Medical Procedure

[packsaddle]

Thanks OutdoorThinker, saved me a little time.

OGE is, I think, trying to convey the idea that our knowledge is often less than certain. Some of the death row inmates that have been freed were convicted of heinous crimes, convincingly by eyewitness testimony. It is only later, in the face of DNA evidence or similar hard evidence that those witnesses admit that they weren't that certain.

 

I think that convicting and killing an innocent person should be avoided, even at risk of letting a guilty one go free. Remember, when an innocent person is convicted, two injustices are done. One to the innocent person, the other injustice is that the guilty one went free anyway. With life without parole, if later evidence is found that exonerates the individual, then freedom is again available. The death penalty takes all options away. There is a probability that for every wrongfully executed person, there is a real criminal that wasn't convicted of that crime. The execution might have satisfied the public's blood lust, but in those cases it is justice neither for the victim, nor for the convicted.

 

For those who argue that the death penalty is a deterrent, I ask 'How much?' How do murder rates compare between countries that do and do not have the death penalty? Which countries still support the death penalty anyway? What is the result of a similar comparison between states that do and do not have the death penalty? How much of a deterrent is it? The comparisons should provide a metric for that question.

 

[OldGreyEagle]

I am saying that when the state kills a murderer, all the state has done is become equal in action to that murderer.

 

Next, If the death penalty is going to happen anyway, I have an idea. If the person who is convicted on murder is proved to be innocent due to DNA or other unrefutable proof, I think the jury that convicted that person should be placed in jail for the same amount of time the convicted person was in. And if after execution the convicted is found to have been innocent, then the jury is executed as well.

 

I am not saying dont punish, just dont kill.

[mrs red feather]

Whoa OGE!!! Have you ever served on a jury? I get my notice to serve just about yearly and have served several times. A juror enters a case as a clean slate, armed only with common sense. The attorneys and the judge decide what evidence will be presented, according to law. Jurors are allowed no outside knowledge and will not be permitted to serve if they admit to such knowledge. In a sensational case, the average Joe who reads the newspaper knows much more about the case than the jury, which is why juries are often imported, or cases exported, when there has been substantial publicity.

 

Add to that the problems of getting twelve people to agree unanimously on a criminal case, or nine of twelve in a civil trial. Believe me, it can get extremely stressful. I believe most juries do the best they can with the information they have to work with. They just don't always get the full story.

[OldGreyEagle]

Ok, maybe the jury thing is over the top, still strange to think the people deciding whether another person lives or dies doesnt have all the facts

 

The point is, if you were to forfeit your life if your wrong, about murder, maybe you wouldnt be in a rush to fry the son of a gun. (the rhetorical you of course)

 

Going after the Jesey Devil, see youze guise latta

[dsteele]

In the mid-sixties, my mother and one of her best friends got pregnant around the same time. They were both 17 and still in high school, not married. Both were from solid, church going, middle class families. Both fathers pressured their daughters to have abortions. One did. My mother, obviously did not. My father married her -- which he would have probably done with or without my fetus inside her -- I was born and they raised me well.

 

You may not be glad I was born, but I sure am. The issue of abortion hits home for me and I am not going to change my view of it.

 

I struggle with the death penalty. The biggest deterrent to me, personally, to stay on the right side of the law is my values. I value my integrity more than I fear jail or death. I actually think jail is my preferred option because I think anyone, even one without any conscience at all, hates imprisonment. I also remember that I felt no joy when Timothy McVeigh was executed. A bit of relief, perhaps, that he is gone to the Hell I believe he went to, but no joy and no real feeling that justice was done. Frankly, I don't think he suffered enough and think that he thought he had gained -- he was trying to send a message with the bombing and he sent it a little further when he was executed.

 

I can tell you that I want Osama Bin Laden and Sadam Hussien to suffer and feel fear for a good long time -- the rest of their natural lives -- and then face their maker. Not that I believe it will rehabilitate them -- I don't believe that's possible. I will be disappointed if some soldier puts a bullet between their eyes. That's too quick of an earthly ending.

 

I am a religious man (unchurched, but a big fan of Jesus and God) and believe that evil-doers will face the judgement of God and that HE isn't in a hurry, so why expidite the process by killing them? Let's rough 'em up here on earth and then let them face their punishment in the great beyond.

 

If someone doesn't believe in life after death, I think my argument becomes even stronger -- why be in a hurry to send them into nothingness? To protect us here? I don't buy that one. Lock 'em down and keep 'em down.

 

I don't have an answer to the "what if he's innocent" argument. In my particular case (my whole experience with this is the movie The Fugitive" with Harrison Ford) I'd rather be executed by the state for a crime I didn't commit -- and face God for admittance to heavan -- than to rot on death row (not a fun place) for 15-20 years and then be released with an apology, no house, no job, no wife, and a bad name.

 

By the way -- I do know someone who was murdered. I attended Eureka College, a small school of 500 students at the time. The Dean of Faculty was Dean Gammon. He was tough, but admirable. Several years after I graduated (this is important, please read) Dean Gammon had an argument with his teenaged son as they ate breakfast. The teenaged son got out a .22 rifle and shot his father 7 times -- in front of the Dean's daughter and sister. The Dean struggled and made it out the back door looking for help. His son stabbed him in the chest with a kitchen knife several times . . . killing him.

 

Patricide. Lots of issues, none easy. What do you do with the boy? Kill him? Life in prison? Psychiatric help? I'm glad I didn't have to decide. How is the wife/mother supposed to feel? Kill my son because he killed my husband? How is the sister supposed to feel? Kill my brother because he killed my father?

 

I'm getting a headache. Too many issues to try to think through.

 

In the case mentioned above, the son is hospitalized and is getting treatment for mental illness, the mother and daughter are living their lives as best they can. Dean Gammon is with the Lord, but earlier than the Dean planned.

 

Sorry for the long post. These two issues kind of hit me close to the heart.

 

DS

[Rooster7]

OutdoorThinker,

 

Try thinking a little harder...I never said every woman was sheltered. Also, sheltered doesn't mean helpless or stupid. You can grandstand and try to turn this into a feminist issue, but I'm not biting. Many young women (not all, but many) are sheltered by their families and do not know as much about the world as maybe they should. If that belief enrages you, so be it.

 

OGE,

 

You're starting to sound like a politician. I did not say that the torture, rape, and murder of an older woman should be something to celebrate. Nor did I say you should console yourself with the knowledge that if your wife was a young child it would have been much more tragic. However, I suggest that you ask your wife. If she was a victim of such a tragic crime, would she prefer to suffer through it as an adult or a very young child? In fact, I'd be willing to bet that many women would confront one of these animals and assume the risks, if they saw a child being attacked. I don't think that nearly as many women would take the risk if the victim was another woman. Why? Isn't it obvious. Do you honestly believe that the rape and torture of a child is not more tragic than a similiar crime with an adult as the victim. Seriously - you don't believe or understand how a child might suffer more? I challenge you to ask your wife about this...I'm betting she's on my side.

 

gsmom,

 

How do you address the fact (and it is a fact) that innocent people have been executed because our system is imperfect, and can never be made perfect.

 

Give me some numbers and I might start to change my mind. However, I don't think the numbers support your claim. In the last ten years, how many "innocent" men have been executed? Does anyone know? Or, are you guys pulling this out of your hat to support your argument?

 

Isn't it better to let a guilty man live (in prison of course) than to execute the innocent?

 

It's relative. We're not perfect. There will always be some injustices. However, the system works for the betterment of society. If I'm right, and the death penalty is a deterrent - then consider this question: If statistics tell us that as a result of the death penalty, 1,000 less murders occur each year - How many of these folks do you sacrifice to ensure not a single innocent man is executed?

[packsaddle]

The better question would be:

How many innocent persons would I kill to prevent murders from happening (any number you wish)? Answer, I would not kill a single innocent person. I do not support the contention that public safety depends on my willingness to kill innocent persons. There is nothing logical about that contention.

 

Edited part:

I ask again...

For those who argue that the death penalty is a deterrent, I ask 'How much?' How do murder rates compare between countries that do and do not have the death penalty? Which countries still support the death penalty anyway? What is the result of a similar comparison between states that do and do not have the death penalty? How much of a deterrent is it? The comparisons should provide a metric for that question.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[packsaddle]

OK, I'll start it off for all the pro-death persons:

The FBI issued a report this summer that had information on this subject. You can get your own copy at:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/02prelimannual.pdf

In it is data that shows that the South with 82% of executions since 1976 had an INCREASE in the murder rate of 2.1%. In contrast, the Northeast, with less than 1% of the executions had a DECREASE in the murder rate of a little less than 5%.

So this is some evidence AGAINST the deterrence argument. Still waiting.....

[Rooster7]

What's that expression? Liars figure and figures lie...Something like that. Anyway, your statistics have a lot of blanks that need to be filled in. First, what are the overall populations and murder rates for both areas? What is the murder rate in the Northeast as compared to the South?

 

Also, while I firmly believe the death penalty is a legitmate deterrent - Its potential to deter criminals will always be somewhat suppressed so long as there are large areas within the United States that do not embrace it. In other words, criminals as a group, aren't too bright. They don't follow the death penalty track record of different states. They just know that there's a good chance some liberal group is going to come to their aid - no matter what their crime may be. But when they commit murder in Virginia, as opposed to Maryland, most criminals don't realize that they're likely to be sentenced to death. If the death penalty was embraced universally in every state, there would be no confusion as to the likely outcome for a murderer.

[Fat Old Guy]

"I would say that most young women of the twenty-first centuary are not sheltered to the 'harsher realities of the world' but rather they are knowledgable, strong, and the awareness has led them to becoming well prepared for problematic situations through self defense training, or at least heightened awareness when around dangerous situations."

 

Gotta go with Rooster on this one. I deal with women of all ages and for the most part, they are clueless. Maybe clueless isn't the right world but they are definately sheltered. They don't know how to change a tire. They can't check their oil. They don't know how to replace a lock. In short, they are dependant on men.

 

 

Not that most young men are great streetfighters but men aren't the preferred prey. I laugh at most of the "women's self defense courses" that I see.

 

No, I don't think that self defense is silly. I strongly believe in fighting back even if it is only to scratch and bite. However, too many of the courses don't offer much of anything to the students. They go for a few days and practice yelling "no," and beat up a guy in a padded suit. Fighting back or better yet, making a pre-emptive strike requires a change in attitude, a willingness to harm another person, a belief that you will prevail. This cannot be accomplished in a class that meets for a few hours.

 

If you are ready, willing, and able to defend yourself, I applaud you. If you exist in condition yellow when you are out of your home, you are rare and I hope that my daughter grows up to be like you.

 

 

[packsaddle]

Rooster7,

If you want to think of me as a liar that is your right. However, I quote what the FBI has figured. If you can find a more authoritative source of information I am willing to consider it.

The South: 6.7 murders per 100,000

The Northeast: 4.2 murders per 100,000

These are the 2001 figures. For your information, determination of a 'rate' takes into account population size and relates the data on a per capita basis.

The figures I quoted before are taken from the report's Table 2 entitled, "Crime Index Trends". As stated before, the South increased 2.1% over the period and the Northeast decreased 4.8% over the same period.

You will have to contact the FBI for more detailed figures for the different regions.

However, the individual states display a large range of differences within both death-penalty and non-death-penalty states. What this suggests is that the controlling factors for differences in murder rates are not related to the death penalty. Studies of paired neighbor states in which one is pro-death, the other not, have also shown large differences - the pro-death states have higher murder rates. This observation removes some of the regional differences in education and economic status that might not have been considered in the state-to-state comparisons.

I just read that by a large majority, criminologists as a group and police chiefs as a group believe evidence does not support the death penalty as a deterrent. You can argue with the police chiefs on your own time.

 

Internationally, comparisons have been made between USA and some countries that do not have the death penalty:

MURDER RATES (per 100,000) over the 3-year period of 1997-1999

USA-------------6.26

Sweden--------1.94

Netherlands--1.66

France---------1.63

Italy-------------1.56

UK---------------1.45

Germany-------1.28

Source: British Home Office

I will try to locate a more comprehensive list for other countries as well.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[OldGreyEagle]

Sorry Roster, If any life becomes more sacred than any other,then no life is really sacred, its how I feel, I understand your opinion differs.

 

You didn't respond to my thought that perhaps in the eyes of Jesus we are all his children and as children of God all of what Jesus says about children relates to all beleivers,

[Rooster7]

Packsaddle,

 

I didn't mean to infer that you were a liar. I was recalling that phrase because statistics can be manipulated, even when they are accurate. Your first post appeared to have a couple of holes.

 

OGE,

 

I agree that all life is sacred in the sense that all life is a gift from God. AND, I agree only God can judge a man's heart. However, the death penalty is only a prompt introduction to the afterlife. Once there, I'm sure God will use his own judgement. In the end, looking at this issue through the eternal perspective, it really doesn't matter much what we do. Now, have you asked your wife yet? I'm still convinced that she'll take my side. Crimes against a child are more heinous. Have you not seen the innocence in a child's eyes?

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[OldGreyEagle]

I asked my wife about this issue, and she said she would emotionally react more to the murder of a 5 year old than an adult, but that the penalties should be the same.

 

So, I asked her and I admit that her answer is closer to yours than mine.

 

Now, for the third time, and after I answered the question you asked of me. When Jesus talks about children does he mean only the young but could it also mean all that believe?(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[Rooster7]

In the bible it tells many times about how we must become like a child, and we are all children of God. When Jesus talks about Children, could he mean all of us who believe, or does he mean just the very young?

 

In the verses that I quoted (Matthew 18:1-9), I think he meant - the very young, as in "little child" - as in a simple (uncomplicated), trusting, innocent young child that respects authority and loves unconditionally with an open heart. He tells us that we need to become like these "little ones" if we are to enter the kingdom of heaven. In other verses, references to a child or children may well be intended to denote a "believer" or "His children" - But I can't comment on that without a specific verse to look at. Context is important.(This message has been edited by Rooster7)