Because there’s a swordsman shortage. So they may have to start shooting them instead.
Link
It doesn’t have quite the same flair and panache as the old neck chop, but when you gotta exacute a guy you gotta exacute a guy.
Shooting people instead of beheading them is a progress. They have a long way to go but at least they seem to be moving in the right direction.
All kidding aside, at least the Saudis are honest about their barbarism. Just because in the US we hide behind all kinds of formalities and sanitize the process doesn’t make the end result or the barbarism any different.
Sr. Member Total Posts: 275 Joined 2012-04-25 All kidding aside, at least the Saudis are honest about their barbarism. Just because in the US we hide behind all kinds of formalities and sanitize the process doesn’t make the end result or the barbarism any different.Where in the US do we chop off the hands of children for stealing or stone an adulterous woman to death? Where do the fundies execute us for apostasy or blasphemy? Cap't Jack
He's saying we sanitize the process by lethal injection or the electric chair, which is still barbarism, in our opinion (his and mine). The one thing he didn't clarify is the part about Fundies killing apostates or blasphemers or child thieves, or adulterous women. I'm wondering about that too. Maybe he's lumping it all into corporal punishment.Sr. Member Total Posts: 275 Joined 2012-04-25 All kidding aside, at least the Saudis are honest about their barbarism. Just because in the US we hide behind all kinds of formalities and sanitize the process doesn’t make the end result or the barbarism any different.Where in the US do we chop off the hands of children for stealing or stone an adulterous woman to death? Where do the fundies execute us for apostasy or blasphemy? Cap't Jack
Where do the fundies execute us for apostasy or blasphemy?Christian fundies would LIKE to do that here in the USA. All that's standing between them and making it happen is enforcement of the seperation clause of the 1st Amendment.
Um... I don't think my Fundamngelical mother wants to execute my sons or me, not even for being an apostate, despite the fact she says she's "disappointed" that we are not believers in Xianity. My older son calls himself a Tao Buddhist and my younger son says he's nothing, while I'm a humanist. She doesn't know or understand what Taoism, Buddhism, or humanism is because she's been shelter from other worldviews all her life and believes any other belief, besides Xianity, means one is going to hell, which frightens her greatly. She cries because she believes she will not see us in heaven, but she doesn't want us dead. She believes, as long as we are alive, we can still be saved. She also didn't want to see my great uncle (my grandfather's brother), an atheist, dead, any more than my grandfather did, either. So to say Xian fundies would like to execute apostates etc is stereotyping.Where do the fundies execute us for apostasy or blasphemy?Christian fundies would LIKE to do that here in the USA. All that's standing between them and making it happen is enforcement of the seperation clause of the 1st Amendment.
Because there's a swordsman shortage. So they may have to start shooting them instead. Link It doesn't have quite the same flair and panache as the old neck chop, but when you gotta exacute a guy you gotta exacute a guy.They may stop the beheadings, though I doubt they will even go that far, they won't stop the killings. Will the people be any less dead for being killed by another means than beheading? Another question: will they stop stoning women for things men are not even criticized for, and will they stop killing and maiming children? Stopping beheading is only the tiniest beginning of becoming barely civilized. They have a long, long, long way to go. Lois
He’s saying we sanitize the process by lethal injection or the electric chair, which is still barbarism, in our opinion (his and mine). The one thing he didn’t clarify is the part about Fundies killing apostates or blasphemers or child thieves, or adulterous women. I’m wondering about that too. Maybe he’s lumping it all into corporal punishment.I really have mixed feelings about capital punishment; on the one hand the old "eye for an eye" adage seems extreme, but on the other there are psychopaths among us (e.g. The one recently caught who intended to stalk women, torture, rape then kill and eat them) who, if not incarcerated for life will be released to prey on us once again. It's a real delimma for me as several members of my family have been police officers, including my Grandfather and both of his brothers and I have first hand stories of thrill killers, those who kill for fun. As to sanitizing the process, I agree. It is barbaric in the extreme. That's why Manson and his "family" are still living in cages. One wonders how many of these cages we'll be able to fund in the near future. Cap't Jack
I say rid ourselves of them. The various psychopaths, sociopaths, and the like. We’re simply draining our resources and wasting our time keeping them in their cages. Just execute them and be done with it.
One of the women recently died of untreated brain cancer. They refused to treat her because she was serving a life-sentence for the deaths of Folgers (coffee heiress) and others. While the state of CA declared capital punishment was unethical and allowed them to live their lives in prison, how ethical was it to let the woman painfully die of brain cancer? IMHO, it was not ethical either. They should have at least gave her pain medicine OR did a Dr Korvorkian (sp?) on her. IMHO, there is also a difference between euthanasia and capital punishment too. We allow our pets better than that, by giving them quality of life, instead of quantity. When they are sick, with no hope of recovery and/or quality of life, we inject them with a fast acting "death serum", sometimes used for capital punishment. This woman was given quantity, but not quality in prison, which is also barbaric IMO, but what if we changed the use of "lethal injection", making it more like what we do for our chronically ill pets, destined for a painful death, without any more quality of life? I believe life in prison is far more humane than capital punishment, BUT as you mentioned, how many cages can we afford to fund in the future? How many can we justify giving quantity of life, instead of quality, in the case of chronic deadly illnesses, such as cancer? The good news is, that there is a very small percentage of pathological serial killers. Some people commit murder once, for various reasons, and go on to be good citizens, without being serial killers, like the Manson family were. However, these women were very young, impressionable, and high-risk individuals when they committed these murders. I've read and listened to three of the women's stories and those three women ran from home, encouraged to use drugs by Manson, among other things. He basically became a very influential, brainwashing, abusive "father-figure" in their young lives (granted, they were in their late teens, early 20s, but their home life was allegedly not a good one, making them "at risk"). Should we release the remaining aged Manson women into society and give them a second chance in their old age? No, but I think we are smart enough to think of other ways house and treat the aged and/or chronically ill criminals in prison. Euthanasia for those like the one with brain cancer might be a start. The survival rate for brain cancer is very low and the treatment, from what I seen of an adult friend in my childhood, is to cut away parts of their brains, leaving with no hearing, blindness, and eventually a "vegetable" in a retirement home, only to eventually die anyway. I doubt very little has changed in the treatment of brain cancer. Doesn't seem like a quality life even for those not in prison. Thus, euthanasia, IMO, would have been the best course of action, as well as more humane action, for the Manson woman who died of brain cancer. Her life was long since over anyway, given that she was serving a life sentence, but IMO, there is a vast difference between capital punishment and euthanasia, as well as quantity v quality of life, even in prison. Her life, with brain cancer, should not have been dragged out as long as it was, but the other women, not chronically, are aging. They also deserve quality over quantity, even in prison. This quality need not be the same as those on the outside. Just in basic health and care. They should still have the right to receive quality of life even in prison and not suffer, as did the woman with brain cancer did. A vet can give that much care to our pets, why not give that to life sentenced prisoners too? We can even lay out their illness to them, unlike our pets, giving them information they need to make the choice between euthanasia, there by quality of life, or quantity of life with traumatic pain until natural death. I bet many life serving convicts would voluntarily choose euthanasia, esp after being informed about their illness, esp in the case of cancer. This in itself would cut down some of the need for cages.He’s saying we sanitize the process by lethal injection or the electric chair, which is still barbarism, in our opinion (his and mine). The one thing he didn’t clarify is the part about Fundies killing apostates or blasphemers or child thieves, or adulterous women. I’m wondering about that too. Maybe he’s lumping it all into corporal punishment.I really have mixed feelings about capital punishment; on the one hand the old "eye for an eye" adage seems extreme, but on the other there are psychopaths among us (e.g. The one recently caught who intended to stalk women, torture, rape then kill and eat them) who, if not incarcerated for life will be released to prey on us once again. It's a real delimma for me as several members of my family have been police officers, including my Grandfather and both of his brothers and I have first hand stories of thrill killers, those who kill for fun. As to sanitizing the process, I agree. It is barbaric in the extreme. That's why Manson and his "family" are still living in cages. One wonders how many of these cages we'll be able to fund in the near future. Cap't Jack
First of all I was using the Mansion family as an example of long term confinement and not chronic psychopathic behavior. As to the woman who was allowed to die of brain cancer; the occasion should not have been used as an ultimate punishment. She should have been treated more humanely in accordance with her life sentence. I’m also aware of the drug culture and how it affects behavior, altering brain chemistry and temporarily creating a criminal. These people can be rehabilitated with proper treatment and some prisons have the facilities to return the individual back into society after serving their sentence and making restitution. My main concern is with the psychopathic criminals who, although in the minority, can never be rehabilitated and are a menace to society. Mansion himself stated that if he ever was released he would kill again. Some have actually killed fellow inmates and have no compunction to do so again as they are serving multiple life sentences.Also, maximum security prisons are very expensive and most states can’t afford to keep them open. Our gov. For instance has shut down prisons in the state and consolidated the smaller ones thus cutting down on guards and utilities. So, fewer guards, packed cells and extremely violent criminals, a formula for disaster and there are over 8 million of them incarcerated in US prisons. Euthanasia might be one solution for the extremely violent criminals for whom I have no sympathy even if their brain malfunction made them torture and kill. It may sound unethical and callous but they are true predators who kill with no regard for the law or human life.
Cap’t Jack
Another option we could give them, which could help humanity as a whole, in the case of a terminal illness (which is what I should said above, instead of chronic) is offer to them the opportunity to be human guinea pigs/lab rats and end other animal testing, which doesn’t always equate to [doesn’t] work for them, therefore could [not] work for us. If testing potential lifesaving treatments on them works, then we know, with more certainty, that it will work on other humans. If it doesn’t work or kills them, society and the life-sentenced prisoner are not worse off than before. Whether the experimental treatments work or not for terminal illnesses, such as cancer, they’d give something useful to society as volunteer lab rats. As you pointed out, Cap’t Jack, they are already in cages. They might as well make themselves useful, even if it means being a human lab rat. Voluntarily of course, thus they’d have 3 options in the case of a terminal illness- lab rat, euthanasia, or pain and suffering with quantity of life. I’m willing to be most of them may choose euthanasia, some may choose lab rat, but few would choose the last, esp if they are informed of the consequences of their choice, with no option to change their mind and choose one of the other two options. Once they choose and option, there’s no changing their minds. They must deal with the consequences of their choice. The first choice is final, no matter what, but the last two leave open the possibility of euthanasia, thus they cannot have that option and back out of it once they’ve made a decision. If they choose lab rat, then they will be treated as such, but that was their choice.
I’m basically against capital punishment. How to you correct the “mistakes” made in the criminal justice system of the an innocent person has been executed? As far as prison costs - decriminalize drugs as they did booze and the prision populations its costs as well as law enforcement costs and the murder rate will drop greatly.
First of all I was using the Mansion family as an example of long term confinement and not chronic psychopathic behavior. As to the woman who was allowed to die of brain cancer; the occasion should not have been used as an ultimate punishment. She should have been treated more humanely in accordance with her life sentence. I'm also aware of the drug culture and how it affects behavior, altering brain chemistry and temporarily creating a criminal. These people can be rehabilitated with proper treatment and some prisons have the facilities to return the individual back into society after serving their sentence and making restitution. My main concern is with the psychopathic criminals who, although in the minority, can never be rehabilitated and are a menace to society. Mansion himself stated that if he ever was released he would kill again. Some have actually killed fellow inmates and have no compunction to do so again as they are serving multiple life sentences.Also, maximum security prisons are very expensive and most states can't afford to keep them open. Our gov. For instance has shut down prisons in the state and consolidated the smaller ones thus cutting down on guards and utilities. So, fewer guards, packed cells and extremely violent criminals, a formula for disaster and there are over 8 million of them incarcerated in US prisons. Euthanasia might be one solution for the extremely violent criminals for whom I have no sympathy even if their brain malfunction made them torture and kill. It may sound unethical and callous but they are true predators who kill with no regard for the law or human life. Cap't JackI agree. Euthanasia is one option, esp in the case of a terminal illness. However, I think fewer guards and packed cells is not the answer. I'm also well aware of drug addicts who commit non-violent felony crimes (my younger son, sadly is one and the judge called his crimes non-violent). He's not serving a life-sentence nor did he kill anyone for his addictions. He's in a low security prison for stealing and forgery, but he is allegedly getting treatment. Unfortunately, some addicts do commit violent crimes. However, I'm not talking about addicts, but pathological serial killers (with or without drugs), such as the Manson, serving life-sentences. Those are the ones who should be given the options I mentioned, including and esp euthanasia. If they truly have no regard for human life, than faced with a terminal illness and maybe even chronic illnesses that will give them nothing but pain and suffering, they'll more than likely choose death, thereby decreasing the prison population. Those given a life sentence, their lives are over and at the very least, they should have the right to make end of life decisions for their lives. I do not believe people like the Mansons should be released out into society for any reason though.
I say rid ourselves of them. The various psychopaths, sociopaths, and the like. We're simply draining our resources and wasting our time keeping them in their cages. Just execute them and be done with it.And that makes you better than other apes how? That makes you better than the psychopaths and sociopaths how? It makes you better than religious fanatics who kill how?
I'm basically against capital punishment. How to you correct the "mistakes" made in the criminal justice system of the an innocent person has been executed? As far as prison costs - decriminalize drugs as they did booze and the prision populations its costs as well as law enforcement costs and the murder rate will drop greatly.Exactly! I do not advocate drug use, but decriminalizing drugs would be a very good start to decreasing the criminal population. My younger son, IMO, does not need to be in prison, despite the fact he stole money and forged a check to get money for drugs. He need treatment, which the law enforcers insist he'll get while in prison. I question that, but we'll see what happens. The fact remains, that people who abuse drugs need treatment, just as alcoholics do. Not 2, 4, 5 or 7 years in prison. What makes me angry, is there is a video of this dude in CA who committed murder. He received 4 years for murder, while my younger son gets 7 for stealing and forgery to get drugs. What is up with that? Isn't murder worse than stealing and/or forgery? All three crimes are worse than blasphemy, adultery, apostasy, etc, that is for sure, but I think our society has it all wrong to punish an addict worse than a murderer, instead of giving the addict treatment and punishing the murderer. It would be more cost effective to give an addict treatment than to incarcerate them. That's not even talking about the mistake of killing an innocent person, which has happened more than once, including in more recent years.
Exactly! I do not advocate drug use, but decriminalizing drugs would be a very good start to decreasing the criminal population. My younger son, IMO, does not need to be in prison, despite the fact he stole money and forged a check to get money for drugs. He need treatment, which the law enforcers insist he’ll get while in prison. I question that, but we’ll see what happens. The fact remains, that people who abuse drugs need treatment, just as alcoholics do. Not 2, 4, 5 or 7 years in prison.Been there, done that, bought the teeshirt so to speak. My son was hooked on OxyContin, stole from his workplace and from us, pawning our stuff to support his habit and ended up in jail. Thankfully the judge gave probation if he attended NA, made restitution and didn't so much as get a traffic ticket for a year. He came through it, at our expense and is now back on his feet and back in school, but it took two years for his brain to reboot back to normal. Other former students of mine weren't so lucky. I agree that our prisons are stuffed with people whose crimes should be paid of with full restitution, drug counseling and probation unless they physically harmed someone. Legalizing marajuana would help even though there are pros and cons to that argument. And as to using hard timers for experimental purposes I believe that's already being done. In some cases time is shaved off of their sentences for cooperation, except for the killers and there is no doubt that they are in any way innocent nor can they be rehabilitated so euthanasia might be the way to handle them. So what do we do about those who are found guilty by reason of insanity like the theater killer? Cap't Jack
My younger son had that deal a few times, but he just could not shake the drugs and kept ending up in jail until his felony crimes of forgery and stealing. He kept returning, not having hit his bottom, and like you, I could write a book about that. Now with nearly killing himself on K2, while on probation, and of course ending up in prison, I think he's finally hit his bottom from the way he talks. The fact of the matter is, prohibition of anything does not work, as we saw with the prohibition of alcohol, and I think some of the reasons for Prohibition was spurred on by religious fanatics. "Guilty by reason of insanity"? I've never really thought about that one, in part because it is one that is difficult to convince a judge of accepting. However, locking them up, indefinitely, in a long term facility wouldn't hurt, IMO. Then again, some might be pleaing that in order to escape a life sentence or capital punishment, thinking that a mental institution would be better than prison. Then again, they could be lab rats for psychotropic meds.Exactly! I do not advocate drug use, but decriminalizing drugs would be a very good start to decreasing the criminal population. My younger son, IMO, does not need to be in prison, despite the fact he stole money and forged a check to get money for drugs. He need treatment, which the law enforcers insist he’ll get while in prison. I question that, but we’ll see what happens. The fact remains, that people who abuse drugs need treatment, just as alcoholics do. Not 2, 4, 5 or 7 years in prison.Been there, done that, bought the teeshirt so to speak. My son was hooked on OxyContin, stole from his workplace and from us, pawning our stuff to support his habit and ended up in jail. Thankfully the judge gave probation if he attended NA, made restitution and didn't so much as get a traffic ticket for a year. He came through it, at our expense and is now back on his feet and back in school, but it took two years for his brain to reboot back to normal. Other former students of mine weren't so lucky. I agree that our prisons are stuffed with people whose crimes should be paid of with full restitution, drug counseling and probation unless they physically harmed someone. Legalizing marajuana would help even though there are pros and cons to that argument. And as to using hard timers for experimental purposes I believe that's already being done. In some cases time is shaved off of their sentences for cooperation, except for the killers and there is no doubt that they are in any way innocent nor can they be rehabilitated so euthanasia might be the way to handle them. So what do we do about those who are found guilty by reason of insanity like the theater killer? Cap't Jack
I say rid ourselves of them. The various psychopaths, sociopaths, and the like. We're simply draining our resources and wasting our time keeping them in their cages. Just execute them and be done with it.And that makes you better than other apes how? That makes you better than the psychopaths and sociopaths how? It makes you better than religious fanatics who kill how? Excellent points, Mriana. There is no sense in capital punishment. It is barbaric and no government can never put it into practice fairly. Too many (one is too many) innocent people are put to death; we know black people are more likely to receive a death sentence than white people. Dead is dead and there can be no appeal. No government should have the right to kill people in cold blood, no matter what their crime. If we can't figure out a way to handle crime and criminals in this country without killing people we should hang our heads in shame. It is not that complicated. We don't need crazed people operating our prisons and their occupants. On a practical level, as we've learned, capital punishment in this country, where even the convicted have rights, is far more expensive than life in prison. I have yet to hear one intelligent reason for any country to have capital punishment. Most Western countries have banned it. The US is the last barbaric holdout in the West and it is a travesty.