Hear That Sound? It's Feces Hitting the Fan.

[Mithrandir]

Ok. Your example of Jeff Luer's is a solitary case. It might be that he received an unjust sentence, and sometimes innocent people are convicted as well. The system has flaws.

Exactly. The system is flawed. The system is not impartial. How can we trust a flawed and impartial system to decide the fate of peoples' lives?

As for Tookie, his sentence was an application of justice for a cold blooded, multiple murderer.

I'm not defending the man's actions earlier in his life. I'm sure that even if he was innocent of this particular crime (which he claimed he was until he died), he had done many others things as the founder of the Crips that warranted an extended prison sentence. But the man wrote childrens books, fostered a peace between the Crips and the Bloods, and was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize five years in a row. If that man isn't considered to have made a significant contribution to society and rehabilitated, and thus deserving of clemency, then who is?

Given that reality, I don't see how they would feel any pain other that the needle prick. The subsequent two injections insure death.

I would argue that "cruel and unusual" is mutually exclusive from where the individual is conscious or not. For example, if you knock someone out with sodium pentothal and then dismember them with a chainsaw, would that not fall under cruel and unusual? That said, I argue against the death penalty because I feel that a) life imprisonment gives an opportunity for inmates to rehabilitate and become productive members of society, b) economic reasons, c) I don't feel that our courts can ever be fair and impartial enough to hold sway over the life of an individuals, d) the death penalty has never been proven to be a deterrent, and e) I don't like a Hammurabi's Code way of viewing the law and justice... not because I feel that it is inherently "cruel" to give someone a shot.

I never bought the reconciliation view of the death penalty. It's just creepy to me that people seem to be frothing at the mouth to murder other human beings. Another death won't bring the victim back to life. How is it not an applicable enough punishment to spend the rest of your life behind bars? Also, due to the long appeal proccess, the actual death penalty isn't carried out until years and years after the conviction (I believe the average is somewhere around 10 years, someone correct me if I'm wrong). I know I'm beginning to tread on dangerous ground here, but family members need another human being to die 10+ years after the death of the victim to feel as though they can finally be reconciled? Yikes.

Killing = wrong. But, 2x killing = right? Isn't one of the first things were are ever taught as children that two wrongs don't make a right? Obviously that statement is an oversimplification, but it's an odd thought to me nonetheless.

And finally, a more modern humanitarian (and more expensive) approach to justice introduced rehabilitation during incarceration, to transform the offender into a better citizen upon release. I think most of us would agree it is a noble goal, and that our system has mostly failed with rehabilitation.

If our prison systems are failing at properly rehabilitating prisoners, isn't that a problem that should be addressed with the prison system itself? How is the answer "Let's just kill more people." to the problem "These prisoners aren't properly rehabiliated upon release."?


All I really wanted was a chance to state my opinion and give some reasons for said opinions, not argue with people. I certainly can relate to Occhi's "internet arguing = head + monitor" mathematical relation. A Lounge thread always gives me something to think about, and I appreciate that.