Originally Posted By Elderp The governator has told Austria to essentially stuff it: <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10537976/" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10 537976/</a> my favorite part is "the ring is allready in the mail."
Originally Posted By JeffG I'm glad to see that we have such a paragon of maturity as governor. The dignified and appropriate response to the petition by those in his hometown would have been to ignore it or to simply reiterate that he appreciated the honors the city had bestowed on him and hoped the city wouldn't rescend them over disagreement on one issue. Basically, Schwarzenegger had a little temper tantrum instead of acting like a statesman. -Jeff
Originally Posted By cmpaley Gee...Schwarzenegger once again demonstrates what a small, small man he truly is.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<Personally, I think putting someone to death would be more humane than cutting someone off from society completely... to me that's sounds like torture.>> This is a dicey road. Legitimizing execution because the alternative seems “inhumane†is a hard argument to make, in that, execution snuffs out the very essence that make humanity what it is. Capital punishment would, therefore, be the antithesis of humanity. With regard to “torture,†yeah, there is an element of torture with regard to punishment. By definition, anything which causes physical, emotional, or mental distress can be classified as torture, a degree to which is a vast continuum. Extreme boredom or reflection is a torture I a can and will advocate, and I find it much more humane than execution. I alos believe that the degree to which we cut off individuals from society is a matter of debate. Newspapers, prison clergy, fellow inmates, modern medicine, et cetera… could be arranged somehow without compromising the ideals behind the incarceration, that is, the separation of these people from general society or the outside world (the apparent goal of executions in the first place). In essence, they form their own society, away from the rest of us. They’ve proven to be detrimental to society and thus deserve society to turn there backs on them. <<Currently there are some 600 inmates on death row in San Quentin alone. The public would never go for the amount of funding it would take to build individual cells for all those prisoners plus the killers who didn't get the death penalty but life in prision.>> The death row population in the US hovers around 3500. The US currently incarcerates a growing population which has surpassed 2 million in recent years. The death row population is minuscule. One large prison could house these individuals easily. And if we REALLY were concerned about the cost of prison population, we would re-think drug related laws and punishments. There are nearly 300,000 drug related incarcerations in the US. <<And I'm not sure it would be legal or even possible to cut off all contact with the outside world.>> Yet, killing them is legal. We certainly live in a funny little world. <<I am in favor of executing them because I fear for innocents in our society and love peaceful communities…And what if Joe the Killer's brother is carrying out hits based on info he gets from these visits?>> But that’s just it, a death penalty conviction obviously doesn’t solve the problem you pose; nor would quick justice ever fly, at least in western civilized society (and I don’t mean Greco-Roman-esque western civilization and all their brutality). So an element of complete isolation should already be implemented to some degree in order to resolve the problem you pose. Unless you have a better idea of course. I sure cannot think of one. And since the subject of God and torture was introduced, does anyone imagine what hell is like? Isn’t an eternity in hell supposed to be torture as well? Is God being “inhumane� And no one has yet attempted to the fears concerning frailties and fallibility of the judicial system. Is this simply a non-issue to death penalty proponents?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Newspapers, prison clergy, fellow inmates, modern medicine, et cetera… could be arranged somehow without compromising the ideals behind the incarceration, that is, the separation of these people from general society or the outside world (the apparent goal of executions in the first place). In essence, they form their own society, away from the rest of us. They’ve proven to be detrimental to society and thus deserve society to turn there backs on them. << But we don't do that in reality. We try to understand what makes them tick, how they went wrong, clergy searches for redemption, family members bring in news of the outside world, and in order to make them managable in prison, rewards for good behavior are required. They aren't sitting in the ol' stoney lonesome playing a harmonica. They are reading, communicating and sometimes still operating outside "business" as we have seen with the next prisoner scheduled for execution. >>And no one has yet attempted to the fears concerning frailties and fallibility of the judicial system. Is this simply a non-issue to death penalty proponents?<< It is a major concern to me. But no one is rushed to execution. Scads of lawyers and advocates go over every detail with a fine tooth comb, looking for an procedural error that could result in getting a prisoner off death row. It's a long, slow path to the execution chamber, sufficient, I think, to make extra sure no innocent person dies.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<Legitimizing execution because the alternative seems “inhumane†is a hard argument to make, in that, execution snuffs out the very essence that make humanity what it is. Capital punishment would, therefore, be the antithesis of humanity.>> I was speaking for myself... *I* would rather be put to death than be completely cut off. <<I alos believe that the degree to which we cut off individuals from society is a matter of debate. Newspapers, prison clergy, fellow inmates, modern medicine, et cetera… could be arranged somehow without compromising the ideals behind the incarceration>> Apparently it didn't work very well in one case.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo You are right 2oony, this is what happens. But it shouldn’t. There should be means by which communication leaving the prison can be stymied. The “Joe, the killer’s brother†problem you posed cannot be resolved without isolating them. <<It's a long, slow path to the execution chamber, sufficient, I think, to make extra sure no innocent person dies.>> And I am glad the judicial system does do its best to limit the risk of sentencing an innocent to death. But it has and will make mistakes, mistakes which ultimately mean life and death. At least with incarceration, there is some means to rectify mistakes. But the time it takes and the amount of access they have to society is also a matter which is central to the situation you presented. How would you fix that without isolating them? <<I was speaking for myself... *I* would rather be put to death than be completely cut off.>> That's fair enough. But I suppose one can request it if they so wished. But if not... <<Apparently it didn't work very well in one case.>> It didn’t work because it wasn’t even attempted. He had books published for heaven’s sake.
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<But I suppose one can request it if they so wished...>> To expound upon this a bit: But I suppose one can request it if they so wished and the jurors should respect that and grant it to you (if it is indeed what you want). In fact, if 10 year after the sentence is commenced and you feel death is preferable, then again, it should be granted to you. But some safe guard must be enacted. It has to be proven you were not coerced in any way and it is truly your free will making this determination.
Originally Posted By cstephens In listening to coverage about the funeral/memorial service today, I again find it ironic that one of the reasons people put forth for why he shouldn't have been executed is that so much time has passed. Well, so much time has passed because of the appeals process, because there are so many avenues available to someone given the death penalty. I still find it incredibly sad, though, that this man is the one being held up to an entire community as someone who should be emulated. Just forget about the people who spend their lives just working and making their way without actually killing anyone, right? /cs
Originally Posted By TomSawyer If he has actually renounced gangs and is trying to keep kids out of them, then I think it's okay to hold him up as an example. He was in jail on death row, and if he was serious about educating kids about his own story and why it was the wrong thing to do, then why not point to him as an example? Grace and redemption are such powerful things, and it would be a good thing for us to show that even the most intractable gang member can be helped by them. But we've taken away the opportunity to teach others how powerful grace and mercy and redemption are when it comes to transforming a life.
Originally Posted By FaMulan But Tom, Williams never showed remorse for the crimes he was convicted of committing. He was unrepentant and unremorseful, he did not live an exemplary life behind bars but was an instigator and party to violence after incarceration. He was no Marting Luther King, Jr. who always advocated peaceful methods of demonstration.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan then why not point to him as an example?<< Because he never truly renounced gangs. He never, ever broke the code of silence gangmembers live by. And more than anything, there are thousands of better examples to hold up within the black community of people who have made better choices throughout their lives, in spite of obstacles. The holocaust caused by the gang Williams started continues to this day. He's no positive example. He's best forgotten.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer He didn't show remorse for crimes that he said that he didn't commit, but he did show remorse for crimes that he said he committed. I haven't shown any remorse for things I haven't done, either.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer (Note the liberal use of "ifs" in my previous post - I'm not close enough to the case to know what he was actually thinking or doing.)
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Hypothetical- let's say you're in Williams' predicament. Even IF you didn't do it, but you're about to be executed, wouldn't you admit to remorse for the crime if it had some chance of saving you?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan If he wanted to truly help keep kids out of gangs, he would have been more cooperative with police and helped them infiltrate and break up gangs. Williams could have provided all sorts of help, if he had wanted to. But instead, he "kept it real" and the gang violence carries on. This is why I simply don't buy his "redemption" as anything but an attempt to work the system and to play people in an effort to save himself from execution.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Even IF you didn't do it, but you're about to be executed, wouldn't you admit to remorse for the crime if it had some chance of saving you?<< No. Williams was a lot of things, but he wasn't stupid. He knew he was done for, and he was interested in screwing the legal system one more time by attempting to place a lot of doubt about his guilt among his flock.
