Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If your only issue is setting murderers free, you could just say, "I advocate life sentences without the possibility of parole. I do not advocate the death penalty." But that's not what I keep hearing. So what's your reason for continuing to advocate it?

I don't know why humans die.

I advocate for what I think is best for society. If that means capital punishment than so be it. It is not so much of an advocation, however, as it is a recognition that setting them free is far worse.

The reason I ask about sin and death is because in a way God has sentenced us to death because of our sin, or at least in the Biblical tradition. I assumed from your posts that in your mind punishment and vengence are incapatible with a loving God. I assume that stories such as Noah's flood and Sodom and Ghomorah were nothing more than fictional stories with spritiaul insights of some kind. However, I view such stories in much the same light as attempting to protect society from killers via capital punishment. It is not desirable but what of the rest of creation whom God loves? Does he throw them all to the wolves? I say that God is long suffering and does not wish to do so. Just look at the evidence for his long suffering with all the wickedness in the world today. However, I say there is a line to cross and they crossed it. I also think the story of Cain and Able should be recognized for what it is. Murder is serious business or at least in the eyes of the Almighty.

Originally posted by whodey
I advocate for what I think is best for society. If that means capital punishment than so be it. It is not so much of an advocation, however, as it is a recognition that setting them free is far worse.

The reason I ask about sin and death is because in a way God has sentenced us to death because of our sin, or at least in the Biblical tradition. I assum recognized for what it is. Murder is serious business or at least in the eyes of the Almighty.

How can your response to this:
If your only issue is setting murderers free, you could just say, "I advocate life sentences without the possibility of parole. I do not advocate the death penalty." But that's not what I keep hearing. So what's your reason for continuing to advocate it?


Be this:
I advocate for what I think is best for society. If that means capital punishment than so be it. It is not so much of an advocation, however, as it is a recognition that setting them free is far worse.


Do you not understand the concept of "life sentence without the possibility of parole"?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
How can your response to this:
[b]If your only issue is setting murderers free, you could just say, "I advocate life sentences without the possibility of parole. I do not advocate the death penalty." But that's not what I keep hearing. So what's your reason for continuing to advocate it?


Be this:
I advocate for what I think is best for soci you still continue to ignore the issue of executing the innocent. You're unbelievable...

Do I give you a headache? Sorry.

I don't mean to add to your headache but I have to ask, what about issues related to putting murderers altogether into the prison system? I once saw a movie about a man who was convicted of a crime even though he was innocent and it was based upon a true story. While in prison he was confronted by a group of men who attempted to rape him and he felt forced into kill their leader or face continued attempted assults until they were successful. This is just a taste of what goes on behind prison bars. I suppose you could sentence them all to solitary confinement, however, this is usually a punishment for ill behavior in prison because we are social beings.

Although the man was innocent of murder before he went into prison he was guilty of it after he had later been found innocent of his charges and released. Had you ever thought of such issues?

Originally posted by whodey
Do I give you a headache? Sorry.

I don't mean to add to your headache but I have to ask, what about issues related to putting murderers altogether into the prison system? I once saw a movie about a man who was convicted of a crime even though he was innocent and it was based upon a true story. While in prison he was confronted by a group of men who a ...[text shortened]... ad later been found innocent of his charges and released. Had you ever thought of such issues?

Once again:

How can your response to this:
If your only issue is setting murderers free, you could just say, "I advocate life sentences without the possibility of parole. I do not advocate the death penalty." But that's not what I keep hearing. So what's your reason for continuing to advocate it?


Be this:
I advocate for what I think is best for society. If that means capital punishment than so be it. It is not so much of an advocation, however, as it is a recognition that setting them free is far worse.


Do you not understand the concept of "life sentence without the possibility of parole"?

Really, I insist you post a thoughtful answer. I'd like to know you've actually read and thought about ONE post of mine.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Do you not understand the concept of "life sentence without the possibility of parole"?

As I said before, if this is possible perhaps this is best. I think we can both agree, however, that this usually does not happen and that the system does not work currently and needs reform or at least in the states where I live.

Originally posted by whodey
As I said before, if this is possible perhaps this is best. I think we can both agree, however, that this usually does not happen and that the system does not work currently and needs reform or at least in the states where I live.

I took a look at your chess rating. I have to believe you're more than capable of something more thoughtful than this. Really, the ENTIRE post.

Originally posted by whodey
Sure people can change but as I said before, we do our best simply to prove that they comitted these crimes so who is going to be the "change police". I say if you do the crime you do the time. For example, if I stole something from you I may be sorry for doing so and you may even forgive me, but I should be held accountable for my actions anyway.

Well yes, but this is quite different from supporting the death penalty. Your issue is just with the length of sentence and the possibility of parole. The choice you present is a false one, since there are other options.

Incidentally, I think you'll find the rates of reoffending for murderers are among the lowest for any category of criminal. The proportion that go on to commit further murders is tiny (I think it was 1 out of about 1,250 paroled murderers in one study; I'll try to dig it out). The existing "change police" seem to be doing a reasonable job, no?

Originally posted by dottewell
Well yes, but this is quite different from supporting the death penalty. Your issue is just with the length of sentence and the possibility of parole. The choice you present is a false one, since there are other options.

Incidentally, I think you'll find the rates of reoffending for murderers are among the lowest for any category of criminal. The propor ...[text shortened]... I'll try to dig it out). The existing "change police" seem to be doing a reasonable job, no?

I would like to see those statistics. Much of what I am saying stems from statistics that I have heard in regards to mandatory sentencing for criminal activity in general. They found that when judges no longer had the oppurtunity to let criminals go free sooner than later that the overall crime percentage dropped dramatically within the repsective states. Now there is a shocker, no? I will try and find those statistics as well.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I took a look at your chess rating. I have to believe you're more than capable of something more thoughtful than this. Really, the ENTIRE post.

Who says a chess rating has anything to do with my intelligence? Perhaps you outshine me in every intellectual category other than playing chess.

Originally posted by whodey
I would like to see those statistics. Much of what I am saying stems from statistics that I have heard in regards to mandatory sentencing for criminal activity in general. They found that when judges no longer had the oppurtunity to let criminals go free sooner than later that the overall crime percentage dropped dramatically within the repsective states. Now there is a shocker, no? I will try and find those statistics as well.

Okay, well I clearly made up that figure...

But still:

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a718864882~db=all

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1988.tb00859.x

http://www.justice.org.uk/images/pdfs/12inter.PDF


...and so on.

What statistics are you going on?

Originally posted by whodey
I would like to see those statistics. Much of what I am saying stems from statistics that I have heard in regards to mandatory sentencing for criminal activity in general. They found that when judges no longer had the oppurtunity to let criminals go free sooner than later that the overall crime percentage dropped dramatically within the repsective states. Now there is a shocker, no? I will try and find those statistics as well.

Do those statistics count the crimes committed inside prisons? How prevalent were non-violent drug related crimes in those statistics?

Originally posted by dottewell
What statistics are you going on?[/b]

Well I have not had much time to look very many articles up on the web but I ran across this one.

http://www.urban.org/publications/307337.html

In the article it states that not all crimes are of equal origin. For example, drug use related crimes are different than non-drug related crimes. The overall results are mixed as to whether mandatory sentences decrease violent crime. This is mostly due to the fact that drug related crime seems to be largely uneffected if not increasing overall. Madatory sentences and getting tougher on violent crimes began in the 1990's and is compared to violent crime statistics before that time when criminals were sometimes shown leniancy and released earlier than they would be today. I liked one of the sentiments in the article which says, "The high value placed on human life ensures that incarcerating offenders is cost beneficial" In other words, even though mandatory sentences has sky rocketed the price of warehousing violent criminals, they are better off behind bars even if only one person benefits.

I think that the problem with drug use is twofold, however. On the one hand, you have criminals delivering drugs behind the scenes from other countries that are never apprehended. On the other hand you have a sustained level, if not increasing, level of drug dependent people running around the US that are out of control and, as a result, are more prone to violent and irrational behavior. Throw in the mix untold fortunes to be made in the process and you have yourself a living nightmare. It's kinda like the US in Iraq. We can only fight insurgents within Iraq even though the "Big Dogs" who are financing the insurgency and sending insurgents into Iraq come from neighboring countries with seemingly unlimited resources. It is a loose/loose never ending scenerio. To fight effectivly one must be alllowed to attack the source of such problems.

Originally posted by bbarr
Do those statistics count the crimes committed inside prisons? How prevalent were non-violent drug related crimes in those statistics?

There is no way for me to go back and recapture the statistics that I was referring to because I heard it on a news documentary. I think it was on front line. Oh well, I guess I will have to start from scratch. Your question does bring to mind, however, the need to assess crime inside the prisons. I think the general attitude for many is, "Who cares". However, I say that if you let a murderer continue living in prison that he will continue murderering in prison. The only difference is, no one cares. I doubt there is even enough interest to do statistical anaylsis on the subject. After all, they are largely a forgotten element of society. I suppose you could place murderers in solitary confinement but is this humane? I think one would go crazy....that is if they were not crazy to begin with.

Originally posted by whodey
Well I have not had much time to look very many articles up on the web but I ran across this one.

http://www.urban.org/publications/307337.html

In the article it states that not all crimes are of equal origin. For example, drug use related crimes are different than non-drug related crimes. The overall results are mixed as to whether mandatory sentence ...[text shortened]... scenerio. To fight effectivly one must be alllowed to attack the source of such problems.

But there's a difference between a mandatory sentence for murder and a full-life sentence. So I'm not sure of the value of this study to our current debate.

Originally posted by dottewell
But there's a difference between a mandatory sentence for murder and a full-life sentence. So I'm not sure of the value of this study to our current debate.

I was merely attemting to show that increased sentences decrease criminal activity. That is why I used the article.