[KSig RC]

Originally posted by justamom
KSig RC- Were we looking at the same thing??? What I saw was a lot of high level crimes that NEVER should have been pardoned or should have held greater sentences. People get out of jail far too easily IMO. Anyway, I didn't take a count on the cases or break it down into statistics, I just scanned it.

OK - this is a different discussion entirely. In a death penalty discussion, all I'm saying is that few (if any) committed capital crimes. Enforcement is a different issue, one that's totally unrelated.

Originally posted by justamom
I share some of your thinking, but not all. One point you made that I readily agree with is-"Rather, I'll openly state that if we wish to institute the death penalty, it must only be openly due to the fact that death is felt to be an appropriate punishment for the crimes committed." However, I think it was James (Lil G also) who said we each could interpret this differently. When that young boy was caned in Singapore, Americas felt it was barbaric. Yet, it was acceptable in their country. So who will set the standards?

This is why, although I'm in favor of the death penalty as a punishment (ie i support the concept), I DO NOT SUPPORT INSTITUTING IT! There's no way a system like this could work - and, like James states, there's TONS of implicit hypocrisy etc, and I have no doubt that constitutional issues will eventually arise, if given the right SC panel.

Originally posted by justamom
I also agree that the whole sytem is at fault, right down to Juvi and the court system as a whole. The only "solution" I see must start in the home. Believe it or not, a whole theory developed around the famous Dr. Spock. Many hold him and his theories of child rearing responsible for the impulsive nature of MY generation which in turn has been deemed responsible for the lack of conscience in some of our children-YOUR generation. When our values become so mired in looking out for number one, we lose site of the greater picture. What I am trying to say is until our society as a whole steps up to the task and takes responsibility for our deeds the criminal element will continue to thrive and commit atrocities. Sad thing is, I do not see this happening.

Well, altruism etc is good in theory, but I'll argue this point with you another time, I don't really want to hijack the thread. The point is, values are temporal - "time and place" if you will, and definition and experience differ from person to person. There's no real way to link any of this, and although you very well might be correct, it's a post hoc argument.

Originally posted by justamom
A criminal is a criminal. I believe I would be hard pressed to find one that DEescalated his/her activities. Does anyone start out raping an infant and drowning it in a tub of scalding water? OR do they start out by shaking the baby or locking it in a closet when it cries? If allowed to move beyond point A, aren't the odds greater that B occur?

No?

This is a straw man argument - I don't have statistics right here in front of me . . . but I will definitely allow for differentiation between different crimes. A criminal is a criminal, sure - but what does that mean? Does that mean they lose rights as people? Does that mean we should spank them a few times and let them go? What this implies to me is that all criminals deserve the book thrown at them - which isn't a bad concept - but it's extensible conceptually to some system of across-the-board penalties, ie one harsh penalty for a variety of crimes. To me, this doesn't make sense, so I feel that differentiation needs to occur at some level. A criminal is a criminal, but only b/c they committed a crime - the human element has to remain.

Originally posted by justamom
As far as the state passing laws to kill its own citizens... It is also important that the state PROTECT all citizens and the death penalty absolutely assures at least ONE piece of excrement will NEVER harm another living soul.

. . . and it guarantees that this person will never see his or her family, hug the dog, etc - and there are many marked cases of the wrong person being convicted, even executed, for capital crimes. Doesn't this standpoint seem a little hypocritical then?

Also - the state's duty is to protect ALL its citizens . . . right? So isn't this duty also available to the criminal element? They're still people, and definitely citizens - what about making a forceful push to find ways to rehabilitate the criminal element, or prevent crime through various means (whether you feel these to be familial, religious, or via intensive drug use), and use these rather than a method which, in current form, appears to have no real value to the majority of the citizens of any given populous, since total overhaul of the system doesn't seem inordinately possible?

Just to play devil's advocate for a while . . .