Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Capital Punishment Options · View
WellMadeMale
Posted: Thursday, July 1, 2010 7:52:25 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,781
Location: Cakeland, United States
Dancing_Doll wrote:
WellMadeMale wrote:
Dancing_Doll wrote:


Isn't this what current minimum security, maximum security and supermax prisons in the United States do? Separate the non-violent petty criminals from the violent offenders? I'm not sure what prisons you are speaking of, but I doubt there are mass murderers sharing the same cell block as DUI criminals.

"Supermax prison facilities provide the highest level of prison security. These units hold those considered the most dangerous inmates. These include inmates who have committed assaults, murders, or other serious violations in less secure facilities, and inmates known to be or accused of being prison gang members."

"Prisoners in minimum security facilities are considered to pose little physical risk to the public and are mainly non-violent "white collar criminals". Minimum security prisoners live in less-secure dormitories, which are regularly patrolled by correctional officers."

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


Don't depend on Wiki to give you the real truth about some things, DD.

And Kathleen...I don't know where you get your information, but I know where I got mine.


But is your inside information source the "norm" for how things are done in the country, or more a unique circumstance. Without knowing more about your argument, it's hard to make a 'generalization' happy8



Prison overcrowding is not a unique circumstance in the United States of America. Murderers who cannot get into prisons are often kept in county jails all throughout this country. And in those county jails are thousands of non-violent offenders.

End of story.

Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Thursday, July 1, 2010 8:02:35 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde
Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 7,185
Location: Your dirty fantasy
WellMadeMale wrote:
Dancing_Doll wrote:
WellMadeMale wrote:
Dancing_Doll wrote:


Isn't this what current minimum security, maximum security and supermax prisons in the United States do? Separate the non-violent petty criminals from the violent offenders? I'm not sure what prisons you are speaking of, but I doubt there are mass murderers sharing the same cell block as DUI criminals.

"Supermax prison facilities provide the highest level of prison security. These units hold those considered the most dangerous inmates. These include inmates who have committed assaults, murders, or other serious violations in less secure facilities, and inmates known to be or accused of being prison gang members."

"Prisoners in minimum security facilities are considered to pose little physical risk to the public and are mainly non-violent "white collar criminals". Minimum security prisoners live in less-secure dormitories, which are regularly patrolled by correctional officers."

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


Don't depend on Wiki to give you the real truth about some things, DD.

And Kathleen...I don't know where you get your information, but I know where I got mine.


But is your inside information source the "norm" for how things are done in the country, or more a unique circumstance. Without knowing more about your argument, it's hard to make a 'generalization' happy8



Prison overcrowding is not a unique circumstance in the United States of America. Murderers who cannot get into prisons are often kept in county jails all throughout this country. And in those county jails are thousands of non-violent offenders.

End of story.


No, actually it's the beginning of the story!

This is a clear example of where the execution of the worst offenders would efficiently clear up more space so that moderate offenders could be kept in the max security prisons, thereby eliminating the need for these serious violent offenders to end up in county jails intermingling with petty offenders.

We are talking about a situation of overpopulation in the american prison systems that requires a solution.

Capital punishment is one of those solutions.

You see if as the ending of human life, but I see it as the solution to a greater problem of overpopulation leading to violent criminals leaking into moderate and minimum security prisons and, as you mentioned, even into county jails.

To go to Damon's argument re euthanasia and pets... When the humane society gets overcrowded, they start to euthanize those pets that are most likely to never be adopted. In this case, it would be 'euthanizing' special case prisoners (again, only the most violent criminals that are beyond rehabilitation) to ease the burden on the entire prison system and make it more efficient for all.

OK, now we can end the story... icon_smile


WellMadeMale
Posted: Thursday, July 1, 2010 8:05:56 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,781
Location: Cakeland, United States
DamonX wrote:
Quote:
It doesn't matter what it infers- the point being that no death is more or less worthy than another. With it established that imprisonment and execution keep prisoners away from society equally, there's no reason to have the spectacle or the eye-for-eye solution.


I agree. I think the spectacle is completely unwarranted. Like I said, if its cheaper for people to be kept in prison then go ahead. If it gives you piece of mind to have a muderer locked away instead of being put to death, then thats cool. I just find it odd that a dog that kills a child is put to sleep painlessly, but a human that kills multiple children is kept alive until he dies naturally. (Or is beaten to death with a dumbbell in the prison yard). Maybe we should have dog prisons for violent dogs? We can lock them up and let them rip each other apart. But...that would be seen as inhumane right? But its ok to do that to people? Prisons right now serve no purpose other than to allow the most violent offenders to prosper and to turn the lesser offenders into victims (or turn them into more violent criminals).


The US prison system as it is set up currently, creates and breeds repeat violent offenders. It also helps to perpetuate repeat non-violent offenders, as when they get out of prison with a felony...they are fucked until they can get that expunged, typically 5 to 10 years at a minimum. Of course during that time...they better not so much as step on a crack or spit on the street.

Or they go right back to prison and this time, not to a minimum security facility...they get upgraded. But they may not go back to prison at at all...they probably go spend the remainder of their original sentence in a county facility with the rest of the hard core and non-violent perps, waiting to get into prison.

Please don't introduce the ridiculous concept of prison for violent dogs into this discussion. That's the kind of hyperbole we don't really need in this.

Obscenity is the last refuge of an inarticulate motherfucker.
DamonX
Posted: Thursday, July 1, 2010 8:16:51 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 798
WellMadeMale wrote:
DamonX wrote:
Quote:
It doesn't matter what it infers- the point being that no death is more or less worthy than another. With it established that imprisonment and execution keep prisoners away from society equally, there's no reason to have the spectacle or the eye-for-eye solution.


I agree. I think the spectacle is completely unwarranted. Like I said, if its cheaper for people to be kept in prison then go ahead. If it gives you piece of mind to have a muderer locked away instead of being put to death, then thats cool. I just find it odd that a dog that kills a child is put to sleep painlessly, but a human that kills multiple children is kept alive until he dies naturally. (Or is beaten to death with a dumbbell in the prison yard). Maybe we should have dog prisons for violent dogs? We can lock them up and let them rip each other apart. But...that would be seen as inhumane right? But its ok to do that to people? Prisons right now serve no purpose other than to allow the most violent offenders to prosper and to turn the lesser offenders into victims (or turn them into more violent criminals).


The US prison system as it is set up currently, creates and breeds repeat violent offenders. It also helps to perpetuate repeat non-violent offenders, as when they get out of prison with a felony...they are fucked until they can get that expunged, typically 5 to 10 years at a minimum. Of course during that time...they better not so much as step on a crack or spit on the street.

Or they go right back to prison and this time, not to a minimum security facility...they get upgraded. But they may not go back to prison at at all...they probably go spend the remainder of their original sentence in a county facility with the rest of the hard core and non-violent perps, waiting to get into prison.

Please don't introduce the ridiculous concept of prison for violent dogs into this discussion. That's the kind of hyperbole we don't really need in this.


I believe that would be an "analogy" and not a "hyperbole." Have you been talking to freefallin?? happy8 So...are you agreeing or disagreeing with me on this one? I can never tell. dontknow
DamonX
Posted: Thursday, July 1, 2010 8:28:27 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 798
To LadyX:








I've enjoyed the debate! My next thread will be on the pros and cons of Vietnamese exotic dancers!! :)
mercianknight
Posted: Friday, July 2, 2010 6:01:51 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/11/2009
Posts: 2,027
Location: whispering conspiratorially in your ear, Bermuda
chefkathleen wrote:
Exakta66 wrote:
I'm just curious why this question came up...is Lush considering capital punishment for offenses like posting too many pictures in the forums and hanging out on forum games???
If so, I am definitely against it...


This isn't a sex story site anymore. We talk about everything else but that. Get a score card Alan.


Hey! Good point Chef! You get my vote again.......so........ did you shave 'our' special place again this morning? evil4

"Whoa, lady, I only speak two languages, English and bad English." - Korben Dallas, from The Fifth Element

"If history repeats itself, and the unexpected always happens, how incapable must man be of learning from experience?" - George Bernard Shaw
LadyX
Posted: Friday, July 2, 2010 8:45:17 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
DamonX wrote:


I've enjoyed the debate! My next thread will be on the pros and cons of Vietnamese exotic dancers!! :)


I enjoy it too icon_smile - good back-and-forth without anybody opening up a can of crazy and pouring it out, and it's good to hear what everybody thinks.

I look forward to the Viet dancer thread too boobieflash2 - but it probably won't be a long one because of course their are no cons to us! It's all good, baby!

Guest
Posted: Friday, July 2, 2010 11:25:50 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 781,602
mercianknight wrote:
chefkathleen wrote:
Exakta66 wrote:
I'm just curious why this question came up...is Lush considering capital punishment for offenses like posting too many pictures in the forums and hanging out on forum games???
If so, I am definitely against it...


This isn't a sex story site anymore. We talk about everything else but that. Get a score card Alan.


Hey! Good point Chef! You get my vote again.......so........ did you shave 'our' special place again this morning? evil4


*snicker* yea I did.



Quote:
I believe that would be an "analogy" and not a "hyperbole."


Actually, by definition it's both. evil4
DamonX
Posted: Tuesday, July 6, 2010 9:36:55 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 798
OK, let me explain my point here. A prison for dogs is a ridiculous concept is it not? I think the same about keeping a person in prison for the rest of his/her life. Its a hypocritical attempt at maintaining "humanity" by imprisoning someone in an inhumane environment, instead of putting them to sleep painlessly.

There. Analogical enough for you?

MrNudiePants
Posted: Wednesday, July 7, 2010 7:08:31 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,226
Location: United States
DamonX wrote:
OK, let me explain my point here. A prison for dogs is a ridiculous concept is it not? I think the same about keeping a person in prison for the rest of his/her life. Its a hypocritical attempt at maintaining "humanity" by imprisoning someone in an inhumane environment, instead of putting them to sleep painlessly.

There. Analogical enough for you?



People are not dogs. There's an old saying: "Even if he ain't good for anything else, he can always set a bad example..."


Besides which - would you want to be the person who put all these condemned prisoners to death, only to find out years later that some of them were actually innocent?
DamonX
Posted: Wednesday, July 7, 2010 11:07:58 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 798
MrNudiePants wrote:
DamonX wrote:
OK, let me explain my point here. A prison for dogs is a ridiculous concept is it not? I think the same about keeping a person in prison for the rest of his/her life. Its a hypocritical attempt at maintaining "humanity" by imprisoning someone in an inhumane environment, instead of putting them to sleep painlessly.

There. Analogical enough for you?



People are not dogs. There's an old saying: "Even if he ain't good for anything else, he can always set a bad example..."


Besides which - would you want to be the person who put all these condemned prisoners to death, only to find out years later that some of them were actually innocent?


I think if you actually read my previous posts, you'll see that I would only recommend the death penalty for the most serious offenses. I'm talking people convicted of multiple murders, serial killers, and those that run criminal enterprises from behind bars. As I stated earlier, I think the US (especially Texas) executes too many people. I just think its a bit of a farce to sentence someone to 582 years in prison and then lock them up in a supermaximum security facility for 23 hours a day until they die.
rxtales
Posted: Thursday, July 8, 2010 2:42:25 AM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 11/28/2008
Posts: 2,589
Location: Newcastle, United Kingdom
DamonX wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:
DamonX wrote:
OK, let me explain my point here. A prison for dogs is a ridiculous concept is it not? I think the same about keeping a person in prison for the rest of his/her life. Its a hypocritical attempt at maintaining "humanity" by imprisoning someone in an inhumane environment, instead of putting them to sleep painlessly.

There. Analogical enough for you?



People are not dogs. There's an old saying: "Even if he ain't good for anything else, he can always set a bad example..."


Besides which - would you want to be the person who put all these condemned prisoners to death, only to find out years later that some of them were actually innocent?


I think if you actually read my previous posts, you'll see that I would only recommend the death penalty for the most serious offenses. I'm talking people convicted of multiple murders, serial killers, and those that run criminal enterprises from behind bars. As I stated earlier, I think the US (especially Texas) executes too many people. I just think its a bit of a farce to sentence someone to 582 years in prison and then lock them up in a supermaximum security facility for 23 hours a day until they die.


Where are they the other hour?
MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, July 8, 2010 7:02:28 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,226
Location: United States
DamonX wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:
DamonX wrote:
OK, let me explain my point here. A prison for dogs is a ridiculous concept is it not? I think the same about keeping a person in prison for the rest of his/her life. Its a hypocritical attempt at maintaining "humanity" by imprisoning someone in an inhumane environment, instead of putting them to sleep painlessly.

There. Analogical enough for you?



People are not dogs. There's an old saying: "Even if he ain't good for anything else, he can always set a bad example..."


Besides which - would you want to be the person who put all these condemned prisoners to death, only to find out years later that some of them were actually innocent?


I think if you actually read my previous posts, you'll see that I would only recommend the death penalty for the most serious offenses. I'm talking people convicted of multiple murders, serial killers, and those that run criminal enterprises from behind bars. As I stated earlier, I think the US (especially Texas) executes too many people. I just think its a bit of a farce to sentence someone to 582 years in prison and then lock them up in a supermaximum security facility for 23 hours a day until they die.


I tend to agree, with the caveat that a death sentence should only be enforced if there's absolute, incontrovertible proof that the person is guilty. If they were convicted on, say, witness testimony, or similar circumstantial evidence, then no, they should NOT be put to death. It's too easy for a liar to come forward 40 years later and recant.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, July 8, 2010 7:04:08 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,226
Location: United States
rxtales wrote:
DamonX wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:
DamonX wrote:
OK, let me explain my point here. A prison for dogs is a ridiculous concept is it not? I think the same about keeping a person in prison for the rest of his/her life. Its a hypocritical attempt at maintaining "humanity" by imprisoning someone in an inhumane environment, instead of putting them to sleep painlessly.

There. Analogical enough for you?



People are not dogs. There's an old saying: "Even if he ain't good for anything else, he can always set a bad example..."


Besides which - would you want to be the person who put all these condemned prisoners to death, only to find out years later that some of them were actually innocent?


I think if you actually read my previous posts, you'll see that I would only recommend the death penalty for the most serious offenses. I'm talking people convicted of multiple murders, serial killers, and those that run criminal enterprises from behind bars. As I stated earlier, I think the US (especially Texas) executes too many people. I just think its a bit of a farce to sentence someone to 582 years in prison and then lock them up in a supermaximum security facility for 23 hours a day until they die.


Where are they the other hour?


Generally speaking, this type of prisoner gets an hour outside their cell to wander around a small courtyard and maybe use a phone to place a collect call or two. They HAVE to get outside time, to feel the sunshine, etc. It's the law.
myself
Posted: Thursday, July 8, 2010 7:47:14 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/17/2010
Posts: 966
Location: .showyourdick.org/
This subject is a as difficult as any that involves taking life. I believe we all have a personal right to take a stand on one side or the other.

The question I have is, if we're on the mercy side, which is the hard option I believe because along with this belief, we would have to figure out and work at, how to deal with people's misgivings which have been handed down from others for generations and will continue to be handed down to future generations for all time if intervention is not applied or, if on the death side, which is a bleak fix in my opinion, do we continue this war of destruction within the societies between the good and evil, each killing off as many as possible in self defense?





Torture the data long enough and they will confess to anything.
Guest
Posted: Thursday, July 8, 2010 12:45:41 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 781,602
You Americans are so primitive I really wonder and worry about your status as a major world power.

In my eyes - and yes I have visited your country on a few occasions - you really haven't advanced culturally beyond your pioneer years. What sort of society in the 21st century permits its members to bear arms without question? Give a person a right to possess a gun and for sure sooner or later he'll use it. Don't bother questioning the regime in Iran Certainly it wouldn't happen here in Great Britain. Similarly what sort of country - takes its worst criminals and says to them 'OK ... you have murdered ... therefore the state is going to murder you ... sounds a bit hypocritical to me - and most of my generation.

Capitol punishment was outlawed in this country in the late fifties. You guys should note that two wrongs don't make a right. Capital punishment never sorted anything .... and what happens when twenty or thirty years later, the executed person (through advances in forencis science) is subsequently found to be innocent? I can quote many cases from here in Uk where prisoners have been exonerated after many years inside, ... but if they'd been executed what then?
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, July 8, 2010 12:57:53 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
Laurenxxx wrote:
You Americans are so primitive I really wonder and worry about your status as a major world power.

In my eyes - and yes I have visited your country on a few occasions - you really haven't advanced culturally beyond your pioneer years. What sort of society in the 21st century permits its members to bear arms without question? Give a person a right to possess a gun and for sure sooner or later he'll use it. Don't bother questioning the regime in Iran Certainly it wouldn't happen here in Great Britain. Similarly what sort of country - takes its worst criminals and says to them 'OK ... you have murdered ... therefore the state is going to murder you ... sounds a bit hypocritical to me - and most of my generation.

Capitol punishment was outlawed in this country in the late fifties. You guys should note that two wrongs don't make a right. Capital punishment never sorted anything .... and what happens when twenty or thirty years later, the executed person (through advances in forencis science) is subsequently found to be innocent? I can quote many cases from here in Uk where prisoners have been exonerated after many years inside, ... but if they'd been executed what then?


The politics of the US being a world power is best covered in another thread, but certainly not in this one. Otherwise, I'm sure you've noticed that lots of Americans- including me- oppose it, and I think you might be right that more people in our generation oppose it than in generations past. But to say it's a sign that 'we' in America are primitive (yep, all of us, right?) is just picking a fight, not to mention willfully ignoring states in the US that already outlaw it and tens of thousands here that oppose it, Lauren. You're smart enough to know that a government's positions doesn't necessarily reflect the people in that country.

I think you'll find yourself in agreement with lots of people wordwide, both in countries that still perform executions, and those that don't.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, July 8, 2010 2:07:09 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,226
Location: United States
LadyX wrote:
Laurenxxx wrote:
You Americans are so primitive I really wonder and worry about your status as a major world power.

In my eyes - and yes I have visited your country on a few occasions - you really haven't advanced culturally beyond your pioneer years. What sort of society in the 21st century permits its members to bear arms without question? Give a person a right to possess a gun and for sure sooner or later he'll use it. Don't bother questioning the regime in Iran Certainly it wouldn't happen here in Great Britain. Similarly what sort of country - takes its worst criminals and says to them 'OK ... you have murdered ... therefore the state is going to murder you ... sounds a bit hypocritical to me - and most of my generation.

Capitol punishment was outlawed in this country in the late fifties. You guys should note that two wrongs don't make a right. Capital punishment never sorted anything .... and what happens when twenty or thirty years later, the executed person (through advances in forencis science) is subsequently found to be innocent? I can quote many cases from here in Uk where prisoners have been exonerated after many years inside, ... but if they'd been executed what then?


The politics of the US being a world power is best covered in another thread, but certainly not in this one. Otherwise, I'm sure you've noticed that lots of Americans- including me- oppose it, and I think you might be right that more people in our generation oppose it than in generations past. But to say it's a sign that 'we' in America are primitive (yep, all of us, right?) is just picking a fight, not to mention willfully ignoring states in the US that already outlaw it and tens of thousands here that oppose it, Lauren. You're smart enough to know that a government's positions doesn't necessarily reflect the people in that country.

I think you'll find yourself in agreement with lots of people wordwide, both in countries that still perform executions, and those that don't.


The gun rights battle has been fought here already, Lauren. Feel free to put in your two pence, but do it in the proper thread! (LOL)

As far as being "primitive", I must take exception. We strive to provide the greatest amount of personal freedom and liberty for all - citizens and visitors alike. Our justice system is based on the idea that it's better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be hanged. It's possible we could learn a lesson from Great Britain (where a man can break into a home to rob it, and when the homeowner detains the criminal, or defends himself, the HOMEOWNER is put in jail) but what lesson would we be learning? Is it "justice" when the yobs can mug little old ladies, but when she tries to defend herself, she gets locked up and the yob goes free?

I believe wholeheartedly that no person should ever be executed without 100% proof that he or she is guilty of a heinous crime, and convincing argument that he or she will forever be a threat to modern society. We don't execute people as a means of punishment, or deterrence... we do it to remove a threat to society. IN my opinion, if a person is a threat, then he should be excised like a cancer.

BTW - Great banner, Lady X. I love it!
Rembacher
Posted: Thursday, July 8, 2010 2:25:34 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
MrNudiePants wrote:
As far as being "primitive", I must take exception. We strive to provide the greatest amount of personal freedom and liberty for all - citizens and visitors alike. Our justice system is based on the idea that it's better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be hanged. It's possible we could learn a lesson from Great Britain (where a man can break into a home to rob it, and when the homeowner detains the criminal, or defends himself, the HOMEOWNER is put in jail) but what lesson would we be learning? Is it "justice" when the yobs can mug little old ladies, but when she tries to defend herself, she gets locked up and the yob goes free?


I've never been to England, but I'm curious where you get your information. From what I can find, citizen's arrests are permitted using a reasonable amount of force. Which is the same as Canada, and I believe the same as the US as well. http://www.thesite.org/homelawandmoney/law/crimefacts/citizensarrest

I agree Lauren went a little far with her comments, but I do have to wonder, how much less barbaric is watching someone be electrocuted, or given the lethal injection, than when people used to watch a hanging, or even participate in a stoning? Why is an audience allowed for executions if it is strictly to rid society of a threat?
MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, July 8, 2010 2:57:30 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,226
Location: United States
Jebru wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:
As far as being "primitive", I must take exception. We strive to provide the greatest amount of personal freedom and liberty for all - citizens and visitors alike. Our justice system is based on the idea that it's better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be hanged. It's possible we could learn a lesson from Great Britain (where a man can break into a home to rob it, and when the homeowner detains the criminal, or defends himself, the HOMEOWNER is put in jail) but what lesson would we be learning? Is it "justice" when the yobs can mug little old ladies, but when she tries to defend herself, she gets locked up and the yob goes free?


I've never been to England, but I'm curious where you get your information. From what I can find, citizen's arrests are permitted using a reasonable amount of force. Which is the same as Canada, and I believe the same as the US as well. http://www.thesite.org/homelawandmoney/law/crimefacts/citizensarrest

I agree Lauren went a little far with her comments, but I do have to wonder, how much less barbaric is watching someone be electrocuted, or given the lethal injection, than when people used to watch a hanging, or even participate in a stoning? Why is an audience allowed for executions if it is strictly to rid society of a threat?


The audience is not "allowed" but required to ensure that the execution is carried out in accordance with the law.

As for the rest...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1215025/Father-arrested-carrying-citizens-arrest-yobs-threw-apples-wife.html
Quote:
But despite four 999 calls no officers turned up to his house. When they did arrive five days later, it was Mr Digby that was arrested.
The courier driver, 49, said: ' People who stand up for their own rights face a criminal record, while the perpetrators get off. I am totally disgusted by this. The police have just hung me out to dry.




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1185026/Father-arrested-assault-bottle-attack-yobs-nearly-blinds-him.html

Quote:

A homeowner who confronted vandals outside his home was nearly blinded by a blow with a bottle - and was then arrested by police answering his wife's 999 call.
Father-of-two Andy Sawyer suffered a deep gash to an eyelid before managing to chase the drunken louts from outside his home.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1033266/Yobs-threw-rocks-house-years-But-father-fought-arrested.html


Quote:

For more than two years, Sydney Davis's house has been under siege from youths throwing stones.
After two hours of bombardment in the latest attack and no sign of the police, the 65-year-old retired builder decided enough was enough.
As a particularly large missile landed in his kitchen, he grabbed a plank of wood from the garden and ran towards the gang to scare them away.

The police arrived just in time - to arrest Mr Davis for possession of an offensive weapon.
He now faces up to six months in prison. Yesterday Mr Davis said he was bewildered by the decision to prosecute him.



Want more examples? In many of the cases can easily find, the arrested person is released... eventually. In may more, they face the full prosecution of the Crown. Is this the kind of "justice" we should be striving for here?
Rembacher
Posted: Thursday, July 8, 2010 3:20:28 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
You do realise that your second article says that the police admit to making a mistake in arresting the man, and apologised, right? That's not an example of how the law works in England, that is an example of a police officer who made a mistake.

The crab apple incident depends on the level of force used. I don't know about in the US, but if 999 in England is similar to 911 in Canada, the police would consider being pelted with crab apples as a nuisance crime, and not the emergency that 911 is set up for. I'm not even sure what you would charge the kids with, harassment? Yes, the police should have shown up earlier, but again, the article doesn't dispute the man's right to make the arrest.

The final article you cite, where the man grabbed a piece of wood, is interesting. The article doesn't really cover why the police did not arrest any youths. The rock pictured in the article is quite a large rock, which could do damage, but I think it would depend on the age of the youths. 13 year old kids throwing rocks, then a full grown man weilding a piece of wood like that seems excessive. If they are 17 or 18, then it seems like a more reasonable response. I think once again that case is an issue of level of force, compared to the level of threat, rather than whether or not citizen's are allowed to defend themselves.
Rembacher
Posted: Thursday, July 8, 2010 3:30:47 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
How many articles like this http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/Homeowner_Charged_for_Shooting_Intruder_091009 would I need to post to get you to believe the same of the US, as you are tryng to convince me of for England?
Playmale
Posted: Thursday, July 8, 2010 3:50:05 PM

Rank: Smiley Guru

Joined: 7/16/2008
Posts: 551
Location: United States
Jebru wrote:
How many articles like this http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/Homeowner_Charged_for_Shooting_Intruder_091009 would I need to post to get you to believe the same of the US, as you are tryng to convince me of for England?


That guy messed up. In the US we all know that if you shoot an intruder as he leaving your house, you drag him back in before calling authorities to come clean him up.

I learned that in public shcool in about 7th grade.

Rembacher
Posted: Thursday, July 8, 2010 4:04:47 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,107
MrNudiePants wrote:
Jebru wrote:
MrNudiePants wrote:
As far as being "primitive", I must take exception. We strive to provide the greatest amount of personal freedom and liberty for all - citizens and visitors alike. Our justice system is based on the idea that it's better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be hanged. It's possible we could learn a lesson from Great Britain (where a man can break into a home to rob it, and when the homeowner detains the criminal, or defends himself, the HOMEOWNER is put in jail) but what lesson would we be learning? Is it "justice" when the yobs can mug little old ladies, but when she tries to defend herself, she gets locked up and the yob goes free?


I've never been to England, but I'm curious where you get your information. From what I can find, citizen's arrests are permitted using a reasonable amount of force. Which is the same as Canada, and I believe the same as the US as well. http://www.thesite.org/homelawandmoney/law/crimefacts/citizensarrest

I agree Lauren went a little far with her comments, but I do have to wonder, how much less barbaric is watching someone be electrocuted, or given the lethal injection, than when people used to watch a hanging, or even participate in a stoning? Why is an audience allowed for executions if it is strictly to rid society of a threat?


The audience is not "allowed" but required to ensure that the execution is carried out in accordance with the law.



How many people are required to ensure this? Surely only the judge who ordered the execution would be needed, not the victim's family and friends.
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, July 8, 2010 4:12:00 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,804
Jebru wrote:
Quote:


The audience is not "allowed" but required to ensure that the execution is carried out in accordance with the law.



How many people are required to ensure this? Surely only the judge who ordered the execution would be needed, not the victim's family and friends.


Somebody else might know better, but I bet the family is offered the chance to be there as a courtesy, in case it helps them to find 'closure' in the whole thing. I'm sure some find that barbaric, or primitive, or evidence that the US is somehow not as culturally advanced, but if I weren't opposed to the death penalty and it was my mom, or sister, or child that was brutally murdered, maybe it would help me to move on if I see justice performed on the criminal who took their life. I'm sure that's true for some, anyway.

(by the way, that's not an invitation to debate the use of the word 'justice' evil4 )
DamonX
Posted: Thursday, July 8, 2010 5:28:44 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 798
LadyX wrote:
Jebru wrote:
Quote:


The audience is not "allowed" but required to ensure that the execution is carried out in accordance with the law.



How many people are required to ensure this? Surely only the judge who ordered the execution would be needed, not the victim's family and friends.


Somebody else might know better, but I bet the family is offered the chance to be there as a courtesy, in case it helps them to find 'closure' in the whole thing. I'm sure some find that barbaric, or primitive, or evidence that the US is somehow not as culturally advanced, but if I weren't opposed to the death penalty and it was my mom, or sister, or child that was brutally murdered, maybe it would help me to move on if I see justice performed on the criminal who took their life. I'm sure that's true for some, anyway.

(by the way, that's not an invitation to debate the use of the word 'justice' evil4 )


Yeah, some of the victim's immediate family are given the choice of viewing the execution. I think the only people that have a professional obligation to view are representatives for the defence council and prosecution.
js3091
Posted: Thursday, July 8, 2010 6:19:33 PM

Rank: Active Ink Slinger

Joined: 7/18/2009
Posts: 22
Location: tennessee
Dancing_Doll wrote:
I am pro capital punishment for major crimes where there is a high level of evidence and confidence in the person's guilt and where the crime was of malicious intent.

I am against long wait times for execution where someone sits on death row for 10 years going through endless appeals, and using taxpayer money waiting for the inevitable.

I would also be 'pro' situations where prisoners would like to choose capital punishment due to their own feelings of guilt, or lack of desire to serve a life sentence behind bars.

I wouldn't want to see capital punishment automatically enforced in situations where there was some level of reasonable doubt or let's say where an abused woman or child killed their abuser... but extreme cases of cold blooded murder should carry an automatic death sentence. Basically because I think it's better that justice be carried out legally versus me having to pay off an insider to do the job if someone were to have killed my loved one.

In prison these days, you can get a correspondence based university education, make friends, work out, use the computer, and even correspond with pen-pal lovers that you can marry and enjoy conjugal visits with. All on taxpayer dollars! I think that system is way too lax. It's an easier life for a convicted criminal than for many homeless people in today's society.


no offence to you DD but alot of times a judge will sentence someone to 10 yrs in prison + death row which means they spend their time in prison then get executed but i am also for capital punishment i have the same views if it is an abused victim or such but i also disagree on your opinion if they are sentenced to life and want to die....because if it is my mom or someone that is killed and the killer gets life in prison i want him to sit in prison for the rest of his sorry life and think about how he ruined my life
MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, July 8, 2010 8:35:22 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,226
Location: United States
Jebru wrote:
How many articles like this http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/Homeowner_Charged_for_Shooting_Intruder_091009 would I need to post to get you to believe the same of the US, as you are tryng to convince me of for England?


You're comparing apples and oranges. In your story, a man shot someone in the back who was running away from him. This is NOT self defense. In the stories I posted, all the people arrested were the VICTIMS of violence, who had just decided that they had had enough and wanted to end the attacks. This IS self defense. Yes, as I already said, in some cases, the charges were dropped. There are many more where the victims were sent to prison. I could search more telling stories if I wanted - like the homeowner that was charged with murder when he shot an armed burglar that threatened his life and that of his wife. Or the little old lady that was mugged by the yobs, who had the audacity to strike one of the cretins on the shoulder, whereupon SHE was sent to jail. My point is, in America, we have long-standing ideals that a man's home is his castle, and that he should be able to use whatever force is needed to defend himself, his loved ones, or even a total stranger, if need be. Canadians have a very similar attitude. In Great Britain, they seem to pay lip service to this ideal, while in practice it's a different story.
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Thursday, July 8, 2010 8:35:27 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde
Moderator

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 7,185
Location: Your dirty fantasy
js3091 wrote:
Dancing_Doll wrote:
I am pro capital punishment for major crimes where there is a high level of evidence and confidence in the person's guilt and where the crime was of malicious intent.

I am against long wait times for execution where someone sits on death row for 10 years going through endless appeals, and using taxpayer money waiting for the inevitable.

I would also be 'pro' situations where prisoners would like to choose capital punishment due to their own feelings of guilt, or lack of desire to serve a life sentence behind bars.

I wouldn't want to see capital punishment automatically enforced in situations where there was some level of reasonable doubt or let's say where an abused woman or child killed their abuser... but extreme cases of cold blooded murder should carry an automatic death sentence. Basically because I think it's better that justice be carried out legally versus me having to pay off an insider to do the job if someone were to have killed my loved one.

In prison these days, you can get a correspondence based university education, make friends, work out, use the computer, and even correspond with pen-pal lovers that you can marry and enjoy conjugal visits with. All on taxpayer dollars! I think that system is way too lax. It's an easier life for a convicted criminal than for many homeless people in today's society.


no offence to you DD but alot of times a judge will sentence someone to 10 yrs in prison + death row which means they spend their time in prison then get executed but i am also for capital punishment i have the same views if it is an abused victim or such but i also disagree on your opinion if they are sentenced to life and want to die....because if it is my mom or someone that is killed and the killer gets life in prison i want him to sit in prison for the rest of his sorry life and think about how he ruined my life


No offense taken. I totally understand the revenge factor. Having not been in that situation (of having had a loved one murdered), it's hard for me to make a solid judgment on how I would feel. But I see it as more about efficiency in the system versus legitimacy of fulfilling the revenge factor. I just think that the logistics of the cost involved in maintaining a life in limbo (waiting for a natural death) makes less sense than in moving things forward if there is no chance for life beyond bars.


MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, July 8, 2010 8:40:04 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,226
Location: United States
DamonX wrote:
LadyX wrote:
Jebru wrote:
Quote:


The audience is not "allowed" but required to ensure that the execution is carried out in accordance with the law.



How many people are required to ensure this? Surely only the judge who ordered the execution would be needed, not the victim's family and friends.


Somebody else might know better, but I bet the family is offered the chance to be there as a courtesy, in case it helps them to find 'closure' in the whole thing. I'm sure some find that barbaric, or primitive, or evidence that the US is somehow not as culturally advanced, but if I weren't opposed to the death penalty and it was my mom, or sister, or child that was brutally murdered, maybe it would help me to move on if I see justice performed on the criminal who took their life. I'm sure that's true for some, anyway.

(by the way, that's not an invitation to debate the use of the word 'justice' evil4 )


Yeah, some of the victim's immediate family are given the choice of viewing the execution. I think the only people that have a professional obligation to view are representatives for the defence council and prosecution.


Possibly, representatives from the Governor's office will be present, since the Governor is the only person who can issue a stay of execution. Prison staff, certainly. Medical staff. The Executioner. What difference does it make how many people are "needed?" The condemned man gave up his right to privacy when he committed whatever act earned him his sentence. He did "earn" it, you know. It's not something that was bestowed upon him out of caprice.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.