jillio

You are very welcome. And your anger is not only justified, but normal. Your life has been changed in a way that you had nothing to do with. It appears to me, however, from your posts, that you are dealing with it in a very healthy way. You recognize your anger, but at the same time, understand that your anger has the potential to cloud your objectivity about the situation. You set a wonderful example for others.

Deafness

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

Oceanbreeze

Thank you. But, please don't put me up on some pedestal. I just think I have a lot of questions that need answered, and this thread has given me the venue to voice some of those questions. I have taken solace in some things. My friend died instantly. While that hurts, I know that she didn't suffer. It's her loved ones who are suffering.

But, getting back to the death penalty. I think I can look at it rather objectively, because I did not know my grandfather. My mother was raised by her stepfather and it was that man I grew up to call "Grandpa". So, while I hurt for my Mother, I personally am somewhat disconnected from what happened to him. This led me to get curious, however, and I googled a few names.

In doing so, I came up with some legal documents about the crime (the killers legal appeals documents). I was able to read details of the crime, and the things that occured are gruesome. I can honestly say this man deserves the death penalty, and I honestly wish he is executed. But, this is just THIS CASE. I cannot deny that other people have been sent to death row erroneously, and we must account for that, somehow.

__________________

PuyoPiyo

Exactly, it's not ok to do the same bad thing to others, except same good thing to others.

Plus other that make it no sense to support the death penatly is that while murdering is illegal, then it's not fair for the justice to have the right to kill except for the civilians that are prohibited to kill.

__________________
Finally found Ruby, my puppy

See this thread for more info.

http://www.alldeaf.com/our-pets/5515...ml#post1049543

*NOTE* I will be gone on September 10 to 21 working on my temporary job @ out of the town, so just let everyone know

Cheri

Racism? When the father shot the two men or the entire movie was based on racism?

No, The Prosecutor wanted the death penalty. The juries would have to decide, and they decide that he wasn't guilty because of the powerful story that the father's lawyer had told the juries, He describes, the slow and painful detail, the rape of a young 10 year old girl, mirroring the story of Tonya's rape and to imagine the victim was white. So that the juries can understand the pain that the father felt that day after finding out what happened to his own daughter.

__________________

Byrdie714

I disagree. Yes murderers have parents and families but to spare the murderers on the basis of familial ties is ludicrious. Their family will always get to see their loved ones behind bars, they would be able to see their murderer child age, share birthdays, Christmas, Thanksgiving, etc.

What do I get? Nothing but a cold stone that reads her name.

Basically the society is getting soft on murderers, if they have no disregard for human life, why should we?

For the record, the killer that killed my daughter--it was her mother.

__________________
We can Bomb the World into Pieces...
But we can't bomb it into Peace.

Liebling:-)))

[quote] I thought you watched that movie and know what it is about?

Okay, Victim´s Dad is black. Judge and the proescutor are not really neutral due his color skin. They invited juries with different races. That´s time lawyer was not expert enough to defend "murderer". The judge and proescutor terminated juries with color skin and have all white juries. Is it okay?

Is it okay to deny rape situation but talk about kill 2 white men? Victim´s Dad visited a security whom he lost his leg to shot accident. In the court room, the proescutor hopes that security made statement against victim´s Dad but he doesn´t but on HIS SIDE... and talk about feeling if Tonya´s his daughter... etc... rapes situation... the judge and proescutor tried to deny it but the lawyer protest and said that the secruity has the right to state why he lost his leg, etc. The judge force to give the lawyer right against the proescutor... the rape situation have to mention in the court room.... Without security´s statement, he would never convinced juries to give victim´s Dad free... Thanks to security to bring those word "rape".

I can see that most juries see after his color skin, not legal. One of juries is on victim´s Dad side but he force to agree with all juries.

What the judge and proescutor did is a racism!!!!!!!!!

Due death penalty history, skin color is higher than white.




That´s right but the lawyer fought to not do that... Judge agreed with him to think about life sentence instead of death penalty.


I already explained in my previous post that it´s lawyer who convinced juries to give him free at last.

At first juries plan to vote him guilty without think twice... until the lawyer asked juries to shut their eyes and tried to think the picture what if Tonya as their white child and how they reacts......... It convinced juries at last - they cried because they are parents and know that feeling...

__________________

*sniffing you*

Liebling:-)))

[quote]I truly understand how you feeling but why blame the parents for when they did nothing but a killer itself.

Keep her in good memory what and how wonderful you had her.



her mother? I am total speechless... I can´t find any word how to make post here... I wish to say more than very sorry... I know how real pain feeling you had because it was happeend to my friend (see my previous post). I can image it´s hard for parent to lose their loved ones.

__________________

*sniffing you*

Liebling:-)))

Exactly

__________________

*sniffing you*

Cheri

I did watched the movie, You weren't clear on your first post. I was just trying to understand what you meant by what you said about racism, if you meant during the time the father shot the two men or the whole movie was based on racism.

__________________

Reba

Is this justice?

Austria case revives European debate on light prison terms - Yahoo! News

GarnetTigerMom

I sit here and I see the worst, the worst of what humans can do. And when you sit here and see that, the only logical conclusion that you can come to is we have to seek the ultimate punishment. Death penalty is there for a reasons to put killers away. So many killers get away with murdering more then one person. But my question is, " Does the Death Penalty Really Reduce Crime? " So then my answer would also be it possible yes it could reduce the crimes of killers around.

__________________


GarnetTigerMom

"The rain may be falling hard outside,
But your smile makes it all alright.
I'm so glad that you're my friend.
I know our friendship will never end."
-- Robert Alan

Liebling:-)))

DEATH PENALTY ARGUMENTS

Quote:

What is Capital punishment? Capital punishment is the death penalty. It is used today and was used in ancient times to punish a variety of offenses. Even the bible advocates death for murder and other crimes like kidnapping and witchcraft. When the word death penalty is used, it makes yelling and screaming from both sides of extremist. One side may say deterrence, while the other side may say, but you may execute an innocent man.

AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY (CONS)

Quote:

Death Penalty Fails to Rehabilitate What would it accomplish to put someone on death row? The victim is already dead-you cannot bring him back. When the opponents feel “fear of death” will prevent one from committing murder, it is not true because most murders are done on the “heat of passion” when a person cannot think rationally. Therefore, how can one even have time to think of fear in the heat of passion (Internet)?

Quote:

ACLU and Murderers Penniless The American Civil Liberty Union (ACLU) is working for a moratorium on executions and to put an end to state-sanctioned murder in the United States. They claim it is very disturbing to anyone who values human life. In the article of the ACLU Evolution Watch, the American Bar Association said the quality of the legal representation is substantial. Ninety-nine percent of criminal defendants end up penniless by the time their case is up for appeal. They claim they are treated unfairly. Most murderers who do not have any money, receive the death penalty. Those who live in counties pro-death penalty are more likely to receive the death penalty. (Internet).

Death Penalty Failed as a Deterrent

Quote:

Some criminologist claim they have statistically proven that when an execution is publicized, more murders occur in the day and weeks that follow. A good example is in the Linberg kidnapping. A number of states adopted the death penalty for crime like this, but figures showed kidnapping increased. Publicity may encourage crime instead of preventing it (McClellan, G., 1961). Death is one penalty which makes error irreversible and the chance of error is inescapable when based on human judgment. On the contrary, sometimes defendants insist on execution. They feel it is an act of kindness to them. The argument here is - Is life imprisonment a crueler fate?” Is there evidence supporting the usefulness of the death penalty securing the life of the citizens (McClellan, G. 1961)? Does the death penalty give increased protection against being murdered? This argument for continuation of the death penalty is most likely a deterrent, but it has failed as a deterrent. There is no clear evidence because empirical studies done in the 50’s by Professor Thorsten Sellin, (sociologist) did not give support to deterrence (McClellan, G., 1961).

Does not Discourage Crime

Quote:

It is noted that we need extreme penalty as a deterrent to crime. This could be a strong argument if it could be proved that the death penalty discourages murderers and kidnappers. There is strong evidence that the death penalty does not discourage crime at all (McClellan, G., 1961). Grant McClellan (1961) claims: In 1958 the10 states that had the fewest murders –fewer than two a year per 100,000 population -were New Hampshire, Iowa, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Utah, North Dakota and Washington. Four of these 10 states had abolished the death penalty. The 10 states, which had the most murderers from eight to fourteen killings per 100,000 population were Nevada, Alabama, Georgia, Arkansas, and Virginia - all of them enforce the death penalty. The fact is that fear of the death penalty has never served to reduce the crime rate (p. 40).

Quote:

Conviction of the Innocent Occurs The states that have the death penalty should be free of murder, but those states have the most murders, and the states that abolished the death penalty has less. Conviction of the innocent does occur and death makes a miscarriage of justice irrevocable. Two states Maine and Rhode Island abolished the death penalty because of public shame and remorse after they discovered they executed some innocent men.

Fear of Death Does not Reduce Crime.

Quote:

The fear of the death penalty has never reduced crime. Through most of history executions were public and brutal. Some criminals were even crushed to death slowly under heavy weight. Crime was more common at that time than it is now. Evidence shows execution does not act as a deterrent to capital punishment.

Motives for Death Penalty - Revenge

Quote:

According to Grant McClellan (1961), the motives for the death penalty may be for revenge. Legal vengeance solidifies social solidarity against law breakers and is the alternative to the private revenge of those who feel harmed

.

FOR THE DEATH PENALTY (PROS)

Quote:

Threat of Death Penalty Rate of Homicide Decreases Frank Carrington (1978) states- is there any way one can tell whether the death penalty deters murders from killing? There is no way one can tell whether the death penalty deters murderers from killing. The argument goes on that proponents of capital punishments should not have to bear the burden of proving deterrence by a reasonable doubt. Nor should the abolitionist have to prove deterrence by a reasonable doubt -neither side would be able to anyway. Frank Carrington (1978) claims common sense supports the inference that if, the threat of the death penalty decreases, the rate of murders increases than it may be true. But if the threat had increased, the homicide rate may decrease. Justice Stewart held in the Supreme Court in Gregg v. Georgia: Although some of the studies suggest that the death penalty may not function as a significantly greater deterrent than lesser penalties, there is no convincing empirical evidence supporting or refuting this view. We may nevertheless assume safely there are murders, such as those who act in passion, for whom the threat of death has little or no deterrent effect. But for many others, the death penalty undoubtedly, is a significant deterrent. There are carefully contemplated murders, such as murder for hire, where the possible penalty of death may well enter the cold calculus that precedes the decision to act ( as cited in Carrington, 1978. p. 87). J. Edgar Hoover, late director of Federal Bureau of Investigations, asks the following questions: “Have you ever thought about how many criminals escape punishment, and yet, the victims never have a chance to do that? Are crime victims in the United States today the forgotten people of our time? Do they receive full measure of justice (as cited in Isenberg, 1977, p. 129)? A criminal on death row has a chance to prepare his death, make a will, and make his last statements, etc. while some victims can never do it. There are many other crimes where people are injured by stabbing, rape, theft, etc. To some degree at least, the victims right to freedom and pursuit of happiness is violated. When the assailant is apprehended and charged, he has the power of the judicial process who protects his constitutional rights. What about the victim? The assailant may have compassion from investigating officers, families and friends. Furthermore, the criminal may have organized campaigns of propaganda to build sympathy for him as if he is the one who has been sinned against. These false claims are publicized, for no reason, hence, protecting the criminal (Isenberg, I., 1977) The former Theodore L. Sendak, Attorney General of Indiana delivered a speech to Law enforcement officials in Northern Indiana on May 12, 1971 (as cited in Isenberg, 1977): “Our system of criminal law is to minimize human suffering by works or order primarily to forestall violence or aggression. In the question of the death penalty, we must ask ourselves which action will serve the true humanitarian purpose of criminal law. We should weigh the death of the convicted murders against the loss of life of his victims and the possibility of potential victims to murder (p. 129) In arguments of the death penalty, there are two lives to think about. Too much emphasis is placed on the convicted murderer, the one being executed, and the victim is all forgotten.

Crime Rate Increases

Quote:

Millions are being killed and will be killed because our justice system is not working. Millions have already been killed and will be killed every year. According to Time Magazine, there are 2,000,000 people beaten in the United States. Some are knifed, shot, or assaulted (Internet). Crime growth has been going up in the past because of too much leniency going hand in hand with the increased rate of people being victimized. There are many loop holes devised for offenders, and because of that crime rate has increased drastically. Between l960 to 1968 crime rate increased 11 times. More and more people are being murdered, raped, assaulted, kidnapped, and robbed, etc. (Isenberg, I., 1997). Free Will When you commit a felony, it is a matter of free will. No one is compelled to commit armed robbery, murder, or rape. The average citizen does not have a mind or intentions to become a killer or being falsely accused of murder. What he is worried about is being a victim. Deterrent in 27 States Opponents argue that there is no deterrent effect by using the death penalty. According to Baily, who did a study from l967 to l968, the death penalty was a deterrent in 27 states. When there was a moratorium on Capital Punishment in the United States, the study showed murder rates increased by 100%. The study also reviewed 14 nations who abolished the death penalty. It (the study) claimed murder increased by 7% from five years before the abolition period to the five years after the abolition (Internet). Studies were made by Professor Isaac Erlich between the period of 1933 and 1969. He concluded “An additional execution per year may have resulted in fewer murders (Bedau, 1982, p. 323)”. The number of years on the average spent in death row is 10 years. It is known, with all the appeals, the death penalty is not swift! In fact, most murderers feel they most likely will never be put to death. If the death penalty was swift and inevitable, there certainly would be a decrease in homicide rates. (Internet).

Death Feared

Quote:

Most people have a natural fear of death- its a trait man have to think about what will happen before we act. If we don’t think about it consciously, we will think about it unconsciously. Think- if every murderer who killed someone died instantly, the homicide rate would be very low because no one likes to die. We cannot do this, but if the Justice system can make it more swift and severe, we could change the laws to make capital punishment faster and make appeals a shorter process. The death penalty is important because it could save the lives of thousands of potential victims who are at stake (Bedau, H., 1982). In a foot note Bedau (1982) cites, “Actually being dead is no different from not being born, a (non) experience we all had before being born. But death is not realized. The process of dying which is a different matter is usually confused with it. In turn, dying is feared because death is expected, even though death is feared because it is confused with dying (p. 338)”. Death is an experience that cannot be experienced and ends all experience. Because it is unknown as it is certain, death is universally feared. “The life of a man should be sacred to each other (Bedau, H., 1982, p. 330)”.

Innocent Executed - no Proof

Quote:

Opponents claim lots of innocent man are wrongly executed. There has never been any proof of an innocent man being executed!! A study by Bedau-Radlet claimed there were 22 cases where the defendant have been wrongly executed. However, this study is very controversial. Studies like Markman and Cassell find that the methodology was flawed in l 2 cases. There was no substantial evidence of guilt, and no evidence of innocence. Moreover, our judicial system takes extra precautions to be sure the innocent and their rights are protected. Most likely an innocent person would not be executed (Internet).

Death Penalty Saves Lives

Quote:

The question is whether or not execution of an innocent person is strong enough to abolish the death penalty. Remember, the death penalty saves lives. Repeat murders are eliminated and foreseeable murders are deterred. You must consider the victim as well as the defendant. Hugo Bedau (1982) claims: The execution of the innocent believed guilty is a miscarriage of justice that must be opposed whenever detected. But such miscarriage of justice do not warrant abolition at the death penalty. Unless the moral drawbacks of an activity practice, which include the possible death of innocent lives that might be saved by it, the activity is warranted. Most human activities like medicine, manufacturing, automobile, and air traffic, sports, not to mention wars and revolutions, cause death of innocent bystanders. Nevertheless, advantages outweigh the disadvantages, human activities including the penal system with all its punishments are morally justified ( p. 323). Wesley Lowe states, “As for the penal system, accidentally executing an innocent person, I must point out that in this imperfect world, citizens are required to take certain risks in exchange for safety.” He says we risk dying in an accident when we drive a car, and it is acceptable. Therefore, risking that someone might be wrongfully executed is worth saving thousand’s of innocent people who may be the next victim of murder (Internet).

Death Penalty - Right to Live

Quote:

Opponents say the State is like a murder himself. The argument here is, if execution is murder, than killing someone in war is murder. Our country should stop fighting wars. On the contrary, is it necessary to protect the rights of a group of people. Hence, the death penalty is vital to protect a person’s right to live! Is arresting someone same as kidnapping someone? In the same, executing someone is not murder, it is punishment by society for a deserving criminal. Bible Quotes Huggo A. Bedau (1982) states one popular objection to Capital punishment is that it gratifies the desire for revenge regarding as unworthy. The bible quotes the Lord declaring “Vengeance is mine” (Romans 12:19). He thus legitimized vengeance and reserved it to Himself. However, the Bible also enjoins, “The murderer shall surely be put to death” (Numbers 35:16-18), recognizing that the death penalty can be warranted whatever the motive. Religious tradition certainly suggest no less (p. 330). All religions believe having life is sacred. If we deprive someone else life, he only suffers minor inconvenience; hence, we cheapen human life—this is where we are at today.

An Eye for an Eye

Quote:

Some people argue that the capital punishment tends to brutalize and disregards society. Do you agree? Some people say the that penalty is legalized murder because it is like “an eye for an eye”. The difference between punishment and the crime is that one is legalized and the other is not! People are more brutalized by what they see on T.V. daily. People are not brutalized by punishments they are brutalized by our failure to serious punish, the brutal acts. Could the same effect be achieved by putting the criminal in prison for life? “Life in prison” means in six months the parole board can release the man to 12 years in some states. “But even if it were real life imprisonment, it’s deterrent effect will never be as great as that of the death penalty. The death penalty is the only actually irrevocable penalty. Because of that, it is the one that people fear the most (Isenberg, I., 1977). The framers of the constitution clearly believed that Capital punishment was an acceptable mess of protecting society form “wicked dissolute men” Thomas Jefferson liked to talk about it (Carrington, F., 1978).

Further read pro/cons about death penalty in those link.
DEATH PENALTY ARGUMENTS

Death penalty is a definitiety vengeance!!!


Death penalty doesn't solve anything to reduce crimes but teach them to create more problems.

__________________

*sniffing you*

Cheri

That's your opinion, I would say depends on the individual, some of the victim's family would seek revenge, some would seek to be sure that justice is done. You don't know the heart of those people, so it's easy for you to judge their characters.

The question is How would you react if somebody murdered your child?

My answer would be death row, it's better than having me kill that monster myself. There's nothing more intolerable in this world than killing a child. In my opinion.

__________________

Reba

I wouldn't put much stock into a "report" that can't even get the right spelling of such a famous case.

The Bruno Hauptmann (Lindbergh Kidnapping) Trial

BTW, what were the actual statistics, and what was the source? How was cause and effect determined?

Reba

Did you know that God established the "eye for an eye" concept in order to set limits for punishment? In the ancient cultures, it was common for the aggrieved parties to kill the offender no matter what the offense. God told them that was wrong. God told the people that the punishment should fit the crime. That is, if one person destroyed the eye of another, the victim was NOT allowed to kill that person. The limit of retribution had to be equal. That was a new concept to ancient people.

Many people misinterpret that verse to say that God was brutal and authorized vengeful mutilations. It was totally the opposite situation. God also established cities of refuge to protect people who accidentally killed others so they wouldn't be killed. Prior to that, families could take out their own revenge on others who killed someone even accidentally. God made a distinction between manslaughter and murder.

God established His laws of justice to protect people, and that punishments would be fair, based on laws instead of emotions.

jillio

Professionals in the fields of sociology, criminology, and social psychology of justice have been saying the same thing for years. And they have hard evidence to back up their position.

jillio

The problem with that article is that the death penalty, at least in the United States, is a matter of civil law, not religious law. And one cannot apply the concept of "an eye for an eye" selectively to murder only if one is to use is as a foundation for support of the death penalty.

For instance, the Quaran also contains phrasing that dictates the concept of "an eye for an eye." In a culture that follows the Quaran, civil law is not separate from religious law. Therefore, they follow the pronciple of "an eye for an eye" closely as related to all crime. Yet we, in the U.S., label them as barbaric for following the same principle that some attempt to cite as justification for the death penalty in the U.S.

Reba

I didn't use it as a supporting statement for the death penalty. It was in Liebling's post, and I wanted to clarify it precisely because it is wrongly applied as an argument by some people.

I didn't say anything about the United States following Old Testament laws.

jillio