Your View On Capital Punishment

by Dutchie 94 Replies latest jw friends

  • 4horsemen
    4horsemen

    It is interesting to note that if a immediate family member was the one who was killed, "hang em high!" but someone else's family member, well, "cant we all get along?"

    What's even more amazing is you'd probably have even greater uproar over caning someone than killing them.

    I personally support the death penalty. For murderers, child molesters, and drunk drivers. How can these people ever make recompense? Being someone's anal pin cushion in prison? If so, may they use a corn cob on them.

    But where to draw the line?

    Those Enron slugs did not know they were effectively ruining lives?

    100k die every year due to doctor error. Negligence or willful blindness?

    OJ?

    And regarding sin tax to pay for all these things. Better hope your neighbors keep sinning. Otherwise they'll be coming for your sins next.

  • plmkrzy
    plmkrzy

    ROTFLMAO@BECK!

    good night

  • Englishman
    Englishman

    Plmkrzy,

    Actually, on re-reading the thread, it is indeed ME that should apologise to YOU.

    What I actually meant to say was "You can tell me to mind my own business", this BTW, is a common phrase amongst Brits when they intend to make a comment about something that is really none of their concern, it's like an apology in advance for interfering.

    So, my mistake was typing up "You can yell at me to mind my own business" , which had highly critical overtones. This was a sightly boozy mistake made by me in the wee small hours for which I humbly apologise.

    Big Hugs,

    Englishman.

  • 144thousand_and_one
    144thousand_and_one

    plmkrzy,

    I find it hilarious how you constantly change the issue so as to avoid facing the reality that you made an offensive statement that had absolutely no support. You insulted legal professionals and disparaged our legal system and the Constitution upon which it is based. You provided absolutely zero facts to support your comments. Now you want to try to argue small points since you've failed miserably to defend the outrageous comments that precipitated this dialogue.

    Your tactics are very similar to those the Jehovah's Witnesses employ every time I discuss their faith with them. I guess they trained you well.

  • 144thousand_and_one
    144thousand_and_one

    Beck,

    I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. My comments were directed solely at the US legal system. I have no knowledge whatsoever of the Australian system, so I'll defer to you on that. There are unscrupulous attorneys here too, but the US system is certainly not as plmkrzy characterized it: "set up to protect the pockets of the Judges and the D.A's and the Lawyers and the Public Defenders and on and on and on. It is not set up to protect the citizens." Her comments did not address unscrupulous lawyers who take advantage of the system, rather, she disparaged the system itself. Our system is certainly not perfect, but it has proven to be one of the better systems for protecting the citizens and it is definitely not designed to place the interests of legal professionals over the interests of citizens.

  • Beck_Melbourne
    Beck_Melbourne

    144

    Thank you for your response. I know when a post is this old, people get distracted with the new threads and fail to respond to old thoughts/issues. I appreciate you coming back to me on this.

    You could be right in thinking that my understanding of your comment was misunderstood, for that I apologise. I do not however think that plum categorised the US legal system in the way you understood it. But, of course we all see things so differently...so I wont sit here and lecture you on what I think she said...I can only say what my understanding was.

    I won't comment on your defence of your legal system, you know it, I do not. I can only say that any system that has corruption has room for improvement. I am referring to our own legal system here in Australia btw.

    I guess we will have to wait for God's Kingdom LOL.

    Beck

  • 144thousand_and_one
    144thousand_and_one

    Beck,

    Thank you too for your response. I may have been overly reactive to plmkrzy's comments, but I'm a bit tired of the lawyer bashing that goes on over here. Lawyers perform a necessary function, and shouldn't be trashed for the few bad apples that are out there any more than law enforcement officials should. Plum's words speak for themselves, but she may not have intended them to come out that way.

    Plum, if you're reading this and didn't really mean to trash our legal system and legal professionals, then I'm sorry for being so defensive.

    You're right, I guess this "system of things" is really evil, and we'll have to wait for the "new system" for the 144,001 (that means me too) to start managing things for our benefit. I'm looking forward to the friendly lions and tigers and "sisters" and an eternity in the company of the "friends." Yes, hell I mean heaven on earth awaits us.

  • plmkrzy
    plmkrzy

    Below is a sample of one area, and I would like to emphasize ONY ONE AREA, among many that have been swept under our rugs for decades upon decades and only until recently has it gained enough attention for it to become an issue. One of the reasons for this is due to the past couple of decades the more promenant and whealthy among society have brought thier family members out of the closet and no longer hide them for fear of ridicule as it was so too often done in the past.

    There are many holes in the system that will never be pluged up. The fact of the matter is that the constitution and our amendants are in fact there at our disposal along with more human rights then one can shake a stick at. But unless you are aware of what they are beyond simply being able to recite them you cannot use them for your benifit.

    The other side of this coin is that those in our society that are driven to achieve power money and sucess and also have no concience to speak of, will and do use the system to achieve that. That's just the way it is.

    I can't imagine why the thought of this being a reality to some is so inconcievable this side of just simple inexpierence.

    Sometimes it takes learning something the hard way to actually learn it. Or at least be able to see the full scale of something that is otherwise ignored.

    I am posting these just for human interest. There are Thousands and Thousands where these came from.

    I will not argue there validity with anyone.

    Human Rights Watch

    This is the real world of human rights.

    Equal rights as long as you either completely understand exactly what that means and how to enforce them in legal terms or you can afford to hire someone that does.

    Jerome Bowden was in fact a human.

    Jerome Bowden

    Jerome Bowden was a small, undernourished twenty-four-year-old when he was accused(NOT FOUND GUILTY OF)of robbing and murdering a fifty-five-year-old Georgia woman and badly beating her bedridden mother. Bowden's I.Q. was measured at 59, and he could not count to ten. His mental age was approximately nine.

    Neighbors described Bowden "soft-spoken, pleasant, optimistic, and always smiling." One neighbor said:

    Before I knew [Bowden], I heard boys talking about him in the neighborhood, calling him crazy and retarded. People used to tease him, but it didn't seem to bother him. He didn't understand. He thought they were paying him a compliment.... He would get lost and wander around for a long time.... One time he took some money from [his employer], but it seems like someone may have put him up to it, because he didn't seem to know what he was doing. He didn't try to hide it. I don't think he meant to keep it. I think maybe he just forgot to turn it in, because he was just standing around with it in his pocket when they came looking for it. This is why I don't think he made the decision by himself. He was easily influenced by others.

    Bowden's sister, Josephine, recalled that "Jerome's mind just used to come and go." Once, while mowing his sister's lawn, the mower ran out of gas; Bowden filled the gas tank with water, then wandered off. When he was not working, Bowden would often just sit on his bed and rock himself back and forth for hours on end.

    When Jerome Bowden heard from his sister that the police had been looking for him, he went to them to find out how he could help. They confronted him about the crime, and he denied any involvement, but eventually he broke down, confessed, and signed a written statement acknowledging his guilt. James Graves , a sixteen-year-old boy, implicated Bowden in the crime; beyond Graves's statement and Bowden'sconfession, no physical evidence linked Bowden directly to the crime, although a great deal of evidence incriminated Graves.

    Bowden denied that he had played a role in the murder. When asked why he had made a false confession, Bowden struggled to find an answer:"Well, that I don't know. Only thing that I knew, since Detective Myles had told me this here.... Had told me about could help me, that he could, you know, which I knew that confessing to something you didn't take part in was-if you confess to something that you didn't do, as if you did it, because you are saying that you did." Apparently Detective Myles promised Bowden that he would help him stay out of the electric chair if he confessed. When his clemency attorney later asked him if he had even read his "confession" before signing it, Bowden said, "I tried."

    Although Jerome Bowden could hardly read and could not count to ten, his trial lawyers did not raise his retardation during his defense. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. When the state granted a last-minute, ninety-day stay of execution to have his mental capacity evaluated, Bowden's lawyers rushed to his cell with the news, but Bowden did not understand the meaning of a "stay." He asked his attorney if the stay meant he could watch television that night. "Jerome has no real concept of death," his attorney ruefully concluded.

    During the stay of execution, Irwin Knopf, a psychologist from Emory University, gave Bowden another I.Q. test at the request of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles. This time Bowden scored 65, higher than on his previous testsbut still clearly within the definition of mental retardation. Knopf nonetheless concluded that Bowden was not sufficiently disabled to merit clemency. To a retarded kid who wasnt even guilty of the crime. But because the murderer that committed the actual crime said the retard did it. He received a lesser sentence

    Bowden's lawyers were devastated. Bowden, in contrast, was proud of his performance on the I.Q. test: "I tried real hard," he told his lawyers. "I did the best I could."

    Relying entirely on Knopf's test, the State Board of Pardons and Paroles refused to grant clemency for Jerome Bowden. Bowden was "scared," his lawyers said, but he told an interviewer that he was "going off to live on a little cloud," and he hoped a guard who had befriended him "would live on a cloud near him someday."

    Despite a public outcry, Bowden was executed on June 4, 1986.

    The law in that state has since changed. No longer can a mentally retarded person be sentenced to death. However this does not affect those mentally retarded who were sentenced to death prior the new law. They will still be executed since there sentencing was dated prior to the date of the new law.

    BEYOND REASON:

    One New Years Eve night a man took his neighbor out and drank a bottle of whiskey. They then killed a man and robbed him.

    The man confessed to the crime and identified the retarded neighbor boy as his accomplice in exchange for a lesser sentence.

    Limmie Arthur was the seventeenth of eighteen children born to a poor South Carolina sharecropper family. His intellectual abilities are that of a seven-year-old.

    Arthur was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death in 1985

    Arthur himself was convinced that he had been sentenced to death because he could not read. While on death row, he diligently tried to learn to read with the hopes of eventually obtaining his general equivalency diploma. He thought he would get a reprieve if he was successful.

    The South Carolina Supreme Court ultimately ruled that Limmie Arthur had not "knowingly or voluntarily" waived his right to a jury trial, and it overturned his death sentence. Prosecutors agreed to accept a term of life imprisonment instead of trying him again.

  • Beck_Melbourne
    Beck_Melbourne

    LOL@144

    Hey guess what honey, you won't be with us lowly ones...we'll be on earth...you're going to be working your ass off upstairs LOL.

    We'll be rolling around naked in hay stacks...drinking wine from our vineyards and being merry

    Beck

  • 144thousand_and_one
    144thousand_and_one

    Plmkrzy,

    I never said our system was perfect, but the examples you cited do not in any way substantiate your earlier claim that the US system "is set up to protect the pockets of the Judges and the D.A's and the Lawyers and the Public Defenders and on and on and on. It is not set up to protect the citizens."

    There will always be instances where any justice system fails, hence my opposition to the death penalty. No system is perfect, but to say that ours is designed to protect the interests of legal professionals and not set up to protect citizens is ridiculous. On its face, the wording of the Constitution and its amendments does not support this claim, and in practice, the system puts the interests of the citizens above all else in the substantial majority of cases.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit