[ST] Death Penalty & Minors

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:17 pm

I know this has been brought up before and probably hacked to death, but after reading this article about the Supreme Court looking to the rest of the world on how they should rule on if executing minors is constitutional or not... I find myself unable to take a firm stance anymore.

Children who've killed (under 12), should not be released to their parents, but sent to a mental institution (high security) where they can be helped and then eventually released to their parents or sent to a minimum security institution (after about 5-8 years). Unless they show no improvement, then they stay until old enough to go to juvie and then jail. At this age, they're still young enough to be reconditioned and released a much healthier (mentally) & reformed child with a chance at a future.

Minors (13-18, because at 18 you're legally an adult) are a bit different in my eyes. When you reach this age, you KNOW what's right and wrong. Should you be killed for it? Eh. That depends on the severity of the crime. Serial killing, horrific & brutal murders, multiple homicides... the creme de la scum of killing, makes you eligible for the death penalty. Just like an adult. Otherwise, I'd say sentence 'em to life in prison (maybe possibility for parole in 20 years). Life in prison at that age is really no life at all. Brutalities, attempted murders, sexual assult... welcome to life in prison for the rest of your life however long or short it may be.

But to look to the rest of the world to determine how the Supreme Court should rule? I'm not too keen on this at all.

Daki · Post by **Daki** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:32 pm

Brutalities, attempted murders, sexual assult... welcome to life in prison for the rest of your life however long or short it may be.

Is that really any different than execution? Knowing that you will be in prison for the entirety of your life and not have a chance of parole or entering the outside world, should we even bother?

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:41 pm

If I recall, executions cost more than life sentences. I may have it backwards. But if not, then it's a more cost effective thing and that should be part of the equation since it is tax dollars that pay for either.

Angel · Post by **Angel** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:54 pm

It's cheaper to execute, compared to life (long term) sentences.

For anyone guilty of murder (not manslaughter) I vote for only one punishment, life in prison. I honestly could not care less about how horrible the person's life will be behind bars, no I don't mean prisons should be horrible places, I am referring to some people's thinking of life imprisonment as cruel.

As for a ten year old killing someone, what kind of mind would consider killing anyone? How could someone (especially a child) actually and seriously think of killing another human being? This type of mentality never deserves to roam free amongst other people, absolutely never!

Rev · Post by **Rev** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:22 pm

Some statistics about the costs of a death penalty vs life inprisonment

Though my web search turned up both articles saying that the death penalty cost more and less the 'more' articles are the only ones that seemed to cite actual data, the 'less' were using dubious cost projections (eg they applied inflation, but no discount rate for spending money later, made bald assumptions of the relative costlyness of imprisoning a possible death penalty convict, etc).

The supreme court used a similar argument when they decided on executing the retarded a year or two ago. A big part of thier decision was that because the majority of states did not do so, including those who did not execute at all, that it was unconstitutional. Seems like fantastically bad reasoning to me. However the constitution uses a lot of vague language like "cruel" and "unusual". Somehow those have to be filled with meaning and public opinon ought to be a part of that.

Daki · Post by **Daki** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:34 pm

I think that the higher cost for execution is factoring in all the legal costs for appeals and whatnot. But the cost for the average prisoner for a life sentence (according to that report) is just about $1 million.

Paul, any idea about how many Life-sentence prisoners are in your prison alone?

Daki · Post by **Daki** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:34 pm

I think that the higher cost for execution is factoring in all the legal costs for appeals and whatnot. But the cost for the average prisoner for a life sentence (according to that report) is just about $1 million.

Paul, any idea about how many Life-sentence prisoners are in your prison alone?

Maelwys · Post by **Maelwys** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:50 pm

Rev wrote: The supreme court used a similar argument when they decided on executing the retarded a year or two ago. A big part of thier decision was that because the majority of states did not do so, including those who did not execute at all, that it was unconstitutional. Seems like fantastically bad reasoning to me. However the constitution uses a lot of vague language like "cruel" and "unusual". Somehow those have to be filled with meaning and public opinon ought to be a part of that.

The idea was that with the majority of states beginning to mandate what was right and wrong in regards to killing a retarded criminal, the states were doing what was right by their people, and thus a national consensus had formed. Of course, the premise is iffy, and I personally think that if a person has been found by the court to stand trial for the crime (ie, mentally there enough to understand what's going on etc) then I think they're mentally there enough to be executed.

If a trend like this continues then someone's going to try to make the arguement that since they were drunk when they committed the crime they were impaired enough to not understand what they were doing at the time of the crime, and thus should recieve a lighter sentence.

Hopefully with this new issue of not executing people who commit crimes below a certain age (remember, when they're executed, most likely they're in their 20's atleast, it's not like we're putting the needle to a 12 year old, there are years of trial and appeal before anything happens) people will realize it's complete bunk. As one person said on the news last night, "At 15 I knew it was wrong to kill someone."

Any age where a person becomes an adult has always been an arbitrary number set by the values of the society, and not a biological indicator of maturity.

Gunny · Post by **Gunny** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 9:15 pm

Angel wrote:As for a ten year old killing someone, what kind of mind would consider killing anyone?

...mine?

Angel wrote:How could someone (especially a child) actually and seriously think of killing another human being?

Quite easily actually. Just put in the right circumstances, with the right upbringing and peer group... viola. A 10 year old child who often thinks about various ways to horribly maim/kill her peers and family. Never mutilated dolls or toys to let these feelings escape either (Daki, my doll torture days were scientific in nature, not aggressive...

).

Angel wrote:This type of mentality never deserves to roam free amongst other people, absolutely never!

Hey, it's a miracle to me too that I didn't turn into a homicidal maniac and end up in prison or on death row. Guess it was a good thing I kept these things bottled up instead of acting on 'em.

Which is probably why I'm so biased against the idea that children cannot know what they're doing or right/wrong when they kill someone. Not all children are this way, but how do you prove they knew exactly what they were doing and that it was wrong? That's the tricky part.

laughing Monkey · Post by **laughing Monkey** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 9:27 pm

<Old woman voice class> It’s that damn TV!!! Kids today I tell you! Today they play Barbie and the next day they are mutilating Skippy the wonder dog.........

*wanders back to her boring job*

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:41 pm

I am a proponent of the Death Penalty-A big BIG proponent of death in general, but that's an aside.

The Death Penalty as it exsists currently bothers me. It has far too many legal loopholes, and way too much time, money and effort is wasted in the process. The Death Penalty should be cheaper than Life in prison by its very nature-death means you stop paying for the fuckers right? But current practice is so ridiculously riddled with garbage that in some cases it has proven cheaper to incarcerate a person for life.

A base figure to use when figuring out what it costs to incarerate a prisoner a year is 30k. It varies from a little less to that to well over 70k a year depending on which state you're in. Keep in mind that a lot more prisoners will beging to cost more as our nations prison population ages-all these guys sentenced to life, guess what? If they need a heart transplant, they get it. Oh sure, maybe not as fast as Johnny the 8 year old, but if they live long enough the tax paying public foots the bill give Joe Life Sentence a new heart. (By the way, thats a real life example. A prisoner in the Michigan Department of Corrections got a heart transplant before the mother of an officer at the same prison. She died.)

This also, in my opinion, is not accurately reflecting the increased number of maximum security prisons we're building more of each day-they simply cost more. Add in that mandatory sentencing laws often get an inmate placed at a higher security level initially-life sentence adds to your overall score for classification-and we'll see a trend that won't stop any time soon.

Daki wrote:I think that the higher cost for execution is factoring in all the legal costs for appeals and whatnot. But the cost for the average prisoner for a life sentence (according to that report) is just about $1 million.

We have about 2 dozen guys who have racked up a million in medical bills over the last few years. Hell we have a guy who 800k in property damage to his cell on his bill. (Which when you consider the most expensive thing in a cell costs 500 bucks, is pretty impressive. He has a porter job now.)

There a lot of creative ways to shuffle money in this too. Like for instance Dexter's 3 million dollar medical bill doesn't include overtime he generates when we have send officers for hospital coverage, which shorts staff from the facility, which means we have to have OT.

Having only read a few sections of this link Rev provided, I will say only this-this guy isn't very flexible in how he approaches this topic. Instituting the Death penalty in its current fashion is bad-it costs too much, it takes too long,etc... So why shouldn't we expedite the process?

Salvation122 · Post by **Salvation122** » Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:10 pm

Angel wrote:As for a ten year old killing someone, what kind of mind would consider killing anyone? How could someone (especially a child) actually and seriously think of killing another human being? This type of mentality never deserves to roam free amongst other people, absolutely never!

You're either very sheltered or very silly. I'd cheerfully bet you fifty dollars that everyone on the planet, of at least sixteen years of age, has, at some point, has considered killing someone else. Everyone. They might deny it, but I simply cannot believe that no one has ever thought about murder.

Paul wrote:The Death Penalty as it exsists currently bothers me. It has far too many legal loopholes, and way too much time, money and effort is wasted in the process. The Death Penalty should be cheaper than Life in prison by its very nature-death means you stop paying for the fuckers right? But current practice is so ridiculously riddled with garbage that in some cases it has proven cheaper to incarcerate a person for life.

How do you feel about the Texas system? Bundle all your appeals together in one go; if they're no good, to the Chair or Needle or Chamber with you.

For minors - well, I think I largely agree with Gunny's take on it. It should be determined on a case-to-case basis, and I think kids under sixteen or so should generally be given a bit of a break. For particularly heinous crimes, we calmly and rationally take their life.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:05 am

The difficulty with a case by case basis in the legal system as it currently exsists is that it would be used by way too many people to challenge rulings, and sue various legal figures over perceived biases. "You snetenced a white guy to 20 years for this crime, and a black guy to 30 years." (Their response tot he logical response to this is "But they're both murderers." And all too often that works.)

As for how Texas does it-even they have their problems. I don't have a great answer here. Do I think they should get appeals? Some people, yes. Automatically? No. Should their be a time limit? Yes. What sort? I don't know. Should some people get more than one appeal? Maybe. Who? I don't know.

I personally believe the answer has nothing to do with prisons or executions. I believe education, health care, and making our citizens responsible parts of society before they do something that rates the death penalty is the answer. Obviously I'm smoking radioactive bat guano, but I can hope right?

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:46 am

From the Bureau of Prisons home page:

INMATES BY SECURITY LEVEL (BOP facilities only)

Minimum: 19.1%

Low: 39.1%

Medium: 25.3%

High: 10.5%

6.0% of inmates have not been assigned a security level.

Lets look at these numbers. What do they really mean? There are two types of facilities-secure and nonsecure. Secure prisons have fences, walls, or something that prevents inmates from simplyy walking away. Nonsecure facilities are generally community treatment centers, or halfway houses-in Michigan level one prisons don't have fences, or gun towers. They rarely have armed officers in the facility anywhere.

My bet is that the minimum security BOP prisoners are held in unsecure facilities, which ar by their nature cheaper to run. Everyone else is held in a secure facility. So what the really means is 19.1% of prisoners are probably costing the US Governemtn 30k a year.

The other 80.9% are more costly. By the time you get to Medium Security, there isn't all that much difference between them and high security.(Mostly privileges-yard, showers, etc...) These prisoners cost almost twice as much. They require a lot more staff to manage them, weapons for ARV's (Alert Response Vechiles.) and posts, restraints, etc...Programs are also a much more expensive thing at this level-because instead of having a teacher with say 40 convicts in a GED class, you have a teacher with maybe 4 to 8 convicts.

Onwards we go.

SENTENCE IMPOSED (calculated for those with sentencing information available)

Less than 1 year: 3,683 (2.2%)

1-3 years: 23,968 (14.6%)

3-5 years: 26,414 (16.1%)

5-10 years: 47,385 (28.9%)

10-15 years: 28,711 (17.5%)

15-20 years: 13,816 (8.4%)

More than 20 years: 14,798 (9.0%)

Life: 5,260 (3.2%)

Death: 29

Notice that the overwhleming majority of Federal prisoners are doing about 5 years. This is true of almost every prison system in the United States of America.

Death is not a commonly imposed sentence, anywhere. We're discussing a very small subset of prisoners. They are not the majority of prisoners. Most prisoners, go home-although Drug laws are changing that slowly. Very slowly...

TYPES OF OFFENSES (calculated for those with offense-specific information available)

Drug Offenses: 88,619 (54.1%)

Weapons, Explosives, Arson: 20,128 (12.3%)

Immigration: 17,745 (10.8%)

Robbery: 10,204 (6.2%)

Extortion, Fraud, Bribery: 7,191 (4.4%)

Burglary, Larceny, Property Offenses: 7,051 (4.3%)

Homicide, Aggravated Assault, and Kidnapping Offenses: 5,363 (3.3%)

Miscellaneous: 3,251 (2.0%)

Sex Offenses 1,702 (1.0%)

Banking and Insurance, Counterfeit, Embezzlement: 1,072 (0.7%)

Courts or Corrections: (e.g., Obstructing Justice) 728 (0.4%)

Continuing Criminal Enterprise: 614 (0.4%)

National Security: 97 (0.1%)

As you can see drugs account for the lions share of prisoners in the system. This is true of most State systems as well. Add in mandatory sentencing laws, well you get the picture...As of 2002 prisoners sentenced in drug cases accounted for 54.7% of all BOP prisoners.

Oh by the way the average age of a Federal prisoner is 38.Aging prisoners is a serious problem. More later.

Rev · Post by **Rev** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:03 am

That certainly reinforces my feeling that the death penalty is worthy of far less attention than it gets.

How about we talk about how the US has 0.7% of its population in prison, recently passing Russia to claim the highest in the world and about 5x the percentage of the other wealthy western countries?

Land of the free, eh?

MissTeja · Post by **MissTeja** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:22 am

Daki was right. The process of a life imprisonment sentence is cheaper than the price of an executory sentence due to the legal aspects of it. A death sentence comes with an authomatic, mandated appeal every single time, and there is damn near always far more than that.

I am a staunch Anti-Death Penalty advocate. I think the entire thing is crap and Michigan's lack of a Death Penalty statute is one thing I actually like about this State. When it comes to juveniles, I'm even firmer in my opinion. If there is going to be a Death Penalty, it should not affect anyone under the age of sixteen years old and it needs to be seriously revised. Of course, this is personal opinionated blabber.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:43 am

"Every dollar we spend on a capital case is a dollar we can't spend anywhere else.... We have to let the public know what it costs [to pursue a capital case.]"

- John M. Bailey, Chief State's Attorney, Connecticut

I have a real problem with this sort of circular logic. "Every dollar we spend on prosecuting this case is a dollar we don't spend prosecuting another case!" Well really? Wow that really proved a point pal! I do, however, have to agree that generally speaking capital cases cost more than they should right now, and that trying them is a big decision even for counties flush with cash. (Sure those are fictionary these days...)

Putting to death people judged to have committed certain extremely heinous crimes is a practice of ancient standing, but in the United States in the latter half of the twentieth century, it has become a very controversial issue. Changing views on this difficult issue and many legal challenges to capital punishment working their way through the courts resulted in a halt to executions in the United States in 1967. Eventually, the Supreme Court placed a moratorium on capital punishment in 1972 but later upheld it in 1977, with certain conditions.

Taken from here a pro Death penalty site. I think it is a fair statement of the overall history of Capital Punishment, anyone disagree?

The Death Penalty has only recently become something that we've had the time to examine in depth. Now we're not sure if we've been right all these years.

Rev wrote:How about we talk about how the US has 0.7% of its population in prison, recently passing Russia to claim the highest in the world and about 5x the percentage of the other wealthy western countries?

Land of the free, eh?

Thank the morons in Congress-both parties believe in the so called war on drugs. Both candidates want to keep throwing money away on it. It disgust me.

I am certainly not pro drug. I abhor drugs, for any number of reasons. But I think current drug legislation is horrible. I do think that anything you do while under the influence of any thing-drugs or alcohol- is your fault. You chose to get high, you chose to get drunk. Tough shit if you can't hold your liqour and killed your bunkie over the last slice of pizza with a hammer.

MissTeja wrote:The process of a life imprisonment sentence is cheaper than the price of an executory sentence due to the legal aspects of it.

But what if it didn't? Lets say I know how to make the death penalty cost about...300 US Dollars for 75 executions. What then? I'm pretty sure I think i know your answer, but anyone can feel free to answer it.

Why 16 by the way? Just curious?

Elldren · Post by **Elldren** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 2:47 am

This is why summary execution is such a beautiful thing... *sigh*

Too bad due process gets in the way.

Reika · Post by **Reika** » Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:28 am

Like Paul, I'm not big on drugs but you'd think we'd learn from Prohibition why outright banning stuff can be pure idiocy. After seeing the number posted by Pauls, I think we'd be better off getting rid of the whole "War on Drugs". This way we can tax and regulate drugs the way we do booze, but maybe with stronger regulations. I'm aware there are those who would still abuse them, but I don't think we'd be seeing as many issues with drugs and we'd certainly be seeing far less people taking up jail space because they had a bag of pot on them (and I'm aware that there's often worse, just using an example).

Sadly I think it's going to be even more time before the rest of the sheep come to the same conclusion.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:53 am

The Supremes have started hearings on this issue. The first time in 15 years.

Eva · Post by **Eva** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:29 am

I liked that article on elderly prisoners and their health problems, Paul. Never thought of that. Thanks for linking.

crone · Post by **crone** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:43 am

There are nearly 60,000 prisoners between 36 and 54 years of age, serving an average sentence of almost 24 years.

Geez, imagine being70, and getting out after 20 years in prison.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:21 pm

Yeah, its already hard enough. The economy is really tight, and that means there a lot of people who aren't felons to chose from, let alone 60+ year old felons.

This has been said before, but I think it bears repeating, a Life sentence is just as bad if not worse than Death. You can no more give back someones life than you could give them back say 20 years of gang rape in the shower, solitary confinement, or whatever insaity they've been exposed to.

Sock_Monkey · Post by **Sock_Monkey** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 1:23 am

The thing that the death penalty has over life is that it ensure that the crime is not repeated by that particular person. Especially for repeat offenders of violent and heinous crimes. No amount of time in prison or of rehabilitation in my books is a guarantee that someone won't do it again. Screw how much it costs. When we get these perverts raping kids and stuff, they shouldn't be ever given a chance to do it again. Ever. You can say all you want about whether people can be rehabilitated and second chances, but I don't buy it. In Canada here Miss Homulka will be getting out of prison soon - The woman helped her boyfriend rape and murder her own sister, videotaped it, and made it into their own amature music video. Reformed? That bitch should get strapped to a chair and beaten with a ball-peen hammer. Death might have been too kind for her, but at least we don't have to worry about her doing it again.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:33 am

The reason I keep harping on cost is because the way we currently run the death penalty and the various legal aspects associated with it is assinine. There is most definitely a number of ways to simply reduce the cost.

Disregarding the legal aspects-forms, appeals, judges, baliffs, etc-I can provide 75 executions for the cut rate price of 300 dollars U.S.-less if I buy a used shotgun. Shells cost 4.25 U.S. for a box of 25. Most shotguns retail for around 250 with taxes. I bet we could even find people to pull the trigger for free, or gasp have them pay to do it.

We could easily turn the death penalty into a money maker for the correctional system.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 7:18 am

Apparently some people feel very strongly about this.

MissTeja · Post by **MissTeja** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 3:58 pm

If Michigan enacted the Death Penalty, I would honestly consider moving out of the state, I feel so passionate about it. If the Nation eliminated the legal processes and the humane death initiatives of the Death Penalty some states do have, I'd move out of the country in a heartbeat. Not much could happen politically to the point that I'd consider leaving it, due to that thing in particular, but that makes my stomach churn. Raising the potential for putting to death innocent people? Allowing Constitutional rights to be waived in a court of law, opening the floodgates for such abuse and loss of rights to happen elsewhere? Such precautions (right to appeal, etc.) have proved not to always be fail safe in the past, and now we're gonna wipe what ones we do have away? I would adamently refuse to be a part of that Criminal Justice system or a Nation that acts under such careless consideration, and I would work to stomp it down to the ground just as fiercely and swiftly as my fists and feet could throw.

SeriousPaul wrote: But what if it didn't? Lets say I know how to make the death penalty cost about...300 US Dollars for 75 executions. What then?

See above.

SeriousPaul wrote:Why 16 by the way? Just curious?

Many courts have set it at this, even as stated in your Bowling Green article. While the DP is against my ethical beliefs, it is amplified at this point because I think children below sixteen are unprepared for the reprecussions of their actions enough to be responsible to suffer the eternal consequence. I look at my Patti and others her age and it infuriates me that a justice system would put these children to death, even upon commitment of the most heinous crimes. The judicial system in regards to the death penalty has turned into a cold-hearted, hypocrtical monster. There once was a system ran by humans there. Sometimes I get sad wondering where that went. Of course, that's why I'm trying to do something about it.

I think you and I are just two opposite ends of the spectrum, Paul.

FlameBlade · Post by **FlameBlade** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 6:50 pm

Consider this:

Our constitution says that we should have trial by peers. And I really doubt that below 18 years old would constitute "peers" to the juror of older than 18. Also, people below 18 do not have right to vote, or voice on the issue. I know, this sounds a bit silly, and off tangent, but doesn't trying kids as adult violate our constitution, fair trial by peers? If you ask me, I feel that we should have remained strict on the definition of adult, not trying kids as adult.

More I talk, more I think we need a serious overhaul of the system.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 7:27 pm

Teja wrote:I think you and I are just two opposite ends of the spectrum, Paul.

Yeah, seems that way-but thats cool. Great thing about this antion is that there is room to disagree at a fundamental level like this.

FlameBlade wrote:I know, this sounds a bit silly, and off tangent, but doesn't trying kids as adult violate our constitution, fair trial by peers?

Intresting question-at first glance I am inlcined to say no. But I don't have a real good reasona s to why. I'll have to look into this.

Sock_Monkey · Post by **Sock_Monkey** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 9:52 pm

It really depends on one's definition of "peers" It would be sort of interesting if an eighteen year old's jury consisted of eighteen year olds...

I'd reiterate that the death penalty is a preventative measure. Sure one could say that maybe some sixteen year olds might not have known what they were doing. Maybe they aren't responsible for their own actions. But somewhere in there they made a choice. While I believe that everyone should be innocent until proven guilty, and has the right to a fair trial, if proven so why the second chance? They did it once, why give them the chance - however great their chance of rehabilitation might be - That they might do it again. Why a system that favours the criminals over the victims - when someone is murdered or raped do they get a second chance? Why do the criminals?

Shot gun? Paul you're thinking too expensive - I mean what if some idiot misses, you have to use two shells its getting expensive now, you might have to find someone to take that second shot. I could sell you a length of rope for a few bucks that you can use over and over. Cheap.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:25 pm

Sock Monkey wrote:I'd reiterate that the death penalty is a preventative measure.

I disagree. I feel it is more of a punitive measure. And I am okay with that. Sometimes when you break the rules you have to be punished. While it might prevent some people from committing some crimes, really it is simplely about retribution. Lex Talionis. And I, for one, am quite fine with that.

Sure one could say that maybe some sixteen year olds might not have known what they were doing.

I think that Judges should have some sort of discretion here-anyone who doesn't have the capacity to undertsand what they are doing, what the ramnifications are traditionally considered off limits by society.

While I have no real idea why, it's alimitation I am fine with. Personally, if I were running the show, no one would be safe.

Maybe they aren't responsible for their own actions.

I am a pretty rough customer about personal responsibility. Even if you aren't going to be hel legally responsible for your actions, I still feel that morally (A nebulous term to be sure...) and intellectually you should be held responsible.

Now a common question asked by a lot of prisoners I deal with is: When is it enough? When do you stop paying? And I, surprisingly, agree with them. There does have to be a limit in the law. At some point it does have to be reduced to two apples equals one orange. The law cannot restore the dead, it cannot make remorse. It can simplely punish.

But somewhere in there they made a choice. While I believe that everyone should be innocent until proven guilty, and has the right to a fair trial, if proven so why the second chance? They did it once, why give them the chance - however great their chance of rehabilitation might be - That they might do it again.

Well the real answer is religion of course. Penitentiary derives from penitent. The Penitentiary system, and most of modern American Penal theory, and law derives from the Puritans, and Quakers who settled the East coast of this nation in the 18th century, and 19th century.

Why a system that favours the criminals over the victims - when someone is murdered or raped do they get a second chance? Why do the criminals?

That damned Bill of Rights! When I am King that is the first thing up against the wall.

Shot gun? Paul you're thinking too expensive - I mean what if some idiot misses, you have to use two shells its getting expensive now, you might have to find someone to take that second shot. I could sell you a length of rope for a few bucks that you can use over and over. Cheap.

At four feet I don't miss anything, and I can shoot Skeet one handed with a 12 gauge....

Anyways I figure we could raffle a death. Bring your own proven method of execution, the proceeds would go to the schools of course.

Sock_Monkey wrote:It really depends on one's definition of "peers" It would be sort of interesting if an eighteen year old's jury consisted of eighteen year olds...

Wow, that would have been my worst nightmare at 18.

Sock_Monkey · Post by **Sock_Monkey** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:29 pm

By preventative I mean just that. Dead people don't commit crimes, its a very sure meathod of crime prevention. I'd be interested in seeing the stats on how many criminals who after being "rehabilitated" for crimes like rape or murder commit them again.

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:49 pm

By the same argument neither do people in prison- except against convicted criminals and the occasional guard. But that only really applies to crimes like murder and life sentences.

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:35 am

I'm not sure I follow you Flak, or for that matter Sock Monkey. Most prisoners reoffend-to the tune of about 70%. That's not even including the dozens of crimes a lot of inmates commit when behind bars: drug abuse, rape, sodomy, smuggling, securities fraud, UCC violations, gang related activities, racketeering, extortion-you name it.

Sock Monkey-I think we are discussing the same exact thing. What you see as preventitive is Lex Talionis.

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:03 am

Monkey was talking about reoffenders. I was just saying that with murderers in mind, life in prison stops them killing innocent people just as well as killing them.

Sock_Monkey · Post by **Sock_Monkey** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:27 pm

Like it was said there's the potential for all sorts of crimes behind bars too. Especially if someone is in for life, with out any chance of anything worse - ie death - why wouldn't you kill some other inmate if they pissed you off. Or kill guards for that matter in an attempt to escape? I mean what's the worst they can do to you - unless you make them use lethal force to stop you - in which case you might as well have had the death penalty. Secondly, even with the best prisons, there's always a chance of escape. Worst case scenario: What if you do have some Hannibal on your hands - do you really want to take the chance they might get loose?

Here's a secondary question, doesn't commiting a crime revoke a lot of your rights? I didn't think prisoners got to vote after all.

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:20 pm

Sock_Monkey wrote:Here's a secondary question, doesn't commiting a crime revoke a lot of your rights? I didn't think prisoners got to vote after all.

Felons loose their voting priveliges (and they can always appeal to have them reinstated). Felons do lose some rights (both when their incarcerated and when they get out), but not as many as you'd believe. Some rights are still considered "basic rights that any citizen should have."

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Sun Oct 17, 2004 9:46 pm

The biggest disadvantage to being a felon is if you're going to go legit. If you are completely done committing crimes, and you decide to be an honest upright citizen-well being a felon puts you just below snot nosed teenagers looking for jobs at McDonalds.

Of course if you're, say for example, going to use SSI to open a used car lot so you can use people's credit information to rip them off-well being a felon isn't so much of a problem anymore now is it?

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Mon Oct 18, 2004 3:16 pm

Which do they loose and which to they retain? Vote is apparently one. How about owning a gun?

Oh and one more thing, previously it was said that Immigration offenses made up 17,745 (10.8%). What is that? Illegal aliens they caught and put in jail or what?

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:04 am

I know in Michigan a Felon automatically loses the right to bear arms, and vote. I know all Felons must now, in Michigan, give a DNA sample to the state prior to their release. I know in some states there are othe rights that are curtailed or limited based on your crime-for instance sex offenders in many states must register their addresses with a public data base (Something I understand why it happened, but am not so sure I approve of. Can we say Target?)

Immigration crimes include, but is not limited to, depending on whether it is a state of federal statistic:

Illegals who offend in America. So for instance a Mexican man who kills someone in the US.
All the criminals Castro dumped on the US in the early 80's. We have a few dozen of these guys in the Michigan system. They're all assholes.
Illegal immigrants often mule drugs over borders, which accounts for a huge number of these stats.

There are more of course.

3278 · Post by **3278** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:39 am

Serious Paul wrote:I know in some states there are othe rights that are curtailed or limited based on your crime-for instance sex offenders in many states must register their addresses with a public data base (Something I understand why it happened, but am not so sure I approve of. Can we say Target?)

Something I've been wondering about: are murderers required to register? For that matter, are any offenders besides sex offenders required to register with the state and have their address and so on made publicly available?

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 12:56 am

Serious Paul wrote:
Sock Monkey wrote:Shot gun? Paul you're thinking too expensive - I mean what if some idiot misses, you have to use two shells its getting expensive now, you might have to find someone to take that second shot. I could sell you a length of rope for a few bucks that you can use over and over. Cheap.

Still thinking too complicated. Get a room and cover the walls, floor and ceiling with ceramic/bathroom tiles and have a large drain/plughole in the middle of the floor. Walk the prisoner into the room with the guard following him and have him shoot them in the nape of the neck with their pistol. Saves on the cleaning since all you'll need is a hose and a mop and you can also re-use the brass. Vive la USSR.

Sock_Monkey · Post by **Sock_Monkey** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:44 am

And how is that simpler or cheaper than a rope and a tree? I mean when they die they shit in their own pants, so no mess and its outside so it don't matter anyways. I guess you need a shovel for the shallow hole you dump them in. Maybe then you can dispense with the rope, sharpen the shovel, make them dig their own hole first - saves on labour costs then behead them with the shovel or just beat them with it.

I mean guns and bullets are expensive and there's the whole thing about locking them up, and building a tiled room! Have you talked with a contractor about their rates lately? Sheesh!

FlakJacket · Post by **FlakJacket** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:00 am

There's the Saudi approach I suppose- massive fuck off swords. Losing a head seems to do the job well enough and a whetstone isn't exactly expensive.

Cash · Post by **Cash** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 4:23 am

3278 wrote:
Serious Paul wrote:I know in some states there are othe rights that are curtailed or limited based on your crime-for instance sex offenders in many states must register their addresses with a public data base (Something I understand why it happened, but am not so sure I approve of. Can we say Target?)
Something I've been wondering about: are murderers required to register? For that matter, are any offenders besides sex offenders required to register with the state and have their address and so on made publicly available?

In California, it's just sex offenders. Which is a huge head ache once they serve their time. There's a few cases right now with sex offenders that have served their time getting kicked out of every community they try to live in (it ranges from residents setting up day and night protests outside the house or motel to current tenants threatening to mass leave or threatening the land lord to the city council kicking the person out of the city).

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:57 am

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:58 am

Serious Paul wrote:Immigration crimes include, but is not limited to, depending on whether it is a state of federal statistic:

Illegals who offend in America. So for instance a Mexican man who kills someone in the US.

All the criminals Castro dumped on the US in the early 80's. We have a few dozen of these guys in the Michigan system. They're all assholes.

Illegal immigrants often mule drugs over borders, which accounts for a huge number of these stats.

OK, here I thought that would be logged under murder and drug related crimes in case 1 and 3 but as long as it is a non-american then it falls under immigration. How odd, or is this just for statistics and if so isn't it a way of hiding the actual drug or murder count (for example)?

Serious Paul · Post by **Serious Paul** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 10:43 am

Lorg: Yeah pretty much. It's all a numbers game. For instance in some surveys each crime you commit is counted as a seperate instances even if say they all took place in the same actual incident. So if you get drunk, drive your car into a cop car, and then kill the cop you have actually just committed three or four felonies, instead of say one-which some other studies do.

3278: No. No other type of felony is required to register in any sort of way. Intresting point.

MissTeja · Post by **MissTeja** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:21 am

Serious Paul wrote:3278: No. No other type of felony is required to register in any sort of way. Intresting point.

However, their information is still made available to the public through the offender registry. Anyone can search and find any offender's name, sex, age, the offense committed with a description of that crime, their set release date, earliest possible release date, and what facility they are or were housed at. All the public has to do is look for it.

lorg · Post by **lorg** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 11:33 am

MissTeja wrote:However, their information is still made available to the public through the offender registry. Anyone can search and find any offender's name, sex, age, the offense committed with a description of that crime, their set release date, earliest possible release date, and what facility they are or were housed at. All the public has to do is look for it.

Even when they have been released you can check all your neighbours what they have served time for even if it was non-sex crime related?

Serious Paul wrote:Lorg: Yeah pretty much. It's all a numbers game. For instance in some surveys each crime you commit is counted as a seperate instances even if say they all took place in the same actual incident. So if you get drunk, drive your car into a cop car, and then kill the cop you have actually just committed three or four felonies, instead of say one-which some other studies do.

That figures. So Lies, damn lies and statistics still hold true. When I hear Immigration I think of Joe Mexican getting taken at the border. But then that might not exactlly be federal crime time but instead a hardly fuck you Joe and a ride back across to the other side again.