Re: Electric Chair

On 31 Dec 2006 17:29:03 GMT, "David Brown"
<david.brown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 08:33:38 -0800, JoeBloe wrote:

On 31 Dec 2006 11:46:39 GMT, "David Brown"
<david.brown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Gave us:

That doesn't sound so very different from the lives of people on death row
in the USA. They can spend many years knowing they are condemned to
death, but don't know when it is coming, or if they will get a reprieve.
They get informed of execution dates, and things can get as far as getting
a last meal, before the execution is delayed again.


It's a goddamned shame too. If our justice system has condemned
them, then the bastards should get the sentence.


There's a lot to be said for that. I don't agree with having a death
penalty, but then, I don't live in a country with violent crime rates and
violent criminals that come close to comparison with the USA. But if you
*do* have a system that condemns people to death, it makes far more sense
for the penalty to be carried out swiftly. The only reason for prolonging
the wait is if your justice system is so badly broken that there is a
strong possibility of error.

---
I think it's more like we realize that there's a human life at stake
and while we also realize that there's no way that there could be no
chance of error, we spend what might seem to be an inordinate amount
of time and money in order to exhaust the last vestiges of
"reasonable" error before the execution proceeds.
---

I'm all for a no-return-to-freedom Devil's Island for weapon
wielding offenders as well.

If they feel as if they are willing to harm someone in the
commission of their crime, I am willing to strip them of their freedom
for life, the same sentence they threatened their victim(s) with.

The death penalty is not about revenge, it is about deterrence. If
we carried it out more often, the little punk pricks out their that
pull this criminal game bull*** might think twice.

We wouldn't have the levels of crime we have if we actually carried
out sentences and made some crimes have punishments that are far
harsher.


There are four things a sentence should do - it should deter the criminal
from doing it again, it should deter others from doing the same thing, it
should help the criminal learn to do something better with their life
afterwards, and it should provide a sense of justice for the victim and
other people. I don't think the current American system, especially the
large numbers of jailings for minor drug offences and absurdly long
sentences for repeated petty crimes, are the right answer.

---
I couldn't agree more.

As far as imprisonment for drug offenses goes, I think our (the US)
government's belief that they're infallible in all things while at
the same time obviously being unable to win the ludicrous "war on
drugs" has caused them to take the line that the more drug offenders
they can put in jail the closer they'll be to reducing demand,
therefore starving the suppliers, therefore making the "war"
winnable. Fucking idiots.
---

On the other
hand, systems like we have in Norway are often far to lenient - when the
perpitrator of a violent crime is released before the victim has
recovered, you cannot it a "justice" system.

---
Yes; that's a shame.



--
JF
.