Connecticut Governor Vetoes Bill That Would End Death Penalty

[Allen Farlow]

I was very impressed by the response of the Amish (was it last year or the year before?) after a man took hostages in their schoolhouse and killed several Amish children. Retribution for a crime committed? No, that was what got my attention.

The Amish were concerned about the killer's family, they were concerned for him, they prayed for this man.

I think they taught us all a valuable lesson, that retribution does not accomplish anything worthwhile.

But I must admit, if it were my child who was harmed, I'd willingly desire to be the one to pull the trigger and send that man on his way.

[Allen Farlow]

Sorry, wasn't sure the above post had posted.

[StrongInTheArm]

Originally Posted by Cricket

...

This little girl was 3 years old. Her name was Evelyn. She was raped, sodomized, and murdered in her own home in South Sioux City, Nebraska last month, while her parent slept in another room. Her 5 year old brother is believed to have witnessed at least part of the attack.

...

Originally Posted by John Scott

You want to draw an illicit distinction between the act that comes from sadistic tendencies and the sadistic tendency. But we are discussing "insanity", and insanity does not deal with acts. It deals with states of mind. So, sorry, action is not required to be sadistic. And insanity is not required to be sadistic. Normal male sex, in many species, is about domination. In one culture (still, in 2009) it is customary to "force" one's chosen bride to accompany the male home. Just because you think it's insane doesn't make it so.

Rape and murder are older than humanity. It's all natural. The only unnatural thing is to think that rape and murder are oddities, or even the product of insanity.

Fortunately, individualist tendencies tell us to agree to a social contract whereby we reject rape, murder and other encroachments in return for a guarantee of security for ourselves against those same encroachments. The social contract is not natural. Murder is. Rape is. Mayhem is natural. Watch the Discovery Channel sometime if you want to see how natural rape and murder are.



Protected? So you think that nobody escapes from prison? Nobody murders prison guards? Um, read the news?

And prison doesn't pay the debt owed - which is life.

John:

So your contention is that someone committing the crime detailed above by Cricket is not necessarily insane?

BTW I should apologize, previously I made the mistake of assuming 'sadistic tendency' related only to thought. Of course it doesn't. But of course there is a difference between just thinking something and acting upon it. We haven't reached the point where thought alone is considered a crime and thus punishable in and of itself. But thought is considered an indication of mental illness and those found to be mentally ill can be detained in secure accommodation by the state even though no crime has been committed.

I agree that rape and murder are not of themselves indications of insanity. But the case outlined goes way beyond that. And my contention is that no person in their right mind would be capable of such a crime. Can you honestly conceive a 'normal' person doing that?

[John Scott]

So your contention is that someone committing the crime detailed above by Cricket is not necessarily insane?

I would have thought that I had made that clear.

He could be insane, but it isn't a requirement to commit the crimes. Two things you should understand about criminals. One, most know the risks and accept them. "It is worth more to me to see somebody dead, or my fantasy realized, than it is to live semi-free in society without achieving my dreams." Doesn't mean they are going to turn themselves in, but it's not like they are oblivious to the threat they face from the justice system.

And two, in their own minds, most crimes are justified. Rapists can defend rape so effectively you might end up agreeing with them. The argument goes, men are animals, with testosterone, and they cannot control who they are attracted to - they are born that way. Animals rape other animals. It's natural. Society has no right to punish somebody for doing what nature intended them to do.

You don't have to be insane to think that way. You don't have to be insane to have extremely powerful sexual urges. You just have to be willing to disregard the socially created right of others.

A lot of criminals in fact think they are the better humans. They are being subservient to a social construct they perceive as emasculating.

Can you honestly conceive a 'normal' person doing that?

Yes. I think many normal people want to do stuff like that, but they are either restrained by morality, or by cowardice.

[Cricket]

Don't look at me for a neutral response to this controversial topic. I live in Texas.

[StrongInTheArm]

John: I was sure I replied to your last post. I remember typing it, I even remember part of what I said.

It started with a partial agreement. Yes sane people can rape and murder, but it takes someone crazy to commit the rape, sodomization and murder of a toddler in their bedroom while her parents sleep in the other room.

I went on to note that what you said implied that the death penalty had failed to act as a deterrent since these types of criminal offences still occur. Given this, we are left with the sole purpose of the death penalty being retribution.

I'm sure I went on to suggest that it would be better to lock these criminals up and learn as much about them and their motivation with the intention of using that information to prevent such crimes in future and of course to catch other perpetrators. As I believe the FBI does with some criminals.

Anyhow, sorry for my perceived rudeness at just ignoring your post, it wasn't intentional. Perhaps I typed it and forgot to press the submit button, or perhaps it's the senility catching up with me. Of course when I first wrote it, it was certainly much better than it is now.

[John Scott]

It started with a partial agreement. Yes sane people can rape and murder, but it takes someone crazy to commit the rape, sodomization and murder of a toddler in their bedroom while her parents sleep in the other room.

Again, I would have to disagree. I think it only takes a person who is so confident of himself that he believes that if a confrontation were to ensue, he would prevail. I would guess that he also likes the adrenaline rush of risk taking. One of the guys I was in prison with was there for homicide, but he also did night time burglaries. He stated that it was a rush to walk into people's bedrooms at night while they slept and take their wallets from the nightstand. He even claimed to sometimes just watch the people sleep. Gave him a feeling of power.

You know, I had a conversation with a guy who said that you had to be sick in the head to want to have anal sex. To him, the idea was so disgusting that only a psychopath would want to do it. It seems that people are labeling others "insane" simply for taking pleasure in something that they could never take pleasure in. Am I wrong?

I went on to note that what you said implied that the death penalty had failed to act as a deterrent since these types of criminal offences still occur.

The death penalty could act as a deterrent. But it likely won't in the US because most people know that the chances of getting it are slim. Japan has the death penalty for murder, used quite often, and Japan has one of the lowest homicide rates of all the countries. Same goes for Qatar and Saudi Arabia.

With so many killers getting off with light sentences in America, I doubt there is much of a deterrent there.

Given this, we are left with the sole purpose of the death penalty being retribution.

I think a lot of people think "revenge" when they hear "retribution". I would take issue with that. Revenge isn't something the government should be doing.

If you, through recklessness or malicious intent, destroy my car, you should be forced to pay the cost of restoring it. If you take $5 from me, you should be forced to pay $5. If you take a life, you should be forced to pay a life.

That's not revenge. It's justice. And that's what Japanese counts enforce. The idea is that if a person is forced to pay for precisely the damages he incurs, he will not do those damages in the first place.

When I was in America, I often drove rather aggressively. If there ever was an accident, I am confident that the chances of getting punished were close to nil. In Japan, "it was an accident" doesn't play. Doesn't matter if you honestly didn't see the pedestrian, if you hit somebody you will go to prison. That definitely changed the way I drive.

I'm sure I went on to suggest that it would be better to lock these criminals up and learn as much about them and their motivation with the intention of using that information to prevent such crimes in future and of course to catch other perpetrators.

America locks up more people per capita than any other country, and we still have high crime. I think it's an insult to the victims, some of whom were tortured and suffered horrible deaths.

Anyhow, sorry for my perceived rudeness at just ignoring your post, it wasn't intentional.

None perceived.

[StrongInTheArm]

... It seems that people are labeling others "insane" simply for taking pleasure in something that they could never take pleasure in. Am I wrong?

You are probably right so let us try not to do that

We seem to be dancing around the term 'insane' at present. It seems to have different meanings in general usage, in the legal profession and in the medical profession. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insane

Insanity, craziness or madness is a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns. Insanity may manifest as violations of societal norms, including becoming a danger to themselves and others, though not all such acts are considered insanity. ...

From a legal perspective, in the USA at least:

The states differ somewhat in their definition of insanity but most follow the guidelines of the Model Penal Code. All jurisdictions require a sanity evaluation to address the question first of whether or not the defendant has a mental illness. Most courts accept a major mental illness such as psychosis but will not accept the diagnosis of a personality disorder for the purposes of an insanity defense. The second question is whether the mental illness interfered with the defendant's ability to distinguish right from wrong. That is, did the defendant know that the alleged behavior was against the law at the time the offense was committed. Additionally, some jurisdictions add the question of whether or not the defendant was in control of their behavior at the time of the offense. For example, if the defendant was compelled by some aspect of their mental illness to commit the illegal act, the defendant could be evaluated as not in control of their behavior at the time of the offense.

Psychosis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychosis

Psychosis (from the Greek ψυχή "psuche", for mind or soul, and -ωσις "-osis", for abnormal condition), with adjective psychotic, literally means abnormal condition of the mind, and is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality". People suffering from psychosis are said to be psychotic.
People experiencing psychosis may report hallucinations or delusional beliefs, and may exhibit personality changes and disorganized thinking. This may be accompanied by unusual or bizarre behavior, as well as difficulty with social interaction and impairment in carrying out the activities of daily living.

I suspect a sizeable proportion of the prison population should be treated for mental illness. From your experience would you agree?

That burglar you spoke of gives me pause for thought. As for the criminal at the heart of this thread, I would question if he knew right from wrong and whether he was in control of his behaviour given it's unusual and bizarre nature.

[John Scott]

We seem to be dancing around the term 'insane' at present.

I don't think it is the word "insane" that we are debating. Nobody here is challenging the idea that insane people violate society's norms. The question is rather, do sane people violate society's norms? Or, more strictly, does it require insanity to do things that the vast majority of society would not do?

My contention is that sane people can know their behavior to be harmful, socially unacceptable, and still do it.

Just as an aside, out of my own curiosity, do you suppose that those people who have sex with horses are insane? I find that way more extreme than simple rape with mutilation. Maybe it's because I am in Japan where child rape comics are extremely popular and mainstream almost.

"loss of contact with reality"

Indeed, that is how I would define it. And by that definition, only two of the people I was in prison with were insane. One thought he was a religious leader, a prophet of some sort. The other guy was a huge, 400 lbs dude, and he would flap his arms and try to fly out of prison. It was so extreme he didn't stay in general population long. The others were all fine. We all did hard labor in factories and socialized and they all functioned normally. Violence did occur, and some of those people were extremely violent. I was extremely violent in my youth. I wasn't insane though. For somebody to think that violence isn't enjoyable, that seems odd. There are chemical reactions in the brain associated with pleasure that can be triggered by risk taking. I think those people call themselves "adrenaline junkies". When I was younger, I loved the rush of it. Fighting people, beating people, running from cops. Very common and normal if you ask me.

I would question if he knew right from wrong and whether he was in control of his behaviour given it's unusual and bizarre nature.

This I don't get. It seems that you think that people, if they know right from wrong, will do right. Is that correct?

People like dopamine more than they do "rightness". I have a relative, very well off, who used to shoplift like crazy. Not even things she needed, and she could have bought it all easily. She liked the rush. Sometimes I go out at night and look for some nationalist guy to pick a fight with me. All people do that, I think. Not just fights, but stuff to get the dopamine flowing - eating, sex, etc.

[Cricket]

In the case I mentioned, he (allegedly) brought burglar tools with him (which he left in the home) in order to break into their home (acquaintance of the family) indicating the murder was planned. If he didn't have the capacity to know right from wrong, why plan this? He had been in the home before. If he didn't know it was wrong, why would he run from the scene? If he didn't have the capacity to know it was wrong, why not just hang out for a while, make breakfast for his friends?

Of course making a call (allegedly) from his GPS enabled cell phone while still in the home wasn't the smartest move he could have made. Is he a sick demented soul? Absolutely! Does that make me feel compassion for him? Or, make him unaccountable? Heck no.

As Robert Macy, District Attorney of Oklahoma City said concerning another case, "the killer should not lie in some prison with three meals a day, clean sheets, cable TV, family visits and endless appeals. For justice to prevail, some killers just need to die."

He stole this little girls childhood and destroyed a family. She will never grow up to walk down the aisle and one day make her mama a grandmother. Please explain to me how it is justice to provide him with three meals a day, clean sheets, cable TV, family visits, and endless appeals, along with free medical care for the rest of his life that our taxes will pay for?

Choosing not to allow him the privilige of living is not revenge. It is retribution for the life he took.

Would you feel compassion if it were your child? Would you be willing to pay to provide him with food, housing, and medical care for the rest of his life? Seriously?

[~kev~]

Originally Posted by Cricket

Once again, the death penalty is in the news.

Should the death penalty be abolished?

No, it should not be abolished.

Originally Posted by Cricket

WHY? WHY NOT?

Its 100% effective on stopping repeat offenders. No other program in the world is as effective as the death penalty.

Once that person is dead, I promise you with 100% certainty, they will never harm another person ever again.

[~kev~]

Well, a whole week and no replies to my comment on the death penalty being 100% effective on stopping repeat offenders?

I figured that someone would have some kind of comment about it. Or try to argue that the death penalty is only 40% - 50% effective in stopping repeat offenders. But they would have to be a zombie or something to harm another person after their dead.

You mean to tell me, not a single person here can disagree with the death penalty being 100% effective in stopping repeat offenders?

[Cricket]

Not me

[StrongInTheArm]

Originally Posted by ~kev~

Well, a whole week and no replies to my comment on the death penalty being 100% effective on stopping repeat offenders?

I figured that someone would have some kind of comment about it. Or try to argue that the death penalty is only 40% - 50% effective in stopping repeat offenders. But they would have to be a zombie or something to harm another person after their dead.

You mean to tell me, not a single person here can disagree with the death penalty being 100% effective in stopping repeat offenders?

How many innocent people have been executed by mistake. And before you say none, think about the number of successful appeals.

[krahmaan]

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

But I must admit, if it were my child who was harmed, I'd willingly desire to be the one to pull the trigger and send that man on his way.

I wouldn't call allowing family members to avenge a lost love one by administering the poison to the convicted murderer(s) of them wrong. It probably would bring a swifter closure to the families -or not. Perhaps, I could be wrong in certain cases.

But what if a lethal injection was administered, and that person then became both legally and clinically dead? Then a few hours later, they awoke having something similar to a NDE? Seriously, would justice then have been served? The killer was vanquished, but by some miraculous phenomenon unknown to man -he came back to life.



Makes me wonder, what would be the procedure then? Say, "Hey, it worked the first time Bill." "Yeah, but let's run him threw it one more time -Phil." Now would that violate the Double jeopardy rule? They were sentenced to death, and they got death. But grace is God's prerogative, something man cannot control I believe. Even a murderer can be bestowed His Grace (mercy).

To say I'm neutral on this issue, isn't too much of a position for me to take in a political debate. So, I will say that I'm against officials making these types of decisions. I also say, to let the people make these decisions. I think that the people would be better in deciding if a murderer is lethal enough to be put threw capital punishment. I might add that I think the people would be more just and understanding. Hence, lessening the possibility of somebody being put-to-death mistakenly.

[Cricket]

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

How many innocent people have been executed by mistake. And before you say none, think about the number of successful appeals.

Meaning that the system worked, correct?

[StrongInTheArm]

If the system failed once requiring an appeal, then the system can fail twice and execute an innocent person.

There have been many instances in the UK, where those imprisoned for lengthy periods in goal have been subsequently found innocent of the crime of murder, (after numerous appeals I may add). If hanging were still practiced in the UK, those people would all be dead. And in fact their innocence may never have been established.

To compound the injustice, the consequence is that the real culprits have got away free. Human administered systems fail because of human beings.

My point was that there must be a proportion of appeals that have failed even though the 'criminal' was innocent. If you accept that as a possibility, then you acknowledge the murder of innocent people in the name of justice. You then have to ask yourself how many innocent people you are willing to execute before the death penalty becomes an unacceptable punishment.

For me the only acceptable number is zero, otherwise it isn't justice.

[~kev~]

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

How many innocent people have been executed by mistake. And before you say none, think about the number of successful appeals.

How many innocent victims have been killed on purpose?

Lets say that the state kills 1,000 murders, and 10 of them were innocent. So that is really 990. How many more people will those 990 murders kill in their life time?

Sure, mistakes happen and innocent people are put to death. But, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The needs of the public to be protected outweigh the needs of a very few people.

---------------------------------------------

The one thing I really, really like to see, is when you ask one of the anti-death penalty people if its ok that a murder lives next to their house. After a murder or rapist are let out of prison, lets move them next door to your house, and your family.

Because if they are not living next to your house, they are living next to someones house. But as long as their not next to your house, its ok, huh.

What do you do with a dog that will not stop biting people? You take it to the vet and have it put to sleep.

Or, if you live in the country, a 22 bullet is cheaper then gasoline.

But either way, that dog will not bite anyone ever again. Murderers and rapist are the scum of the human species. They are animals and should be treated as such.

[StrongInTheArm]

Originally Posted by ~kev~

How many innocent victims have been killed on purpose?

Lets say that the state kills 1,000 murders, and 10 of them were innocent. So that is really 990. How many more people will those 990 murders kill in their life time?

Sure, mistakes happen and innocent people are put to death. But, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The needs of the public to be protected outweigh the needs of a very few people.

So you only think one percent would be innocent and you are happy to execute that one percent?

Well currently swine flu is only killing 0.018 percent of Americans infected, guess that's not a problem either.

And sure, mistakes happen! What's to worry about?

Originally Posted by ~kev~

The one thing I really, really like to see, is when you ask one of the anti-death penalty people if its ok that a murder lives next to their house. After a murder or rapist are let out of prison, lets move them next door to your house, and your family.

Because if they are not living next to your house, they are living next to someones house. But as long as their not next to your house, its ok, huh.

What do you do with a dog that will not stop biting people? You take it to the vet and have it put to sleep.

Or, if you live in the country, a 22 bullet is cheaper then gasoline.

But either way, that dog will not bite anyone ever again. Murderers and rapist are the scum of the human species. They are animals and should be treated as such.

Now you are just being ridiculous.

And since you are going to quote Star Trek, may I quote West Wing:

What did liberals do that was so offensive to the liberal party? I'll tell you what they did. Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things * every one. So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator. Because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor."

By the way, if you hadn't noticed, humans are animals too, but humans are not dogs.

[~kev~]

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

Now you are just being ridiculous.

What is ridiculous about living next to a murder or rapist?

Originally Posted by StrongInTheArm

And since you are going to quote Star Trek

Where did star trek come into this?