McVeigh vs Death Penalty

by Amazing 272 Replies latest jw friends

  • Julie
    Julie

    To all of those who misunderstood/misread my words,

    Here's an example of what I mean:

    :The comment was made in referance to Julie saying that that would have been a more suitable punishment. I feel that it would be more inhumane than death.

    Though I have tried to speak plainly my words have been misunderstood, even by some who I would/could/should have expected more from but hey, that's ok. I never said anything about wanting anyone to suffer a life in prison (or the death penalty for that matter), what I said was (and you can scroll on up if you doubt me, you'll note my original post has no editing) this:

    :I think he'd have suffered more for it if he had been sent to some horrible prison for life where he could be someone's "bitch" and have no control over his life.

    There now. A little clarification for those who misunderstood or intentionally misrepresented my words, whatever the case may be. Even those hungry for vengence agree with me it would have been more horrible.

    Julie, who is into concise communication

    P.S. Amazing, I am hoping that link I provided was satisfactory. I was hoping to see your opinion on those facts.

  • SlayerLayer
    SlayerLayer

    Julie, I think you will find that your condescending attitude will get you nowhere. As amazing put it, your comments are snide and arrogant. We can disagree with being assholes.

  • JanH
    JanH

    Slayer,

    You said:

    We can disagree with being assholes.
    And of course I would hope you could.

    But how does this statement, from an earlier message, come into your sudden realization that a "condescending attitude will get you nowhere":

    Awwwww...did da poor wittle muhdawah have a bad environment to grow up in? Poor wittle guy.
    Quit hugging trees with your bleeding heart. Go save some whales or something.

    - Jan
    --
    Faith, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel. [Ambrose Bierce, The DevilĀ“s Dictionary, 1911]
  • Amazing
    Amazing

    Julie:

    I have been sick with bronchitis and have not been on line very much in the last couple of days. I reviewed the site you recommended. Here are some of my thoughts:

    First, you mention in one of your posts: "Oh my, but you are in denial aren't you? Why don't you just have a look at some of the headlines around the nation and see the $50 million+ pricetag on the McVeigh thing alone."

    You also seemed frustrated with my request for citing your sources, expressing that you don't recall chapter, page and paragraph. I did not request such, only a reliable source. The reason I requested at least one credible source is that when discussing some issues, such as financial matters with You Know, I see how he relies heavily on Lyndon LaRouche for information. I wanted to see what you rely on for sources. You cited the following:

    http://www.uscourts.gov/dpanalty/4REPORT.htm

    This appears to be as good a source as any, although I have not yet taken the time to research any others. Here is what your cited report stated with respect to the average adjusted costs of federal death penalty cases:

    The average total cost for authorized cases ending in capital trials was $269,139,(13) as compared to $192,333 for authorized cases." ... "Drug conspiracy cases (including both CCE and RICO prosecutions) are the most expensive federal death penalty cases to defend. The total cost of representation in drug conspiracy cases in which the prosecution authorized seeking the death penalty averaged $244,185,(19) or nearly 12 percent more than the average total cost of all authorized cases."

    First, I find that a 12% increase cost over all authorized cases is not all that significant. Second, if McVeigh's trail and legal costs approached $50 Million price tag you mentioned, then obviously this greatly affects the overall averages, such that the mean average total would be considerably less than the $269,139 cited in the Report.

    I will have to check and verify my next comment, but I have a recollection that the cost to house a prisoner, provide food, clothing, medical care, parole hearings, excluding the costs of lifelong legal representation for appeals and other legal support, will cost the taxpayers about $40,000 per year. If a prisoner, such as McVeigh, enters the prison system at age 30 and dies in prison at age 80, the overall 50 year costs for basic needs, inflation not factored in, will be about $2,000,000. (Keep in mind I need to check on the figure I gave.)

    Assuming that McVeigh's trial cost the $50 Million you cite, it was well above the average for federal death penalty cases which averaged $269,000. Had this high profile case not been a death penalty case, I can only imagine that its price tag would have still been in the tens of millions.

    My point is that I do not see cost as the basis to determine whether a case is tried as a death penalty case, or life in prison. There are too many variables to be certain just exactly what the taxpayer would have saved were McVeigh given life in prison.

    Assuming, however, that McVeigh would have been tried in a non-death penalty case, what would have been the actual costs? The Report you cite says that death penalty cases average about 12% more than non-death penalty cases. So, we might calculate the following:

    $50 Million less 12%: =$44,000,000
    Life in Prison =$ 2,000,000 (My Assumption)
    Legal appeals, etc. life =$? (unknown)
    __________________________________________________
    Actual cost to taxpayer =$46,000,000 + legal appeals, etc. for life

    Actual savings to taxpayer =$4,000,000 or less depending on McVeigh's lifelong appeals and other legal haggling.

    I do not like the idea of the death penalty anymore than I like having criminals harm us. But, the signal sent is that when a criminal violates someone's normal right to life, then the crimninal forfeits his/her own right to life. End of story. If my estimates and calculations are in correct or if other data shows that I am in serious error, then I will admit such error. My objective here is not to prove I am right about anything. My main objective is to express my opinion that the Death penalty in limited cases, such as McVeigh's is a just and fair execution of the will of the people at large. - Amazing

  • SlayerLayer
    SlayerLayer

    Haha Jan I figured you would be the one to pick up on that. LOL

    I don't deny that I am an asshole. I can be a prick. But I don' say things like "I'll speak slowly for you, so you can understand". I don't look down my nose at the little people and imply that I am all knowing and all wise because of my being "into concise communication"

    Chris (of the asshole and prick class)

  • SlayerLayer
    SlayerLayer

    My apologies to you Julie. I'm a little too quick to mud sling. We simply differ on opinions. Sorry for having been a jerk to you.

    Chris

  • LDH
    LDH

    To be quite frank, one of the reasons Capital cases cost so much is because of freaking bleeding heart liberals like yourself, Julie.

    Between every appeal known to man, of course it costs more money!

    If, however, you had read what *I* proposed, the cost to prosecute ALL felony cases would drop drastically.

    Your argument never addresses the fact that Capital cases cost more to process because they involve the death of one or more victims. Of course there will be additional news coverage of such a trial!

    Who ever heard of giving a shit about a trial where the charge is 'Felony posession of marijuana.' OOOOOHHHHHH sounds serious!

    And you are a fool to believe this issue is NOT decided by the people. The United States Attorney or District attorney is the person who makes the decision on what type of punishment they'll seek for the crime committed. To suggest that these people live in glass houses with absolutely no input from their constituents is outrageous.

    For the record, Cary Stayner's trial started here in Fresno this week. He's the poor widdle guy who killed a mother, daughter, and daughter's best friend in Yosemite National Park last summer. That wasn't enough to satisfy his blood lust, so some one month later he killed naturalist Joie Armstrong by beheading her.

    And you want to tell me how I'm supposed to respect his white-bread middle class upbringing because he was *traumatized* by his childhood.AWWWWW, poor widdle guy.AWWWW.

    Yes, his trial is costing more. Because his defense attorney made a motion to move the trial north. He was concerned poor widdle Cary Stayner wouldn't get a fair trial. AWWWWW.

    Too bad Cary Stayner wasn't concerned about:
    Carole Sund
    Julie Sund
    Silvina Pilosso (visiting from Argentina)
    and Joie Armstrong.

    AWWW.

    If I had the opportunity, I would personally start the drip of Sodium Penathol.

    When you get viciously abducted and murdered, I'll make sure your killer gets a fair trial and that he lives out his days in our prison system, where your parents and other taxpayers will end up paying for his geriatric ass end of life care.

    BTW your costing analyses are screwed because of the skyrockting cost of providing geriatric care to patients sentenced to life in prison. Health care costs in general are skyrocketing and we are only just seeing the beginning of having to pay for Depends for these Mother #$*$rs.

    JanH, I'll be waiting for that first shipment of ZyklonB!

  • Roamingfeline
    Roamingfeline
    But there's that ugly fact again....the fact that babies are clean slates and become what WE turn them into. Deal with it.

    Julie, with all due respect, I disagree here with this statement. Human beings are a product of BOTH genetic make-up AND environment. I can look at my own children and see that. I don't even need higher studies to tell me that, although those studies have been conducted. Babies are definitely NOT clean slates. And the social problems surrounding child rearing are highly complex and not easily solvable.

    Basically, I agree with what Amazing had to say on this subject, except I'm close enough to the Tim McVeigh case to be angry enough to want to make an exception and see him tortured before he "died peacefully".

    I don't believe Amazing deserved to be told you would "talk slowly to him". That was disrespectful. I find Amazing to be an intelligent poster who doesn't deserve that treatment.

    In most cases, I agree that there should be 100% proof positive that someone did it before the death penalty is used. Whether that means using DNA or a confession doesn't matter. The 100% proof rule should be adhered to.

    RCat

  • Abaddon
    Abaddon

    SLayerLayer;

    No apologies needed for your argumentative style mate; we seem to give as good as we get ;-)

    I agree that Europe has seen its share of barbarism. That means we know what we are talking about. We have murderers, terrorists, paedophiles, rapists. We used to kill them. Now we don't.

    I simply feel that anyone that could possibly kill an innocent child. does not deserve to walk the same earth as you a I.
    I agree that they should not walk the Earth. Life imprisonment should mean life imprisonment, at least for some offenses.

    I feel that they should in the same manner as they kill. If they rape and mutilate a child, then they should be raped and mutilated, as they are forced to look at pictures of their dead victim.
    I think that would make the judicial system as disgusting as the murderer.

    I'm also glad to see you were joking about adultery and drugs, although I think one is wrong, I am heartily in support of the latter.

    As for drug history, well, I'm sure we could have a good conversation about that as I am fairly well informed. I also live in a country where pot is legal, and where the politicians have actually read their history. The only reasons tobacco and alcohol are legal are historical ones, and as you point out, the reasons the main drugs of today are banned for largely religio-political reasons.

    Prohibition of alcohol didn't work. The war on drugs hasn't worked. Drugs are cheaper, more plentiful, easier to get hold of. And billions have been wasted on fighting 'it'.

    Essentially if drugs were available at their production costs plus tax and profit, there would be virtually no drug related crime, as you point out. Drug taking is a victimless crime if the drug taker can afford their fix, and if there's no huge profit to be made on supplting the fix.

    There's also a difference between use and abuse. I smoke pot virtually daily, have a full time job as an assistant manager of an IT departnment (I was on the helpdesk 'phone when I joined the company in September), am studying towards a degree, and spend a weekend each month in England to see my kids. I use drugs. Wow, I am so screwed up maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan.

    We will always have sad little junkies who abuse drugs, and they have as much in common with me as a normal drinker does with an alcoholic.

    Education is the key; as my University disertation was titled, 'Just Say Know'.

    As around half of America's two + million strong prison population is in prison for non-violent drug offenses, there are those who debate the continued support of the current drug laws is due to the large amounts of money to be made in incarseration in privately-run prisons, pandering to the religious-right and a certain 'devil we know' policy. When prohibition was repealed the crime families that sprung up diversified; they would do the same again.

    As for 'walkin into a convenience store to pack a pack of mary jane', come to Holland.

    You can. They have menus. Resin or herbal? Sativa or Indica? You choose. Let me know if you ever come over here.

    8-)-~

    I also enjoy your posts, and agree that we simply disagree on the subject of the death penalty, and have a similary 'Yo! Muthafucker!' arguementative style on the occasion.

  • Tallyman
    Tallyman

    In this whopper of a thread about Timothy McVeigh which has now been read over 3000 times... has anyone here given their open interpretation to the poem, INVICTUS ? ?

    It has figured so prominently in the news this week...
    what with being America's Worst Mass Murderer Tim McVeigh's
    "LAST WORDS"

    The WORDS by which McVeigh wanted people to remember him.

    I gave my interpretation of the poem, INVICTUS, McVeigh loved so:

    * http://www.intrex.net/tallyman/Invictus.html

    Anyone else?

    Has there been an intrepretation or discussion of INVICTUS
    in any other thread on the DB, to which someone could point me?

    .

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit