ROFL! The end result of the decades of well-intentioned work and research done by criminologists, psychologists, social workers, doctors, philosophers, theologians, and law enforcement to "reduce the production of serious criminals in our society" is all you have to fall back on? Yeah, as we can see every day, thanks to their stunning successes we live in a society blissfully free from the worries of murder, rape, child molestation and drugs. Boy I feel better now, dGAB, thanks!! p.s. I thought you had the resident ET genius on ignore? Damn right capital punishment has worked on crime. Those who have been executed will not commit the crime again. Even you, feeble-minded as you may be, must recognize that. Ordinarily you are merely insane, but you do have lucid moments when you are only stupid.
Sadly you are correct. I'm not in favor of life without parole, for the following reasons: 1) It doesn't solve the problem of such prisoners who murder prison guards and other inmates (whom, as you pointed out earlier, may be incarcerated for non-violent offenses). 2) It doesn't solve the problem of escapees who then commit murder. 3) Laws change, parole boards change, and thus life without the possibility of parole can be changed. Review the case of James Moore, who raped and strangled 14-year-old Pamela Moss. Her parents decided to spare Moore the death penalty on the condition that he be sentenced to life in prison without parole. Later on, thanks to a change in sentencing laws, James Moore is/was eligible for parole every two years. (I do not know the current situation in that case; I note it only to illustrate that even a sentence of life without parole can be changed.) 4) The economic costs society pays to hold a prisoner as I've illustrated in a previous post. If public safety is truly of paramount importance, capital punishment is undoubtedly the best solution because not only does it prevent the criminal from committing another crime(s), it also prevents flawed parole boards and lawyers from giving him another chance to prey on the public.
1) Prison guards take the job knowing the risks. So do policemen, firemen, soldiers, etc. Prison is a dangerous place, that could be made safer. I am in favor of prison reform, who isn't? 2) At what rate in the past 20 years have we had escapees who then commit murder versus death row inmates verdicts being overturned due to new evidence? 3) Laws do change. Up until now we haven't found a way to undo death of those who did not deserve to die based on evidence uncovered after their death that would have cleared them. Laws can change, often for good reason. Life without parole does keep people from killing members of society. 4) It makes no sense economically to keep terminal patients alive who are in comas, mentally retarded people who cost the society millions, etc. either. As long as you are so concerned with life, do some research on murder per capita rates in countries that have gun control versus the USA. I think you will find that there is a correlation between gun control and murder. It is one thing to get angry and try to kill someone, but a loaded gun makes the job a whole lot easier. I seriously doubt that you would be for gun control, it doesn't fit the M.O. of your politics. Rare is it for a capital punishment proponent to be in favor of gun control. Funny, you can usually predict the following: Born again, anti abortion, pro capital punishment, NRA supporter.....
I suppose that would comply with a trader's reasoning. You go short, someone takes a long to fill your short position. The market moves up, they take your money. So easy, isn't it? Life is a zero sum game....
That doesn't obliviate the fact that life without parole is not the cure-all you seem to think it is. Prison reform has been an issue in this country for decades and the situation has only gotten worse. I don't know. Maybe you can do that research. That it happens at all is a travesty, and you are now veering into the realm of what-ifs when this thread implicitly began with the explicit criteria of discussing cases of those who are undoubtedly guilty. See above. LOL! Economics are not the sole basis for my argument. The monetary costs of terminal patients and mentally-challenged people would be a fine subject for you start another thread on. The rest of your post is also rife with other possible thread subjects. Please do start them if you feel so inclined. And BTW, I'm not born-again. [/B][/QUOTE]
Rarely are decisions that involve life and death perfect. It is not a perfect choice. Choosing life without parole is not without risk, but neither is capital punishment without the risk of making a mistake with some citizen's life. In the bigger scheme of our society, life without parole is a risk I am willing to take over the death penalty. As I have said before, in a rational state of mind, I could not pull the switch and kill someone unless it were in self defense, or to protect members of my family. I continue to hold that since it is a "penalty phase" that life in a cell with no possibility for escape is a better penalty than death.
Then you place the rights of criminals above the lives of your fellow citizens. 13,000 lives, to be more precise. That is the approximate number of Americans murdered each year by paroled and released criminals. Capital punishment is exactly that - a means of self-defense and to protect members of your family!!!!
When a person kills... or does other evil, violent things to a person or person what they in effect are saying is that human beings have no value. Why not take them up on their statement(actions). To me, a reasonable alternative to state sanctioned murder would be complete isolation. No contact with any other human beings whatsoever. Perhaps not even any pseudo contact, either, such as tv, and so on. Some people are quite comfortable in prison(when Charles Manson was released from prison once he asked if he had to leave). This treatment would certainly not be something anyone would choose conciously, no matter how far gone they might be. The reasons why captial punishment is a bad idea are too numerous to mention. This isolation idea is really just a modern day update of the tribal shunning that has been recorded throughout the millenia. It seems to me a reasonable alternative to the tremendous expense, example of brutality, political considerations, etc., that are a part of every capital case. I'd be curious to hear what others think. Alan