The Death Penalty and Schwarzenegger

On January 19th of this year Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger allowed the first death sentence to be served in three years, and the first under Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. That is almost copied straight from a news site (because honestly if I hadn’t, there’s no way I’d have been able to spell Arnie’s name!)

Anyway, I recently caught an ad for a movie on Court TV called The Exonerated. It’s based on true stories of several people who spent years on death row for crimes they didn’t commit. The original version was a play which inspired my interest in the subject of the death penalty. I specifically remember one guy who spent something like 20 years on death row before finally being cleared.

Now before someone jumps all over me: I’m not saying that the guy who was just executed in California was innocent. But does anyone think it’s acceptable that even one innocent person could be executed? I think it’s about time this country joins the rest of the civilized world and adopts a more humane approach. For those of you still on the fence on this issue, I’d check out this movie, because if it’s anything like the play the personal stories will astound you. I think it airs on January 27 (but check courttv.com just in case I’m wrong). And if you have thoughts on this issue, I’d like to hear them.

Sylvio

But does anyone think it’s acceptable that even one innocent person could be executed?

Acceptable? no not exactly, but I dont think the death penalty should be abolished either. It just needs to be changed a little to the effect of having hard evidence against someone before going through with it.

As the whole process of capital punishment stands now, it might as well be abolished. It does not serve the intended purpose in my opinion. Helios, what would YOU change?

I'm against capital punishment, but then again, Australia abolished it a long time ago. Some people do things that are unforgivable and I often have the argument with my family about which is more fitting, life in prison in dismal conditions or a quick death. Personally I'd like to see them thrown in the darkest, dankest cell available and left there.
And like you mentioned tflon, what if they are cleared but are already dead, you've just murdered an innocent man or woman and the person who did it is still on the run.

Say that when you are paying taxes to clothe and feed the guy in the cell.

Personally, I'm torn between the death penalty and life in prison. On the one hand, the death penalty offers riddance of human filth, judged by peers to be guilty of a crime. On the other hand, life in prison does make human filth suffer for the injustice they've done, unless they feel no remorse for their crime.

The cons of each: Death gives an easy out, and left to be judged by a God who may or may not be there. Life in prison spends taxpayers dollars where it could be allocatede elsewhere, like paving new roads and such. But no, we have to pay for human filth getting fed everyday, three square meals, and holding him there.

Just my two penny's worth.

It does not serve the intended purpose in my opinion. Helios, what would YOU change?

The whole way the death penalty is handled. Like that guy tflon mentioned about being on death row for 20 years, come on now. Once you get on death row you should either get it within the year, or be sentenced a lighter charge. And as for the people that are actually sentenced to death, there should be no room for any doubt when that person is sentenced. He practically needs to confess himself that he did it, or have some video and/or audio tape that proves him guilty. At times death sentences are given too easy (and sometimes they arent given when they should).

As for life or 100+ year sentences, its just like a death sentence so why not give it to them? Its pointless to keep them in a cell for 100 years.

life imprisonment is far worse than the death penalty, in indonesia, a few months ago everyone celebrated the fact that the sari nightclub bombers were going to be executed, all these people who lost freinds and relatives in the nightclub blast were saying "its right that these imhuman terrorists should die" when i was thinking exactly like eon. the cunts should be thrown into a deep damp dark hole and left there with only basic food and small rodents gnawing at them constantly... its not a human rights abuse, its justice!

What ever happened to good old vigilante justice? That's the solution, that and that only I say! Now where's my shotgun and my false teeth...

there should be no room for any doubt when that person is sentenced.

lol. Wake up, laddy. There is always doubt. It's about 'reasonable doubt', and that's where the problems start.

I think it's up to a society to decide whether they want the capital punishment or not. If they abolish something, however, trash them juries. Now that is bad.

Mr U

life imprisonment is far worse than the death penalty, in indonesia, a few months ago everyone celebrated the fact that the sari nightclub bombers were going to be executed, all these people who lost freinds and relatives in the nightclub blast were saying "its right that these imhuman terrorists should die" when i was thinking exactly like eon. the cunts should be thrown into a deep damp dark hole and left there with only basic food and small rodents gnawing at them constantly... its not a human rights abuse, its justice!

Yes, that is all fine and well to say, however these assholes that are thrown in the slammer more often than not have better living conditions than the average public. Just look at our Tassie mass murderer, Mr Martin Bryant. That son of a bitch has more rights and more luxuries and even more councilling than the victims who lost whole families, little children, grandmothers, grandfaters, sons and daughters, mothers and fathers that terrible day he 'forgot' to take his medicine. I am all for the death penalty. Once justice has been passed down, then it should be final. Now waiting on death row, if I had my way I'd make it a week after the end of trial. It's an insult to the families who's lives have been shattered by these bastards.

I agree with Goethe. The jury idea is insane.

As for the death penalty, I'm not sure it's any less humane than locking human beings in cages for the rest of their lives, but at least the second option is somehow reversible. What I've been thinking lately is that maybe corporal punishment is a better option - not for all types of crime but for some. Evil people or sociopaths whose conscience and fear of jail won't deter them might be deterred by a hell of a lot of pain. Still, if an innocent is subjected to this I'm not sure how reversible it can be... there'd probably be quite a few unpleasant memories.

However, when the death penalty is sufficent to deter murderers (which I'm not sure is the case in the US for instance) then generally speaking I think it'd be acceptable, even if innocents do get it occasionally. It all depends on each society's specific existing murder rate and level of government deterrance.

If you are going to execute people then you had better do it in a manner that will accomlish its original goal....deterrence. Do it in the middle of town for everybody to see. Make it so that people dont ever wnat to see somebody else get killed. Make it so that those criminals who commit ghastly crimes know they will have a ghastly death. If a person wants to act inhumane then treat them inhumane.

Of course, this would involve a complete change of the archaic jusicial system currently in place. You cant very well torture and kill innocent people. Well, you can, but then that kind of defeats the purpose. A little. Anyway, I used to be all about capital punishment but now it simply seems foolish in its current state.

The whole way the death penalty is handled. Like that guy tflon mentioned about being on death row for 20 years, come on now. Once you get on death row you should either get it within the year, or be sentenced a lighter charge. And as for the people that are actually sentenced to death, there should be no room for any doubt when that person is sentenced. He practically needs to confess himself that he did it, or have some video and/or audio tape that proves him guilty. At times death sentences are given too easy (and sometimes they arent given when they should).

As for life or 100+ year sentences, its just like a death sentence so why not give it to them? Its pointless to keep them in a cell for 100 years.

Unfortunately, there is always some doubt with certain cases particularly cases that place an individual on death row. You have a good point about convicted persons who get multiple life sentences stacked on top of each other. This is where the lawyers and all the legal red tape gets in the way. The whole process is inexact and cumbersome. The legal system is not finite. Death is. There is definitely a mismatch here.
I am for capital punishment. I think that lethal injection is the best way to carry it out. Criminals will not be deterred by some grotesque public display. Criminals basically believe that they will never get caught. Many who end up on death row don't care enough about life anyway. The goal is to remove these individuals completely from society. It is hypocritical for me to feel this way since I am a Christian; however, there is a matter of practicality that society must deal with. I for one do not want to pay for criminals to waste their years in jail while not contributing anything significant to society.
To take a side on this issue, is to leap into some inconsistencies. Handing down death is an extreme initiative. Anything that has an extreme bottom line of principles is going to have hypocracies built in. I am a hypocrite for cherishing life in some ways and accepting death in others. The reason why I say this is that society simply needs to make a decision and then live with the benefits and the downfalls. We cannot eliminate the inconsistencies. We can only find a set inconsistencies that we can live with.

As for taxpayer money issue, it actually costs more money to put someone on death row and execute them than to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives. Its all because the law saws that if they can't provide a lawyer for themselves, the state provides one for you. The prisoner has no limit on how many appeals he can make to get him off death row. This I think is completly ridiculous. I for one am for the death penalty, but I think it is handled completely improperly.

I agree with UT, most prisons offer more for prisoners than they had on the outside, three meals a day, you can work out, get exercise, cable TV, all on the taxpayers $$. Most of these people don't have anything on the outside.

Its just bad, that's all

I agree with UT, most prisons offer more for prisoners than they had on the outside, three meals a day, you can work out, get exercise, cable TV, all on the taxpayers $$. Most of these people don't have anything on the outside.
The spending of tax payers dollars are limited in there, in Aussie prisons (at least in most prisons) they work on a points basis with everything they want having to be 100 points or less, if they want something that is more they have to loose other privlages.

I'm interested to hear what you're saying Anomolous, though thinking about it it is a valid point, they probably do spend more of our money on death-row with trials and while they are on it they are also getting all the luxuries of being in prison.

As for the death penalty, I'm not sure it's any less humane than locking human beings in cages for the rest of their lives, but at least the second option is somehow reversible.
I disagree, I think the death penalty is far more human, at least how they do it now, with lethal injection, maybe with hangings or electric chair it would have been different (mind you the theory with the later was that they would be knocked out with the first jolt of electricity) but being confined in a small space is more fitting I think.

It was my understanding that with the electric chair that it went straight through their brain, killing them almost instantaneously.

Anyways, lethal injection isn't as, how you guys are calling it, inhumane as you guys say, well at least not to me, it's actually what I would prefer out of the three you hear most about. One injection thins the blood, then another one relaxes the muscles and the last one stops your heart. You're not supposed to feel any pain. My understanding of the proceedings, at least.

Hanging is also pretty quick and painless, as it snaps your neck instantly, but it was stopped because it was used publicly, and considered cruel and unusual.

Being confined is all well and good, but space is limited. People die anyways, why not rid the world of the indecent individuals, and make room for the people who actually contribute something to society?

Am I the only who sees the irony in Australia having prisons?

The electric chair usually takes about 15 seconds to kill somebody. I dont know if it hurts or not, but I dont imagine it tickles.

I'm interested to hear what you're saying Anomolous, though thinking about it it is a valid point, they probably do spend more of our money on death-row with trials and while they are on it they are also getting all the luxuries of being in prison.


I do not know the exact comparative costs but I would not be surprised if it cost more to have a convict on death row. This is why I said, in one of my first posts, that capital punishment might as well be abolished as it stands now. It is ineffective. I am for it if the system were to be reevaluated and corrected. This is why I say that society needs to make more of a definite choice about whether to have it or not. I'm not sure this is a realistic undertaking though.

The entire punishment system needs to be revamped, prisons in general are not much of a "prison" anymore besides the walls. Such as...
The spending of tax payers dollars are limited in there, in Aussie prisons (at least in most prisons) they work on a points basis with everything they want having to be 100 points or less, if they want something that is more they have to loose other privlages.

Prisoners dont need any privalages period, after all the whole point behind prison is taking away freedoms. I say we go back to a medieval style jail system, throw them in a dark dungeon and only open the door to feed them. As I see it they lost their rights to humane treatment the moment they commited murder, rape ect.

As far as the death penalty, there's no need to sit 10 years on row for an injection or electric chair that might cost 500-1000+. A few hours after sentencing take them in a room and shoot em square between the eyes and call it a day.

Am I the only who sees the irony in Australia having prisons?

You mean the fact that australia started out as a "prison colony" for Britian.

Prisoners dont need any privalages period, after all the whole point behind prison is taking away freedoms. I say we go back to a medieval style jail system, throw them in a dark dungeon and only open the door to feed them. As I see it they lost their rights to humane treatment the moment they commited murder, rape ect.
I know what you mean, but we're talking about people who are in there for 20 odd years, even the worst offenders need something, I'm not saying give them everything they want, they are murders, rapists etc, but there has to be something there.

Am I the only who sees the irony in Australia having prisons?
No, no you're not.

Even still, the punishment needs to be severe enough that it actually serves as a deterent. Which at the moment its failing at.

The U.S has the highest crime rate in the world, but we also have the best,cleanest ect. prisons. hmm anyone see the connection? Prisoners do "hard time" but are not suffering all that much. To be frank our prison system is a joke.

I would love to see on what you base the premise that you have the best prisons. In the Netherlands, only in 2004 were we even considering cells with multiple prisons.

Dutch prisons have television in them, place for books, et cetera. I suggest you do some research on the subject before you toss around statistics.

I find you view on the justice system disturbing, Helios. People are people, and they all 'deserve' to be treated in a civilised, humane way (according to the UN, and most civilised countries). It's what protects us from the state.

What's to keep the government from throwing everyone in such a jail as you describe, even those who steal bread so their little baby with cancer can survive for another day? Please.

Mr U

I would love to see on what you base the premise that you have the best prisons. In the Netherlands, only in 2004 were we even considering cells with multiple prisons.

Dutch prisons have television in them, place for books, et cetera. I suggest you do some research on the subject before you toss around statistics.

One of the best then, I wasnt basing it on anything except opinion.

[color=pink]I find you view on the justice system disturbing, Helios. People are people, and they all 'deserve' to be treated in a civilised, humane way (according to the UN, and most civilised countries). It's what protects us from the state.

What's to keep the government from throwing everyone in such a jail as you describe, even those who steal bread so their little baby with cancer can survive for another day? Please.[/color

Depends on the crime, theft is one thing. But do mass murders need to be treated in a civilized manner?, do people who rape children and kill them afterward need civilized treatment? No. When you commit such a heinous act against society you only show that you dont deserve to be treated in the same manner. The crime they comitted was not "civilized". They're a piece of shit on the foot of the civilized world and they should be treated no better than such.

What would keep the goverment from throwing everyone in a jail as such is the type/severity of their crime. Even for a crime like theft doesnt mean they need to have television,books or any other luxaries. They're in prison after all not summer camp.

So first you have no confidence in the justice system, and suddenly you have enough confidence to condemn people to a terrible faith in your type prisons, even if they are innocent?

Apart from that, view it from a nihilistic view. Who the fuck are you to condemn me to a life sentence of punishment? Who the fuck are you to put any restraints on my freedom?

Of course, the current government does the exact same thing, but they leave people in their value.
Finally, prison punishment deals from the ideal of taking away one's liberty, as it was decided as the most harsh, humane, punishment anyone could receive.

As a sidenote. If people are tortured in these cells, under your command, you'll be arrested, trialed, and be put in a decent cell with a television and some books. Think about it. That is justice. No matter how fucked up you are, we still treat you as a human. The government is just. Yes.

Mr U

So first you have no confidence in the justice system, and suddenly you have enough confidence to condemn people to a terrible faith in your type prisons, even if they are innocent?

My lack of confidence in the justice system didnt change. I was stating how it would/should be done. Even if there are a few innocents by accident, the whole justice system shouldnt waver for this tiny percentage that would be insanity.

Apart from that, view it from a nihilistic view. Who the fuck are you to condemn me to a life sentence of punishment? Who the fuck are you to put any restraints on my freedom?

Its called civilization of the twenty first century, after all by staying apart of the civilized world its a rule that you follow the rules of that society if not suffer the consequences. Hell you do have a choice of not being apart of the civilized world and living off in some secluded lawless mountain town.

Of course, the current government does the exact same thing, but they leave people in their value.
Finally, prison punishment deals from the ideal of taking away one's liberty, as it was decided as the most harsh, humane, punishment anyone could receive.

Taking away one's liberties is not much of a deturrent(if at all) anymore.

Taking away one's liberties is not much of a deturrent(if at all) anymore.

And you believe your medieval methods are? If they were so effective, one would assume that there just a few references of people undergoing these practices. Instead, there are references of loads of people who underwent these practices.

Hell you do have a choice of not being apart of the civilized world and living off in some secluded lawless mountain town.

What gives the government more right to the ground than a criminal? Why shouldn't society go to that mountain town, and the criminal stay here. Just because we outnumber him? Is that how 'civilised' we are?

You can't have it from two sides, Helios. Either, you accept ethics as they are, or you toss them aside. A double moral is bull.

Mr U

And you believe your medieval methods are? If they were so effective, one would assume that there just a few references of people undergoing these practices. Instead, there are references of loads of people who underwent these practices.

Even so, the percentage of criminal acts was lower and when one of these prisoners was released there was a much lower chance they would commit another act to get them back.

What gives the government more right to the ground than a criminal? Why shouldn't society go to that mountain town, and the criminal stay here. Just because we outnumber him? Is that how 'civilised' we are?

Actualloy that is how it works, civilization was here before that criminal was born, thus he must follow the rules that were already in place. The idea of non-earth ownership worked for the native americans but it doesnt for us, civilization as we know it(the west anyways) would cease to exist in its current form.

You can't have it from two sides, Helios. Either, you accept ethics as they are, or you toss them aside. A double moral is bull.


Why should I accept ethics as they are? If they could be changed to a better form, why not? Compltely abolishing ethics is not what im talking about at all here.

Yes it is. Our governmental system rests upon humanistic ethics. Saying we treat our prisoners as we did in the medieval days undermines those ethics. All of them. You can't say no to police brutality if you say yes to that system.

I recommend reading Nietzsche 'Beyond Good and Evil', if you are interested in modyfing the moral system. Excuse me for using a business term, but a suggestion must be S.M.A.R.T. R standing for realistic.

What you are saying is not realistic because it holds no support through the country. Certainly, victims would want the criminals to suffer, but most of society condemns those punishments.


Even so, the percentage of criminal acts was lower and when one of these prisoners was released there was a much lower chance they would commit another act to get them back.


Comparing today with the past is dangerous. Do you have anything to back that 'percentage' up?

Mr U