title: death penalty

Written by: half evil on 7/1/98 at 9:48AM.

convicted serial killer henry lee lucas was sentenced to die yesterday in texas, however the governor chose to commute his sentence to life in prison. henry lee lucas was convicted of killing ten people and suspected in the deaths of many more. he confessed to all the crimes (plus, several that they didn't have enough evidence to prosecute) but years later took it all back. he's an old bigot who, in my opinion, is just taking up space. he's ruined enough lives and i really don't think he deserves to live.

however, i'm not usually for the death penalty. i don't think it's fair for 12 people to decide who gets to live and who doesn't. but then again, sometimes, i think it's definitely for the best. like in the case of serial killers and mass murderers especially those that prey on children.

Replies:

Reply from: Tracey on 7/1/98 at 10:59AM. okay... i'm for the death penality... but then again i'm also for the pyschological study of serial killers and other criminals for the sake of learning more about them so that we could possibly stop these horrible things before they can start...

but henry lee lucas... yeah... i think the guy should die... why? i just do... for some reason this argument escapes any logical thought with me... i take a purely emotional take on the whole thing... blah... that's all...

tracey

Reply from: gemma on 7/1/98 at 11:05AM. i'm against the death penalty becuase it has been shown again and again that (beyond the basic point of taking smeone's life) it's unfair. the trial is usually unfair- and why is it hat more african americans and latinos get the deth penatly than whites on the same percentage of murders? capitol punishment means those without capitol get the punishment. and before you say it saves money to kill the person, the trials and appeals cost more than keeping someone in jail. in canada, we have'nt had the death penalty in years, and the murder rate hasn't changed. it isnt effective.

i have other feelings about solitary confinement though.

Reply from: Angela on 7/1/98 at 12:12PM. That's a good point, Gemma. I was watching the news once, and I was surprised to learn that it does indeed cost the taxpayers more money to give someone the dealth penalty than it does to give them life in prison. I think I learned this around the time of the Timothy McVey (sp?) conviction. Before that, I too was of the opinion that it would be less expensive to just give someone the death penalty. You learn something new all the time. As far as being for or against the death penalty, I dunno, it depends on the crime for me, but like Tracey stated earlier, sometimes your emotions get in the way of your logic and reason.....I'm still undecided

Reply from: janeeta on 7/1/98 at 12:14PM. i just want to point out that he wasn't executed yet because there is growing concern that he did not commit the one murder that he received the death penalty for. now, that doesn't mean that he didn't commit a bajillion other crimes that he could be executed for. i'm not sure what's going to happen from here...

Reply from: janeeta on 7/1/98 at 12:19PM. gemma: the death penalty is racially unfair. henry lee lucas is a white man though. believe it or not. i don't know what my reason in pointing this out is. *shrug*

angela: the reason for the higher cost of the death penalty is that there are so many appeals involved. i think (and someone correct me if i'm wrong) that cases in which the convicted person gets the death penalty are nearly always automatically appealed. the appeals are to make sure that the person is indeed guilty and deserving of the death sentence.

Reply from: cossdog on 7/1/98 at 12:39PM. I think the death penalty is mega-creepy for several reasons: 1) the above stated fact that a ridiculously high and insupportable percentage of the poor and minorities are sentenced to death 2) the fact that in the U.S. it's not even uniform across the whole fifty states, i.e. your life could depend on what state you get caught in (or shipped to as the case may, and has, been). How can something so important be so arbitrary? 3) it's sick-o. (Unfortunately, like many of the people who are put on death row). On a personal note, I know that if anyone close to be was ever murdered, I, like many people, would wish the victimizer all sorts of unpleasantness, including, I'm sure, death (preferably by my hands). All the more reason to make it impossible for that person to die. I think when we help to perpetuate a system that kills in the spirit of revenge, we are inflicting violence on ourselves.

Reply from: half evil on 7/1/98 at 1:19PM. I think when we help to perpetuate a system that kills in the spirit of revenge, we are inflicting violence on ourselves.

that's exactly how i feel about it...sometimes. there is some doubt as to whether or not he commited the "orange socks" murder but the point is, he was convictd of it and there was substantial evidence. but by saying he should or shouldn't be killed based solely on this particular murder kind of insinuates that the other (many) victims didn't matter. everyone here has made a great point keeping with their opinion, but this is a more emotional issue than anything else, so it's tough to say anything for sure. i'm all for the study of serial killers. i'm fascinated by it because i like to see what makes people tick. i even believe that there are some of them that shouldn't get the death penalty, however, lucas is not one of these people. he's had enough chances, enough appeals, and enough victims.

Reply from: misanthrope on 7/1/98 at 1:36PM. I think the ability to kill is a frighteningly large amount of power to put in the state. The fact that innnocent people are sentenced to death should be enough for anyone to oppose it. The media has a lot of effects on people when a "suspect" for a crime is brought to trial. Regardless whether they are innoncent or guilty, or if the jury decides such, they have already dubbed this "suspect" a criminal and tend to stir up a bunch of irrational hysteria based fully on emotion and the want for justice, but is it justice to sentence an innocent person? I remember when Timothy McVeigh was first arrested. Before he even went to trial the media had dubbed him "the unabomber", he wasn't even found guilty at the time because he hadn't gone to court. How do you think this behavior reflects on society?....Alright, yes, minorities are more often put to death, as well as the poor, so that makes it both racist and classist. If you can afford a good representative for your case, you are likely not to be sentenced to death, ironically, poor people can't afford that...hmmm......I already stated that innocent people are sentenced to death (btw, how do you all feel about Mumia Abu-Jamal?)....IT IS NOT AN EFFECTIVE DETERRANT, in fact, an FBI report explained how murder rates in states which excercise the death penalty are actually higher than states which don't. Take Texas, for example, they hand out the death penalty just for fun, and they still have an enormous murder rate. Wth the death penalty in action, it is not being shown that killing is wrong, it is showing that it is right and can be justified, it is not deterring people from killing. The report I just cited already explained what effect this has on society.....someone said it's more expensive due to the court process....I'd also like to know how the death penalty rehabilitates prisoners. Or how contemporary prisons in general rehabilitate prisoners. Their structure really does little to rehabilitate these inmates, especially if they are just sentenced to death. I guess that prisons are supposed to rehabilitate is just forgotten, or just another bullshit precept to justify the cruelty of prisons.

Reply from: half evil on 7/1/98 at 1:51PM. that's a swell thing to say but i've gotta ask: what about the cruelty of murder? or rape? or child abuse? sometimes rehabilitation isn't an option. prison doesn't necessarily rehabilitate. it's designed to punish. however, i don't really see how it's that much of a punishment. or at least not for the severity of some crimes. i definitely think solitary confinement sounds like a viable option for some criminals. then again, maybe i'm just unusually cruel. of course, not cruel enough to strangle little children, unlike some people. hmm...

tim mcveigh? the unabomber? i think you've got your stories crossed. that was ted kazcynski (sp?).

Reply from: misanthrope on 7/1/98 at 1:56PM. Er...sorry, about that, I did get my stories crossed. I meant Ted Kaczynski. Thanks for pointing that out.

Reply from: janeeta on 7/1/98 at 1:56PM. ideally, prisons should rehabilitate criminals so that when they leave, they will be capable, productive members of society. unfortunately, our prisons harden people and make it harder for them to be productive later on.

half evil: for some reason, i have a very very vague recollection of the media trying to make some connection between the unabomber and the okc bombing. i don't recall them ever equating tim mcveigh to ol' ted, but it does seem like either the two were compared or the unabomber was blamed. it's been quite some time, and more important things about the okc bombing have covered up the memories of unabomber theories.

Reply from: An anonymous viewer on 7/1/98 at 2:06PM. " ... but this is a more emotional issue than anything else, so it's tough to say anything for sure." This is going to sound cold blooded, esp. in light of the subject (the rights of murderers), but i think that precisely BECAUSE these decisions elicit such violent emotions, emotional reactions should not be involved in the decision that would take away the ultimate human right of someone who has done just that to another (or others).

Reply from: cossdog on 7/1/98 at 2:07PM. oops, that was me, cossdog

Reply from: misanthrope on 7/1/98 at 2:22PM. Prison doesn't, or rarely does, rehabilitate. The point is that it is told that it is supposed to do so. I'd like to know why you think rehabilitation isn't an option. I'm curious as to why you think that. Yes, prison does punish. It punishes poor people for being guilty of being poor, it punishes minorities for being guilty of not being white, it punishes dissidents for not being a mindless, droning automaton. Again, I'll bring up and ask how anyone feels about the case of Mumia-Abu Jamal. The cruelty of murder, rape and child abuse is sick, but where do you think the ideas and conditioning to do so come from? I really don't believe they are inherent evils in certain people, they are getting this from somewhere. Society celebrates this cruelty. The military and death penalty show that killing can be right, and can perpetuate that theme throughout society. Our culture celebrates the violent subjugation of women and children, unfortunately, which leads to rape and abuse. This by no means justifies the brutal actions taken, but what are we to do? Should we just keep on punishing those individuals who behave in that manner? And if we do, how does this change society? It just hides prisoners behind stone walls, it doesn't change society. Are we going to punish and imprison society for perpetuating such behavior? Existing social institutions need to change. It goes beyond just punishing one person, which soon becomes thousands. The institutions that teach murder, rape and child abuse need to cease doing so. They need to be changed or destroyed. Prisons won't do that.

Reply from: misanthrope on 7/1/98 at 2:25PM. I agree with you, cossdog. I find emotion clouds people's rational judgements. Reasonable and rational decisions are hard to make when blinded with emotion.

Reply from: James Feagin on 7/1/98 at 2:27PM. Alright, I have studied the death penalty and the case of Henry Lee Lucas at great length. Henry Lee Lucas has been shown to only has committed three murders through actuall evidence. He killed his mother, and old lady, and his girlfriend/wife. He was never tried for these murders. Henry Lee Lucas admits that the only reason he confessed to so many murders is that he has always had a vendetta against the justice system, and lied about 600 murders just to cover it up. As for the death penalty, I CAN CARE LESS whether or not it is a deterant. It does not matter to me. If we want to talk about fairness, if somebody intentionally kills somebody, they should die.....no two ways about it. In the United States even rapists have been put to death. I can care less whether the penalty stops anybody, to me it is about justice and avenge. Countries such as Iran have the death penalty and although they live in a regimented society, it is also relatively free of crime. Yes, the death penalty has been shown to have been used more on African-Americans and uneducated poor persons. Nevertheless, the same double standard exists in deciding whether to give women the death penalty as well. I agree it is costly and the all states or no states should have it. I believe appeals should be limited. The death penalty has its problems and is often unfair, but I agree with its inherent concept of avenging one life for another......James

Reply from: James Feagin on 7/1/98 at 2:40PM. Sorry for the multitude of gramatical and spelling errors. I suppose I was in such a rush to post this that I didn't edit my writing. Nevertheless, states with the highest amount of murder is not totally dependent on the violence of the death penalty. 1.) Look at population and area of state 2.) Look at gun laws in that given state 3.) Evaluate per capita income in that state All of these factors can cultivate an environment where murder is possible. Of course Texas, California, Florida, Illinois and New York have the highest amount of murders. The high population and availability of firearms allows for violence to occur, not the death penalty. James

Reply from: misanthrope on 7/1/98 at 2:42PM. James...you've over looked much here, such as the fact that INNOCENT PEOPLE ARE SENTENCED TO DEATH and are eventually PUT TO DEATH. How is this fair? Why should they die if they haven't murdered anyone? Is it because they are poor, can't afford good representation, or because they are the wrong color, black or hispanic? Should they die because of this? Now, since you don't care whether or not the death penalty is a deterrant, I think you should look at what I posted about people getting the idea that murder is right and can be justified because the death penalty is implemented. I'll pull out a specific quote from a report now: "An FBI study shows that states which have abolished the death penalty averaged lower murder rates than states which have not." It seems to me that exposure to the death penalty and the idea that killing can be right and justified seems to perpetuate domestic murder. So, in essence, because of the death penalty, those convicted of murder aren't they only ones suffering, but murder victims suffered as well because of the death penalty.

Reply from: taylor k on 7/1/98 at 3:13PM. Call me crazy, but I consider the death penalty has a favor the state is doing to the criminal, who is pretty much getting off easy. To me, spending the rest of yr life in prison knowing everyday that you killed someone, not being able to have any contact with the outside world, being apart from those you care about and wasting away behind bars seems to be a greater punishment than just ending it all. Of course, there are those psychotic criminals who feel absolutely no remorse for what they did, but I still feel that somehow death would simply be ending a life of insanity, mistreatment and misery. Then there are those who call jail nothing more than a free meal and a free bed, and the disturbing fact that there are prisons nicer than elementary schools in some states, but that should be a prison reform issue and not part of the pro/anti death penalty argument. We also have to ask ourselves are we positive of a person's guilt to the extent that we'll kill them for it? People have been sent to death row and later released when evidence was found to prove their innocence (in some cases, the evidence was even hidden from the defense during the trial, often by the police themselves), and we were ready to kill those people?

Reply from: walker on 7/1/98 at 3:53PM. Has humankind evolved since the time of Hammurabi? I think not. Things like the death penalty only perpetuate the ideas of a violent, vengeful society. "We are killing our own failure [and] trading crime for crime."-ani difranco "2 wrongs don't make a right."-my grandma "Do unto others as you would have done unto you."-some Tshirt I read at the fair. peace be with you all!!!

Reply from: Brian Crabtree on 7/1/98 at 4:58PM. Hmmm.... I'm going to side with what misanthrope said (7/1 at 2:22)... Everyone has rage from time to time... The existence of the death penalty sends the message that, if you're really sure you're right, violence as revenge is morally acceptable. (it IS acceptable in certain circumstances... but revenge is not one of them.)

And just to throw some monkey-wrenches into both sides of the argument...

The Death Penalty *is* revenge, nothing more. It has been shown to have no deterrent effect. It is not cheaper. It just satisfies society's need for retribution. Depending on the situation, maybe I think Mr/Ms X *deserves* to die... But I don't think that the government has moral standing to take what they cannot give back.

It's pointless for a death penalty advocate to ask, "what would you want if your daughter/sister/gf/husband/whatever were raped/murdered/whatever... This is a loaded, personal, emotional question, and almost anyone is going to say that they'd want the attacker dead. Immanual Kant's Categorical Imperative recommends that one not advocate anything unless they would want it to become a universal law. While I would certainly want the death penalty if someone I love were killed.... I certainly do *not* want a justice system in which penalties are decided upon by the enraged families of the victims -- because I know I'd want *much worse* than the death penalty.

On prison rehabilitation -- I did a debate case over this once... There's a statistic floating around that I'll go ahead and enter into the thread which says that 2/3 of prison inmates recidivate (commit more crimes and end up back in prison after being released). The statistic is flawed. It is true that 2/3 of prison inmates have been in prison before. That does not mean, however, that 2/3 of those released will come back. (if you think about this you'll understand why -- the recidivists "build up" in the prison) A more accurate number is that 2/3 do NOT return to prison.

James Feagin: IRAN IS FREE OF CRIME?!?? People are stoned to death in the streets in Iran every day. Torture, dismemberment and murder is a crime in any reasonable society. Iran permits it. What does it mean to say that Iran is free of crime?

Unrelated: I'm also against castration of sex offenders, but for completely different reasons.

Reply from: Andrew on 7/1/98 at 5:36PM. As I scrolled down I saw that James had corrected the original poster, that Lucas is only believed to have killed 3 people. No one really believes he killed 600 people, but law enforcement agencies here began to blame Lucas for many of the unsolved murders on the books. I read that he was suspected in 5 killings in this county.... whatever, that's not the point.

The point is that the instituion of the death penalty allows the state to determine your life or death. That's a power that I wouldn't ever want to give to the government. What gives the state the right to kill?

Reply from: Brian Crabtree on 7/1/98 at 5:47PM. Geez, I don't know, what gives them the right to kill people in other countries?

Guns, tanks, and bombs. All government power depends on violence.

Reply from: James Feagin on 7/1/98 at 7:58PM. Almost any issue that involves the death of some form will inevitably become a very heated, emotional, and personal issue. Whether it is abortion, vegetarian/non-vegetarian debate, or capital punishment sentiments tend to run very deep. Certainly, there have been persons who have been excecuted unreasonably, however I believe that is the definate exception. In addition, how can we put typically western morals/values on countries such as Iran? How can anybody say how Iranians conduct their affairs are any more or less valid than our own. Certainly they may seem primitive, however, they are not within our jurisdiction of comment. Therefore, in that frame of reference, I could care less about Kant. He was just an intellect/philosopher, not a divine revelator. Onto Henry Lee Lucas. He has been proven to have killed three persons. The hundreds of other unsolved murders most likely are due to over ambitious law enforcement agents who wanted to clear their books and pin their unsolved murders on him. There have even been states where Lucas has never been to AND he claimed to have had murder victims there. I think many of you bring up a valid point and I want to say that I do not think that revenge and retribution is so bad. Those emotions and/or sentiments are natural. Issues such as economic barriers and giving the government power to kill anyone is a sticking point with me. However, I am not against the concept of the death penalty. Some persons simply do not deserve to live with the damage the have done.......thanks....James

Reply from: James Feagin on 7/1/98 at 8:08PM. "with the damage the have done" should read "with the damage THEY have done." Misanthrope, I trust the FBI has conducted many other studies regarding this nature. However, I simply do not see the correlation. Take the state of Mississippi for example. Say if three murderers in ole miss are executed. According to your/FBI statements (correct me if I am misunderstood or wrong)the culture of violence that the death penalty brings will lead to people murdering more?! That simply does not make sense in my estimation. If I knew I could possibly be put to death for murder, wouldn't that logically act as a deterant? I think that state economics, population, firearms law, and other sociological aspects could also be attributed. In an interesting note. This February in Alabama, the first KKK member that was convicted of lynching a black person was executed in that state. Perhaps the death penalty might be getting more liberal? Just food for thought, either digest it or spit it up....lots of love....James

Reply from: stargazer on 7/1/98 at 8:15PM. i am for the death-penalty and i care not to share reasons for that.

Reply from: Mike Saboo on 7/1/98 at 10:07PM. I'm against the death penalty. Always. First, it's never been proven to be a deterrent, comparing cities and/or nations with the death penalty and cities and/or nations without the death penalty, there's no proven link between introducing a death penalty and a lowering of murder rates. Also, there's no way any judicial system is going to apply a death penalty fairly, since it's been proven time and time again that the judicial system in the US has class, racial and gender (etc.) biases than drastically influence ALL criminal sentences, but a living prisoner has the chance to overturn a wrongful conviction, a dead one doesn't. On the subject of prisons, I doubt that the people who run them care if the prisoners are there to be punished or rehabilitated, since the entire prison system has become such a big business in terms of prison labor and boosting local economies.

Reply from: misanthrope on 7/1/98 at 10:09PM. James...The easiest logic for people to grasp is that it would work as a deterrant, that doesn't necessarily make it true that it, in actuality, serves as a deterrant. I've already explained how it doesn't, and I've read studies on this subject and trust what I've found.

Reply from: Mike Saboo on 7/1/98 at 10:11PM. And speaking of the OKC federal building bombing, I didn't remember any attempts to link that to the Unabomber, but just after the bombing happened the media were sure that it had to be Arab terrorists and local police were stopping Arab-looking people in and around OKC. Nope, no racial biases there.

Reply from: Tracey on 7/1/98 at 10:30PM. janet... it is more expensive for the state to enforce the death penalty... and you're right... because of the numerous appeals given...

though i did watch a documentry on texas' death row... and there was this one particular guy... he had basically declined to have his appeals stating that he did indeed take two people's lives out of cold blood... and he knew the consequences of his actions... and he believed that he deservered to die... he was the only guy out of all the death row inmates interviewed who admitted any wrong doing... if i remember correctly his case went down in the books as the fastest death penalty case to be carried out... this has no bearing on the argument... i just thought it was an interesting story...

but i do have to say... if we lived in a perfect world we'd be able to judge such cases as murder/rape/child molestation cases without emotion on a purely logical base... unfortunetly we don't live in a perfect world...

tracey

Reply from: An anonymous viewer on 7/1/98 at 10:41PM.

Reply from: cossdog on 7/1/98 at 10:45PM. nope, we definitely don't live in a perfect world, but we should make capital punishment illegal and judge from there ...

Reply from: misanthrope on 7/1/98 at 11:01PM. If we lived in a perfect world, cruelty like that wouldn't exist in the first place.

Reply from: Tracey on 7/1/98 at 11:02PM. oh... i forgot...

it is proven that some criminals can not be rehabilitated... such as rapists... hence the term serial rapist/murderer... in these particular cases the criminals will commit these crimes over and over again... even if they've spent time in prison as "model" inmates... such was the case in, yet another, documentry i watched... the basis of the show was more on the lines of criminal pathology though... a female prison guard went missing... and they found her body several weeks later in a garbage dump... the body was stripped naked... after the intial autopsy they discovered two things... she had been raped and there were several bite marks on her person... the coroner had remembered a similar case in which a young woman was murdered, raped, and bite marks were found on her body as well... it turned out that the same rapist was an inmate at the prison that the female prison guard was working for... except he had become a "model" inmate... he was even a deacon in the prison's church... the compared x-rays of his teeth with the bite marks found on the prison guards body... they matched... and then they superimposed a picture of the bite marks from the first woman's body with that of the prison guards and again a match... the inmate was tried for a second murder/rape and this time instead of getting another life sentence they sentenced him to death... i'm again not using this to prove any side... it's just a point that rehibilitation doesn't always work... and in some cases is proven to work... anyway... but i'm not saying that it doesn't work in a lot of cases... ack... don't listen to me...

tracey

Reply from: misanthrope on 7/1/98 at 11:13PM. I'm curious what the conditions were in this prison. Do you know if there was actually some rehabilitation program set up that failed, or was this person who committed a rape just thrown into a prison and never participated in any programs? And what are you basing your statement that not all prisoners can be rehabilitated on? Were they involved in programs that failed? I wouldn't look to prison to rehabilitate, counseling programs do that. Often, convicts are just thrown into the prison environment where violence and brutality continue to happen, be it from other inmates, or from guards. Prisons are not used to rehabilitate, despite the pretext, they are used to punish and to enforce labor, there really is nothing rehabilitating about them, unfortunately. I did see a documentary awhile ago where convicted rapists were involved in a rehbilitation program, and it seemed to be working. It seemed to at least get through to some. But the prison issue aside, it is up to us to create a society free from the institutions that encourage such behavior.

Reply from: cossdog on 7/2/98 at 0:09AM. i'm not even sure what a perfect world would be exactly ... although i have a few ideas

Reply from: cossdog on 7/2/98 at 0:13AM. (but it certainly doesn't include the death penalty or violence of ANY kind)

Reply from: Brian Crabtree on 7/2/98 at 4:50AM. "How can anybody say how Iranians conduct their affairs are any more or less valid than our own. Certainly they may seem primitive, however, they are not within our jurisdiction of comment."

The same way I can say that the way Nazi Germany conducted affairs was less valid. The same way I can say that Taliban atrocity toward women in present-day Afghanistan is less valid.

Conditions in Iran are brutal and wrong. Religion is not an excuse. The idea that "cultural differences" validate violence and inhumanity, and place criticism out of "our jurisdiction", is ludicrous. Your moral relativism disappoints me.

Reply from: snaily on 7/2/98 at 5:50AM. i just want to say that i'm happy to live in a country that is civilised enough to have banned the deatpenalty .. justice isn't the place for revenge ..

Reply from: half evil on 7/2/98 at 8:46AM. there have been studies, and interviews done with serial rapists and some child molestors that i've read, where the men themselves admit that they participated in rehabilitation programs but certainly weren't rehabilitated. it's possible and it does happen.

back to henry lee lucas. despite the numbers lucas claimed, in 1985 he was convicted of ten murders which is more than enough to get him the death penalty. but he lucked out three days before. he's a serial killer, a serial rapist, a child molestor, and he's been into bestiality since he was 13. yup, an animal rapist, too. what a quality individual. i'm just saying he's not the most deserving of mercy in my book. however, i'll leave you with a quote directly from henry lee himself.

"Killing someone is just like walking outdoors. If I wanted a victim, I'd just go get one."

doesn't sound very rehabilitated to me, despite the amount of time he's spent in prison as well as in psych wards. hmm...

Reply from: James Feagin on 7/2/98 at 11:00AM. Prisons are meant to rehabilitate (sp?) death row is meant to kill those who have been deemed evil. Where I live (maryland) there have been two executions in the past decade. The first to die was named John Thanos. He was a drifter who murdered a hitchhiker on the eastern shore then murdered two teenagers at a gas station. He never showed any remorse, and he stated he could care less whether he lived or died. Does he deserve to live? Not in my opinion. There is also the case of a black man (I forgot his name) who murdered a police officer named Vincent Adolfo in 1985. He was in a drug induced stupor and later converted to Islam. He showed little remorse but was very religious. Does he deserve to live? Not in my opinion. In my opinion the death penalty is not meant as a deterrant, or to make the streets safer. It is for the family of a murdered victim to avenge a death. Some families have stated they didn't want a condemned person to die and they executed them anyway. That is an example where the state has too much power. As for the Iranian debate. I remember when I was working at a drug store one afternoon and a Muslim woman walked in. I asked her where she was from and she stated "Iran". I asked her is it really as bad for women there as they make it seem? She stated that she feels perfectly safe there and more endangered in the U.S. She felt that women in Iran were more liberated than American women, which I found a bit odd. The nazi reference is common, they are different in that they had no Aryan religious ideaology (sp?) and it was purely political. Those who conflicted with them were killed. Not the case in Iran. Muslims are among the most peacable persons I know. Just because they enforce their laws differently does'nt mean they are wrong. To correlate Nazi Germany with a group of radical Iranians is also ludicruous and exhibits too much of a dependance on media. Nevertheless, there is plenty of rhetoric to go around for and against the death penalty. 3/4 of all americans support it, and there are no signs that it will be made "illegal." An interesting sidenote, New York state re-introduced the death penalty in 1994. Since then crime has decreased by 69% and has the lowest homicide rate since 1966. Is this due to the death penalty? certainly not. However, the death penalty and high crime rates are certainly as one-sided and do not tend to reflect the culture. James

Reply from: Tracey on 7/2/98 at 12:03PM. misanthrope... yes he was in a rehibilitation program and seemed to be doing fine as well... he had become in all respects, by prison officials, priests, counselors as well as pyschiatrists, a "model" prisoner... he was even counseling other prisoners... so yeah... they all thought he was rehibiltated... when in fact he wasn't at all...

many serial rapists will tell you themselves that they are not going to be rehibiltated... just as most serial killers will not be rehibilitated... in every case that i've heard of convicted serial rapists being let back into society they have raped again and again... remember to be paroled most state prison's require that the inmate be able to find a job, pass many pysch exams, be "rehibilitated" to enter back into the society that they were imprisoned from...

and if you check out your statistics you'll find that what i'm saying about serial rapists and killers are true...

ack... in anycase... i told you that i didn't want to get into this discussion that i was just throwing out bits of information... but whatever... go ahead and debate it with me... argggghhhh... whatever...

tracey

Reply from: cossdog on 7/2/98 at 12:08PM. 1) What does the fact that the guy was black have to do with anything? 2) Odds are, if you ask women in or from Afghanistan or Algeria the same question you will get quite a different response (albeit a response potentially similar to women in many parts of the world, including the U.S.) 3) Muslims practice laws hundreds of millions of different ways because there are hundreds of million of different muslims, and more than a few Islamic nation-states. 4) 3/4 of Americans support the death penalty?? I have rarely found majority opinion a rather convincing argument ... check it

Reply from: cossdog on 7/2/98 at 12:09PM. the above was in response to james' last post

Reply from: James Feagin on 7/2/98 at 12:54PM. The fact the guy was black meant to me that he might have been given less leniency (sp?) than if a white committed the same crime. I support the death penalty, but the fact that blacks get it more does trouble me at times. Majority opinion does matter if you live in a so-called democracy (ha ha!) James

Reply from: misanthrope on 7/2/98 at 1:40PM. Thanks Tracey. I apologize if I came across as debating your post. I just really wanted to know more about this case.

Reply from: neurmisanthrope on 7/2/98 at 1:52PM. Where are you getting that 3/4 statistic, James? And I'm with cossdog, I think it was- majority opinions don't make a convincing arguement. Because the majority believes in something doesn't neccesarily make it right. I shouldn't need to explain this any further.

Reply from: misanthrope on 7/2/98 at 1:54PM. er...oops....mispelled my handle...I just woke up

Reply from: James Feagin on 7/2/98 at 2:26PM. well if this is a democracy then majority rules, correct? James I think this issue needs to be put to rest and we should agree to disagree....James

Reply from: misanthrope on 7/2/98 at 2:48PM. James...I think you missed the point. The majority may rule, but their ruling isn't always right and just. It's that simple.

Reply from: ...... on 7/2/98 at 2:50PM. I'm not going to state wheather I'm for or against the death penalty, but I was thinking of something that really puzzled me......Henry Lee Lucas had his sentence reduced to life in prison. But remember that lady who's name I believe was Carla Fay Tucker that was recently executed? I think that the difference in their sentences was quite odd considering what each of them had done.

Reply from: cossdog on 7/2/98 at 2:59PM. dude, the DEATH penalty is odd ...

Reply from: James Feagin on 7/2/98 at 4:55PM. Misanthrope, I agree, as a vegetarian in a meat-eating society I understand that the majority is not always right. And I do understand, I am just stating that RIGHT OR WRONG this is a democracy (if you wish to call it that) where the majority (sometimes) rules. I support the death penalty, yet I realize there are many problems with its application......James

Reply from: Brian Crabtree on 7/2/98 at 7:50PM. James Feagin: "It is for the family of a murdered victim to avenge a death. Some families have stated they didn't want a condemned person to die and they executed them anyway. That is an example where the state has too much power."

Ok, I'm trying to understand this. Are you saying that you think the victim (or their family) should be able to decide the punishment of the criminal?

As for the Iranian debate. I remember when I was working at a drug store one afternoon and a Muslim woman walked in. I asked her where she was from and she stated "Iran". I asked her is it really as bad for women there as they make it seem?

Did you get fired for this? "Excuse me, Ms. Customer, you look different than me, where are you from? Iran? Oh. Is it really that bad?" Seems pretty rude. How did you know she was Muslim?

"She stated that she feels perfectly safe there and more endangered in the U.S. She felt that women in Iran were more liberated than American women, which I found a bit odd."

Uh, yeah, I find that odd. There are quite a few female southern baptist apologists, too. What does that have to do with anything? "The nazi reference is common, they are different in that they had no Aryan religious ideaology (sp?) and it was purely political. Those who conflicted with them were killed." Explain the significance of your distinction between "religious" and "political". Suppose the Nazis *had* claimed that violent racist fascism was part of their religion. So what? Christian Identity skinheads do. Do you excuse them on the basis of their "culture"? "Infidels" in Iran *are* killed. The fundamental difference which determines whether most people will respond with outrage or indifference using the excuse of cultural ignorance is that when people are being beaten, denied medical care, wrongly imprisoned, forced to wear government-sanctioned clothing and not allowed in public because of their race, nationality, or the color of their skin, it's considered atrocity. When precisely the same things are done on the basis of sex, it's chalked up to "cultural differences."

"Just because they enforce their laws differently does'nt mean they are wrong."

Excuse me, do you know *anything* about Iran? Do you know *anything* about ethics? They mutilate and beat people to death with rocks for exercising their fundamental human rights. YES, that means they're wrong.

"To correlate Nazi Germany with a group of radical Iranians is also ludicruous and exhibits too much of a dependance on media."

I can't make sense of this. What are you talking about?

"An interesting sidenote, New York state re-introduced the death penalty in 1994. Since then crime has decreased by 69% and has the lowest homicide rate since 1966. Is this due to the death penalty? certainly not. However, the death penalty and high crime rates are certainly as one-sided and do not tend to reflect the culture."

This sidenote would be more interesting if I it made any sense. I've asked other people... No one can figure out what you're talking about. "reflect the culture"? Where did that come from? And if the decreased crime is "certainly not" due to the death penalty, why did you just inform us of those two unrelated tidbits??

Reply from: James Feagin on 7/2/98 at 9:29PM. Brian Brian Brian Brian OK, first and foremost I do not appreciate being spoken to in a condescending (sp?) manner. It is OK if you react strongly to an issue, however, when you resort to such language (as I read it in that context)I don't think it effectively exhibits your points. With that said, with your admitted training in collegiate debate, you know your tactics well. And I often notice how you shrewdly use persons statements against them. Very interesting. To say that I should be fired for inquiring of a persons background is quite amusing. My only statement is LIGHTEN UP. People ask me where I am from all the time! (Arkansan accent in Maryland) I think it is interesting to note such diversity. Yes, I even asked Non-Muslims *gasp* where they are from. Nevertheless, I noticed she was Muslin by the traditional wear expected of women (I don't want to mispronounce the garments name). As for the Iranian debate I am afraid I might have been taken out of context which I sincerly apologize for. No, I do not support human rights violations. However, I do not think Americans condemn a justice system from a relatively peaceful nation like Iran, when ours is just as bad or worse. The statement about the media was my assertion that the mass media may have played a role in exherting false pre conceptions towards the Iranian populace. The stat about New York city is my assertion that many sociological factors can contribute to the levels of crime in a city or state aside from the death penalty. I don't know how to incorporate quotes from another post, so I will post this now. Re-read Brian's post and answer in greater detail......back in a flash.....James

Reply from: James Feagin on 7/2/98 at 9:49PM. OK, let me finish up here quickly. First and foremost, I will not be sucked into conversation that personally and maliciously attacks someone. I can feel this conversation going that route (and I must admit that I have stated many points in the wrong context that does not help this) so hopefully this will end up with mutual respect for each others points. In NO way do I condone human rights violations and when I stated that we can't put western values on eastern societies, I primarily meant the way our justice/prison systems are implemented. I also find that correlating Iran (a mostly peaceful region) to Nazi Germany to be tactless. Iran's justice system is based on the Quoran (in its' many spellings) and Nazi Germany was based on mayhem, murder, and total anarchy under the facade of order. That is where I drew the distinction between religion and politics. In my points I also implemented various sidepoints that Brian did not find to relate. That is the execution of a sidepoint, it doesn't serve a function aside from serving as an interesting anecdote. I am just trying to state my opinion, my motivation is not to debate or to prove my point right or wrong. I enjoy looking at both sides of an issue. My sentiments are purely opinion with no harm intended....I consider my opinions on this topic completed.....let the issue rest. If you wish to e-mail me about it....feel free....James

Reply from: misanthrope on 7/2/98 at 9:49PM. Frankly, it frightens me, James, to know that you realize the death penalty has flaws, yet you still choose to support it.

Reply from: no name, because some of you kids can be so harsh to people with a different opinion. on 7/2/98 at 10:46PM. Everything has it's flaws. Condeming a person to a life in prison has just as many flaws as killing a person for who they have killed. I don't have an answer as to how our society can have a perfect little system of punishment for when crimes are commite. There is no such thing. This is off the subject of Henry Lee Lucas, but I would like to know your opinions on how the men who were recently accused of the hate crime that occured in Jasper, Texas should be punished if they are found guilty. I just assume that most of you know about this, how the hitch hiking black man was picked up by some men who were part of a racist hate group(I know the name, but am not sure of how to spell it so I won't make an attempt at it because I'll look even dumber) , and the drug him for a couple miles behind there pickup truck leaving him in what the police estimated to be over 500 pieces. That's such a disgusting thing. There is not a doubt in my mind that the people they ahve as suspects right now are innocent. And I do think that they should be put to death for doing such a sick thing.

Reply from: Brian Crabtree on 7/2/98 at 10:48PM. I haven't been condescending with you, James. Yet. If you'd like me to show more respect for your opinions, you might put a little more work into making them coherent and logical, and answering my questions without evasion.

"It is OK if you react strongly to an issue, however, when you resort to such language (as I read it in that context)"

What language are you talking about?

"And I often notice how you shrewdly use persons statements against them."

Well, uh, yup, that's the general idea of most arguments... You can even try it yourself! How about if, while you're replying to me, you keep my statements in mind, and refute them? Like... for example... I asked you about the significance of the distinction between religious and political groups. Why not try discussing the issue of heinous and violent widespread abuse of women and women's rights in Iran rather than just repeating your opinion of how "peaceable" Iranians are?

"I do not think Americans condemn a justice system from a relatively peaceful nation like Iran, when ours is just as bad or worse."

I think there is one or more words missing from this sentence. If this is really what you're saying... You're wrong -- many americans do condemn Iran's "justice" system.

"The statement about the media was my assertion that the mass media may have played a role in exherting false pre-conceptions towards the Iranian populace."

False preconceptions? Are you insisting that government-sanctioned mutilation and stonings do not occur in Iran on a regular basis? Are you insisting that women's rights are not abused?

"First and foremost, I will not be sucked into conversation that personally and maliciously attacks someone."

WHERE have I personally or maliciously attacked you? How did you come up with this? If you've embarassed yourself by "stating points in the wrong context" (whatever that means... I think you've been quite clear on most of your positions), I feel sorry for you... But you can't hold me responsible for that and say that I am maliciously attacking you just because I'm vocally and thoughtfully disagreeing.

"In NO way do I condone human rights violations and when I stated that we can't put western values on eastern societies, I primarily meant the way our justice/prison systems are implemented."

This means nothing, considering that the Iranian "justice" system is the human rights violation we were discussing.

"Iran's justice system is based on the Quoran (in its' many spellings) and Nazi Germany was based on mayhem, murder, and total anarchy under the facade of order."

Yes, Iran is a theocracy. Don't you think theocracy is wrong? Do you not consider stoning to be murder? The horde of cheering onlookers to be "mayhem"? Saying that Nazi Germany was based on anarchy is a joke. It demonstrates a shallow understanding of political structures.

"That is where I drew the distinction between religion and politics."

Yes, I fully understand the dictionary distinction between "religion" and "politics." My question was -- what is the significance of the distinction? In other words -- What is it about the "Quoran" which makes it immune from criticism where Mein Kampf is not? Please answer this; I'm running out of ways to phrase it so you'll understand.

"I consider my opinions on this topic completed... let the issue rest. If you wish to e-mail me about it....feel free...."

Great... so you're not going to argue anymore? Fantastic. I'll email this to you too.

Reply from: xsarcasmx on 7/2/98 at 10:51PM. it's like that bumper sticker against the death penalty.

i don't remember what it says exactly, but i think i can paraphrase it:

how can we kill people to show people that killing other people is wrong?

it just seems so hypocritical and cruel to me.

Reply from: msianthrope on 7/2/98 at 11:03PM. No name, what happened in Jasper, Texas sickens me to the point of nausea and tears, and if you can show me how the death penalty can destroy such institutions as those of bigotry, discrimination and hate, perhaps I'd advocate it. But it cannnot. It doesn't destroy those institutions that perpetuate such. That is our job to destroy those institutions. The death penalty only punishes those after they have committed a crime, meanwhile these institutions create this behavior. It doesn't really make sense to me, and we've already covered the deterrant subject, or lack of, on this thread. Instead of focusing so much on punishment after a crime has taken place, perhaps we should focus on stopping a crime before it is committed.

Reply from: An anonymous viewer on 7/2/98 at 11:17PM. I think Brian was being kind of snide and condescening to James in his last post. I don't agree with James ideas, but there are more effective and productive ways to respond, especially when everything was going really well and no one was screaming "fuck you" at each other (yet). If we all want intelligent discourse, then we all need to use some patience , compromise, and self-restraint.

back