Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Jetmech Jr. on December 13, 2005, 10:23:50 pm
-
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-execution13dec13,0,799154.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Eh, a little late, but what the hell.
Discuss.
-
Yeah, heard about this, as much as I hate to say the the Governator was right, it wasn't his place to second-guess the court system, particuarly after the amount of hearings and appeals there have been over this man.
I'm not a fan of the Death sentence anyway, it could well be that the State of California has indeed just murdered an innocent man, I have no way of knowing, but it is up to the courts to make that decision not Arnie, and, quite frankly, if it does turn out that he was innocent, then that should land on the courts, not Arnie, though I don't doubt it would land on him.
-
True enough. I found it interesting people were ragging on Arnold for not granting the guy clemency, especially considering that IIRC, to be elligible for clemency you have to admit to being guilty of the crime. Whch Williams did not.
-
True enough. I found it interesting people were ragging on Arnold for not granting the guy clemency, especially considering that IIRC, to be elligible for clemency you have to admit to being guilty of the crime. Whch Williams did not.
This is why all the appeals and clemency BS needs to be abolished. He was convicted and wasted taxpayer money remaining alive for 26 years after being convicted. If guilt has been proven, why allow the guilty to remain alive after the trial? Cops and bailiffs have guns, and courthouses have front yards that can easily accomodate unmarked graves. I'm not seeing why we waste so many resources on coddling murderers, rapists, and music downloaders...
-
Note to Self : Reduce Annorax's Bosch Beer rations.
It could be argued that Williams claimed innocence because he was innocent, but even then it's never down to simply 'Yes you did!' 'No I didn't'. Courts do take the passing of the death sentence pretty seriously, and I suspect there must have been a fairly weighty body of evidence to suggest that he was in fact guilty. Either way, it still boils down to courts and juries, not governors and famous personalities.
-
Founder of the Cripts... Innocent???
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!
This guy deserved to die.
-
Well, 'innocent of the crimes of which he was accused' at least... however as I said before, there is a great deal more to the death sentence than 'It was you wot dunnit'. ;)
-
True enough. I found it interesting people were ragging on Arnold for not granting the guy clemency, especially considering that IIRC, to be elligible for clemency you have to admit to being guilty of the crime. Whch Williams did not.
This is why all the appeals and clemency BS needs to be abolished. He was convicted and wasted taxpayer money remaining alive for 26 years after being convicted. If guilt has been proven, why allow the guilty to remain alive after the trial? Cops and bailiffs have guns, and courthouses have front yards that can easily accomodate unmarked graves. I'm not seeing why we waste so many resources on coddling murderers, rapists, and music downloaders...
If you're wrong about the verdict, and some new evidence comes out that proves this, you can always release someone wrongly convicted from jail. If you've already executed them...
-
I'm rather against the death penalty myself, but I'd have to say this man never deserved to be free again.
Also, Annorax: You're proposing death penalties for music downloaders? :wtf:
-
Founder of the Cripts... Innocent???
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!
This guy deserved to die.
On the other hand he wrote many childrens books urging young people to stay away from his creation. Obiously he repented. But isn't that the entire point of going to jail? I guess some people are too bloodthirsty to realize that.
On the other hand Texas is famous for executing innocent people. :p
-
California, however, is not, having only executed 12 people since the death penalty was reinstated.
-
He didn't co-found the Crips.
Washington founded the Avenue Babies in 1969, which became the Avenue Cribs and eventually the Crips. Then Williams joined up around '71, changed the name to the Westside Crips and started expanding the gang to include all the smaller gangs - creating the huge alliance of gangs which are known today in general terms as the Crips.
The whole thing started out as a way to keep from being ****ed-up by the pre-existing gangs and to organise against burglary and robberies in their area. Basically a vigilante group.
But once it had expanded to cover most of the gangs in the LA area it started using it's vast resources to move more heavily into drug distribution - and Tookie went to jail just intime for the new heads of the gang to start using that relatively minor drug distribution network to proliferate crack amongst the inner city populations. This helped them expand to become a national gang and totally ****ed every black American's chance at true equality - but it was done while Tookie was in prison.
And that's why he started writing all the children's books. He joined the gang when it was ****ty, but only really wanted to protect his own ****. When they got large enough that the smaller rival gangs allied together to form the Bloods, so they could mount a realistic defence, his confidence in the idea took a huge ****ing hit. Then while he was in prison the gang basically ass-raped the civil rights movement by turning half the black population into crackheads.
Thus, he's not some big evil crime boss.
And while he probably didn't kill the people they say he did, he undoubtedly ****ed up a lot of Bloods and probably killed at least a few dozen people.
-
I'm always baffled by the attitude that killing someone suddenly becomes ok if they're criminals.
I mean, it's not like you exempt people from punishment for a crime if they rob/rape/murded/etc a 'bad' person, is it?
-
I'm rather against the death penalty myself, but I'd have to say this man never deserved to be free again.
Also, Annorax: You're proposing death penalties for music downloaders? :wtf:
Music downloaders and other intellectual property "criminals" tend to get stiffer sentences than violent offenders like rapists these days. Have you seen this article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4508158.stm), where the music associations are planning to have new laws passed that would include significant jail sentences for hosting and/or downloading written lyrics? The death sentence for music downloaders was intended as slight exaggeration, given the way things are going these days. Between the lyric bull****, the thousands of people being randomly selected by the RIAA for lawsuits, and the other trends toward a 1984-esque society, I believe I wasn't out of line.
-
I'm always baffled by the attitude that killing someone suddenly becomes ok if they're criminals.
I mean, it's not like you exempt people from punishment for a crime if they rob/rape/murded/etc a 'bad' person, is it?
I think that wife beaters are rodents to be exterminated. Unfortunately not everyone agrees with me and they get light sentences, if any at all.
So I guess it just depends on the person.
-
I'm always baffled by the attitude that killing someone suddenly becomes ok if they're criminals.
I mean, it's not like you exempt people from punishment for a crime if they rob/rape/murded/etc a 'bad' person, is it?
I think that wife beaters are rodents to be exterminated. Unfortunately not everyone agrees with me and they get light sentences, if any at all.
So I guess it just depends on the person.
Persumably you don't mean 'here' as China, what with the whole - shoot people for dissent, send their familes a bill for the bullet, and then harvest the skin for collagen to use in beauty products - type arrangement they have.
-
Founder of the Cripts... Innocent???
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH!
This guy deserved to die.
On the other hand he wrote many childrens books urging young people to stay away from his creation. Obiously he repented. But isn't that the entire point of going to jail? I guess some people are too bloodthirsty to realize that.
On the other hand Texas is famous for executing innocent people. :p
Actually he only wrote one 8 page childrens book. With less words than the entirety of this thread. He's only repentant because he doesn't want to die, not because he's sorry for what he did.
EDIT: Whoops, I geuss it's time to start switching tenses.
-
He's only repentant because he doesn't want to die, not because he's sorry for what he did.
Being repentant for founding a gang wasn't going to save his life. Why? Because he wasn't in jail for that. He was in jail for something that he never admitted to doing.
-
Don't put too much weight on what he said or did in jail. People can lie, people can act. That is why it is irrelevant if a murderer or rapist repents. What he has done is a bad thing and must be punished. No matter if you are the Pope and writen dozens of childrens books.
Don't take me as a bloodthirsty bastard. It isn't my job to judge if a person killed 10 people because he wanted to, or because he didn't know how to put out the flamethrower. But if he did indeed do it on purpose, he deserves punishment even if he did invent cold fusion.
-
While I am completely against the death penalty I've got to agree with Prophet on this one. You shouldn't be able to duck your sentence (whatever it was) simply because you say "I'm so sorry I did it." I've always been against this time off for good behavior crap. They should give you more time for bad behaviour.
-
I am opposed to the death penalty, but for different reasons than the average bleeding-heart liberal would:
1. There is no system of accountability in place for when the executed are exonerated. I have not a clue how that would work.
2. The method of execution is far too kind. Lethal injection? Please....bring back the gas chamber.
Yes, I realize the two rules don't exactly work together. I never claimed to be rational.
I didn't want them to kill him. I wanted him to live a long life in Pelican Bay. He's a piece of garbage.
Lots of celebrities backed him. But did you see ANY of them come to the side of the relatives of his victims? Noo.
I'd be all for abolishing the death penalty if it could be replaced with "Death Of Person". 24/7 solitary confinement. The only visitors permitted are clergy, legal, and the occasional Human Rights group to ensure you are still alive. Through plexiglass. No reading material. No writing material. No television. No nothing. period. finis.
You wanted your life? Here it is, such as it is.
-
2. The method of execution is far too kind. Lethal injection? Please....bring back the gas chamber.
they spent 12 minutes finding a vein LOL. actually i'm not in it for "how much pain they face when they die". i think there's a difference coming home, finding your wife sleeping with another man, and in a fit of rage killing him, vs. being a serial killer and raping and murdering dozens of women over the years. obviously they're different types of murders, and different types of criminals, and so therefore rather than have different types of deaths for each, i think it's best to keep them consistent, and as painless as possible.
-
did you hear what some witnesses to his trial said? they said he described what one of the victims sounded like when he shot him. said he sounded like a dog. then he laughed for 5 minutes.
doesn't sound too innocent to me.
-
Source?
-
shoot em all and let god sort them out
btw, i dont believe in god :D
edit:
hey didnt they make a movie on this guy?
-
Source?
hmmmmmmmmmmm let me find it real quick
EDIT: i read it on MSN, but here you go:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=williams+You+should+have+heard+the+way+he+sounded+when+I+shot+&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fl=0&x=wrt
-
Source?
hmmmmmmmmmmm let me find it real quick
EDIT: i read it on MSN, but here you go:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=williams+You+should+have+heard+the+way+he+sounded+when+I+shot+&ei=UTF-8&fr=FP-tab-web-t&fl=0&x=wrt
Worth noting that appears to be a witness statement (i.e. he said he said), so if there is/was any doubt about the reliability of witnesses (which would be the main reason for any doubt over the validity of the conviction, as I believe there was a lack of physical evidence), then that statement could be considered similarly in doubt.
Of course, no-one's really arguing against punishment, the question was really is it not better to have a former gang leader (someone who sadly commands a lot more respect than say the police or education authorities) preaching against gang violence? LA spends millions per year on anti-gang initiatives, is $28,000 (approx) not good value in this context.
And in what way is life in jail 'letting him off'*, anyways? AFAIK he would never have been released.
*to paraphrase the general arguement against clemency
Incidentally, i'm quite amused at the concept of making execution painless. As if that made it more humane - are murders treated less severely if the victim suffers less?
-
Incidentally, i'm quite amused at the concept of making execution painless. As if that made it more humane - are murders treated less severely if the victim suffers less?
Yes, you can dodge a 'torture' charge, the addition of which would really make a jury turn against you.
-
Incidentally, i'm quite amused at the concept of making execution painless. As if that made it more humane - are murders treated less severely if the victim suffers less?
Yes, you can dodge a 'torture' charge, the addition of which would really make a jury turn against you.
So murderers can be given a reduced sentence if the victim doesn't suffer? As in if you shot someone in the head, rather than in the throat, you get less jail time? Or decapitating an unconscious person automatically has a lesser sentance than doing same to a conscious person?
Because torture is an entirely seperate charge to murder, after all. It refers to an prolonged act of, lacking a better term, causing pain rather than the singular act of taking someones life. That's why it's an additional charge; it goes beyond the length of time and scope applicable to a murder charge.
And, ultimately, murder is still murder. It is the most inhumane crime possible (based on its legal standing and punishment), not due to the suffering endured but by the consequence of taking a life, so how having the method used be 'painless' suddenly make it humane?
-
The Death Penalty is not murder. You need to understand that before you can properly debate this.
-
It depends, when the person is killed for a crime, then it is classed as execution, but what happens if it turns out later that he did not actually commit said crime? That makes it the pre-planned killing of an innocent man.
Whether execution is murder or not is very much a personal thing I feel, we can get into 'letter of the law', but at the same time, it's like opinions of the Japanese killing the Whales, or Seal Culling, or Cane Toad culling, it really depends on your point of view. The Japanese find Whalemeat useful, the Seal Cull was believed by a large number of people to be unpleasant but very neccesary, same with Cane Toads, only more so, those things are a true menace.
All of them, like execution, are considered a neccesary removal of life, but where does neccesity end and murder start?
[crowd]oooooh![/crowd]
-
He deserved it!
JK!! :D
-
Execution is not murder - as the person has tacitly approved of the fact that they're going to be killed by committing a crime for which they know they'll be executed.
It's the equivelant of stepping out into traffic. At best, it's suicide and/or bad, high-stakes gambling.
-
But what if the person has not committed the crime? There have been countless cases of wrongful executions before, and would you not classify the killing of an innocent person murder? And yet, the people responsible for the death of that innocent person (ie. Jury, Judge, etc.) do not recieve any punishment! Where is the justice in that?!
I mean, taking your analogy, it's like a speeding car swerving to avoid a dog and hitting someone, and then the dog taking 100% of the blame...
-
Then it's tough ****.
If a few innocent people have to die in order for human civilization to survive, then so be it.
And yes, that is morally justifiable. It's basically the same principle as conscription.
-
Fine, but you've got to admit that the Death Penalty really doesn't work. In the US, it essentially works under the guise that there is indeed a 'hell' after death, and killing them is a suitable punishment because they'll be sent there. But the fact is, killing someone painlessly for committing a crime is essentially letting them off, as i'd think that life in prison would be a hell of a lot worse than simply dying.
The only way to remedy this is to either do away with the whole thing and bring in something like what was mentioned earlier; a small white room with no human contact for the rest of his or her miserable life, or beef up the death penalty to encompass everything down to assault (I actually like this option). Honestly, it would no longer make for over-crowded prisons, it'd act as a REAL deterrant, and you can make protesting the death penalty a crime punishable by the death penalty (oh, the irony!) to minimise complaints. Honestly, I see it working quite well.
-
Fine, but you've got to admit that the Death Penalty really doesn't work.
If it did work, then you wouldn't need to use it. But Texas uses it all the time, so therefore it doesn't work.
-
The Death Penalty is not murder. You need to understand that before you can properly debate this.
Why? The primary arguement against the Death Penalty is that it is murder.
It is the premeditated, planned and calculated taking of the life of an individual human being, the only difference is that it's state sponsored. (not even the motive is unusual - revenge killings are scarcely unheard of, and given that the individual is already incarcerated it's really mainly to save money on jailing costs).
And when said individual is shown after the fact to be innocent - perhaps due to new evidence, or unsafe convictions (IIRC a legal study discovered a shocking percentage of convictions to be unsafe on Death Row, including of people who were mentally ill*), then it is unquestionably the same as murder.
*not in the sense of innocent by mental defect, but incapable of comprehending the legal system and the charges against them, and thus being able to be co-erced into guilty or incriminating statements.
-
Nope, the death penalty is state-sponsored punishment...
It seems to me that the system is screwed up.
If you are guilty and show no remorse, then you should suffer the removal of your life as soon as possible, NOT be locked up for 20 years while people dither around and such.
Personally, I won't be shedding any tears because some scumbag got topped..
-
Murder-the unlawful taking of anothers life.
The very fact that the Death Penalty is state-sponsored and legal means it is not murder.
-
It's arguing semantics.
Sufficed to say that the difference between an execution and a murder is that the execution is done as a punishment. You get a trial, a chance to defend yourself and 20 years to exhonorate yourself.
Murder is simply killing someone because you don't like something they did (or because you're a psycho).
And you can't say the death penalty doesn't work simply because there are still murders. If you removed the death penalty there'd be a damn sight more murders. So while it doesn't totally and wholey keep people from being dicks, it reduces the overall murder rate significantly.
-
Murder-the unlawful taking of anothers life.
The very fact that the Death Penalty is state-sponsored and legal means it is not murder.
That makes rape and torture of prisoners fine so long as the state agrees.
@anon; there's no evidence the death penalty has a role in reducing murders, nor whether any effect it may have is one which is solely limited to execution - it's completely wrong to state it reduces the overall murder rate. Especially as the death penalty is only applied in 2% of cases in the US (and even assuming murderers expect to be caught and thus that sentencing is a deterrent).
see also; http://www.napa.ufl.edu/oldnews/death1.htm, http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/FactSheet.pdf (page 3; note, potentially biased source), http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-facts-eng (ditto)
-
Torture may be state-sponsored already, we just don't really know what goes on behind closed doors.
It's almost worse to sentence someone to life than death, but there's not much in it...
-
That makes rape and torture of prisoners fine so long as the state agrees.
This is news...how? The fact is, "state-sponsored murder" is an oxymoron. However much you may disagree with that.
-
Fine, but you've got to admit that the Death Penalty really doesn't work. In the US, it essentially works under the guise that there is indeed a 'hell' after death, and killing them is a suitable punishment because they'll be sent there.
not so. no matter what religion you are, it's human nature to want to live. you think every criminal that's on death row that's disputing, appealing, and asking for retrials is doing all that because he's afraid of going to hell after he's executed? heck no.
-
Not only that, to sit back and blithely accept whoever the state claims is deserving of death as actually being so, is an extremely lax and dangerous position to take.
In the case of some people it's easy to hate, in the case of others not so easy, but we always judge by our own sandards, and often with very little idea of the whole story.
-
If it were up to me I'd get the people claim that they were for quick executions after a trial to sign an affidavit stating that they wouldn't appeal if ever convicted of a capital crime.
I wonder how many people would be willing to sign up to that.
-
Fine, but you've got to admit that the Death Penalty really doesn't work. In the US, it essentially works under the guise that there is indeed a 'hell' after death, and killing them is a suitable punishment because they'll be sent there.
not so. no matter what religion you are, it's human nature to want to live. you think every criminal that's on death row that's disputing, appealing, and asking for retrials is doing all that because he's afraid of going to hell after he's executed? heck no.
You think every - hell, any - criminal in death row planned to get caught? And that's excluding the ones who killed 'in the heat of the moment'.
-
If it were up to me I'd get the people claim that they were for quick executions after a trial to sign an affidavit stating that they wouldn't appeal if ever convicted of a capital crime.
I wonder how many people would be willing to sign up to that.
That has no bearing on anything.
-
Yeah it does.
The fact is that the people who complain the most about the need to execute straight after sentencing would be the first to demand as many appeals as possible if they were convicted. And it's the appeals that lead to people spending 20-30 years on Death Row.
I'd just like to see people put their money where their mouth is on this issue cause so many people spout off about how come executions should be quick but I doubt they'd be as happy if they knew that if they were wrongfully convicted they'd be the first up against the wall.
-
That's why my "death of humanity" sentence is a much more viable alternative to the death sentence. It's the same thing as "special custody" (23 hours a day in a small room, lights always on, little human contact, etc) but with a few revisions:
No direct human contact with the exception of guard intervention and health care provision.
No verbal/visual visitation except for human rights watchdogs (to ensure you are still alive), clergy, and legal counsel (through plexiglass)
No written correspondence, except legal counsel.
No reading or writing materials
No music
No television.
No personal items in the cells, save your bedding, paper gown, and slippers.
No windows.
Lights always on.
Cell confinement 23 hours a day.
1 hour per day for escort to a shower and exercise room.
And..that's it. You get your life.
Compensation for the wrongly sentenced will include psychological care, financial compensation of $100,000 dollars (after taxes) per year of sentence, and a formal written and visual (televised) apology and retraction by the sentencing judge and prosecution, if available. Copies will be provided for the wrongly convicted in case anyone in the future has any question as to the innocence of said-person.
Voila, problem solved. That ought to settle people down.
-
I'd put a value of over $100,000 on a year of my life (try priceless...). myself.
I think that'd ('death of humanity') be a bad idea.
You're not getting anything for your money. Let prisoners do labour (whatever is possible within the restrictions recuired for security); not only can it be said to be humane in the sense of giving them some form of distraction, it's also an equivalent to a normal person having to work to pay for their keep.
Plus it'd be technically classed as torture, and I'd like to think non-criminal people should be beyond that. I believe in proper life sentences for murder, and that prisons shouldn't be like luxury hotels (I'm not sure they are in any case), but I also think the point of that type of (unending) incarceration is about repaying a debt to society (wherease for limited sentences it is or should be also about rehabilitation) and that denying people any degree of humanity doesn't help in that sense. I'd guess a person in constant solitary would also swiftly go completely nuts, which would just cost money to treat and/or control them. Plus they'd likely be a danger to guards (or any others) in the 1 hour of day they get 'outside'.
And if you really do want to torture them, maybe you should give them a window......
-
i can't believe some of you people sympathize with Williams. He founded a lethal gang, was convicted of 4 or more shotgun murders (they can blow your ****ing face off, man!), theft, and a couple of other charges that i can't remember of, or if there are any more charges. as karajorma said, just because you say "I'm sorry i did it," doesn't mean you can duck your sentence.
The only reason he said "I regret those acts" and wrote the children's books was to get his sorry ass out of jail and join up with his homies and kill more.
Good riddance, I say.
-
Who's saying we're sympathetic to Williams? The man is a scumbag and should have been left to rot in jail for the rest of his life.
My objection to the death penalty has always been the fact that you can end up executing people who are later proved innocent or who can be proved to have been mentally ill at the time of the crime. If we're killing only the guilty then I'd have no objection but that's a purely hypothetical thing and I can't see any system being infallible.
You're confusing the objection that people like Aldo and myself have for the principle of a death penalty with sympathy for an individual who in the hypothetical situation i described above probably would have deserved it.
-
(they can blow your ****ing face off, man!)
:lol:.... I'm sorry, tha absolute banality and comic value of that statement made me giggle like a schoolgirl.
Seriously Cobra, would you expect us to be less abivilant if it only put a bullet hole in your temple?
-
That's why my "death of humanity" sentence is a much more viable alternative to the death sentence. It's the same thing as "special custody" (23 hours a day in a small room, lights always on, little human contact, etc) but with a few revisions:
No direct human contact with the exception of guard intervention and health care provision.
No verbal/visual visitation except for human rights watchdogs (to ensure you are still alive), clergy, and legal counsel (through plexiglass)
No written correspondence, except legal counsel.
No reading or writing materials
No music
No television.
No personal items in the cells, save your bedding, paper gown, and slippers.
No windows.
Lights always on.
Cell confinement 23 hours a day.
1 hour per day for escort to a shower and exercise room.
And..that's it. You get your life.
Compensation for the wrongly sentenced will include psychological care, financial compensation of $100,000 dollars (after taxes) per year of sentence, and a formal written and visual (televised) apology and retraction by the sentencing judge and prosecution, if available. Copies will be provided for the wrongly convicted in case anyone in the future has any question as to the innocence of said-person.
Voila, problem solved. That ought to settle people down.
Screw sentencing criminals with this "death of humanity" of yours, what you have just described could be the most amazing Reality Show ever devised! Tune in every night to see the challenger trying to keep his sanity as he is kept inside a white cube devoid of all comforts save a small bed and a treadmill for exercise, with no outside stimulus aside from nutritional supplements; nothing fancy, just the bare bones of what is needed to remain healthy (physically, at least), which means nothing that tastes even remotely good. For every week the challenger is able to live inside the cube and retain his sanity, he gets $250,000 after tax, with a bonus $500,000 if he makes it through a month. Of course, the challenger will have to sign away all rights and any ability to press charges should they actually go insane inside the cube, so this will likely be based soley in the United States.
-
See, that's the thing. My recommended method is most definately (and obviously) not about rehabilitiation. Neither is the death penalty as it is now. What I have postulated is something as close as possible to a 'reversable' death penalty.
Well, minus the tremendous amount of psychological damage that would ensue.
Then again, avoiding going to such places is easy. Don't do stuff that gets you put in. You know?
-
i can't believe some of you people sympathize with Williams. He founded a lethal gang, was convicted of 4 or more shotgun murders (they can blow your ****ing face off, man!), theft, and a couple of other charges that i can't remember of, or if there are any more charges. as karajorma said, just because you say "I'm sorry i did it," doesn't mean you can duck your sentence.
The only reason he said "I regret those acts" and wrote the children's books was to get his sorry ass out of jail and join up with his homies and kill more.
Good riddance, I say.
Are you familiar with the concept of a 'principle'? Y'know, a deeply held belief on what is morally right and wrong that remains constant?
-
Sorry, aldo, I don't see where you're going with that...
I disagree with the death penalty in principle, but at the same time I haven't really come up with or heard a much better way to deal with it. I can't imagine what it would be like to spend 20 years in a little white room with basically no human contact...I'd probably go insane. When you're talking about trying to make sure that the innocent don't get irreversibly executed, it's not a big diff.
On the other hand, if you lighten up the 'death penalty' enough, you just make it less of a deal to get it.
-
Bring back National Service. Though, training a murder to use an Assault Rifle probably isn't without it's drawbacks....
-
Sorry, aldo, I don't see where you're going with that...
I disagree with the death penalty in principle, but at the same time I haven't really come up with or heard a much better way to deal with it. I can't imagine what it would be like to spend 20 years in a little white room with basically no human contact...I'd probably go insane. When you're talking about trying to make sure that the innocent don't get irreversibly executed, it's not a big diff.
On the other hand, if you lighten up the 'death penalty' enough, you just make it less of a deal to get it.
When you oppose the death penalty, surely(?) it's a matter of principle to wish clemency. It's not like it's less a punishment if the guy will never be released, is it? What's the difference between the two, anyways - a longer time of punishment?