BuffettNews.com

the poster child for capital punishment in NY was a prisoner serving multiple life sentences for murder in attica. he raped and killed a female prison guard during a prisoner riot (not the big one everyone knows about).

during the trial for the guard's murder he was quoted as saying "what are you going to do, sentence me to life"?

AlbatrossFlyer wrote:during the trial for the guard's murder he was quoted as saying "what are you going to do, sentence me to life"?

I would. Lock him in a very small room for the rest of his life.

I personally think we're too easy on prisoners, especially those with life sentences. To me, it's not about rehabilitation, it's about keeping them out of society.

If it were my world, life sentences would be life sentences and "cruel and unusual" would have a very narrow definition.

But faults with the justice system are not alone enough to justify the death penalty.

Key Lime Lee wrote:

AlbatrossFlyer wrote:during the trial for the guard's murder he was quoted as saying "what are you going to do, sentence me to life"?

I would. Lock him in a very small room for the rest of his life.

I personally think we're too easy on prisoners, especially those with life sentences. To me, it's not about rehabilitation, it's about keeping them out of society.

If it were my world, life sentences would be life sentences and "cruel and unusual" would have a very narrow definition.

But faults with the justice system are not alone enough to justify the death penalty.

agreed. And put them to work... very, very, very difficult and arduous labor.

iuparrothead wrote:Now, because that is my conviction does not mean I don't want to see murderers, pedophiles & terrorists punished. I want them punished SEVERELY. That's why I am a staunch proponent of penal labor... make the s.o.b.'s work until their fingers bleed and ever fiber in their body feel excrutiating pain like it's on fire. To me, that's justice.

I'm curious. How do you propose to "make the s.o.b.'s work"?

Are you just assuming that they'll cooperate?

iuparrothead wrote:I believe the prisoner needs to be put in the highest form of maximum security that the state can provide without being cruel and inhumane.

As if they are cooperating to simply behave now? Prisoners won't ever "cooperate" to anything.

An overhaul of the prison system instituting and maintaining functional penal labor, of course, would obviously take a very long time... maybe many, many decades. I never implied it would be easy.

I hope your not trivializing my suggestion, because it is not just mine... there are many others that advocate this.

Key Lime Lee wrote: I would. Lock him in a very small room for the rest of his life.

I couldn't agree more.

Key Lime Lee wrote:2) If you're justifying it on the basis that it could prevent murders then the logical continuation of your point would be that you've got to ban guns, since eliminating firearms would certainly prevent murders as well. We'd have to outlaw knives too, and rope.

That's quite a leap. The convicted murderers have already demonstrated the capacity to kill. Given the chance many of them will do it again.

The problem isn't with the objects themselves, it's with the people who used them as weapons to kill.

The Rights of those on death row are borderline rediculous at times. Ted Bundy would always find something to file a complaint about... such as if his milk was warm that came with his meal...then the guard would have some explaining and paperwork to do....

Ted Bundy played and abused the system probably better than any other inmate on death row. He was very blatant about it.

Most of the inmates would tell the workers that the prison was their home, and that the guards and other workers only worked there.

Has anyone seen what the sheriff in Arizona has done to the incarcerated there? In Phoenix I think...perhaps prisons could learn from it.

That is an idea that is working... Apparently he has been sued unsuccessfully (or threatened with being sued) and accussed of many things... but I afmire what he has done. It is not suppose to be a place one wants to be.

An honest question:
Since most admit that the sytem does make mistakes... how does one compensate an innocent person that is or has been imprisoned and incarcerated? Their whole lives have been disrupted...usually the prison stigma sticks with them and they lose family friends and productive years of their lives and have difficult time finding a job....and are released with nothing other than the fifty cent a day or whatever salary they earned ehile inside.

iuparrothead wrote:

Key Lime Lee wrote:

AlbatrossFlyer wrote:during the trial for the guard's murder he was quoted as saying "what are you going to do, sentence me to life"?

I would. Lock him in a very small room for the rest of his life.

I personally think we're too easy on prisoners, especially those with life sentences. To me, it's not about rehabilitation, it's about keeping them out of society.

If it were my world, life sentences would be life sentences and "cruel and unusual" would have a very narrow definition.

But faults with the justice system are not alone enough to justify the death penalty.

agreed. And put them to work... very, very, very difficult and arduous labor.

Wasn't it like that one time in this country?? Wasn't prison hell holes that people never wanted to return to?? And then people started complaining about the treatment of prisoners and vola!! We have PRISON REFORM.

And you actually think you're going to force say 2000 hardened criminals to work hard manual labor?? No because of PRISON REFORM. You can't beat them to work. You can't refuse them food.

Many, many prisoners are there to do their time and learn different tricks of their trade. For many many prisoners it's 3 hots, a cot and a criminal education. In Dallas the County jail is Lew Sterrit Criminal Detention unit or something like that. On the streets it's refered to as LSU - Lew Sterrit University.

agree with IUP and KLL on this one. and remember, it used to always be referred to as "hard time."

Sam, for further examples of wrongful convictions and just how widespread it is, take a look at what is going on in Illinois, and the website that Ann cited earlier dealing with the Northwestern project. It goes on far too often to ever make me comfortable with the idea of the death penalty.

ph4ever wrote:

iuparrothead wrote:

Key Lime Lee wrote:

AlbatrossFlyer wrote:during the trial for the guard's murder he was quoted as saying "what are you going to do, sentence me to life"?

I would. Lock him in a very small room for the rest of his life.

I personally think we're too easy on prisoners, especially those with life sentences. To me, it's not about rehabilitation, it's about keeping them out of society.

If it were my world, life sentences would be life sentences and "cruel and unusual" would have a very narrow definition.

But faults with the justice system are not alone enough to justify the death penalty.

agreed. And put them to work... very, very, very difficult and arduous labor.

Wasn't it like that one time in this country?? Wasn't prison hell holes that people never wanted to return to?? And then people started complaining about the treatment of prisoners and vola!! We have PRISON REFORM.

And you actually think you're going to force say 2000 hardened criminals to work hard manual labor?? No because of PRISON REFORM. You can't beat them to work. You can't refuse them food.

Many, many prisoners are there to do their time and learn different tricks of their trade. For many many prisoners it's 3 hots, a cot and a criminal education. In Dallas the County jail is Lew Sterrit Criminal Detention unit or something like that. On the streets it's refered to as LSU - Lew Sterrit University.

Problem with HARD LABOR is these felons want compensation if they are hurt on the "job"

ejr wrote:agree with IUP and KLL on this one. and remember, it used to always be referred to as "hard time."

Sam, for further examples of wrongful convictions and just how widespread it is, take a look at what is going on in Illinois, and the website that Ann cited earlier dealing with the Northwestern project. It goes on far too often to ever make me comfortable with the idea of the death penalty.

So I can assume that you would rather an innocent child be raped, and murdered than a career criminal put to death?

Four Play wrote:
That's quite a leap. The convicted murderers have already demonstrated the capacity to kill. Given the chance many of them will do it again.

I'd like to see the statistical evidence backing that up.... I think it's quite an assumption to say that because someone has killed once, they will kill again.

Elrod's argument is "Since (killing convicted murderers) would prevent future murders, it's justified."

Mine simply substitues (banning guns)... the logic is the same.

PHBeerman wrote: So I can assume that you would rather an innocent child be raped, and murdered than a career criminal put to death?

It's not a choice between those two scenarios....

ejr wrote:agree with IUP and KLL on this one. and remember, it used to always be referred to as "hard time."

Sam, for further examples of wrongful convictions and just how widespread it is, take a look at what is going on in Illinois, and the website that Ann cited earlier dealing with the Northwestern project. It goes on far too often to ever make me comfortable with the idea of the death penalty.

Ellen,
Thank you!!! HUUGGGZZZ

BTW...I think the term now used is "....Beyond reasonable doubt.." instead of "...Shadow of doubt...." I might be wrong abou that...

Ellen I want to know what is done to compensate these people.

I have no problem seeing those who are hardened repeat violent felons....(within reason) and with other crimes listed as capital offenses being executed....and I don't mean on tv or to make them the heroes of the anti whatever.

While this does sound like a quandry....it reminds me of a movie from the late 70s early 80s called "The Star Chamber" had Michael Douglas in it ,if memory serves correctly.

I have no problem with the prisoners/inmates working...like the old chain gangs.

The county next door allows inmates to work and do projects... the ones they allow to volunteer for the program cannot have been convicted of a violent crime. I was told their labor for it was either 6 or 8 inmates cost one city somewhere around $32,000.00 a year.The money goes to help pay for their upkeep and their stay in prison. I seriously doubt the city could get one let alone 2 employees for that ammount by the time everything is figured in so it is good thing for the city and for the jail.

They do various things from building a walkway to cleaning out the ditches and other things. But again note they were non-violent crimes that they were convicted of.

I was told there is at least one prison here in Georgia that prisoners must work from growing food to canning it and other things. All on the prison grounds.

I have no idea what the ACLU thinks of these programs but the inmates working "here" seem to like the idea because it gets them out of the cells and they can contribute in some positive way. Not saying all of them but it seems the majority of them do.

I like what the sheriff is doing in Arizona. I think all jails and prisons and jails should be that way.

I have no idea why this posted twice!
I cannot find a delete button to get rid of it....

ejr wrote:agree with IUP and KLL on this one. and remember, it used to always be referred to as "hard time."

Sam, for further examples of wrongful convictions and just how widespread it is, take a look at what is going on in Illinois, and the website that Ann cited earlier dealing with the Northwestern project. It goes on far too often to ever make me comfortable with the idea of the death penalty.

Ellen,
Thank you!!! HUUGGGZZZ

BTW...I think the term now used is "....Beyond reasonable doubt.." instead of "...Shadow of doubt...." I might be wrong abou that...

Ellen I want to know what is done to compensate these people.

I have no problem seeing those who are hardened repeat violent felons....(within reason) and with other crimes listed as capital offenses being executed....and I don't mean on tv or to make them the heroes of the anti whatever.

While this does sound like a quandry....it reminds me of a movie from the late 70s early 80s called "The Star Chamber" had Michael Douglas in it ,if memory serves correctly.

I have no problem with the prisoners/inmates working...like the old chain gangs.

The county next door allows inmates to work and do projects... the ones they allow to volunteer for the program cannot have been convicted of a violent crime. I was told their labor for it was either 6 or 8 inmates cost one city somewhere around $32,000.00 a year.The money goes to help pay for their upkeep and their stay in prison. I seriously doubt the city could get one let alone 2 employees for that ammount by the time everything is figured in so it is good thing for the city and for the jail.

They do various things from building a walkway to cleaning out the ditches and other things. But again note they were non-violent crimes that they were convicted of.

I was told there is at least one prison here in Georgia that prisoners must work from growing food to canning it and other things. All on the prison grounds.

I have no idea what the ACLU thinks of these programs but the inmates working "here" seem to like the idea because it gets them out of the cells and they can contribute in some positive way. Not saying all of them but it seems the majority of them do.

I like what the sheriff is doing in Arizona. I think all jails and prisons and jails should be that way.

Key Lime Lee wrote:

Four Play wrote:
That's quite a leap. The convicted murderers have already demonstrated the capacity to kill. Given the chance many of them will do it again.

I'd like to see the statistical evidence backing that up.... I think it's quite an assumption to say that because someone has killed once, they will kill again.

Elrod's argument is "Since (killing convicted murderers) would prevent future murders, it's justified."

Mine simply substitues (banning guns)... the logic is the same.

I don't have the stats...I'd also like to see them. I'm not sure where to look, but I'll see what I can find. Will you at least concede that SOME of them would do it again? What about serial killers?

The topic here is (killing convicted murders), not (banning guns). They are two separate things and it is not logical to substitute one for the other. I don't think that guns, knives, or rope are intrinsically evil - all of them have useful purposes. Just because I support (killing convicted murderers), it doesn't automatically follow that I support (banning guns). Your logic says that one has to follow the other.

I cannot vouch for the authenticty of the numbers the articles seem to be somewhat dated...but perhaps they are close....




The following quote is from :
http://www.prisonerlife.com/page_writin ... berID=2494

..... I am not only fighting for my life and my freedom from a wrongful conviction, I am fighting for Ed's life, Danny's life, Greg's life, Parrish's life, Scott's life, and the lives of the 100,000 (at a minimum) other innocent men and women in the State and Federal prisons and jails of this nation. Is it so hard to believe that the judicial system is only 95% efficient, that it makes mistakes 5% of the time? That was the percentage of men found innocent (and 13 of 25 that were scheduled for execution) by DNA tests on Death Row in Illinois prior to the blanket commutation of sentence issued by Governor Ryan. That is why he issued a blanket commutation of all 167 men on Death Row. He didn't know anymore who was guilty and who was innocent. What else could he do? Kill them all and let God sort them out??
.....

From

http://dpa.state.ky.us/library/advocate ... ngful.html

Wrongful Convictions of the Innocent: Kentucky's Recent Experience, Response, and Remaining Reforms

...The nation has been startled by the repeated reports of innocent people being freed from prisons all across the country. The shock comes not from the justified release of innocent people, but from the sheer numbers of actually innocent people found in the nation's prisons. Nationally, 116 persons have been freed as a result of their wrongful conviction as of December 4, 2002.
....

Then there is this

http://dir.yahoo.com/Government/Law/Cri ... ce_Project

and this:

http://www.truthinjustice.org/LAEP.htm

Yes innocent people do get incarcerated so our judicial system is not perfect.... but what makes people so sure that the courts are so right in the Terri Schiavo case? Is there not room for doubt? We have demonstrated the courts system can be wrong........and people do not want innocent people to die...and pardon me, while I do consider Terri's death to be state sponsored because the state ordered her to be starved to death.

Certainly sounds like the intentional death of a known innocent person to me...

PHBeerman wrote:

ejr wrote:agree with IUP and KLL on this one. and remember, it used to always be referred to as "hard time."

Sam, for further examples of wrongful convictions and just how widespread it is, take a look at what is going on in Illinois, and the website that Ann cited earlier dealing with the Northwestern project. It goes on far too often to ever make me comfortable with the idea of the death penalty.

So I can assume that you would rather an innocent child be raped, and murdered than a career criminal put to death?

Troy... come on now.

Four Play wrote:

Key Lime Lee wrote:

Four Play wrote:
That's quite a leap. The convicted murderers have already demonstrated the capacity to kill. Given the chance many of them will do it again.

I'd like to see the statistical evidence backing that up.... I think it's quite an assumption to say that because someone has killed once, they will kill again.

Elrod's argument is "Since (killing convicted murderers) would prevent future murders, it's justified."

Mine simply substitues (banning guns)... the logic is the same.

I don't have the stats...I'd also like to see them. I'm not sure where to look, but I'll see what I can find. Will you at least concede that SOME of them would do it again? What about serial killers?

The topic here is (killing convicted murders), not (banning guns). They are two separate things and it is not logical to substitute one for the other. I don't think that guns, knives, or rope are intrinsically evil - all of them have useful purposes. Just because I support (killing convicted murderers), it doesn't automatically follow that I support (banning guns). Your logic says that one has to follow the other.

If you want to use Elrod's argument you'd have to, yes.

The argument states "Executing convicted murderers is justified because it prevents future murders."

Thus things that prevent future murders are justified. So by that argument, banning guns would be justified, and kitchen knives etc.

I'm not comfortable with that line of reasoning either - think defending the death penalty because in some cases it may prevent a future murder is not a valid defense of the death penalty anymore than I think suggesting we ban guns because it would prevent a death is.

Would executing all convicted killers possibly prevent some additional murders? Probably.

But much like in the case of firearms, one has to weigh the relative benefit to society (the possibility of a handful of less murders) against the cost (in this case, the chances of executing innocent people, the disproportionate application of the death penalty to minorities, and the larger moral issue).