h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It wasn't my decsion to make. The jury made the decsion. Once he pled guilty to raping and murdering that woman, the jury made the decsion that death was the appropriate senetence. I support their decsion.

When crimes are that awful, I don't think we should have to suffer the perpatratrs to live. He didn't have the right to rape and strangle that woman, and when you do stuff like that I think your right to life should be forfeit.

I'm a resident of Georgia, and I support our use of the death penalty. I think our law on the matter is very reasonable.

The question isn't whether or not said offenders deserve death. The point detractors of the Dealth Penalty want to make is this: If killing is wrong, then killing is wrong. The idea is that no one has the right to take a life. Forget about the myriad cases of wrongful imprisonment for a minute--forget about racial predjudices or economic improprities or even questions over whehter or not you want to put into the hands of a government the right to take a life--Just what countries even have the Dealth Penalty? China? Iran? Nice to be in the company of such human rights proponents. OK, smarmyness aside. There is this pound of flesh mentality wherever the Dealth Penalty is concerned--this "eye for an eye" bullsxxx. Does it help the victims heal? Who is better off? Are you under the very misguided notion that jail is "a tax-payer funded country club"? If you are, then you are sadly mistaken. You (one) can say he or she deserves this or that--that is all well and fine for drunken conversations in a bar, but when we talk about the taking of a humn life--and this goes for whether or not my dearest and most beloved ones were to ever--god forbid--be the victim--we cannot sink to that level of depravity. We, as a society have to be better than that. Yes, it is very, very unfortunate we live in such a brutal world and I am in no way saying murderers should go unpunished but when you factor in that (very) corrupt justice system--we have to be consistent--If killing is wrong, killing is wrong.

Killing is not wrong per se. There are instances when it is justified.

I don't care what other countries execute or don't execute people. I think it's a just punishment for some crimes.

There is a retribution elemment to any punishment. I think that's the primary place that the death penalty fits.

I have a clear picture of what prisons and jails are like. I've been in them. Those conditions are irrlevant.

I don't think we have a very corrupt justice system. In this case, the murderer confessed. He commited the crime, there is no doubt. He deserved the needle.

As have I. And they suck. Any system is going to involve some degree of human error, right? But thatis not the point. The only reason I mentioned the other countries is that most (if not all) civilizied countires around the world have come to the coclusion that the Dealth Penalty as a deterent simply does not work. Retribution is all well and fine, but, again, if your arguement is that killing is wrong, then... And I certainly do not want to trust a government (that I have seen first hand on more than a few occassions abuse its authority) decide who is going to live and who is going to die. Of course, this is just a forum for opinions, so there is no reason to feel as though we can't discuss this and though probably not reach an amicable conclusion, at least perhaps, look at it in a different light.

Again, I've never said that killing is always wrong. Sometimes it's the right thing to do. There's a huge moral difference between someone killing to defend a life or prevent a foricible felony and murdering a woman after you rape her. One is the act of a hero. The other is the act of a contemtable sub human who doesn't deserve oxygen.

The 'government' doesn't decide who gets the death penalty. That's determined by a jury of 12 citizens. There are many places along the way where government employees, judges, and elected officials can prevent an execution by deciding not to bring charges, overtuning decsions, or commuting death sentences to life.

For the sake of argument, let's just say that yas, the individual in question deserves to die. The problem is that despite notions to the contrary, it really isn't a case by case sorta affair. You need to implement laws that govern over various determining factors. Do you just reserve the Death Penalty fot murders who confess? Then you have the whole issue of coersion. I guess the only point I am trying to make is that human systems invlove humman failure (to some degree) and I'm not terribly sure that we are all going in the right direction. I think we get hung up on this idea of retribution. I don't think it helps victim's families heal. I think we need to be better than those we are attemping to punish.

On the Contrary, King of the Jews, the victim's family always want the perpetrator in a murder case to be killed (unless they're practising Christians or something (US Christians, as ever, can waiver this part of their faith conventiently)). It does help them "heal their hurt", if not in the noblest of ways, although it can't, of course, bring the murdered person back.

I'm not in favour of the victims of a crime deciding on retribution (as some of the more stupid right-wing commentators are fond of). It's down to the Legal system and the state to decide.

Oh, your probably right. Quite frankly, after going back and forth on such touchy issues like this I begin to doubt what I thought in the first place.I guess what it really comes down to is I have an inherent distrust of any government and when you start getting into things like letting officious b****ds in overpaid administrative positions deciding who lives or dies it just seems to me like you are asking for trouble.

I don't think families always want the death penalty, and even some people who do later change their mind. I'm sure it depends a lot on the nature of the offence, and there may be some crimes where the huge majority would favour a death penalty, but there must be other cases where the division of opinion is more equal.

As far as I can see, one problem is that if the death penalty is generally accepted as being a 'better' solution than life imprisonment, irrespective of their personal views, people might feel that they were letting down their deceased relative if they didn't press for it, or can end up feeling more cheated than they otherwise might if for one reason or another, the legal process ends in a sentence of life.

I've heard from a couple of reliable sources that William Randolph Hearst is the man to blame for the outlawing of hemp from America. Hemp was outlawed soon after he had gotten a patent on a machine that turned wood into paper; his competitors used hemp to make paper. Hemp of course is a renewable resource, while wood is not... and it makes better paper, being more fibrous. He was also the one responsible for 'Reefer Madness,' an anti-marijuana propaganda film. (If anybody knows where I can find a copy of this movie - I've never seen it, but it sounds hilarious...!)

Has anybody read Number of the Beast, by Robert Heinlein? The characters visit different universes - different versions of Earth. One alternate reality practices 'eye for an eye.' A drunk driver causes an accident, and the victim loses their leg. The drunk driver is punished by being forced to lie down in the road, while the state drives a car across *their* leg. (I think I'm remembering this right; obviously I need to read the book again.) I'm not advocating this, by any means - but for criminals like child abusers and rapists, it's tempting!

This comment is just a random observation, but... it's something I often think of, almost daily in fact. A very dear friend of mine and I used to argue about the death penalty. The state of California was debating whether to outlaw it (which they did, in 1975 or so). She felt that if her mother or brother were murdered, the person had better pay for it with the ultimate price. I very strongly disagreed. It was a common topic between us, neither giving an inch. The last time I talked to her we had reached a joking truce on it.

Sheryl Wiseman was stabbed to death in her car in Los Angeles, on July 29, 1976, by an assailant who may have been known to her. Nothing will bring her back, but I vacilate between her position on the death penalty and mine. Emotionally, she finally won that argument: I would have hanged the b*****d myself. But it still won't bring her back.

SC

Hi! I'm an American. You can tell right away, can't you?

Anyway, I can understand the "talk loud" stereotype. I tend to talk loudly. I didn't know this until I met my current husband. He is an only child (also an American) and he talked quietly. I visited his parents house. It was like a tomb.

I have 4 brothers and sisters. You can bet we yelled at each other a lot.

But really I think that the talking loud has many reasons.

I'll put the explanation in a seperate post because for some reason my fire wall won't let long ones through.

1. Personal space in the US is so much larger.

When Americans look at Europeans they wonder what they are conspiring about because they stand so close together. In the US, if you are standing closer than a meter to the person that you are talking to, people will accuse you of being lovers. Also, being spit on by someone talking is very much frowned upon. When you stand farther apart, you have to talk louder to be heard.

2. Distances in the US are much larger than in Britain.

The United States is a very big place. It is a young place that has only begun to be heavily settled. Most people live in areas with alot of space between them and their neighbors. Therefore, if you see your neighbor on the street, and you are at the door, you yell to greet them. Needless to say, some people may take offense at this.

3. Americans do not highly value being reserved
I know that in the UK, there is the mystique of the cultured person who speaks quietly and is reserved. James Bond, for example could just stand there looking smashing and speak volumes without saying a word. In the US if you stand there not saying anything, people wonder about you. You could be a serial killer. It is more valued here to be able to make pleasant small talk. Being too reserved comes off as being rude.

Comments?

Verbose, aren't you...

The British are far too quiet. The loudest peoples I've ever encountered are Americans and Italians. The British are very big on politeness, which is why I think they are so quiet. This also tends to mean they don't complain much and just get bitter instead, thinking the thing/person annoying them is beneath them and just turn their nose up at it. I think we'd be much happier as a country if we complained a bit more. You can complain without being an a******e.

But complaining's *so* much more fun if you let rip and be a total a**ehole!

When you do complain in this country though; no-one does anything about it: until you really let rip. Then, I usually feel like a a******e, and start apologising.

Family members can go either way on the issue. I don't think there's any undue pressure on them to decide one way or the other. Some might feel guilty because they haven't demanded the max. Others might feel guilty because they can't find forgiveness in their heart.

I think we have a good way of deciding which crimes warrant death. In all cases, except treason and aircraft highjacking, the judge or jury must find ebyond a reasonable doubt that an aggravating circumstance existed. The list is at [http://www.ganet.org/cgi-bin/pub/ocode/ocgsearch?docname=OCode/G/17/10/30].

Georgia law actually allow the death penalty for several crimes. The other crimes, aside from murder, are: treason, aircraft highjacking, armed robbery, rape, and kidnapping with injury. The US Supreme Court is currently saying that we can only impose it for crimes that result in death. I strongly disagree with their decsion.