Stanley 'Tookie' Williams

[Cory]

Originally Posted by sciencenerd

[political disclaimer]
I will keep my personal views on this issue private because I have learned that for me at least, it is best not to discuss politics with others. It tends to turn into a large debate that only causes hard feelings, something I definitely want to avoid. The opinions I am writing here may or may not be my own, I am simply trying to illustrate a point. The issues of abortion and the death penalty can be very different, depending on how you look at it. I'll take the role of the anti-abortion pro-death penalty citizen here, and try to demonstrate how these two positions, which may seem contradictory to begin with, can be reconciled.
[/political disclaimer]

The death penalty is a punishment devised to punish those who have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have comitted an unforgiveable crime, such as coldhearted murder. The issues with the death penalty are whether it is humane to kill someone no matter what they have done, and whether the death penalty is effective in detering crime.

Abortion is the pratice of eliminating an unborn fetus at some point during pregnancy. The fetus has certainly not comitted any crimes, and killing it will obviously not deter many criminals! These are the problems associated with the death penalty, and it is evident they do not apply to abortion. The issue with abortion is whether the fetus should count as a human being or not.

Because these are two entirely different issues, it follows that someone could have a certain opinion on one, and an entirely different opinion on another with no contradictions between them.

While you certainly can choose to call a fetus a collection of cells, or a human life, pro life advocates choose the latter.

Bill's point is how can you justify killing a human being for one reason, when you can't justify killing a "human" (undeveloped fetus) for another reason?

All we show when we execute prisoners is that we're no better than them. We may have killed them in a more humane manner than they did their victims, but that's about it.

There's absolutely no evidence that the death penalty is an effective deterrent. We are one of the few civilized nations that actually puts people to death, and we still have an absurdly high rate of violent crimes compared to many of these countries that don't use the death penalty.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and an eye for an eye will eventually blind the entire world.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Cory

There's absolutely no evidence that the death penalty is an effective deterrent. We are one of the few civilized nations that actually puts people to death, and we still have an absurdly high rate of violent crimes compared to many of these countries that don't use the death penalty.

You need to do some research on this. China has the death penalty for drug abuse, and they have the lowest drug abuse rate in the world.

Look at Iraq before Saddam was removed from power. He was a brutal dictator who would involke capitol punishment at the drop of a hat. People lived in fear for their lives, and it kept them in line. Remember how the Iraqis looted for weeks when his government fell?

Extreem examples, but none the less: when people actually believe they will be put to death for their crimes, the crime rate is lower.

[Bill Gold]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

You need to do some research on this. China has the death penalty for drug abuse, and they have the lowest drug abuse rate in the world.

By that same note, do some more research, Ken, and note that in the EU capital punishment is outlawed and they have a lower homicide rate than the USA. Go fish, dude.

Originally Posted by Cory

China would probably be considered a borderline "civilized country" by some. They're one of the worst human rights offenders in the world. Again, how can you compare us?

Sadly, he can. Look at United States' "interpretation" of the term "torture." "Oh... it's okay to torture as long as it's not done on our domestic soil. We'll just open up CIA prison camps in Europe and Guantanamo Bay so that we can legally get away with any kind of behavior we want." This is inarguable and irrefutable. Don't even bother, Ken and others.

Ugh. This thread is going to get out of hand one way or another. I'm tired of feeling I have to defend my position against people who are incapable of thoughtful dialogue. Say good-bye to Bill Gold's opinion, because apparently none of you seem to deserve it... at least until you guys piss me off enough to come back and set some people straight.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

You need to do some research on this. China has the death penalty for drug abuse, and they have the lowest drug abuse rate in the world.

Look at Iraq before Saddam was removed from power. He was a brutal dictator who would involke capitol punishment at the drop of a hat. People lived in fear for their lives, and it kept them in line. Remember how the Iraqis looted for weeks when his government fell?

Extreem examples, but none the less: when people actually believe they will be put to death for their crimes, the crime rate is lower.

Ken, I'd like to see some proof that capital punishment is an effective deterrent here in the US.

China and Iraq are not good examples. Both countries rountinely oppress their citizens who essentially have no rights. Capital punishment surely is an effective deterrent there, because people live in constant fear of the government. When was the last time you felt compelled to keep your mouth shut about an opinion you had of the president? You probably haven't, because we know we aren't going to be put to death.

Furthermore, it's not an arbitrary process here. Criminals know that even if they kill multiple people, it's not a sure thing that they'll even be convicted, or sentenced to death, and if they were, they can spend 20 years appealing. So really...I'm not seeing any supreme fear of being put to death.

Do you think people living under Saddam even knew what a trial, letalone an appeal was? We don't go around killing people on a whim, so I'm really at a loss as to how you can invoke any meaningful comparison here.

China would probably be considered a borderline "civilized country" by some. They're one of the worst human rights offenders in the world. Again, how can you compare us?

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

Does this logic seem strange to anyone else or is it only me?

If its wrong to kill humans, then its always wrong to kill humans. Killing someone else to save your own life should not be the only exception to this rule. If you really feel its wrong to take someone elses life then the opposite should apply: you should sacrifice your own life to save the life of the other person. Even if the other person is the one who kills you.

I'm not surprised that one might consider it strange, but perhaps this will clarify my interpretation of it. I've assumed that the avoidance of killing is by no means an immutable law of nature, but rather a construct of society. Interpreting it in that light, it is a practical matter, rather than one of absolute morality. I would conjecture that these conventions tend to keep society from falling into disarray, and on that basis alone, there is significant merit. But that doesn't make them inviolable. (Conveniently, this opens the door to all sorts of extrapolations with respect to relative morality being abused in grevious ways. I'm not advocating any of that, and neither am I prepared to state in absolute terms exactly what actions I would consider to be moral—there are far too many considerations, and every judgment is made on the balance of the factors in play at that time, rather than on a codified set of axioms.)

I'm not going to go so far as to say that it is impossible to concieve of a situation where, on balance, a killing is warranted, but I think it is sufficiently clear that in the vast majority of circumstances, there are better options.

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

You need to do some research on this. China has the death penalty for drug abuse, and they have the lowest drug abuse rate in the world.

Look at Iraq before Saddam was removed from power. He was a brutal dictator who would involke capitol punishment at the drop of a hat. People lived in fear for their lives, and it kept them in line. Remember how the Iraqis looted for weeks when his government fell?

Extreem examples, but none the less: when people actually believe they will be put to death for their crimes, the crime rate is lower.

There is inarguably some truth to this, but so far you've demonstrated correlation, not causation. There's much more that needs to be shown, before I would accept those conclusions, as stated.

Originally Posted by Bill Gold

Say good-bye to Bill Gold's opinion, because apparently none of you seem to deserve it... at least until you guys piss me off enough to come back and set some people straight.

Uh-oh....

Edit: Here's an interesting article on the original subject of the thread. I think it offers the fairest portrayal of the events so far; no false heroes, no false villains—just an honest appraisal.

[KenWittlief]

there is a big difference between the effectiveness of capitol punishment as a deterrent to crime, and the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in any given nation or society.

Crime is an antisocial activity that carries consequences. Many people will balance the rewards of committing a crime against the potential punishment, and then decide to proceed or turn away.

It took me 20 years to earn $1M salary as an engineer. Are there other ways I could have gotten $1M in less time?

I could have worked as an engineering consultant in the middle east, and gotten 5X my salary per year, tax free. So I could have gotten $1M in 4 years instead of 20. But the risk to my life, and the loss of freedom to spend my off time doing what I want with my friends and family kept me from taking that path.

I could have stolen the money, for example, by getting 100 credit cards, and taking a $10,000 cash advance on each one, then skipping town and refusing to pay it back: ie, stealing the money. How many years would I spend in prison if I got caught? how many years did Martha Steward spend in prison for the amount she leached from the stock market? less than 20 for sure, less than 4? A year with good behavior?

The point is, we all know from our personal experience, if the penalty is too great we will not risk the activity. To say that capitol punishment is not a deterrent to crime is silliness.

The manner in which capitol punishment is administered in this country, the way its used, and the amount of time it takes to carry out the sentence may make it ineffective as a deterrent, but that does not mean capitol punishment itself is not effective. It simply means our justice system is inept.

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by Bill Gold

By that same note, do some more research, Ken, and note that in the EU capital punishment is outlawed and they have a lower homicide rate than the USA. Go fish, dude.

Sadly, he can. Look at United States' "interpretation" of the term "torture." "Oh... it's okay to torture as long as it's not done on our domestic soil. We'll just open up CIA prison camps in Europe and Guantanamo Bay so that we can legally get away with any kind of behavior we want." This is inarguable and irrefutable. Don't even bother, Ken and others.

The fundamental problem with citing other countries as examples is that there is always different variables that can effect the outcome. The EU has some of the strictest gun control laws in the world. The USA is quite the opposite where it's very easy and legal to own guns.

Your second paragraph reads like anti-Bush propaganda. I haven't seen any credible evidence by an impartial party on the subject of torture at these camps. Are the prisoners going to say they were tortured? Of course, that will play right into the hearts of insurgents in Iraq and terrorists abroad. Of course the US government will say the torture doesn't occur. The only thing inarguable and irrefutable is that no one other than the people there know the truth about what it's like in those prisons.

Regardless of what research has been done to prove or disprove the effectiveness of capital punishment I like to leave it to common sense. If you knew that if you killed someone, and were caught and convicted, you yourself could be put to death; would you do it? I don't think so.

[KenWittlief]

Originally Posted by Bill Gold

.... I'm tired of feeling I have to defend my position against people who are incapable of thoughtful dialogue. Say good-bye to Bill Gold's opinion, because apparently none of you seem to deserve it... at least until you guys piss me off enough to come back and set some people straight.

OH great one! Remove yourself from our presence for we are not worthy to hear the words you speak.

The very radiance that flows from your face is more than your humble servants can bear, and we fear our hearts will stop beating from sheer awe and reverence!

[Cory]

Originally Posted by KenWittlief

The manner in which capitol punishment is administered in this country, the way its used, and the amount of time it takes to carry out the sentence may make it ineffective as a deterrent, but that does not mean capitol punishment itself is not effective. It simply means our justice system is inept.

Again, Ken--Where's the proof?

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

Regardless of what research has been done to prove or disprove the effectiveness of capital punishment I like to leave it to common sense. If you knew that if you killed someone, and were caught and convicted, you yourself could be put to death; would you do it? I don't think so.

It seems to me that it's pretty much common sense that this isn't happening...crime rates haven't gone down...they've actually gone up in some states that have the death penalty.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

Your second paragraph reads like anti-Bush propaganda. I haven't seen any credible evidence by an impartial party on the subject of torture at these camps. Are the prisoners going to say they were tortured? Of course, that will play right into the hearts of insurgents in Iraq and terrorists abroad. Of course the US government will say the torture doesn't occur. The only thing inarguable and irrefutable is that no one other than the people there know the truth about what it's like in those prisons.

If it were a matter of the goverment saying outright, that torture didn't occur, and would never be permitted to occur, things would be simpler. However, for various reasons, there have been attempts by numerous officials to downplay, redefine and justify all sorts of actions that might reasonably be associated with torture. These range from intelligence personnel defending violent or psychologically damaging interrogation techniques in the name of the so-called "War on Terror", to the sadistic actions of American soldiers in the Abu Ghraib incidents. The rhetoric about "using any means necessary" continues to be spouted; it's not Bill's fault that Bush and others (not just in the administration) use these catchphrases to justify their actions.

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

Regardless of what research has been done to prove or disprove the effectiveness of capital punishment I like to leave it to common sense. If you knew that if you killed someone, and were caught and convicted, you yourself could be put to death; would you do it? I don't think so.

While that may be sufficient to convince most of us not to kill anyone (assuming that we were ambivalent in the first place), we should be aware that not everyone operates on this level. There are all sorts of reasons that cause people to ignore this seemingly basic principle: apathy, sociopathy, indoctrination in the name of a "higher cause", etc.. Perhaps most prevalent, however, is the temptation to play the odds; there's always a chance that you won't get caught. And if people are innumerate enough to play the lottery, can you imagine what they'd do with 1 in 20 odds* of getting away with capital murder?

*Deliberately false statistic. But I'll vouch for it, give or take an order of magnitude....

[KenWittlief]

Cory, Ive already given examples, and you dismissed then out of hand for un-related reasons.

If you define 'civilized' and 'society' to preclude civilizations and society's that go against your way of thinking, then you are rigging the discussion to force you own point of view to be correct.

If there is a credible threat of death for a given action, then any rational person will carefully consider their actions. Do you really believe that no one cares if they live or die? No one?

if any percentage of the population stops and reconsiders their actions, then the threat of capitol punishment has acted as a deterrent.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

Regardless of what research has been done to prove or disprove the effectiveness of capital punishment I like to leave it to common sense. If you knew that if you killed someone, and were caught and convicted, you yourself could be put to death; would you do it? I don't think so.

Given that you've argued extensively in the past that women do not deserve the right to vote, forgive me if I find your brand of common sense idiotic; particularly so when you advertise it as being formulated irrespective of evidence that suggests whether or not it's effective.

No loss of human life makes the world a better place; ever.

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

However, for various reasons, there have been attempts by numerous officials to downplay, redefine and justify all sorts of actions that might reasonably be associated with torture.

A single man with the passion to kill thousands can do so with technology that is readily available. He thinks of himself as a soldier representing his god. He is unconcerned about the consequences of his actions and is willing to die for his cause. A single person capable of killing thousands...

We are in one of the most difficult times in history. Traditionally, a country declares war on another country. They fight and one side is the clear winner with the other county admitting defeat. The modern day terrorist has no government support. Most Middle Eastern governments aren’t even concerned if their citizens are committing acts of terror. The terror is supported by a group of individuals who share the same ideals. Recruitment happens when someone else shares the ideals. However, these are not soldiers we are not fighting a traditional war. One day a member could be on a roof top sniping the next day he is in a market selling vegetables. This is why they are called terrorist, insurgents or enemy combatants.

The US has to deal with terrorism in very unconventional ways. Otherwise, we are just sitting ducks for the next terrorist attack. We need information on where the terrorists are, who they are, and what their next move is. They are not going to announce their attack, they just do it. They know they can't actually win they know that they just want to cause pain, fear and death- terror. Try to kill as many Americans as possible; hit a US landmark, the goal is to erase our resolve for peace. The US doesn't want to control another country. We just want that country to act responsibly and deal with terrorism.

I don’t feel there is enough public information to judge whether the US is committing acts that could truly be considered torture. One method of information gathering is forcing a detainee to be awake for long periods of time without sleep. Some would say that is torture, most would not. I think the word torture conjures images of splinters under finger nails and there’s no evidence to support torture in the truest since. There’s simply no evidence to support similar events.

To wrap things up, certainly the United States is using unconventional methods to interrogate prisoners. The inhumane treatment at Abu Ghraib was condemned and the responsible parties were punished. Learning information from prisoners is crucial to understanding and stopping terror throughout the world. In this very untraditional war on terror the United States absolutely needs to use “any means necessary” to extrapolate information about terror from suspects. Any means neccessary is simply referring to the unvonventianal approach needed to be taken to win this war. Regardless of the wording of the President’s slogans or other military officials speeches there is no reason to believe they have authorized torture of US prisoners.

Originally Posted by M. Krass

Given that you've argued extensively in the past that women do not deserve the right to vote, forgive me if I find your brand of common sense idiotic;

Ms. Krass, I’m welcome to your ideas and thoughts but please refrain from baseless personal attacks. Thanks.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

Ms. Krass, I’m welcome to your ideas and thoughts but please refrain from baseless personal attacks. Thanks.

I believe a review of my comment will reveal that I've questioned nothing but your definition of 'common sense' -- a comment that is certainly not without merit.

[Wetzel]

Ideals should be ideals. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

"No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."
Due process is a thing that is supposed to guarantee that the government will respect all of your rights all the time. In the United States, due process is "implicit in ordered liberty." Life, property, and freedom from imprisonment are the three best known and always agreed on rights. These can NOT be taken away without due process. The government has used terrorism as a means to ignore due process.

How can we call ourselves a civilized country if we can not maintain an ordered liberty?

A jury of his peers, several times, and various judges have given Mr. Williams his due process. Unfortunately, vengeance rather than rehabilitation is still the way of the criminal justice system in this county and Mr Williams has been killed for his actions.

Wetzel