Good editorial on 9/11

[highnote]

I like this editorial about 9/11. It reminds me of why I am against the death penalty. Don't get me wrong, there are people who deserve to die for their actions, but killing them would be wrong -- at least in my humble opinion.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/03/31/transcending_the_evil_that_men_do/

[so.cal.fan]

I'm a life long believer in the DP.
However, lately, I've been wondering if by holding on to this, I may be involving myself in the karma of these very monsters we wish to eliminate.
Many killers, I would like to execute myself, as I'm sure many other citizens would as well.
However......is that really an integrous position? Probably not. :(
That said, if I were on the jury for this terrorist......I would probably vote the DP........reluctantly.......

[Tom]

I was lifelong anti-DP, but lately, I would like to see it used not more often, but for a lot more crimes as well. the lights should be dimming every night at midnight!

Someone who scams the financial savings of a retired couple, for instance, should be put into forced slavery to the victims or just hung. They are not fit to live and cerainly not worht the expense to keep them in jail.

Scumbags like the Enron bastards, who destroyed many families lives - ditto the noose. Take out the trash.
Child moleters - front of the line.
Rapist - right behind the CMs.
Take out the trash.
Let God sort it out.
He will reward the one we good on and finish the job on the rest.
C'est live.

[highnote]

I was impressed that this lady who lost her husband in 9/11 can be opposed to the death penalty. I think that says a lot about her character.

The death penalty will not deter terrorists and she certainly doesn't want to lower herself to Moussaoui's (spelling?) level.

[lsbets]

So for those who lost husband/wives/fathers or mothers on 9/11 and want the death penalty for Moussaui, would you say that speaks poorly of their character?

[46zilzal]

So for those who lost husband/wives/fathers or mothers on 9/11 and want the death penalty for Moussaui, would you say that speaks poorly of their character?
would snuffing this guy bring back any person?

[Bala]

".....The death penalty will not deter terrorists...."
_________________________________________________

Yup – your right – also in the same vain, long term incarceration will not deter terrorists.

Whether it is religious, narco or just your inner city street gang who terrorize the hood. Nothing will deter terrorists. Let give up. We do not need police or even an army who might be forced to kill in the line of duty.

Let’s do nothing and allow the new Nazis to take what they want. If I close my eyes maybe the bad guys will leave me alone.

I did not mean bad guys – damned my political incorrectness. I meant victims of an oppressive society that are just expressing their feelings.

I’ll check into a reeducation center first thing in the mourning.

___________________________________
Outsource congress to India.

[Indulto]

I was lifelong anti-DP, but lately, I would like to see it used not more often, but for a lot more crimes as well. the lights should be dimming every night at midnight!

Someone who scams the financial savings of a retired couple, for instance, should be put into forced slavery to the victims or just hung. They are not fit to live and cerainly not worht the expense to keep them in jail.

Scumbags like the Enron bastards, who destroyed many families lives - ditto the noose. Take out the trash.
Child moleters - front of the line.
Rapist - right behind the CMs.
Take out the trash.
Let God sort it out.
He will reward the one we good on and finish the job on the rest.
C'est live.Tom,
Executing religious fanatical terrorists rewards them. Sadaam rewarded the families of terrorists who killed innocents. I'm surprised you haven't advocated rewarding families of terrorists when they take themselves out together with another terrorist, but no innocents.

I agree that the definition of terrorism needs to be expanded to other forms of life-ruination, and that the most effective means of dealing with them is to destroy them rather allow them to elude capture. Once captured, the punishment has to be more than just incarceration, but how would you achieve restitution from financial terrorists?

[lsbets]

would snuffing this guy bring back any person?

Neither would sending him to jail, so why not just let him walk free? :bang:

[Tom]

Tom,
Executing religious fanatical terrorists rewards them. Sadaam rewarded the families of terrorists who killed innocents. I'm surprised you haven't advocated rewarding families of terrorists when they take themselves out together with another terrorist, but no innocents.

I agree that the definition of terrorism needs to be expanded to other forms of life-ruination, and that the most effective means of dealing with them is to destroy them rather allow them to elude capture. Once captured, the punishment has to be more than just incarceration, but how would you achieve restitution from financial terrorists?

You couldn't get restitution, but just knowing that cooking the books could put your ass in the hot seat might make a few actually do thier jobs honestly.

Oh, yeah, I forgot one major catagory - POS politicians who sell thier votes to lobbyists - betraying the people they represent - beheading in public would be satisfying - then a nice game of "DC Soccer" for the masses!

[toetoe]

LS,

It should go without saying, but I'll say it. The character of pro-death folks is not impugned by the poster, or by the stance, necessarily. The reason for the stance makes all the difference. Brain-addling grief is something that understandably warps judgement. My own thought is that I would consider it as a MORE HUMANE alternative to what we can provide a convict in our prisons. I make a distinction between a "harmless" prisoner and someone who's still killing and harming others inside. At that point, killing becomes a preventive measure worth considering.

[lsbets]

Trust me, I don't think John was meaning to insult anyone who favors the death penalty, but his phrasing in my mind certainly begged the follow up question that I asked. If something speaks well of one person, than what does the opposite say about another person?

I am becoming more and more anti-death penalty unless there is irrefutable DNA evidence or a rock solid confesion. I think one mistake is too many, and way too many have been made. The rules for when the death penalty can be enforced need to be tightened, so that there is no doubt we are executing a guilty man.

In the case of Moussaui, I could care less either way if he gets the death penalty. No punishment deters terrorists, so if we follow Zilly's logic we should just let him go.

[toetoe]

LS,

Yes. I forgot about the death-row equivalent of a false positive, one huge reason I hate the warm and fuzzy panacea known as the drug test. And let's not forget that money buys innocence sometimes, although that shouldn't surprise anybody in this world.

[kenwoodallpromos]

[QUOTE=swetyejohn]I like this editorial about 9/11. It reminds me of why I am against the death penalty. Don't get me wrong, there are people who deserve to die for their actions, but killing them would be wrong -- at least in my humble opinion.
____________________
OK, how about throwing them off a cliff and letting the ground kill them?

[Turntime]

Rather than look upon this as a moral issue, I prefer to see it as an economic one. Why should this useless hunk of protoplasm be allowed to live at the expense of hardworking taxpayers?

I say whack him.

Economically speaking, of course.

[Indulto]

I am becoming more and more anti-death penalty unless there is irrefutable DNA evidence or a rock solid confesion. I think one mistake is too many, and way too many have been made. The rules for when the death penalty can be enforced need to be tightened, so that there is no doubt we are executing a guilty man.lsbets,
Isn't DNA proof expressed as once chance in so many millions of two samples not matching? Such proof is irrefutable, but it's not absolute. All that can be done is to ensure that the process is rigorous and fair, and that the verdicts are as consistent and unbiased. as possible.

There will be errors as surely as deaths in combat, but just as soldiers cannot question the odds against survival, citizens have to accept the odds against inaccurate blame. Corruptness in that process should itself be punishable by death.

I've never bought "an eye for an eye." IMO, the focus should not be on whether a life was taken, but whether a life deserves to be taken because the defendent committed an intolerable, uncorrectable, and unforgiveble act against one or more other human beings. And the specificity of such crimes has to come in advance from deliberation by a collection of celebrated minds, and not from the mountain top!

Focusing on the harshness with which some offenses are punished elsewhere can blind one to the greater extent the law is observed in those societies. Is it inconceivable that parents might take greater care in raising their children to be law-abiding when not doing so would be to sacrifice them?

IMO our greatest strength is our personal freedoms; our greatest weakness is allowing the freedom of some to lesson the freedom of most.

[toetoe]

Indulto,

"Corruption ... itself should be punishable ..." What does that mean? :confused: :confused:

Of COURSE the guarantee of freedom for some will compromise that of all. That's the deal we make with the universe to get "the worst system ... except for all the others." We always thought it was worth it, no?

[lsbets]

DNA is good enough for me, and its when that DNA evidence is absent that I have problems with it. I also have problems with the death penalty depending on the circumstances. Was it a crime of passion that is unlikely to ever be committed again? Or was it the act of someone who has no moral grounding and will more than likely do it again? In the first case I don't think its appropriate. In the second case (as long as we have the right guy) its neccessary.

Now with my wishiwashiness on the death penalty being on the table, I will also add that I don't buy into the expensive, humane ways of execution. A good strong rope and a 20 dollar chair work just fine.

[toetoe]

LS,

My only quibble is that theoretically the potential repeaters can be locked up forever, otherwise I agree with all of your post.

[Indulto]

"Corruption ... itself should be punishable ..." What does that mean? :confused: :confused:

Of COURSE the guarantee of freedom for some will compromise that of all. That's the deal we make with the universe to get "the worst system ... except for all the others." We always thought it was worth it, no?TT,
I agree I wasn't clear.

Please consider the following revison:

All that can be done is to ensure that the process is rigorous and fair, and that the verdicts are as consistent and unbiased. as possible. Corruptness in the exercise and review of that process should itself be punishable by death.

There will be errors as surely as deaths in combat, but just as soldiers cannot question the odds against survival, citizens have to accept the odds against inaccurate blame.


Good point with your bolded statement.

I'm not saying "talk is cheap," but while we embrace freedom of speech and religion, we still curtail one's ability to yell "fire" in a crowded room or to force another to practice one's faith (except at the ballor box). We guarantee an individual's right to say what he/she wants as long as no one else is denied their right to speak. We may allow individuals to talk about doing harm to others, but we punish them if they actually do it.

[toetoe]

Yes, and don't forget that we little guys have no real access to OUR airwaves, so that's an 'a priori' denial of rights. Also, and they're just one example, I'm not picking on them, the s#!tbags inciting 'liberal' lemmings and people of their pet races to march in the streets are breaking the law. Kids missing school, traffic disrupted, some degree of heightened physical danger, when some by their mere presence are flouting the law ... these things are unforgivable, and very skillfully orchestrated by the ideologues. No one wants to nail it down, but I sense the capable hand of the UFW in this crap.

My point is that we have a long way to go. Our rights have been denied and abused right along.

[Tom]

I agree that DNA should be used - in fact, the state should be obliged to do DNA testing whenever possible, and every case on death row needs to be DNA reviewed before anyhting is done.
But once the proof is there.....no more waiting.

[highnote]

So for those who lost husband/wives/fathers or mothers on 9/11 and want the death penalty for Moussaui, would you say that speaks poorly of their character?


No. Just differently.

PS
I would have responded earlier, but I have not been getting emailed that there were replies. Maybe my settings were changed inadvertantly?

[Indulto]

Now with my wishiwashiness on the death penalty being on the table, I will also add that I don't buy into the expensive, humane ways of execution. A good strong rope and a 20 dollar chair work just fine.lsbets,
I had to think about this one for a while.

The object of "humane" ways of execution should be to protect society's humanity as well as to dispassionately dispense justice when imposing the ultimate penalty. A guilty person's demise at the hands of the state should be accomplished without either rewarding the purient interests of any observers or enabling potential prisoner satisfaction from having inflamed their passion.

What I would favor is elimination of diminished capacity defenses. IMO the death penalty can't deter an insane person, a substance abuser, or one incapable of distinguishing right from wrong. The act deserving death and its resultant effects can't be reversed, only prevented from being repeated and incurring further negative impact. Commission of such acts can't be deterred directly, only indirectly by stimulating a maximum effort on the part of families to head off a child's alienation from society.

[Indulto]

The following is an addendum to my previous post re: elimination of diminished capacity defenses:

Until a lie-detection process as statistically accurate as DNA testing manifests itself, the focus must be on proving a death-penalty deserving act was in fact committed by a defendant; not in determining why it was committed.

I would make these exceptions: If it can be proven that a defendant’s victim(s) committed a death-penalty deserving act prior to that of the defendant – or were prevented from doing so by the defendant – then the former would justify commutation to a life sentence and the latter a not guilty verdict.

As intent should be irrelevant, even if a defendant were unaware of the victim’s proven prior or prevented act(s) when committing his/her own act, then IMO the sentence or verdict, respectively, would still be justified – but only once per lifetime.

There should also be some publicly AND privately funded compensation provided for successful independent collection of proof of a victim’s prior or intended act as well as that evidence against a defendant was manufactured. Increased diligence in preventing a defendant from being “framed” needs to be rewarded.

[Tom]

I think the method of exectuiion should match the crime. This Mussawi(sp?) guy, if he gets the death penalty should be set on fire and pushed off the top of the Empier State Building, since he was one of those responsible fit it being the tallest building in NYC.
Great video op, don't you think?