Wanting Death Penalty

[Jessie5000]

A Self-Centred Paradox:

When we have sinned, we cry for mercy. When we see others sin, we cry for justice.

 

[Forkfoot]

You would release every “nonviolent” drug offender there is? That would include someone, perhaps, who sold your child meth, causing him/her to try to stop a car with his/her bare hands? Somehow, I have my doubts.

And which of the drug offenders who are dealers do you think have never committed an act of violence in their trade? It’s the nature of it.

The “war on drugs” has had limited success due to the failure of society to realize how serious a crime drug dealing really is. Most first dealing offenses never draw prison time. Most possession offenders receive little in the way of punishment, even after multiple offenses. It just isn’t treated with sufficient seriousness. In Singapore, they execute you for dealing. I’m not suggesting execution here, but the incidence of drug use there is very low because they’re serious about enforcement.

Ending the 'war on drugs" reminds me of how things were before there were drug laws in this country. Virtually every patent medicine and a lot of ordinary consumer products contained dangerous drugs. I particularly remember “Godfrey’s cordials”; candies any child could buy, that contained opium. Coca Cola once contained cocaine. It was, undoubtedly, “The Pause that Refreshes”.

Please pardon me for not reading the Huffington Post. It would probably tempt me to go try to find a competing “Blaze” article to post here, which you would respect every bit as much as I respect the Huffington Post.

I wish you WOULD try to find some facts to compete with my own; you’ll find that you’re unable to find a single one that contradicts what I’m saying. I’m just posting what comes up first on google; if finding sources to contradict me is the only way to get you to educate yourself on successful drug policy, I’d like nothing more. Please, by all means, read up, come back, and refute me to bits.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I wish you WOULD try to find some facts to compete with my own; you’ll find that you’re unable to find a single one that contradicts what I’m saying. I’m just posting what comes up first on google; if finding sources to contradict me is the only way to get you to educate yourself on successful drug policy, I’d like nothing more. Please, by all means, read up, come back, and refute me to bits.

Well, my time is limited, but here is the world you espouse, in which dangerous drugs are not prohibited. druglibrary.eu/library/books/opiumpeople/opiumworkers.html
Do you have any good reason to doubt that people would be exposed to all kinds of harmful drugs but for their regulation?

And here, about a country that actually does try to combat the drug trade with serious measures, both in law enforcement, in public awareness, and in rehab. guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/05/singapore-policy-drugs-bay

Not that I think you will be persuaded, no matter what I post. But I think it could be of interest to others to know how things were before regulation of dangerous drugs, and what a society is like where drug use is treated as the serious societal ill that it is.

 

[Forkfoot]

but you are ok with torture ?

No, no I’m not okay with torture. We haven’t exactly exhausted the field of research on how to humanely restrain people from calling out hits on folks from in jail though. Maybe we could store them all together in a unit with no visitations or phone calls for the rest of their lives, for example. Just a thought, one of many possible ideas.

 

[Forkfoot]

Well, my time is limited, but here is the world you espouse, in which dangerous drugs are not prohibited. druglibrary.eu/library/books/opiumpeople/opiumworkers.html
Do you have any good reason to doubt that people would be exposed to all kinds of harmful drugs but for their regulation?

And here, about a country that actually does try to combat the drug trade with serious measures, both in law enforcement, in public awareness, and in rehab. guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/05/singapore-policy-drugs-bay

Not that I think you will be persuaded, no matter what I post. But I think it could be of interest to others to know how things were before regulation of dangerous drugs, and what a society is like where drug use is treated as the serious societal ill that it is.

I’m not saying they shouldn’t be regulated, I’m saying they shouldn’t be criminalized. The FDA regulates all kinds of products without throwing people into prison for them.

You mention rehab and education. I bet when I read that article I’ll find that they do both those things far better than we do.

I will read both your links when I get home; that’s a promise. If you feel inclined to return the favor, consider doing your own google search on the words “for profit prison” and reading what sources least offend your republican sensitivities. If you REALLY wanna blow my mind, do some research on successful drug policy.

 

[BlaineTog]

I haven’t seen any coherent reason to preserve the lives of DP-eligible convicts who are likely to continue harming society by murder, terrorism and narcotics trafficking, in spite of the best efforts of prison officials to prevent this.

I don’t see any coherent reason to think DP-eligible convicts are likely to have the opportunity to continue harming society. I see no reason whatsoever to think that our prisons are incapable of holding them indefinitely.

because a conviction is overturned doesn’t mean the person is innocent .

Just because a conviction is upheld doesn’t mean they’re guilty, either. What’s your point?

 

[april32010]

vJust because a conviction is upheld doesn’t mean they’re guilty, either.

the probability is significantly higher

 

[Fairwinds]

I don’t see any coherent reason to think DP-eligible convicts are likely to have the opportunity to continue harming society. ** I see no reason **whatsoever to think that our prisons are incapable of holding them indefinitely…

(emphasis added)

argument from personal experience (a subset of argument from ignorance) won’t work here.

life sentences are assumed to be life sentences in this discussion. convicts serving life use family members and more importantly, attorneys to pass instruction to the outside. the attorney-client privilege in the USA prevents the government from listening to conversations between lawyers and their convict clients. this is how prison gangs control members on the street.

FBI report, 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment – Emerging Trends
fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment

so when you insist on protecting these DP eligible criminals, innocent people on the outside die. * sabe*?

 

[Forkfoot]

(emphasis added)

argument from personal experience (a subset of argument from ignorance) won’t work here.

life sentences are assumed to be life sentences in this discussion. convicts serving life use family members and more importantly, attorneys to pass instruction to the outside. the attorney-client privilege in the USA prevents the government from listening to conversations between lawyers and their convict clients. this is how prison gangs control members on the street.

FBI report, 2011 National Gang Threat Assessment – Emerging Trends
fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment

so when you insist on protecting these DP eligible criminals, innocent people on the outside die. * sabe*?

Out of curiosity, how would you propose these innocents be protected from these DP eligible criminals during the years and years those criminals are on death row?

 

[Fairwinds]

Out of curiosity, how would you propose these innocents be protected from these DP eligible criminals during the years and years those criminals are on death row?

shorten the appeals/writ process. its a risk that’s got to be taken for the few convicts who should be executed. fortunately, the feds have already tightened up the writ of habeas corpus procedure.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m not saying they shouldn’t be regulated, I’m saying they shouldn’t be criminalized. The FDA regulates all kinds of products without throwing people into prison for them.

You mention rehab and education. I bet when I read that article I’ll find that they do both those things far better than we do.

I will read both your links when I get home; that’s a promise. If you feel inclined to return the favor, consider doing your own google search on the words “for profit prison” and reading what sources least offend your republican sensitivities. If you REALLY wanna blow my mind, do some research on successful drug policy.

I am not a Republican, and never was one. I was a “cradle democrat” and held office in the party. I ran many a campaign for Democrat candidates. I stopped being a supporter of the party when it finally became obvious to me that I had a choice between following the teachings of the Church or those of the party.

I am still not a Republican. But I do vote for and support Repubs now because there are never any prolife Dems on my ballot. I do the research into both, never fear. I guess you could have called me a “single issue voter” until this administration decided to impose the HHS mandate and profane marriage with its support of homosexual “marriage”. Now, I guess I’m a “triple issue voter”.

In my state, there are no “for profit prisons”.

And there is really no call to act in a smug, self-congratulatory manner, or to demean anyone here.

 

[Forkfoot]

shorten the appeals/writ process. its a risk that’s got to be taken for the few convicts who should be executed.

I’m unclear, are you saying the appeals process should be shortened for all****** death row inmates, or just the ones convicted of calling gang hits?

fortunately, the feds have already tightened up the writ of habeas corpus procedure.

How long does the process take now in such cases, on average?

 

[Forkfoot]

And there is really no call to act in a smug, self-congratulatory manner, or to demean anyone here.

I know I’ve been a douche in this thread. Debating this subject is new for me; it’s not something I realized I cared much about until I found this thread. I’ve found many of the arguments in support of the death penalty to be very exasperating, and it’s rustled my jimmies a bit. You yourself have been nothing but polite and intelligent this whole time though. Lesson learned. I’m sorry for being smug and demeaning. Can’t promise it won’t come up again toward some of the other posters in this thread though, but I’ll be mindful of it.

I’ma read those articles you posted now.

 

[Forkfoot]

druglibrary.eu/library/books/opiumpeople/opiumworkers.html

As I said before, I’m not opposed to regulation of drugs, just their criminalization, especially as it exists in the U.S.'s “war on drugs”. You get people thrown into crowded prisons for possessing, parolees getting reincarcerated for smoking a joint. It’s unconscionable. More on that below.

guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/05/singapore-policy-drugs-bay

Well first of all this is Singapore, which means (uh-oh!) universal healthcare. Drug addiction gets treated like the medical issue it is, and taxpayers are fine with that cuz it costs them either way.

Public education against drug abuse starts in schools. For abusers, our approach is to try hard to wean them off drugs and deter them from relapsing. They are given two chances in a drug rehabilitation centre. If they go through counselling, kick their drug habit and return to society with useful skills, they will not have any criminal record.

This is very different from our system.

Those who are still addicted go to prison, where they are put on general rehabilitation programmes to help them reintegrate into the community.

This is very different from our system too.

Drug addicts are treated, not punished. The war on drugs does the opposite. Dealers getting executed seems really harsh to me, and I’m sure I’d strongly object to such a thing were it to happen here, but for some reason I seem to only be bothered by the death penalty as it exists in the U.S. right now. Other countries can hang and stone people in whatever weird way their culture condones.

I don’t know how you feel about Time Magazine, but this is a cool article I just found about a nation who successfully decriminalized drugs with “resounding success”. And all without executing anybody!

Here’s a Reuters article about Swizerland’s famously successful drug policy, which many authorities feel should be a role model for the whole world to emulate.

And here’s a very nice eight-minute youtube video by an organization called Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), an organization of current and former law enforcement professionals opposed to the criminalization of drugs. I highly recommend watching the video. leap.cc/ is their website.

 

[Fairwinds]

I’m unclear, are you saying the appeals process should be shortened for all****** death row inmates, or just the ones convicted of calling gang hits?

it should be shortened for all criminal appeals/writ review. consistent with due process concerns, of course.

I
How long does the process take now in such cases, on average?

deathpenaltyinfo.org/time-death-row

Death row inmates in the U.S. typically spend over a decade awaiting execution. Some prisoners have been on death row for well over 20 years.

 

[Forkfoot]

it should be shortened for all criminal appeals/writ review. consistent with due process concerns, of course.

And by shortened you mean processed through more quickly, or simply given less review? And if you mean processed through more quickly, how do you propose that be done? I ask because it’s due to the lengthy appeals process that many of the wrongful convictions had an opportunity to be overturned after new evidence surfaced.

Ten to twenty years can give you time to call a lot of mob hits.

 

[vz71]

The astronomical odds are that innocents have been executed. That’s not “an appeal to probability”; it’s just a fact.

Odds are not facts.

 

[vz71]

I can’t believe people are still trying to use the “we don’t know that we executed anyone innocent” argument. Yes you do. You know that you know that, and I know that you know it too. Stop insulting everybody’s intelligence by pretending otherwise.

I cannot pretend that your contention is fact. It is not.

Even worse, it appears you cannot discern fact from fiction.

 

[vz71]

“But-but- maybe some of them were guilty!”

You people are really grasping at straws now.

No one is grasping at straws except yourself.

No one made the argument that maybe some were guilty, it is simply pointed out that what you provide as fact rarely is.

You claimed people are wrongly sentenced to death, but cannot back your contention.
Now you are claiming that an overturned sentence means they are innocent…but that is not so either.

 

[Forkfoot]

Odds are not facts.

It is a fact that the odds are astronomically stacked in favor of our having executed an innocent person. You know it’s happened because the odds are stacked so ridiculously high against it not having happened. You know it, you know you know it, and I know you know you know it, so why is this argument still happening?