Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/12/williams.execution/index.html
The real tragedy is it took this long for justice to be served.
Isn't the stated purpose of the penal system to rehabilitate criminals? I'm all for the death penalty, but if the real purpose of our legal system is to rehabilitate, isn't Tookie the prime example of how someone can turn themselves around? The answer is yes and the reality is that we only pay lip service to that idea.
He killed four people. Fine let him fry, but can we stop the ridiculous pretense that we are trying to help make criminals into productive members of society? It's obviously nonsense.
Quote from: rjs246 on December 12, 2005, 08:16:22 PM
Isn't the stated purpose of the penal system to rehabilitate criminals? I'm all for the death penalty, but if the real purpose of our legal system is to rehabilitate, isn't Tookie the prime example of how someone can turn themselves around? The answer is yes and the reality is that we only pay lip service to that idea.
The rehab part is bunk...except for juvenile offenders. Many of the criminals in our prisons today are not capable of anything but crime and violence.
As far as Tookie is concerned, I disagree that he has become rehabilitated as he has yet to apologize or atone for his crimes. I do not deny a strong case can be made for Tookie's rehab, but I am not buying it.
Quote from: rjs246 on December 12, 2005, 08:16:22 PM
Isn't the stated purpose of the penal system to rehabilitate criminals? I'm all for the death penalty, but if the real purpose of our legal system is to rehabilitate, isn't Tookie the prime example of how someone can turn themselves around? The answer is yes and the reality is that we only pay lip service to that idea.
He killed four people. Fine let him fry, but can we stop the ridiculous pretense that we are trying to help make criminals into productive members of society? It's obviously nonsense.
Are you questioning the government, hippy? I hope they fry your ass, you pinko commie.
I think there are places for rehabilitation, but killers aren't part of the deal.
This guy has not been a model prisoner either:
http://crime.about.com/od/deathrow/a/tookie15.htm
QuoteOn June 30, 1981, just two months after being sentenced, Williams was involved in a violent fight with another inmate. Williams was observed kneeling over the other inmate and striking him in the head with his closed fists. When Williams was ordered to cease fighting, he ignored the order. Only after repeated orders to stop, did Williams stop his violence. (P. Exh. 6).
On January 26, 1982, Williams was ordered to lineup for his return to his cell. Williams refused the order and became hostile. The guard then explained the line-up procedure to Williams. Williams responded by saying "you'll get yours boy, I can do anything now because I know what the gunmen will do...one of these days I'll trick you boy." (P. Exh. 7).
On January 28, 1982, Williams had two separate instances where he threw chemical substances at guards. In one of these instances, Williams threw a chemical substance in the eyes and on the face of a guard. As a result of that assault, the guard suffered from chemical burns to these areas and had to be taken to the hospital where he received emergency care. (P. Exh. 8).
On January 29, 1982, Williams again attacked a guard by throwing a chemical substance on him. (P. Exh. 9).
On February 16, 1984, a guard saw Williams bending over another inmate and striking him with his closed fists. In an effort to stop the attack, the guard blew his whistle and drew his weapon. Williams, however, continued to fight. Only after a guard fired a warning shot, did Williams stop fighting. (P. Exh. 10).
On June 8, 1984, Williams was observed participating in inappropriate behavior with a female visitor. When the guard advised the female of the prison policies, Williams became verbally hostile and stated, "you are looking around too much and that's not your job. I have dusted many officers on the street, one more would not make any difference." (P. Exh. 11).
On July 4, 1986, Williams stepped between a guard and another inmate and began to beat up the inmate. The guard ordered Williams to stop but Williams continued with the assault. Eventually, after gun officers responded, Williams stopped the attack. (P. Exh. 12).
On October 10, 1988, Williams was involved in a fight that led to him being stabbed. Prison officials subsequently learned that this stabbing was done in retaliation for a September 22, 1988, stabbing of another inmate ordered by Crips leader Stanley Williams. (P. Exh. 13).
On October 19, 1988, Williams was placed in Administrative Segregation based on his association with the Crips street gang. (P. Exh. 13).
On December 24, 1991, Williams was involved in another fight with an inmate. Once again, despite being ordered to stop, Williams continued with the assault. Eventually, gun officers responded by firing a round near Williams. After the shot was fired, guards gained control over Williams. (P. Exh. 14).
On July 6, 1993, a large fight broke out in the shower area. Williams was one of the combatants. A guard ordered the inmates to stop, but the fight continued. After a warning shot was fired, the fighting stopped. Subsequently, a stabbing instrument ("shank") made of sharpened plastic was recovered from where the fight had occurred. (P. Exh. 15).
Have fun sipping tea in hell with Scott Peterson.
I think its between Enchiladas, Lasagna or Pizza (hold the burrito jokes PG)....wait...maybe a burrito. :=)
When I worked on The Row in Texas we had to put in their last meal requests. Some of those guys would get a ton of grub while others would only have coffee. Some of the smartasses would put down "world peace" as their request.
TDCJ's website used to list their last meal requests but they no longer do it for some reason. But you can still read their last statements.
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/executedoffenders.htm
While I don't know enough about the Tookie situation to make comment on it, the death penalty is wrong. Purposely taking the life of another is murder no matter how evil they are.
He's gone. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/13/williams.execution/index.html)
Capital punishment isn't about justice, it's about revenge. And I'm fine with that. This jagoff killed four people, was convicted and sentenced to death. That he "reformed" himself, and wrote children's books about staying out of gangs, hey, you know that's great. Even though he probably did it to gain clemency, if it helps some kids, ends justify the means.
But it doesn't absolve him of his crimes, and I'm satisfied he's gone.
Quote from: MadMarchHare on December 13, 2005, 08:43:52 AM
Capital punishment isn't about justice, it's about revenge. And I'm fine with that.
Fair enough, but when bible-bashing neo-cons like Dubya, who bang on about how Christian and "forgiving" (you would think) they are still support the death penalty, that's just fargin' hypocritical. My own view? Two wrongs don't make a right.
Quote from: PhillyPhreak54 on December 13, 2005, 02:38:11 AM
When I worked on The Row in Texas we had to put in their last meal requests. Some of those guys would get a ton of grub while others would only have coffee. Some of the smartasses would put down "world peace" as their request.
TDCJ's website used to list their last meal requests but they no longer do it for some reason. But you can still read their last statements.
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/executedoffenders.htm
Those are pretty interesting to read. Just randomly read #287, and he was still claiming innocence.
killing brown people makes everyone happy
Not everyone, Wigga.
good ridance
I'll be just as happy when they waste Peterson.
i'm an equal opportunity death penalty guy.
Quote from: EagleFeva on December 13, 2005, 06:42:28 AM
He's gone. (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/13/williams.execution/index.html)
Quote
"I am saddened that we are continuing to demean human life by pretending that we are God and making determinations to kill other individuals for what it is claimed they have done," former "M*A*S*H" star and death penalty opponent Mike Farrell told CNN.
Civil rights leader Jesse Jackson, who visited with Williams, said Schwarzenegger decided "to choose revenge over redemption and to use Tookie Williams as a trophy in the flawed system."
"To kill him is a way of making politicians look tough," Jackson said. "It does not make it right. It does not make any of us safer. It does not make any of us more secure."
Sister Helen Prejean, a Roman Catholic nun and prominent death penalty opponent, compared the death penalty to "gang justice."
"Gang justice is, if you kill a member of our gang, we kill you -- and don't tell me anything about how you changed your life or what you're going to do," she said. "You kill, and we kill you. And that's what the United States of America is doing with this."
Have to agree with all these people.
Quote from: MadMarchHare on December 13, 2005, 10:16:30 AM
I'll be just as happy when they waste Peterson.
When Mcveigh (sp) got the needle I was satisfied as well...there is no color issue in this case.
The problem with the death penalty is that it is not carried out fast enough. Tookie was on death row for nearly a quarter century before his sentence was carried out. He got to live his life...even fathered two children behind bars. Its ashame his vicitims didn't get the chance to live for the last 25 years. If we are to have an effective death penalty, the standards for applying it should be a little higher (Petersen would not qualify here) and it should be carried out within 5 years of sentencing.
it's a good thing guys like Leonard Little get to stay out of prison. I mean, he only drove drunk, smashed into another car and killed a woman. He's talented though, so he gets to play professional football.
It's good to see the justice system still sucks ass.
QuoteWilliams, 51, acknowledged a violent past but maintained he was innocent of the slayings. He became an anti-gang crusader while on death row.
While I am only a partial supporter of capital punishment, i.e, special cases, Scott Peterson, moms who drown their children, etc., I firmly believe a person can never fully be truely "reformed" until you first come to terms and attempt to accept responsibilty for your actions.
The current prison system manages to make better criminals out of those that go in for a short time. They get better contacts and training and get out ready to commit a better crime so that they can go back to prison and become teachers at the local criminal trade school. Maybe prisons should be doing more then lip service to reform. I like that guy that runs a work camp style prison in the Arizona desert. It's a tough place to be but you don't want to go BACK!
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 13, 2005, 10:32:47 AM
He got to live his life...even fathered two children behind bars.
Well that's obviously wrong. I'm all four long prison sentences, hard labor etc... but murder is murder no matter who gets killed.
Hell "Tookie" got to start the whole Gang life thing from behind bars!!
Quote from: henchmanUK on December 13, 2005, 10:46:31 AM
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 13, 2005, 10:32:47 AM
He got to live his life...even fathered two children behind bars.
Well that's obviously wrong. I'm all four long prison sentences, hard labor etc... but murder is murder no matter who gets killed.
Whats wrong? He did father two children while in custody and he was alive for those 25 years while the four people he killed did not.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 13, 2005, 10:57:56 AM
Quote from: henchmanUK on December 13, 2005, 10:46:31 AM
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 13, 2005, 10:32:47 AM
He got to live his life...even fathered two children behind bars.
Well that's obviously wrong. I'm all four long prison sentences, hard labor etc... but murder is murder no matter who gets killed.
Whats wrong? He did father two children while in custody and he was alive for those 25 years while the four people he killed did not.
I meant it was wrong that he got to father two kids in custody etc... not that YOU were wrong.
I'm on the record on this topic. The State has no right to execute one of its citizens.
That said, if there's ever going to be exceptions made, a guy like Tookie Williams would certainly qualify.
He was an evil motherfarger who probably killed 10 times the number of people he was actually convicted of killing, so if he didn't deserve the needle for these crimes, he most likely did for others.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 13, 2005, 10:32:47 AM
Quote from: MadMarchHare on December 13, 2005, 10:16:30 AM
I'll be just as happy when they waste Peterson.
When Mcveigh (sp) got the needle I was satisfied as well...there is no color issue in this case.
The problem with the death penalty is that it is not carried out fast enough. Tookie was on death row for nearly a quarter century before his sentence was carried out. He got to live his life...even fathered two children behind bars. Its ashame his vicitims didn't get the chance to live for the last 25 years. If we are to have an effective death penalty, the standards for applying it should be a little higher (Petersen would not qualify here) and it should be carried out within 5 years of sentencing.
Totally agree, well put!
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 13, 2005, 11:05:35 AM
The State has no right to execute one of its citizens ... if he didn't deserve the needle for these crimes, he most likely did for others.
I believe this is known as a contradiction.
Quote from: henchmanUK on December 13, 2005, 10:46:31 AM
I'm all four long prison sentences, hard labor etc... but murder is murder no matter who gets killed.
Henchman, don't take this personally but I would like to ask you the same question that someone once asked a US Presidential candidate who was against the death penalty.
Would you support the execution of a man who raped and murdered your wife or daughter?
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 13, 2005, 11:10:47 AM
Quote from: henchmanUK on December 13, 2005, 10:46:31 AM
I'm all four long prison sentences, hard labor etc... but murder is murder no matter who gets killed.
Henchman, don't take this personally but I would like to ask you the same question that someone once asked a US Presidential candidate who was against the death penalty.
Would you support the execution of a man who raped and murdered your wife or daughter?
No. I'd want his freedom robbed and for him to toil for the rest of his life. His death wouldn't bring my wife, daughter or sister back.
The death penalty is one of the great ugly smears of shame on America's very dirty face. I do not support it. It's a matter of social law/civil rights to me: no truly free state kills it's own citizens by policy, ever. Ever. It's one thing for a criminal to kill someone, it's another thing entirely for the state to do it. The one is unavoidable, heinous human nature, the other is tyranny (a brand of human governement which can be eliminated). This guy isn't the issue. Nor are his victims. The issue is that the government is deciding who lives and who dies. That's wrong. It can be stopped. As a society, we can ensure that we never make the mistake of killing an innocent person simply by stopping to kill any.
Ancillary points that can be well argued: It's too expensive. It doesn't deter anyone from committing crimes. It's unfairly applied. It puts our nation in the company of the worst goverments in the world.
Just my thoughts. Not going to argue with you fools. Those of you with the Vengence Boners: when you drop the money shot on Jesus' chest, don't forget to shout "Who's your Dio!?!"
Quote from: henchmanUK on December 13, 2005, 11:15:12 AM
No. I'd want his freedom robbed and for him to toil for the rest of his life. His death wouldn't bring my wife, daughter or sister back.
Well, you answered it much better than he did! ;)
If it were me, the guy would be lucky to get the death penalty because he would not like what I had in store for him.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 13, 2005, 11:10:47 AMWould you support the execution of a man who raped and murdered your wife or daughter?
Pro-killing arguments always degenerate to arguments like this. It's a moot question. We have juries of our peers, instead of juries of the injured parties, because we civilized people recognize that an injured party cannot administer justice.
You'll also argue about how evil this guy was. And shouldn't he die? And the point isn't this particular guy. The point is that the government is killing people by policy. A free people can never allow their own government to kill them. That's just plain logic. If you say the government can kill citizens, then you are saying that the government can kill you. But no one can truly divest himself of sovereignity over himself.
Or you'll focus on how innocent the victims were. And you know what, they were. And it was horrible. But they're dead. And we can't stop individual people from killing people. We can however stop the government from doing it in our name.
Damn. I said I wasn't going to argue with you fools. I am teh Suck.
Has there been any research into what the cost difference is between keeping an animal like that locked up for life vs. the death penalty?
My ultimate feelings are that I'd rather see scumbags like Scott Peterson in a jail cell being ass raped for life, rather than put to death.
But i am just curious about the costs of both.
Quote from: Diomedes on December 13, 2005, 11:22:00 AM
Damn. I said I wasn't going to argue with you fools. I am teh Suck.
You beat me to it. :P
Quote from: PhillyGirl on December 13, 2005, 11:24:42 AM
Has there been any research into what the cost difference is between keeping an animal like that locked up for life vs. the death penalty?
My ultimate feelings are that I'd rather see scumbags like Scott Peterson in a jail cell being ass raped for life, rather than put to death.
But i am just curious about the costs of both.
Its a lot more expensive to execute than to jail for life. A lot of that cost is the endless appeals process and other legal "hoops" the state has to go through to make it happen. Tookie was on death row for 24 years and had at least a dozen appeals.
Quote from: henchmanUK on December 13, 2005, 11:08:45 AM
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 13, 2005, 11:05:35 AM
The State has no right to execute one of its citizens ... if he didn't deserve the needle for these crimes, he most likely did for others.
I believe this is known as a contradiction.
I was speaking hypothetically, hench. Personally, I don't believe that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to crime, violent or otherwise. However, hypothetically speaking, if someone DID deserve to die, then a guy like Williams would certainly be a prime candidate for it.
If that is indeed the case, I'd rather not see the death penalty.
Regardless of the appeals and years Tookie went through, it was still an easy out. Much too easy for someone who killed 4 people.
Quote from: PhillyGirl on December 13, 2005, 11:24:42 AM
Has there been any research into what the cost difference is between keeping an animal like that locked up for life vs. the death penalty?
My ultimate feelings are that I'd rather see scumbags like Scott Peterson in a jail cell being ass raped for life, rather than put to death.
But i am just curious about the costs of both.
You can base this on the cost of housing a prisoner but this article (http://www.amnesty.ca/deathpenalty/canada.php) shows that in Canada the murder rate declined after the death penalty was abolished:
Contrary to predictions by death penalty supporters, the homicide rate in Canada did not increase after abolition in 1976. In fact, the Canadian murder rate declined slightly the following year (from 2.8 per 100,000 to 2.7). Over the next 20 years the homicide rate fluctuated (between 2.2 and 2.8 per 100,000), but the general trend was clearly downwards. It reached a 30-year low in 1995 (1.98) -- the fourth consecutive year-to-year decrease and a full one-third lower than in the year before abolition. In 1998, the homicide rate dipped below 1.9 per 100,000, the lowest rate since the 1960s.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 13, 2005, 11:28:05 AM
Quote from: henchmanUK on December 13, 2005, 11:08:45 AM
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 13, 2005, 11:05:35 AM
The State has no right to execute one of its citizens ... if he didn't deserve the needle for these crimes, he most likely did for others.
I believe this is known as a contradiction.
I was speaking hypothetically, hench. Personally, I don't believe that the death penalty acts as a deterrent to crime, violent or otherwise. However, hypothetically speaking, if someone DID deserve to die, then a guy like Williams would certainly be a prime candidate for it.
Fair does. ;)
the bottom line is other than revenge there is no real reason to have the death penalty...and if the death penalty proponents would just admit that theyd be better off
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 13, 2005, 11:20:17 AM
Quote from: henchmanUK on December 13, 2005, 11:15:12 AM
No. I'd want his freedom robbed and for him to toil for the rest of his life. His death wouldn't bring my wife, daughter or sister back.
Well, you answered it much better than he did! ;)
If it were me, the guy would be lucky to get the death penalty because he would not like what I had in store for him.
If he showed some remorse while behind bars that would give me some comfort, not much comfort mind, too.
Quote from: Diomedes on December 13, 2005, 11:22:00 AM
Damn. I said I wasn't going to argue with you fools.
I'm glad you did. I agree with just about everything you said.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 13, 2005, 11:27:38 AMIts a lot more expensive to execute than to jail for life. A lot of that cost is the endless appeals process and other legal "hoops" the state has to go through to make it happen. Tookie was on death row for 24 years and had at least a dozen appeals.
Another large chunk of the cost is that Death Row is a very different jail experience than regular prison. They are seperated from the general population. It's much more expensive. Higher guard ratio per prisoner, more rules to follow, takes more space to keep them, etc.
But if you want stats, I can't help right now.
Quote from: PhillyGirl on December 13, 2005, 11:24:42 AM
Has there been any research into what the cost difference is between keeping an animal like that locked up for life vs. the death penalty?
My ultimate feelings are that I'd rather see scumbags like Scott Peterson in a jail cell being ass raped for life, rather than put to death.
But i am just curious about the costs of both.
Here ya go PG. LINK (http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/DP.html#D.Cost)
D. THE COST OF LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE VS THE DEATH PENALTY
Many opponents present, as fact, that the cost of the death penalty is so expensive (at least $2 million per case?), that we must choose life without parole ("LWOP") at a cost of $1 million for 50 years. Predictably, these pronouncements may be entirely false. JFA estimates that LWOP cases will cost $1.2 million - $3.6 million more than equivalent death penalty cases.
Cost of Life Without Parole: Cases
Equivalent To Death Penalty Cases Cost of Death Penalty Cases
1. $34,200/year (1) for 50 years (2), at
$75,000 (4) for trial & appeals = $3.01 million $60,000/year (1) for 6 years (5), at a 2% (3) annual cost a 2% (3) annual cost increase, plus
$1.5 million (4) for trial & appeals = $1.88 million
2. Same, except 3% (3) = $4.04 million Same, except 3% (3) = $1.89 million
3. Same, except 4% (3) = $5.53 million Same, except 4% (3) = $1.91 million
* There is no question that the up front costs of the death penalty are significantly higher than for equivalent LWOP cases. There also appears to be no question that, over time, equivalent LWOP cases are much more expensive - from $1.2 to $3.6 million - than death penalty cases. Opponents ludicrously claim that the death penalty costs, over time, 3-10 times more than LWOP.
(1) The $34,200 is conservative, if TIME Magazine's (2/7/94) research is accurate. TIME found that, nationwide, the average cell cost is $24,000/yr. and the maximum security cell cost is $75,000/yr. (as of 12/95). Opponents claim that LWOP should replace the DP. Therefore, any cost calculations should be based specifically on cell costs for criminals who have committed the exact same category of offense - in other words, cost comparisons are valid only if you compare the costs of DP-equivalent LWOP cases to the cost of DP cases. The $34,200/yr. cell cost assumes that only 20% of the DP-equivalent LWOP cases would be in maximum security cost cells and that 80% of the DP-equivalent LWOP cases would be in average cost cells. A very conservative estimate. The $60,000/yr., for those on death row, assumes that such cells will average a cost equal to 80% of the $75,000/yr. for the most expensive maximum security cells. A very high estimate. Even though we are calculating a 75% greater cell cost for the DP than for equivalent LWOP cases, equivalent LWOP cases appear to be significantly more expensive, over time, than their DP counterparts. For years, opponents have improperly compared the cost of all LWOP cases to DP cases, when only the DP equivalent LWOP cases are relevant.
(2) U.S. Vital Statistics Abstract, 1994 and Capital Punishment 1995, BJS 1996.
(3) Annual cost increases are based upon: 1) historical increases in prison costs, including judicial decisions regarding prison conditions, and the national inflation rate; 2) medical costs, including the immense cost of geriatric care, associated with real LWOP sentences; 3) injury or death to the inmate by violence; 4) injury or death to others caused by the inmate (3 and 4 anticipate no DP and that prisoners, not fearing additional punishment, other than loss of privileges, may increase the likelihood of violence. One could make the same assumptions regarding those on death row. The difference is that death row inmates will average 6 years incarceration vs. 50 years projected for LWOP); 5) the risk and the perceived risk of escape; and 6) the justifiable lack of confidence by the populace in our legislators, governors, parole boards and judges, i.e. a violent inmate will be released upon society.
(4) $75,000 for trial and appeals cost, for DP-equivalent LWOP cases, assumes that the DP is not an option. We believe this cost estimate is very low. We have over-estimated that DP cases will cost twenty times more, on average, or $1.5 million. Our exaggerated estimate states that the DP will have twenty times more investigation cost, defense and prosecution cost, including voir dire, court time, guilt/innocence stage, sentencing stage and appellate review time and cost than DP equivalent LWOP cases. Even though we have greatly exaggerated the cost of DP cases, DP cases still prove to be significantly less expensive, over time, than the DP equivalent LWOP cases.
(5) 6 years on death row, prior to execution, reflects the new habeas corpus reform laws, at both the state and federal levels. Some anti-death penalty groups speculate that such time may actually become only 4 years. If so, then DP cases would cost even that much less than the DP equivalent LWOP cases. However, the average time on death row, for those executed from 1973-1994, was 8 years (Capital Punishment 1994, BJS, 1995). Therefore, 6 years seems more likely. Even using the 8 year average, the DP equivalent LWOP cases are still $1 million more expensive than their DP counterparts ($2 million @ 2% annual increase).
One of the USA's largest death rows is in Texas, with 442 inmates, of which 229, or 52%, have been on death row over 6 years - 44, or 10%, have been on for over 15 years, 8 for over 20 years. 60 inmates, nationwide, have been on death row over 18 years. (as of 12/96).
NOTE - 10/19/00 - We received a post which located a flaw within our cost evaluation. The reader stated that we should "present value" all the costs of both a life sentence and the death penalty and that, if we do so, a life sentence is cheaper than a death sentence. Using the numbers in our analysis, such is a good point.
It should be noted that we were intentionally generous in minimizing life costs within our analysis. Please review we have not included
1)the recent studies on geriatric care at about $70,000/year/prisoner in today's dollars , or
2) the recent explosion of Hepatitis C and AIDS within the prison system, or
3) the cost savings to jurisdictions based on plea bargains to maximum life sentences, which can only occur due solely to the presence of the death penalty. Such should accrue as a cost benefit of the death penalty, and
4) none of the above have been included in our cost analysis. All of which either increase the cost of a life sentence or accrue as a cost credit to the death penalty, and
5) And we have been extremely generous to the anti death penalty position with our numbers to begin with. I suspect that an average life without parole sentence costs closer to $150,000-$300,000, for all pre-trial, trial and appeals, as opposed to the $75,000 used in our study.
Those omissions should not be considered a balancing, because accuracy is paramount. There is no cost study which fully evaluates all of those issues. We hope to update the data at some point with a more thorough review.
The problem with that link is that its to www.prodeathpenalty.com
Sites with an agenda have a way of skewering stats to their advantage.
I am looking for UNBIASED stats.
But thanks for looking it up for me. :yay
Quote from: Diomedes on December 13, 2005, 11:43:23 AM
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 13, 2005, 11:27:38 AMIts a lot more expensive to execute than to jail for life. A lot of that cost is the endless appeals process and other legal "hoops" the state has to go through to make it happen. Tookie was on death row for 24 years and had at least a dozen appeals.
Another large chunk of the cost is that Death Row is a very different jail experience than regular prison. They are seperated from the general population. It's much more expensive. Higher guard ratio per prisoner, more rules to follow, takes more space to keep them, etc.
But if you want stats, I can't help right now.
Don't need stats, because I know that is all correct. You actually point out some flaws in the system that could be corrected to make it more cost efficient. There is no need for seperate quarters for these prisoners. If you get rid of that, you lose the higher guard ratio and free up more space to house all prisoners.
Quote from: Diomedes on December 13, 2005, 11:22:00 AM
The point is that the government is killing people by policy. A free people can never allow their own government to kill them. That's just plain logic. If you say the government can kill citizens, then you are saying that the government can kill you. But no one can truly divest himself of sovereignity over himself.
My question is, how are long prison sentences and/or hard labor - both of which are fundamental denials of freedom - any different? Are you saying we should just deport the lawless?
I'm curious why so many of you want people killed by the State.
I understand the thirst for revenge. Hell, there's nothing more I'd like better than to find a piece of shtein like bin Laden and torture him to death in a public display of revenge.
That said...
We've spent the last 200 years as a country going to war with other countries who used state-sponsored murder as a tool of oppression, yet for some reason, it's okay for the United States to use it because "justice" is somehow served?
What makes our use of murder righteous and other countries use of it "evil?" And let's no kid ourselves either. It's murder, plain and simple.
I don't know... it's a complicated issue to say the least.
:-\
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 13, 2005, 12:02:22 PM
There is no need for seperate quarters for these prisoners. If you get rid of that, you lose the higher guard ratio and free up more space to house all prisoners.
So you're saying that people who are imprisoned for tax evasion should be housed with serial killers?
:-D
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 13, 2005, 12:09:47 PM
We've spent the last 200 years as a country going to war with other countries who used state-sponsored murder as a tool of oppression, yet for some reason, it's okay for the United States to use it because "justice" is somehow served?
Are you referring to WWI and II? I cannot recall a time when we went to war with a country over their use of the death penalty. Genocide is not the death penalty.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 13, 2005, 12:12:23 PM
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 13, 2005, 12:09:47 PM
We've spent the last 200 years as a country going to war with other countries who used state-sponsored murder as a tool of oppression, yet for some reason, it's okay for the United States to use it because "justice" is somehow served?
Are you referring to WWI and II? I cannot recall a time when we went to war with a country over their use of the death penalty. Genocide is not the death penalty.
* Sighs *
You know what the farg I meant. Jesus... ::)
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 13, 2005, 12:14:55 PM
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 13, 2005, 12:12:23 PM
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 13, 2005, 12:09:47 PM
We've spent the last 200 years as a country going to war with other countries who used state-sponsored murder as a tool of oppression, yet for some reason, it's okay for the United States to use it because "justice" is somehow served?
Are you referring to WWI and II? I cannot recall a time when we went to war with a country over their use of the death penalty. Genocide is not the death penalty.
* Sighs *
You know what the farg I meant. Jesus... ::)
Pissed your gross exaggeration was called out? ::)
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 13, 2005, 12:09:47 PM
We've spent the last 200 years as a country going to war with other countries who used state-sponsored murder...
Um, but what exactly is war, except state sponsored murder?
Quote... as a tool of oppression, yet for some reason, it's okay for the United States to use it because "justice" is somehow served?
There's a difference between using death as a tool for opression, and using it for "justice", or even for revenge. I'm not saying it is better, but you are throwing dramatically different causes together to oppose a common outcome.
Justice is the simpler argument - our laws dicate the rules and the consequences. If you don't like the laws, you have two options:
- Participate in the political process to get the laws changed
- Leave the state/country for a state/country which has laws you are more in agreement with
Have you done either?
Did the English use state-sponsored murder as a tool of oppression?
Did the Spanish?
Did the Confederacy?
Did The Germans?
Did The Germans Again?
Did The North Koreans/Red Chinese?
Did The North Vietnamese?
Did Saddam Hussein?
Yes, Joel... that's what I meant. The countries/despots we've gone to war with during the past 200 years used murder as a tool of oppression/subjugation.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 13, 2005, 12:02:22 PMThere is no need for seperate quarters for these prisoners. If you get rid of that, you lose the higher guard ratio and free up more space to house all prisoners.
I'm just dreaming these up, but I think they propbably seperate death row inmates for some good reasons.
I'm guessing that one reason is this: Since they are slated to die, they have nothing to lose, therefore it might not be a good idea to throw them in with other prisoners, who do have something to lose. Mixing the doomed with the simply incarcerated creates an ugly recipe for disaster.
Another reason: those slated to die are more likely to attempt suicide. Prisons are supposed to do everything they can to keep people from killing themselves, so death row inmates are given more attention than the general population. What good is it charging a guy with Death, only to have him hang himself in GP? No Vengeance Boner payoff in that case.
Finally, perhaps it's safer for guards if Death Row inmates are housed differently. Along the same lines as the first point, about Death Row inmates having little to lose, maybe keeping them apart from the General Population is safer for the guards?
Quote from: Cerevant on December 13, 2005, 12:07:38 PMMy question is, how are long prison sentences and/or hard labor - both of which are fundamental denials of freedom - any different? Are you saying we should just deport the lawless?
If you can't see the difference between incarceration and execution, I'm dont' know how to answer your question.
Regarding deportation, no. Back when there was a wilderness to which you could banish the criminals, I suppose it was an option. But there's no where to banish people to any longer. So prison is the option.
this talk reminds me of this military thing. Who wears the maroon beret?
(http://www.outinstyle.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/6637_big.jpg)
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 13, 2005, 12:23:55 PM
Did the English use state-sponsored murder as a tool of oppression?
Did the Spanish?
Did the Confederacy?
Did The Germans?
Did The Germans Again?
Did The North Koreans/Red Chinese?
Did The North Vietnamese?
Did Saddam Hussein?
Yes, Joel... that's what I meant. The countries/despots we've gone to war with during the past 200 years used murder as a tool of oppression/subjugation.
I thought your insinuation was that we went to war
because of the death penalty. You could just as easily say we went to war with those countries because they are Homo sapiens. The death penalty had nothing to do with those wars.
killing murderers is kewel.
Quote from: Diomedes on December 13, 2005, 12:41:25 PM
Quote from: Cerevant on December 13, 2005, 12:07:38 PMMy question is, how are long prison sentences and/or hard labor - both of which are fundamental denials of freedom - any different? Are you saying we should just deport the lawless?
If you can't see the difference between incarceration and execution, I'm dont' know how to answer your question.
Regarding deportation, no. Back when there was a wilderness to which you could banish the criminals, I suppose it was an option. But there's no where to banish people to any longer. So prison is the option.
It is not that I cannot see the difference, but it begs the question of where the line of "justifiable denial of freedom" is. At what point does denial of freedom become cruel and unusual punishment? Your argument is that a free state should not execute its citizens - but is anything short of execution somehow OK? How about:
- life imprisonment?
- hard labor?
- subject to medical experimentation?
- solitary confinement?
- harsh imprisonment conditions such as those described in "Catch me if you can" by Frank Abagnale, where the French prisons consist of 4' cube dirt & concrete cells with a bucket for sanitary facilities, complete absence of light or sound except for irregularly scheduled feedings?
- physical beatings?
- psychological manipulation/conditioning such as described in "A Clockwork Orange"?
- Amputation, castration or other compensatory physical punishment?
How can we say on one hand that there are inalienable human rights, and in the next breath take those rights away from people who's behavior we do not approve of?
And what about those reformed criminals, who have served their punishments and gone on to live honest lives, yet who continue to suffer consequences of their actions decades after their sentences were complete?
The bottom line is that the penal system is organized revenge. If the life (or one of the above) vs. death issue were so cut and dry, why do we prevent inmates from committing suicide?
Quote from: Cerevant on December 13, 2005, 02:10:20 PM
If the life (or one of the above) vs. death issue were so cut and dry, why do we prevent inmates from committing suicide?
Lawsuits.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 13, 2005, 02:16:00 PM
Quote from: Cerevant on December 13, 2005, 02:10:20 PM
If the life (or one of the above) vs. death issue were so cut and dry, why do we prevent inmates from committing suicide?
Lawsuits.
I questioned my wording almost immediately after posting. It should be, why is there a need to prevent inmates from committing suicide? If life in prison is such an obviously preferable circumstance, why do inmates want to kill themselves?
I am for the death penalty, part of me wants to see the revenge for the killing, and part of me wants to show criminals that there is a reaction to their action. You kill someone, you get a fair trial,and in some cases a jury decides on death. LWOP is weak to me, yes they lose their freedom, but they can get a college degree, watch Cable TV, get three good meals, work out, oh yeah they can kill again, harm guards other prisoners, continue to commit crimes behind bars.
What do they need a degree for if they've got life without parole?
Can't we all just end gang violence with a lock in at the rec center?
You know as well as I do that the only solution is a switchblade duel in a dirty alley between the two gang leaders.
QuoteThey told him don't you ever come around here
Don't wanna see your face, you better disappear
The fire's in their eyes and their words are really clear
So beat it, just beat it
You better run, you better do what you can
Don't wanna see no blood, don't be a macho man
You wanna be tough, better do what you can
So beat it, but you wanna be bad
Just beat it, beat it, beat it, beat it
No one wants to be defeated
Showin' how funky and strong is your fight
It doesn't matter who's wrong or right
Just beat it, beat it
Just beat it, beat it
Just beat it, beat it
Just beat it, beat it
They're out to get you, better leave while you can
Don't wanna be a boy, you wanna be a man
You wanna stay alive, better do what you can
So beat it, just beat it
You have to show them that you're really not scared
You're playin' with your life, this ain't no truth or dare
They'll kick you, then they beat you,
Then they'll tell you it's fair
So beat it, but you wanna be bad
Just beat it, beat it, beat it, beat it
No one wants to be defeated
Showin' how funky and strong is your fight
It doesn't matter who's wrong or right
Just beat it, beat it, beat it, beat it
No one wants to be defeated
Showin' how funky and strong is your fight
It doesn't matter who's wrong or right
Just beat it, beat it, beat it, beat it
No one wants to be defeated
Showin' how funky and strong is your fight
It doesn't matter who's wrong or right
Just beat it, beat it
Beat it, beat it, beat it
Beat it, beat it, beat it, beat it
No one wants to be defeated
Showin' how funky and strong is your fight
It doesn't matter who's wrong or who's right
Just beat it, beat it, beat it, beat it
No one wants to be defeated
Showin' how funky and strong is your fight
It doesn't matter who's wrong or right
Just beat it, beat it, beat it, beat it
No one wants to be defeated
Showin' how funky and strong is your fight
It doesn't matter who's wrong or right
Just beat it, beat it
Beat it, beat it, beat it
Beat it, beat it, beat it, beat it
No one wants to be defeated
Showin' how funky and strong is your fight
It doesn't matter who's wrong or who's right
Just beat it, beat it, beat it, beat it
No one wants to be defeated
Showin' how funky and strong is your fight
It doesn't matter who's wrong or right
Just beat it, beat it, beat it, beat it
No one wants to be defeated
Showin' how funky and strong is your fight
It doesn't matter who's wrong or right
Just beat it, beat it, beat it, beat it
No one wants to be defeated
Just beat it, beat it
Beat it, beat it, beat it
Quote from: Cerevant on December 13, 2005, 02:10:20 PMIt is not that I cannot see the difference, but it begs the question of where the line of "justifiable denial of freedom" is. At what point does denial of freedom become cruel and unusual punishment? Your argument is that a free state should not execute its citizens - but is anything short of execution somehow OK? How about:
- life imprisonment?
- hard labor?
- subject to medical experimentation?
- solitary confinement?
- harsh imprisonment conditions such as those described in "Catch me if you can" by Frank Abagnale, where the French prisons consist of 4' cube dirt & concrete cells with a bucket for sanitary facilities, complete absence of light or sound except for irregularly scheduled feedings?
- physical beatings?
- psychological manipulation/conditioning such as described in "A Clockwork Orange"?
- Amputation, castration or other compensatory physical punishment?
How can we say on one hand that there are inalienable human rights, and in the next breath take those rights away from people who's behavior we do not approve of?
And what about those reformed criminals, who have served their punishments and gone on to live honest lives, yet who continue to suffer consequences of their actions decades after their sentences were complete?
The bottom line is that the penal system is organized revenge. If the life (or one of the above) vs. death issue were so cut and dry, why do we prevent inmates from committing suicide?
There's a lot in that post.
Fair questions all.
Quote from: MURP on December 13, 2005, 12:44:05 PM
this talk reminds me of this military thing. Who wears the maroon beret?
(http://www.outinstyle.com/Merchant2/graphics/00000001/6637_big.jpg)
The maroon beret has been the international symbol of airborne forces since its selection for use by the British Parachute Regiment in 1942. The color reportedly was chosen by novelist Daphne Du Maurier, the wife of the British airborne commander, MG Frederick Browning. In 1943 MG Browning granted a battalion of the US Army's 509th Parachute Infantry Regiment honorary membership in the British Parachute Regiment and authorized them to wear British maroon berets. US Army advisers to Vietnamese airborne forces wore the Vietnamese maroon beret during the Vietnam War. In addition, after HQDA encouraged the unofficial use of morale-enhancing headgear in 1973, airborne forces chose to wear the maroon international parachute beret until CSA Rogers' ban of all such unofficial headgear in 1979. On 28 November 1980, however, HQDA revised its ban on berets to authorize airborne organizations to wear the maroon beret.
http://www.army.mil/features/beret/beret.htm
a scumbag gets fried that co-started the first or second biggest gang in the US. he's indirectly responsible for hundreds of deaths including a few on his own hands. my only gripe is they didn't do it sooner. why waste the money to house and educate scummers like this.
oh and i liked the "house all the inmates together" recommendation. riots are neat.
my dad worked at trenton state a while ago for almost 15 years. most of these "people" don't deserve the air their breathing, nevermind the money being spent on them to make sure they have three squares and internet access.
The money isn't the issue, I think it's been clearly shown that enforcing the death penalty is way more expensive than life in prison.
You're either for state-sanctioned vengeance killing or against it.
You're either for state-sanctioned vengeance killing or against it
It burns when I pee
Quote from: MadMarchHare on December 14, 2005, 08:57:11 AM
The money isn't the issue, I think it's been clearly shown that enforcing the death penalty is way more expensive than life in prison.
You're either for state-sanctioned vengeance killing or against it.
Actually I'm for justice. You can cry about the rights and freedoms of the killers and rapists all you want, to me they are getting what they deserve. I'm against giving the criminals a better life than probably half the world enjoys.
Because there are so many people in this thread fretting over the rights and freedoms of killers and rapists. Look, genius: When you have this freedom thing, and these humans rights, you have to protect them for even the worst in order to guarantee them to the everyone else. I know it's a tough concept, because the Vengeance Boner saps all the blood from the brain, but someday I hope you'll get it.
I know it's a real drag to some of you, but the price of civilization is that, even when someone deserves it, we don't get uncivilized on their asses. We stick to due process and rule of law, and thereby protect ourselves from being abused by our government.
Agreeing completely with Dio on anything makes me truly ill but there it is...
:paranoid
Genius ::)
Quote from: Diomedes on December 14, 2005, 11:11:12 AM
When you have this freedom thing, and these humans rights, you have to protect them for even the worst in order to guarantee them to the everyone else.
He had his due process and the rule of law is that he dies. I don't think the four victims have this freedom thing and these human rights. In fact, they were innocently stripped of it by the scumbag.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 14, 2005, 12:15:49 PM
Agreeing completely with Dio on anything makes me truly ill but there it is...
:paranoid
Tell me about it. Let's kill him so we don't have to worry about ever agreeing with him again.
Quote from: Philly_Crew on December 14, 2005, 01:00:20 PMHe had his due process and the rule of law is that he dies.
And someday, maybe the government will kill you. Legally. According to whatever laws obtain at that time, made by whatever corrupt lawmakers were in power when the laws were drafted, and ignored by citizens who figure, like you, that if the government wants to kill someone, then they must have good reason. So someday, maybe the government will kill you. Or your punk kid cousin, who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. "But that would never happen," you'll say. Uh huh. Nevermind that people have been proven innocent and released from death row, or that good evidence exists to support the assertion that innocent people have been executed: so long as the government executes citizens, it might happen. That's a fact.
What your argument boils down to is that you trust the government implicitly when it comes to dealing death. You think it would never happen to you, or to anyone who didn't deserve it. I wonder why? Do you have some kind of in, so you KNOW they'll never kill you--only the other ones? Why is it that when it comes to the death penalty, people who are otherwise highly critical of government all of a sudden become certain that the state is infallible? They bitch and moan about how the government can't do anything right--from delivering the mail to developing good foreign policy--but are convinced that it never fails in executing criminal citizens. There is a inconsistent logic at work there.
My logic IS consistent: if the state is not allowed to execute citizens, the state will never kill an innocent citizen.
Quote from: Philly_Crew on December 14, 2005, 01:00:20 PMI don't think the four victims have this freedom thing and these human rights. In fact, they were innocently stripped of it by the scumbag.
And here is what cripples the logic: emotion. People can't get over the bad man, they want to kill him. Hurt him. Take it out on him. Here, you make an argument based on how hideous the individual crime was, and how faultless the victims were. That's not at issue. The guy is a dirtbag, and the victims were innocent. We all agree on that point. We would all like to kill him. But the crime is done, the victims are dead, and there's nothing we can do about it. The state didn't deprive these people of their rights and the government policy didn't kill these people; they were killed by an individual man. We can't control the individual man, we can control the state.
It's a nifty trick, this death penalty. What it does is offer people the satisfaction of revenge killing, for the piddling trade-off that the state gets to decide when, how, and whether to kill you. They say, you can have your revenge on this man for killing these people. The government will kill him for you. But first, you have to agree that, should the state decide to kill you, that's okay. Surrender your control over the government, and in return, we'll give you some righteous material to look at while you stroke your Vengeance Boner.
That's the deal. Instead of limiting the system so that the government cannot kill you or any other innocent person, you'll risk that right for the meagre emotional payoff of executing criminals. That's quite a trade. A lot of people are fine with that trade. I'm not.
there's alot of gray area in capitol punishment sure. there's gray area in pretty much everything. but the bottom line is it isn't solely for bloodthirsty, human rights violating, revenge induced shenanigans. the families of the victims deserve to have some consolation for their loses. if putting some scumbag to death is the way to do it.. well darn. i wont lose any sleep over it.
also you need the death penalty around to strike the fear of god in some scumbags. maybe it'll make some "people" think twice about the crime their about to commit. other times.. making a deal to get out of the death penalty might retrieve the bodies of a loved one or other important information on an unsolved crime.
hey the guy might be innocent. well shtein. im sure an innocent guy has never spent years and years and years in jail. probably gettin anal love every day in the shower. having his whole life ruined. everyone he knows not even acknowledging he's alive due the the crime he didn't commit. then oh whoops sorry dude, we made a mistake, off you go. taking half his life or more instead of just putting him out of his misery.. that's not just as bad?
oh wait never mind they have internet connections and 3 squares. unlike millions of people below the poverty line. but at least the moneys being put to good use. save the criminals.
Quote from: Diomedes on December 14, 2005, 02:19:03 PMWhat your argument boils down to is that you trust the government implicitly when it comes to dealing death. You think it would never happen to you, or to anyone who didn't deserve it. I wonder why? Do you have some kind of in, so you KNOW they'll never kill you--only the other ones? Why is it that when it comes to the death penalty, people who are otherwise highly critical of government all of a sudden become certain that the state is infallible? They bitch and moan about how the government can't do anything right--from delivering the mail to developing good foreign policy--but are convinced that it never fails in executing criminal citizens. There is a inconsistent logic at work there.
except in most cases it is not the government doing this, it is a jury of peers making this decision not elected officials.
Wah! I hate the government. Wah!
Quote from: Diomedes on December 14, 2005, 02:19:03 PM
And here is what cripples the logic: emotion. People can't get over the bad man, they want to kill him. Hurt him. Take it out on him.
Actually its about making society safer, not vengence. If it were strictly about vengence the families of the victims would be allowed to decide the punishment after sentencing. In fact, the vicitms families are often called upon in the sentencing phase of the trial to offer their opinions and testimony. Sometimes for death, sometimes against.
You also seem to forget that even when locked up for life there are people that have to guard these animals. You dismiss the single confinement agruement because they have nothing to lose...neither do people with life without parole.
I know you guys love talking in circles but I'm going to add my input.
The system is bullshtein. So many more minorities have been put to death than have white people that anyone who looks at the stats can't help but be disgusted. Our penal system claims to have a goal of rehabilitation but this is clearly also bullshtein as people on this very board to who have worked in or known those who have worked in the system say it doesn't rehabilitate a damn thing.
So that brings us to this conclusion. Our penal system is a racist institution that shouldn't have the right to kill people because it isn't just in any way.
Having said that, I'm all for the death penalty because I like revenge. If anyone harmed me or the people I love I would want them dead with a nice steamy rjs turd shoved in their throat for effect.
So as a selfish prick, hooray for the death penalty! As an intelligent human being, it has no place in our society at all and is the most unbelieveably horrific act that we as a people have ever taken part in.
Want to hear my take on abortion? Gun control? I can talk out of both sides of my mouth about anything. Anything, I say!
Quote from: rjs246 on December 14, 2005, 06:48:49 PM
The system is bullshtein. So many more minorities have been put to death than have white people that anyone who looks at the stats can't help but be disgusted.
The lesson for today: People are still influenced by the PC media and educators in the US.
(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/drrace.gif)
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/drracetab.htm
He wasn't talkin about how many white people were on death row. He was talkin about how many were actually executed.
We need to start catching more of those other people when they murder people.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 14, 2005, 07:13:45 PM
Quote from: rjs246 on December 14, 2005, 06:48:49 PM
The system is bullshtein. So many more minorities have been put to death than have white people that anyone who looks at the stats can't help but be disgusted.
The lesson for today: People are still influenced by the PC media and educators in the US.
(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/drrace.gif)
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cp.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/drracetab.htm
Cute graphic. One small thing, though... according to the U.S. Census in 2000, there was 194.5M whites in the U.S. and 33.9M blacks (source: 2000 Census) (http://www.censusscope.org/us/chart_race.html) . If you read the chart, you'll begin to understand the shocking disparity that exists still between whites and blacks on death row based on total population.
Facts are facts, and there's nothing PC about that.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 14, 2005, 08:28:46 PMFacts are facts, and there's nothing PC about that.
and it has nothing to do with the people actually committing the crimes right?
i'm not a huge proponent of the death penalty, morally i do believe it's wrong but there are certain instances when i think it's warranted, and this is one of them (and yes, i think mumia has lived much too long) but this guy was convicted of 4 murders and lord knows how many more he committed or at least instigated being the founder of a major gang who relys on voilence to keep their 'street cred'. i'm glad he tried to do good before he died and i truly hope he found peace with the lord, but i don't feel bad for what happened to him.
Free Whitey!!
Or is that Willy?
Quote from: The Waco Kid on December 14, 2005, 07:19:59 PM
He wasn't talkin about how many white people were on death row. He was talkin about how many were actually executed.
Looked everywhere for that, but couldn't find it. I think the proportion of whites vs. blacks on death row more than proves my point.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 14, 2005, 08:28:46 PM
Cute graphic.
Thank your congressman...its a gov't website.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 14, 2005, 08:28:46 PM
One small thing, though... according to the U.S. Census in 2000, there was 194.5M whites in the U.S. and 33.9M blacks (source: 2000 Census) (http://www.censusscope.org/us/chart_race.html) . If you read the chart, you'll begin to understand the shocking disparity that exists still between whites and blacks on death row based on total population.
Thats not what I was challenging. I was merely suggesting that the comment made regarding the number of blacks executed exceeded that of whites was false.
One small thing though, on one of the links I posted, the proportion of whites and blacks on death row is equal to the proportion of whites and blacks in the regular population.
Quote from: The Waco Kid on December 14, 2005, 07:19:59 PM
He wasn't talkin about how many white people were on death row. He was talkin about how many were actually executed.
I hate to agree but that's exactly right. If you're white and get convicted of the same crime that a black man gets convicted of you are not nearly as likely to get executed. Fact.
Speaking of Death Row, check this out:
Death row escapee (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/14/escapee.confession.ap/index.html) thinks his three days of freedom were worth it.
Quote"Then I walked out the front door," Thompson said. "It was the hardest thing in the world to not run. I walked down the steps, down the street, around the corner, stripped to my jogging clothes and went on the jogging path."
.....
"I'm pretty much resolved to my fate. Concrete box 23 hours a day. Just sit in there and think about how they're going to kill you."
This guy is an American folk hero. Killed his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend, walked out of jail, rode trains and looked at the stars, and now he's back in prison thinking about how they're going to kill him. Johnny Cash wrote a few songs about guys like this.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 14, 2005, 09:25:18 PM
Thats not what I was challenging. I was merely suggesting that the comment made regarding the number of blacks executed exceeded that of whites was false.
Wrong. Being on death row and actually getting executed aren't the same thing. Check your facts, jack.
Quote from: rjs246 on December 14, 2005, 10:58:19 PM
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 14, 2005, 09:25:18 PM
Thats not what I was challenging. I was merely suggesting that the comment made regarding the number of blacks executed exceeded that of whites was false.
Wrong. Being on death row and actually getting executed aren't the same thing. Check your facts, jack.
Jesus you're pathetic. How about you check YOUR facts.
QuoteWhile 455 whites have been executed, compared to 278 African Americans since 1977 (when the Supreme Court reversed its ban on capital punishment), black men are increasingly caught up in what many consider to be an inherently biased legal system.
Here's your facts...now try doing your own research (http://www.ourweekly.com/default.asp?sourceid=&smenu=92&twindow=&mad=&sdetail=2032&wpage=1&skeyword=&sidate=&ccat=&ccatm=&restate=&restatus=&reoption=&retype=&repmin=&repmax=&rebed=&rebath=&subname=&pform=&sc=1172&hn=ourweekly&he=.com)
Quote from: L-ong-B-each-I-ggle on December 14, 2005, 03:06:50 PM
also you need the death penalty around to strike the fear of god in some scumbags.
Am looking for it, but can't find the year-on-year stats for prisoners on death row. Would be interesting to know whether it does or does not influence. ???
Did more research and not so sure about the death penalty. More on religious grounds than Dio's arguement that government should not be allowed to kill its citizens. I guess police officers shouldn't have guns but walk around with time-out tape.
Quote from: Philly_Crew on December 15, 2005, 10:19:35 AM
Did more research and not so sure about the death penalty. More on religious grounds than Dio's arguement that government should not be allowed to kill its citizens. I guess police officers shouldn't have guns but walk around with time-out tape.
The cops in Britain don't carry guns, or at least they used to not.
Neither do the criminals carry them in Britain. Makes it a bit easier for the cops not to carry them.
Guns aren't legal here, but there's still gun crime, though not as much as there used to be. At least there are no more school shootings. Some police still carry guns too, hence the shooting of that Brazilian guy on the London underground a couple of months ago.
If we could relax the rules on what is cruel and unusual punishment, I would gladly dispense of the death penalty. For instance; force capital prisoners into general population wearing leg irons and handcuffs behind their backs. Forced labor. Meal restrictions. No conjugal visits etc.
One guarantee that only Tookies death can bring, Tookie Williams will never kill again.
Quote from: henchmanUK on December 16, 2005, 07:12:13 AM
Guns aren't legal here, but there's still gun crime, though not as much as there used to be. At least there are no more school shootings. Some police still carry guns too, hence the shooting of that Brazilian guy on the London underground a couple of months ago.
The rank & file "Bobbies" don't carry weapons, right, hench?
You can bet your ass that investigators and other specialized officers do, though.
Here is some information from Amnesty International about the racial inequality of the death penalty for all you morons. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=105&scid=5)
QuoteAmnesty Report Finds Racial Injustice in Death Penalty - According to a new report issued by Amnesty International, race continues to play a strong role in U.S. death penalty cases. In "U.S.: Death by Discrimination - The Continuing Role of Race in Capital Cases," Amnesty states that:
* Even though blacks and whites are murder victims in nearly equal numbers of crimes, 80% of people executed since the death penalty was reinstated have been executed for murders involving white victims.
* More than 20% of black defendants who have been executed were convicted by all-white juries.
The report also examines case law and international policies related to race and the death penalty.
Look, jerk: the people with whom you are arguing don't respect Amnesty International, or any other source that disagrees with them. You're wasting your time on...
Oh. Right. We're on a football messageboard talking politics. That's so many levels of wasting time, it's recockulous.
I couldn't possibly agree more, but since some douche accused me of having nothing to back up my claims I felt compelled to respond. And now I'm done.
Quote from: rjs246 on December 17, 2005, 01:54:54 PM
I couldn't possibly agree more, but since some douche accused me of having nothing to back up my claims I felt compelled to respond. And now I'm done.
*Sigh*
And you are still wrong about more blacks being executed than whites. Why can't you acknowledge that you were wrong on that and let it go?
It easier to call people juvenile names I suppose. ::)
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 17, 2005, 04:00:04 PM
*Sigh*
And you are still wrong about more blacks being executed than whites. Why can't you acknowledge that you were wrong on that and let it go?
It easier to call people juvenile names I suppose.
Oh, you're so exasperated.
Fine, my semantics were wrong. I was wrong when I claimed that more black people have been executed. The point behind my statement is still the same, mr. douchey. It's a racist system. Period.
Quote from: rjs246 on December 17, 2005, 04:02:23 PM
Fine, my semantics were wrong. I was wrong when I claimed that more black people have been executed. The point behind my statement is still the same, mr. douchey. It's a racist system. Period.
You're right..to hell with facts. Who needs 'em.
Quote from: Butchers Bill on December 17, 2005, 04:04:03 PM
You're right..to hell with facts. Who needs 'em.
Quote from: rjs246 on December 17, 2005, 01:22:54 PM
Here is some information from Amnesty International about the racial inequality of the death penalty for all you morons. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=105&scid=5)
Nice try though. Gold star for you.
Quote from: Jerome99RIP on December 16, 2005, 04:33:15 PM
Quote from: henchmanUK on December 16, 2005, 07:12:13 AM
Guns aren't legal here, but there's still gun crime, though not as much as there used to be. At least there are no more school shootings. Some police still carry guns too, hence the shooting of that Brazilian guy on the London underground a couple of months ago.
The rank & file "Bobbies" don't carry weapons, right, hench?
You can bet your ass that investigators and other specialized officers do, though.
I believe so, yes.