Arnold must decide if killer is executed

[notyoueither]

Ohh. Ted is accusing Apolytoners of carrying out the death penalty and most likely of ushering in the anti-christ.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll
But our laws say Murder = Death Penalty then we carry out the law

last time i checked US law was not the Bible, they CAN and SHOULD change for the better....

reemind people what awaits you when you murder

get killed after 25 years?
"damn, i got convicted, not only am i going to jail for the rest of my life, they are going to kill me sometime after 25-30 years"

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by notyoueither
But is it true that he was convicted solely on accomplice testimony?

No.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by MarkG
last time i checked US law was not the Bible, they CAN and SHOULD change for the better

Mark as an intelligent man, I would ask you what you mean..because we are talking of a murderer here who got what he deserved under the U S Laws governing California not your laws but Californias laws and I agree The U S Laws dont allways coincide with God's Law

reemind people what awaits you when you murder

get killed after 25 years?

Thats a serious flaw in my book, and like you and many others here we dont live in Calkifornia (see Ted I support your right to govern your state like you want to) but Tookie tried and failed to have his sentenced reduced, It is a shame if the State waited this long to put this waste of Humanity down

"damn, i got convicted, not only am i going to jail for the rest of my life, they are going to kill me sometime after 25-30 years"

LIke above I wish it didnt wait that long, but see Mark, sometimes Police and sometime Prosecutors make mistakes as do so called expert witnesses and eye witnesses so it takes a little time to sort out any retrial, Due process for the families of the victims often times doesnt come as quick as you and I would like, sad but true


I am amazed how many people, some even in my own family, dont look at it as he was not some model citizen he was a gang banger who help introduce PCP and helped spread the violence that in the end cost at least 5 people theirs lives (Stanley "Tooie" Williams, the white gas station attendant and 3 Chinese)

This is sad for all involved.
Now, we can move on to executing the others who have murdered and been found guilty.

We dont want 25 years to wait until the next murderer gets his just rewards now do we?

[Dry]

Originally posted by Dis


It's a deterrant. Yes we know everyone uses it as revenge. But I feel it has a minor deterrant effect.

You can't prove that his death does not make my city safer.

In any case, what effect his death has no relation to his sentence. He was given a sentence, and I expect it to be carried out. Regardless of the consequences.

Site in french about death penalty in Belgium:

http://www.hemes.be/esas/mapage/euxaussi/justice/mortbelg.html

Summary:
Although Belgium had the death sentence in its law system, in first instance, we didn't execute those sentenced to death.
In 1834, after some rather wild crimes, we start executing criminals in 6 of the 9 provinces.
Surprinsingly, criminality RAISED in the provinces where people were executed. "It is as if people become bloodthirstier in provinces where capital executions are taking place".
Facing those facts, the king start to grant clemency more often.
In 1863, after an ambiguous case and gloomy execution, kings used to grant clemency automatically. After 1863, only 1 last criminal (1918) was executed.
What happened?
In less than 20 years, the crimes deserving death penalty went down from 20 cases/year (1860) to 11 cases/year (1879) and then to 8 cases/year (after 1880).

The lower criminality in the 3 provinces was not due to some geographical or social or whatever reason. When we stopped executing people, all provinces reacted the same way: lowering of blood crimes.

Death penalty, a deterrent? Seems more like the opposite to me.
Most probably not the same persons. I mean I do think that it is deterrent to some, but it seems fascinating to others. And those fascinated outnumber those fearing it.

[Dry]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
WTH? Europeans are crazy.

Yes, crazy.
Crazy when facing the facts that death penalty is counter productive NOT to keep it in the name of morality, vengence or whatever emotional reason.
Crazy to stop executing people, when we see that it generates violence and criminals.
Crazy to want to spare life instead of fullfilling vengence.
Crazy to want to lower our criminality instead of holding fast on some violence generating morality.
Crazy to look at the facts instead of believing in our own superstitions.
Crazy to see justice as an instrument to PREVENT vengence, and not to fullfill vengence.

When the very first code of law was edictted, in the first cities of civilization, one of the purpose was to avoid those barbaric practise of vengence, vengence upon vengence upon vengence,...
Something probably with meaning in the desolated lands, but deadly inside the citywalls.
Yes, vengence, violence, strength, all have their justifications, but only in a barbaric land, where ther is no justice, no police, where you are the only defender of your life and family, but not in a civilized one.

Yes, we are crazy. Civilized men have always look crazy, weak and wimp to barbarians. Civilized men have give up some practices that are vital for a barbarian.
The question is: is america still a barbarian country, where barbarian practices are still needed, usefull, or is it ready to give up those practices?
If USians think they still need those practices, well, I won't deny them the right to use them. If in the US of A, death penalty is a still a deterent, well then, let them go on with it.
But they'll have to look at their own stats and be ready that one day the effects of death penalty will invert.
That day, they also should be ready to forfeit their traditions, illusion of morality, superstitions.

[Patroklos]

You analysis makes no sence. The started enforcing the death penalty because the crime rate went up, the crime rate didn't go up because of the death penalty.

Do you honetsly think any punishment is going to reverse a crime rate based primarily on social problems?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Dry
Yes, crazy.

How does that long post relate to the post you were responding to?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Dry
When the very first code of law was edictted, in the first cities of civilization, one of the purpose was to avoid those barbaric practise of vengence, vengence upon vengence upon vengence,...

Yup. By replacing it with state-sponsored vengeance against which there wouldn't be retaliation.

Vengeance

[Dry]

En 1834, après quelques crimes particulièrement graves

Trad: In 1834, after some (a few) crimes of uttermost gravity.

this is not a rise in crime rate, it is some abominable crimes.

On aurait pu s'attendre à voir le crime prospérer dans ces 3 provinces et reculer dans les autres.
"C'est le contraire qui se produisit

trad: one could expect the crime rate to increase in those 3 provinces, it is the opposite that happened.

I nowhere said it is based on social problems, quite the opposite.
I said, that the fact it lowered in ALL provinces when the death penalty was no more enforced is a PROOF that it is NOT based on social problems, geography or small cultural (city/country) differences.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Yup. By replacing it with state-sponsored vengeance against which there wouldn't be retaliation.
Vengeance

Not at all.
Vengeance is when victim decide of punishement and enforce it, based on her/his own feelings.
Justice is when a 3rd party (judge), after hearing both parties decides, outside personal feelings, but based on text of law.

[Dinner]

How does it prove that nothing other then the death penality was effecting the crime rate?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Dry
Not at all.
Vengeance is when victim decide of punishement and enforce it, based on her/his own feelings.
Justice is when a 3rd party (judge), after hearing both parties decides, outside personal feelings, but based on text of law.

Then the death penalty is clearly not vengeance

[Dis]

Originally posted by notyoueither


No. What did he say?

basically he said he was going to kill every one of them *expetive*

[Dry]

Originally posted by Oerdin
How does it prove that nothing other then the death penality was effecting the crime rate?

It is not the death penalty, it is the enforcement of it, the fact that criminals are indeed put to death.
Belgium abolished 'death penalty' only in 1999.
Until then, clemency for 'death penalty' meant in fact prison for life.

Otherwise, excellent question.
No proof probably, but very strange coincidence then.
For 30 years (1834 - 1863), the crime rate lower in provinces where criminals are jailed, but not executed, then suddenly, at the same time criminals are no more executed, the crime rate also lowering in other provinces. Real strange coincidence.