What kind of person do you think is ON a life sentence?? They're already insane! If they were able to be rehabilitated, they wouldn't have a LIFE sentence!! Some of them will happily murder another inmate, they don't give a shit. Most of the time it's against sex offenders who someone tipped off a lifer about. I guess I can't complain too much about that, heh. But the point remains, they will forgo their privileges, gain some solitary time, and all without bothering to care.
How you people have this naive rose-tinted view of criminals is just beyond me. If you knew even half the things that go on in jails and prisons you wouldn't be sprouting this nonsense.
Every day these people gain more mandated privileges and rights. You know why state prisons are shutting down and going private? Because of this exactly. They're getting sued left and right for complete bullshit reasons and being forced to implement new things for the scumbag inmates that drain our tax money right away. States and countys are going BROKE because of inmates and the bullshit extra privileges and rights they get!
Here's a nice example; inmate dies by his own fault while attempting escape. The jail is sued for millions of dollars, because of these increasing bullshit rulings. It happened. It's complete bullshit but it really happened, and all the nice thoughts in the world can't erase it.
You want to fix half the problems? You want to lower inmate populations? Stop giving inmates more rights and protections than our average citizens. Stop making jail comfortable. Stop catering to them. Make jail and prison places they DO NOT want to return to. They are CRIMINALS, do not treat them like honored guests!
Start there, and then fix the other issues.
-
I disagree with this. Taking away a person's freedom can be a fate worse than death. Many people cannot bear the thought of rotting their entire life and prefer death. Of course, there is the argument that a person can get used to anything, even living in jail. I still disagree. I believe death should only be used as a political tool.
I can see we have a philosophical disagreement on the treatment of criminals. IMO punishment serves no real purpose, so disputing the better punishment is a pointless argument. I believe the priorities are as follows.
1. Protect the public by capturing the criminal.
2. Determine the criminal's potential to return peacefully to society.
-----(a) Considering the nature and circumstances of the crime.
-----(b) Considering any past history of criminal behavior.
-----(c) Considering the risk of ongoing criminal behavior.
3. Process the criminal accordingly.
-----(a) Imprison those with potential that are willing to train and reform their lives.
-----(b) Death to those guilty of heinous crimes, gross recidivism, or otherwise showing no potential.
-----(c) For those guilty of sex crimes, give them a choice --a Sexless Life or a Sexless Death. For those that agree to a Sexless Life, surgically remove their testicles and penis (aka castration-penectomy). Unless guilty of other crimes, they may go free after their surgery.
Your point makes no sense. If putting convicts to death for murder does not create deterrence than it's a vendetta. If it's neither of those, then it's pointless and achieves nothing. Murder is not a disease and cannot be "cured". As long as there are people there will be murders. The question is what can be done to reduce it. I would have maybe supported the penalty if it did create deterrence (I don't know the statistics).
Deterrence is not the core issue here. I feel like I'm about to overstate the obvious, but it needs to be said...
1. The dead commit no crimes --the probability of recidivism is ZER0%.
2. The dead do not require a lifetime of fruitless investment. They require no food, shelter, medical care, or entertainment at the taxpayer's expense.
The Death Penalty's benefit to society couldn't be more clear.
Besides, the purpose of a criminal justice system is not to deter imaginary criminals from committing imaginary crimes. The purpose of a criminal justice system is to process real criminals that have committed real crimes. If executions were intended to make an example of heinous criminals, there would be still be public hangings for mass consumption --but this hasn't been done in the United States for at least the last 4 generations.
One last thought on deterrence --Saudi Arabia has a downright Draconian criminal justice system, but they also have one of the lowest crime rates in the entire world...
Pedophiles are ill and should be treated as such. I know that many of them have serious mental issues sometimes related to being abused as children. If they cannot be cured psychologically, and cannot control their actions, they should choose between being institutionalized or castrated.
Under the current system... Imprisoning perverts tends to increase their perversions. Unless they are guilty of other crimes, remove their offensive "tools" and set them free --or just put them to death. Let them choose.
Why should we treat them differently than regular rapists?
I never said we should. However, grown women are much more likely to make malicious accusations than little children. As with all capital crimes, the burden of proof should be very high in any case. But again, if society is going to convict someone of a sex crime, they must also be prepared to follow with an appropriate sentencing.
Their crime is not being attracted to children, it's abusing children. So they should be punished for the abuse and then treated to see if they can control their actions (both rapists and pedophiles).
There is evidence to suggest that deviant sexuality is hormonal as well a psychological. Removing the testicles would help eliminate the hormonal element, but the psychology revolves around pleasure --and a man's pleasure revolves around his penis. That is why I favor penectomy as well.
-
By the way, something I will NEVER understand. Tacking on multiple life sentences. What is the point..? A life sentence already dictates till the day they die.
-
Well, that's a good point, UZO. Maybe the system is broken. Maybe jails should be made so people wouldn't like to return.
There's been this case in my country a couple of weeks ago: A large number of political prisoners (=terrorists) initiated a hunger strike to protest against their "worsened" conditions of imprisonment. The terroristic movements immediately responded with a threat that even if one prisoner dies they start a new wave of violence. Now that kind of situation is fucked. Terroristic movements make threats upon a state.
Now on the one hand, how are you creating deterrence here if murderers and their helpers are threatening you?
On the other hand, as a statesman you have a responsibility to prevent violence. What will you do?
What is the point..? A life sentence already dictates till the day they die.
Not necessarily. In some countries sometimes a life sentence means 25-30 years and then being able to request parole. In my country sometimes in some cases a "life sentence" is limited to 20 years. Wiki says than in Britain for instance a prisoner can appeal to request parole after 15 years.
I guess multiple life sentences is in some cases a tool to present the severity of a certain crime. You know, like, "You deserve dying several times."
-
What a load of bullshit. Tell me, both of you, have you ever actually been in a jail? Worked around the inmates, and been a part of the system?
I do. This is how it is in reality. They don't care, don't ever want a job, just to keep coming back. In fact some of them CELEBRATE coming back! That's right Freddy, to them jail is much better than any job, they will tell you so themselves.
You're talking about people who are prisonized. Prisonization is a well known phenomenon. When people spend a long amount of time (especially in their formative years) in prison they adjust to prison culture/values, which is vastly different from "outside". After spending 30 or even 10 years inside (especially if it was your late teens/20s) being outside of that culture must be very shocking. Particularly when you realize that (partly due to drastic cuts in funding for programs to teach inmates trade skills) the employment available to ex-cons is usually as unpleasant as it is sparse.
Jail has more comforts than ever now. They get to lounge around all day, play games, go into the rec yard, watch tv, the works.
They also lose access to friends and family except on designated times, phone rates from prison are insanely high so they can't even call that often. They are forced to associate with the other inmates despite any clashes in personality or worldview that might make them not get along. They don't get to choose their roommate and are under 24 hour surveillance, including when they go to the bathroom. Oh and they work and pay for many of the privileges you mention. Work itself is considered a privilege in prison.
Got some medical issues? Get arrested! They have to take care of it! Pregnant??? Just get arrested. They will have to cover it all! Think it's BS? Ive SEEN it. I LIVE this travesty every day. It happens and you can spew bullshit all you want but it DOESN'T change this fact.
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.
How you people have this naive rose-tinted view of criminals is just beyond me. If you knew even half the things that go on in jails and prisons you wouldn't be sprouting this nonsense.
What is beyond me is how you keep insisting that we have a romanticised view of prisoners. Have I said no one in prison should be there, and that they're all poets and folk heroes? No, I've simply stated and maintained that people are largely a product of their environment, and that such a high incarceration rate has largely social causes.
Every day these people gain more mandated privileges and rights. You know why state prisons are shutting down and going private? Because of this exactly. They're getting sued left and right for complete bullshit reasons and being forced to implement new things for the scumbag inmates that drain our tax money right away. States and countys are going BROKE because of inmates and the bullshit extra privileges and rights they get!
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.
Here's a nice example; inmate dies by his own fault while attempting escape. The jail is sued for millions of dollars, because of these increasing bullshit rulings. It happened. It's complete bullshit but it really happened, and all the nice thoughts in the world can't erase it.
I'm also genuinely interested in the conditions surrounding this incident. Could you link me to some info on it?
-
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.
-
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?
-
Whatever happened to smashing rocks in the yard in prison?
I always see that in new movies but don't see it anymore.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
. 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