California Gov. Newsom's moratorium on death penalty

[tmttactical]

Gee, nothing like life in prison to deter killers. Okay for sadistic killers to murder and butcher hard working citizens but we should just feed and house them for the rest of their lives. We would not want to derive them of their TV and computer time. As per the Gov. of California, the state is better than that. I guess all the future killers are now shaking in their boots.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fa...ornia-gov-newsoms-moratorium-on-death-penalty

 

[Kevin L]

Intellectually, I'm very much against the death penalty.

Even so (and perhaps this makes me a hypocrite), if someone raped and murdered a parent or my lovely girlfriend....I'd be tempted to hunt the assailant down and kill him.

I'm not saying I would.....but I'm not saying I wouldn't, either.

 

[Mountain trapper]

Not to worry, they'll get out early. Either through prison reform, overcrowding or that Californians just care more.

 

[Petoski]

The death penalty as a deterrent doesn't work. I am however in favour of the death penalty to prevent criminals breeding and making more criminals.

 

[tmttactical]

The death penalty as a deterrent doesn't work. I am however in favour of the death penalty to prevent criminals breeding and making more criminals.

It may not be a deterrent but it does guarantee's no repeat offender and it sure as heck is a lot better for the taxpayer footing the bills to support these scumbags. I can also guarantee if they kill one of mine, they better hope I can't hire a prison hit or they should really hope they don't get out on early release or on some legal technicality. I am not as nice as the legal system when it comes to the death penalty. I bet burning at eh stake would be a deterrent. Now they complain about being put to sleep. Make the punishment fit the crime and I will bet that becomes a deterrent.

 

[lonewolf]

dosent the death penalty make the state or nation just as bad as the person they are killing? or is it okay because its the state doing it? and a lot of people have been found to be innocent after they have been put to death, many miscarriages of justice have occurred as the legal system is not infallible.

 

[tmttactical]

dosent the death penalty make the state or nation just as bad as the person they are killing? or is it okay because its the state doing it? and a lot of people have been found to be innocent after they have been put to death, many miscarriages of justice have occurred as the legal system is not infallible.

If you find a rabid animal in your yard, do you house it until dies or do you kill it? These are not accidental killing but cruel cold blooded killing. How is i better to cage a person for life, with them being absolutely worthless to society and a huge drain on the public pocket vs, simply removing them as a threat forever. Morality has nothing to do with justice. Life for a life. As for mistakes, it takes more than 20+ years for almost every death penalty to be carried out, with all the appeals. The last I article I read and remember it costs more then $65,000 per year to keep a prisoner in prison. What could $65,000 do for a child, a senior or a a veteran? Who deserve the care? If there are true mitigation, then life can be offered but the death penalty needs to be a viable option. Good person commits a crime of passion, then maybe life but not cold blooded murder.

 

[lonewolf]

we don't have the death penalty in the UK.
Ruth Ellis was the last person hanged in this country and I think that was the late 50s.

 

[Petoski]

What i find odd is that when surveyed the general population in europe is pro death penalty but the politicians don't want it.

 

[Petoski]

Here we go to the other extreme

https://yle.fi/uutiset/osasto/news/...exual_abuse_to_take_effect_next_week/10735063

apparently 6 years and out in 3 for good behaviour is getting tough on crime.

 

[lonewolf]

prison time is half of sentence the other half is out on licence, standard procedure in UK.

 

[DrHenley]

dosent the death penalty make the state or nation just as bad as the person they are killing? or is it okay because its the state doing it?

OK, let's follow your logic bigpaul:

Let's say a kidnapper takes a person at gunpoint, then locks him in a room. Then the state arrests the kidnapper at gunpoint and locks him in a cell.

Doesn't that make the state or nation just as bad as the kidnapper they are imprisoning? Or is it okay because its the state doing it?

 

[lonewolf]

that's what i'm asking.

 

[DrHenley]

that's what i'm asking.

Lot's of reasons I could give.

#1 because every state in the history of mankind has had the authority to punish criminals (how do you punish criminals without depriving them of the right of life, liberty or property?) In the United States, this authority is granted by the people to the state. Most states just assumed that authority.
#2 because every major religion recognizes the divine authority of the state to punish criminals
#3 because the alternative is anarchy

 

[lonewolf]

yes, the operative word is "punish" that dosent always mean kill.

 

[lonewolf]

post SHTF defending what one has from outsiders is one thing, but corporal punishment because someone has transgressed the rules of the group or community is something else entirely.

 

[Kevin L]

The thing that bothers me about the death penalty in our country is that african americans are, perhaps, 20% of all murderers, yet they make up 80% of the people on death row.

If we're going to have the death penalty, I would like measures to be taken to make sure that it isn't racially biased.

As I said, I'm technically against the death penalty.....and then some psycho like Ottis Toole crops up (abducted, sexually molested, killed, and occasionally ate perhaps as many as 60 young boys under the age of 7), and a part of me says "Maybe in this instance, I should make an exception to my aversion to the death penalty...."

I'm conflicted about it.

 

[user 7704]

Loved the guy that got out of jail and immediately started breaking into cars in the parking lot. Right back into jail.

 

[DrHenley]

yes, the operative word is "punish" that dosent always mean kill.

Alright, since you tried to sidestep my question last time, which had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with killing, let's try this again...

Let's say a kidnapper takes a person at gunpoint, then locks him in a room. Then the state arrests the kidnapper at gunpoint and locks him in a cell.

Doesn't that make the state or nation just as bad as the kidnapper they are imprisoning? Or is it okay because its the state doing it?

 

[Psalm7]

The death penalty is a effective deterrent when used regularly and broadcast . I remember as a teen watching a execution on the evening news . That many decades ago and I still remember it .
I believe it should be used on premeditated and mass murders .
Notice how quickly they executed McVeigh .

 

[Kevin L]

Alright, since you tried to sidestep my question last time, which had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with killing, let's try this again...

Let's say a kidnapper takes a person at gunpoint, then locks him in a room. Then the state arrests the kidnapper at gunpoint and locks him in a cell.

Doesn't that make the state or nation just as bad as the kidnapper they are imprisoning? Or is it okay because its the state doing it?

The only thing I have to say about your point is that--before he is permanently locked up--is that he has a trial, and legal experts to defend him....which wasn't accorded to his victim, so there is a difference.

In other countries where they would just pick you up and throw you in a gulag, I would say that there's no difference....like your comparison.

 

[TexasFreedom]

Very simple. The punishment should fit the crime. I think murder and rape should get the death penalty. I think there is a case for 'manslaughter' and other lesser categories that can avoid the death penalties. And you can differentiate between '1000% certain' and 'preponderance' of the evidence.

But I think those 'deflected' should have a permanent mark. Any future felony will result in the death penalty.

Also, I think prison is a useless punishment any more. I know people who are happy to sit in prison. They get a cot & 3 hots, which is more than they think they can get on the outside. It no longer serves as 'punishment'. Instead I think a good caning should be the judgement for many crimes. Keep in mind a 'good caning' means you'll be in a bed unable to walk for a month. That fits.

The thing that bothers me about the death penalty in our country is that african americans are, perhaps, 20% of all murderers, yet they make up 80% of the people on death row... I'm conflicted about it.

I seriously doubt those statistics. Can you give a link supporting it?

What a quick search found:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/feds-49-of-murder-victims-are-black-men/
49% of murder victims are black. 93% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks. 85% of white murder victims are killed by whites.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/7441/7-statistics-you-need-know-about-black-black-crime-aaron-bandler
Blacks commit violent crimes at 7-10 times the rates of whites.

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/05/03/308370643/whos-waiting-on-death-row
42% of inmates on death row are black. But the previous article said 52% of murders are committed by blacks. So actually I would say blacks are under-represented on death row.

 

[Kevin L]

Very simple. The punishment should fit the crime. I think murder and rape should get the death penalty. I think there is a case for 'manslaughter' and other lesser categories that can avoid the death penalties. And you can differentiate between '1000% certain' and 'preponderance' of the evidence.

But I think those 'deflected' should have a permanent mark. Any future felony will result in the death penalty.

Also, I think prison is a useless punishment any more. I know people who are happy to sit in prison. They get a cot & 3 hots, which is more than they think they can get on the outside. It no longer serves as 'punishment'. Instead I think a good caning should be the judgement for many crimes. Keep in mind a 'good caning' means you'll be in a bed unable to walk for a month. That fits.



I seriously doubt those statistics. Can you give a link supporting it?

What a quick search found:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/feds-49-of-murder-victims-are-black-men/
49% of murder victims are black. 93% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks. 85% of white murder victims are killed by whites.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/7441/7-statistics-you-need-know-about-black-black-crime-aaron-bandler
Blacks commit violent crimes at 7-10 times the rates of whites.

https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/05/03/308370643/whos-waiting-on-death-row
42% of inmates on death row are black. But the previous article said 52% of murders are committed by blacks. So actually I would say blacks are under-represented on death row.

If I got my stats wrong (or--more likely--was using old, outdated numbers), then mea culpa.

I do admit that I was relying on memory when I wrote the post, and I should have checked the statistics first before making loaded comments.

So if I put anyone off, I do apologize.

 

[lonewolf]

I don't think anyone be it a person or a state or a nation should be allowed to deprive someone else of life. I don't think they have that right.

 

[TexasFreedom]

If I got my stats wrong (or--more likely--was using old, outdated numbers), then mea culpa.
I do admit that I was relying on memory when I wrote the post, and I should have checked the statistics first before making loaded comments.
So if I put anyone off, I do apologize.

Kevin, no problem, we all make mistakes. But let me emphasis, a comment I made was that blacks are UNDER represented on death row. Let's just use the murder rate numbers. If 42% of death row inmates are black, and blacks commit 52% of murders, then there should be a 25% increase in blacks on death row. 25% of the 42% is about 10%, add that and you get 52%. I'll mock this as another example of 'white privilege'. But can you see how the media twists things to make it look backwards?

I don't think anyone be it a person or a state or a nation should be allowed to deprive someone else of life. I don't think they have that right.

BP, are you talking about the first 'murder', or of putting down an animal that murders others and will do it again if released? Here is a list of people on death row in the US, every one I saw murdered others. Do you think these people deserve to live?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_death_row_inmates_in_the_United_States

 

[lonewolf]

I still don't think anyone has the right to deprive another person of life, defending oneself when attacked is one thing but premeditated murder by the state is something else, I know it costs a lot to keep someone in prison, we have several lifers in prison in the UK now(Rose West for instance) , but state sponsored killings-dosent that make us a bad as the murderer??
or is it all about saving money?
the last hanging in the UK was in August 1964, I don't think the British people would want it reinstated.

 

[DrHenley]

Still haven't answered my question bigpaul...

 

[lonewolf]

I think I have defined my point of view.

 

[TexasFreedom]

I think BP has made his point clear. We don't have to agree.

I think it is not similar at all. And I think there are different levels of 'murder'. A nutjob who goes into a school killing a dozen kids is not the same as a man who intentionally overdoses his wife who is dying a painful death from cancer and has begged him to do it.

There are people who are not a threat to society and there are people who are an imminent future threat. There are people out there thinking about doing the same mass murder (let's use school shootings as an example). I want the last school shooter's death to set an example for potential future murderers to the degree that they won't repeat the crime. I don't think 3 hots & a cot for 40 years is that much of a discouragement. I don't think an execution bears any resemblance to the original murders (of innocents). It is a penalty for a heinous crime. That's my opinion.

 

[lonewolf]

I think post SHTF when there is no ROL some action will obviously need to be taken for the good of the group(if one is in a group that is), however depending on the crime I don't think capital punishment is always the answer(the one exception would be the murder of another member of the group), banishment may be all that is needed, if someone needs to be in a group to survive banishment may be as good as a death sentence anyway.