Let's remember what "establishment of religion means"

An established church is a church officially sanctioned and supported by the government of a country.

Surely it is inherent in Congress making "no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Thats exactly my bloody point. I think that wastegate is splitting hairs on this trying to maneuver me into an argument that I'm not making.

You know, someone said earlier on in the thread that they thought the US was the only western state with the death penalty.

I personally think it oughta be widened to every country.

If you got a bleeding heart who is worried about a condemned prisoners pain from an injection, well hey, lets make the death much faster - Waste gate mentioned guillotine, and im all for it! cant get much quicker than that!

"oh, they'll feel the pain for an instant"
give em anaesthetic.
"oh they'll feel pain from the needle"
give em an anaesthetic swab before the needle.

simple:)

If the mods and skybird are happy enough with the slight variation to the general OP, is there a correlation between lack of corporal punishment in schools these days and the number of kids gettin up to serious mischief, and potentially ending up condemndededded themselves??

I really resent the fact that I would be a "bleeding heart" because I'm concerned with the rights of a human being. I don't think that there is enough compassion in the world. So many people are too quick to dismiss the value of a human life just because they deem their actions to be reprehensible. Human life should be valued above all else and the rights of all men are universal above all else. I find it unimaginable that so many people can find so much hate for people who have done nothing to them personally.

The irony I see is that if the criminal caused so much pain to his victim, and that that pain and suffering were terrible enough that he should be condemned, that many somehow see it as being different in returning that suffering unto him. The sick satisfaction in knowing that these men might indeed suffer terrible pain in their final moments leaves me with an empty disgusted feeling. If it is so evil what they have done, then I see little difference in doing the same to them.

Be you Christian, aetheist, or apathetic, I see no reason for this blood lust.

Certainly didnt mean to label you as such p-funk, it just so happened i posted after you - nothing implied against yourself, scouts honour. the sole targets of my 'bleeding hearts' comment was those who jump up on a soapbox in front of the media before every execution saying lets forgive em, let em go, blah blah. Never mind they're likely to kill again, just let em go free, its only natural, blah blah.

Honestly, personally, if a condemned man suffers at his end, it doesnt fuss me too much. Perhaps it will lead to a true understanding of what they put their victims through. Having said that, obviously like most other people i do have a degree of compassion, and would prefer that there not be the pain which would result from these injections causing asphyxia. (if they're anaesthetised beforehand, do they still feel the pain of suffocation??:hmm: ) Anyways, like i said, i advocate the guillotine, because what is quicker?? honestly?

Just to further clarify my comment saying reintroduce capital punishment - can anyone say that most if not all people condemned have not done something so heinous as to warrant it? people such as hannibal lecter, any of the KKK members involved in bombings or lynchings, etc. timmy mcveigh certainly warranted it as far as im concerned, and to put a more recent spin on it, so would the south korean nutjob from last week had he survived.

Down here, people like ivan milat (the backpacker murders), and Martin Bryant (Port arthur) deserve it.

This is all my opinion of course - i respect other peoples opinions as well, and they can debate or pick apart my argument as they wish :)

Ah. No problem mate. Good that we can get along then.:up: And my own comments about the sick satisfaction in suffering and all that jive, not at you either since you don't seem to be particularly blood thirsty.;)

My concern is that while many who may have deserved such a fate from a personal point of view, there are certainly going to be those that are wrongfully convicted that will end up being killed for a crime they didn't commit and that is to me, more than the moral implication, a risk that cannot in my estimation be acceptable. Human institutions of law and justice are imperfect and though we might try as hard as we can to be certain of convictions, there will always be injustices. That to me invalidates the death penalty from a logical and a sociological point of view. The most dear and important concern of the justice system is that of the innocent and protecting them. That is primary above all else. I then contend that the possibility of an irreversible sentense negates its permissibility.

As they say, 100 guilty men, before a single innocent.

Oh, and I'm pretty sure that Hannibal Lector is entirely fictional.;)

Glad we understand each other :)

Your contention certainly makes sense. But, what about cases where there is no doubt as to the guilt of the accused? Would that change your mind about the use of the maximum penalty? Suppose it was only invoked where there was in no way shape or form any doubt at all?

:shifty:


hmm. i knew that.:shifty: :rotfl:

No, i did, but i've got a scrambled brain at the moment. Was he not based somewhat upon a real-life person?

Yeah, mix of bundy/Gein/Dahmer and maybe Homolka

Topic: I don't think 100% definitive proof exists, but that's neither here nor there.
Given the cost of appeal after appeal, and the long amount of time usually spent on death row, I think that communting all DP sentences to life without parole wouldn't carry such a financial penalty.

*shrug* off the top of my head, that is

So far as I know whenever a man is sentenced to death it is already after "all reasonable doubt" has been dismissed. The concept of truth or doubt or untruth are all subjective. Furthermore many people can be completely certain of something while it can later be proven false. I don't think that there is a definitive form of truth. Absolute certainty cannot be found. We get by with whatever permissible truths we can prove to a certain measured degree of satisfaction. I do believe that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is sufficient for non-lethal forms of punishment. However I think that when it comes to the death penalty no kind of certainty is sufficient.

But even if we could, hypothetically, be completely unerringly certain about one man's guilt, the standard by which we apply sentences is universal. We cannot say that a penalty is allowed in once case but not another. That form of system would only open up huge holes for endless appeals and would bog down the system. That would create a fundamental form of inequality amongst the inmates. And that is a whole new can of worms.

I see it as two extremes, one of the only times that I will ascribe to an extreme. Either we kill them all without consideration, or we err on the side of caution. And since we cannot be absolutely the I see only one acceptable policy.

So in short, no.:p

Since there has been some intentional or unintentional misunderstanding concerning the study that I linked.

I know that study since longer, since some years (note the sites I linked are years old). It was available via the top link in the second reference link I set up (that'S where I once got it from myself), but apparently is no more, as I just have learned. It seems it now is available only from the author himself, maybe for the purpose of fund raising, I don't know. (link is at the bottom of the first article).

Liebman is a criminal defense attorney in real life, and is also teaching law at the columbia university. the study nevertheless is no study ordered and conducted by the university, but a project encouraged by a private foundation and supported by the university (this kind of parthnership seems to be more common in america than in europe, at least germany), and being conducted under use of regular scientific working-criterions and statistical methods. It started before Liebman came to Columbia, and since then has seen a second part, and still seem to continue into the present. It is a long-range project.

Liebman is kind of an activist for abolition of death penalty. However, this does not limit his competence in the field of laws, nor does it reduce the scientific value of his work. He is also a prime target for pro-death-penalty-lobbyists (who so far failed in countering his analysis in equal scientific terms). The debate about death penalty in the US is waged with religious fervour especially from the pro-camp, like the one abourt firearms, and from an european perspective it is often seen like a look into our own european past. But fervour can't replace data and argument. In this, Liebman's work has a reputation that is known far beyond America. Nevertheless it is under agitatory fire almost constantly. He is putting finger into wide open wounds, and for doing so he will not be forgiven.

Don't shoot the messenger. Question the message - if you can, and then please by data of at least equal quality. As the footnote I quoted said: the analysis is not basing on a sample, but on the whole, complete set of records over more than 20 years.

One can hardly argue then that flaws in the system, as described in the data, are exceptions only. Liebman did a simple counting job of ALL records within the timeframe of over 20 years. There were no more, and he did not leave any out. That leaves no space for statistical variations, and differing interpretations.

All I have to say is the people who support "life sentences" don't account for prison riots, inflation, war, various social disorder (Rodney King), and corporatists (Republicans).

The cost is higher than reported. No one reports the real cost because it would take a billion-dollar study to evaluate all the variables.

Is that why there is talk of privatizing all our prisons? I for one think this is not a good idea, but what do I know?

-S

beheading... quick..painless and simple... thank you Dr. guillotine


(if spelling incorrect... who cares!)

I don't see how a war or a Rodney King situation increases the cost of keeping someone in jail. So....you know the results of a billion-dollar study :?

So now we base the decision of whether to kill a man or not on economics? Why don't we just sell the constitution to McDonalds and let the kids rewrite it on a place mat.:roll:

I totally agree. I'm not a fan of privatization. If its the government's responsibility then you can't let it become a function of profit margins. That'll just corrupt the whole process. Not to mention making it into a business venture. That opens all kinds of doors to corruption.