AURainman 6 Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 I needed to edit the my above post, but rather than look like a coward that backs away from his own comments I will let it stand. TigerAl did NOT say he thought Manson SHOULD have more rights. He said he technically does have more rights. My bad. I apologize for falsely accusing you. I still think that defending abortion w/ respect to the death penalty is an absurd argument though and my feelings still stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 How did I twist what you wrote? I was simply highlighting what you wrote. Maybe I misunderstood you. You said, technically I think Manson should have more rights than an unborn child. That offends me greatly. I know you value life. You have to. I have met you before and know you are a good person. I did not aim that post directly at you, but rather indirectly. I was speaking of the stereotypical liberal. Allowing technicalities to get in the way of common sense seems to be the crusade of most liberals. Legally does Manson have more rights than an unborn child. Technically yes. Does it follow any course of logic? No. No...you did it again. You don't HIGHLIGHT what is said by changing the meaning of what is said. I did not say "I think he SHOULD HAVE more rights," I said The answer to your question would probably be, technically, yes, I think that Charles Manson DOES have more rights than an unborn baby. Under the current laws a 'born' person DOES have more rights than an unborn child because, legally, until the baby is born, or maybe 30 weeks gestational age(I'm not sure), it is not considered a citizen, and therefore, does not receive constitutional protection as Manson does. There are some exceptions, I'm sure, which is why I said some input from attorneys would be helpful. I used the word 'technically' because of the reasons I've just mentioned. It is 'technical' because it is due to legal reasons that Manson, you or I would have more rights than the unborn. My personal feeling is that the unborn should be allowed the same rights ascribed to the mother, as it is a part of her. The other side of that argument would be that because it IS a part of her she has the right to do with it as she sees fit. It ultimately comes down to the question, "At what point does life begin?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autigger 0 Posted September 29, 2003 Author Share Posted September 29, 2003 Dang does everything have to be politcal around here???? That was not what this thread was to turn into........<sigh> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wishbone 0 Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 Who cares if it deters crime? (which it does) They're being executed for the sake of punishment, which is a very important aspect of justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wishbone 0 Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 Also...I think it is cruel and unusual to the families of the victim to have these guys on death row for over a decade. The families should decide and carry out the fate of the murders. The old days, when criminals were tracked down and hung by a posse, delivered much better justice than the incompetent courts we have now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 I needed to edit the my above post, but rather than look like a coward that backs away from his own comments I will let it stand. TigerAl did NOT say he thought Manson SHOULD have more rights. He said he technically does have more rights. My bad. I apologize for falsely accusing you.I still think that defending abortion w/ respect to the death penalty is an absurd argument though and my feelings still stand. No problem, Rainman. You posted while I was responding to your other one or I would have included this response earlier. Confused yet? I wasn't defending abortion with the death penalty argument. Like I said, if we decide what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' based solely on dollars and cents, i.e. it's cheaper to kill prisoners than to house them, then that same logic can be extended to make abortion 'right'. Using the economic logic, if I'm a woman faced with an unwanted pregnancy, do I pay for the support of the unwanted child until it can support itself, which would be very costly, or pay a few hundred dollars for an abortion? Using the economics only logic, the cheap abortion is the way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,509 Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 The one error in the oft-stated statistic about life-imprisonment being cheaper than execution is disingenous. Every comparison of the two I've seen compares the cost of incarceration to the cost of not just the execution, but the cost of all the appeals and time it takes in court to resolve them. A more accurate comparison would be to add the appeals even a "life without parole" sentence would generate to the cost of housing, clothing, feeding, providing medical care, and so on for them for 40 years. The life sentence would cost at least as much if not more. Why? Because if "life w/o parole" is the maximum sentence, the inmate would have no reason not to exhaust all his appeals and see if he can get the sentence reduced or at least be eligible for parole. The execution itself is not expensive. It's the court time that jacks up the price tag. Meanwhile, the lifer gets a chance to possibly kill again...in prison. Maybe offing a guy in for armed robbery, 2nd degree murder, or assault doesn't matter to you, but I'll bet it does to that guy's family. Those folks will eventually get out and hopefully be able to start a new life. Now, that scenario is very real, unless we build separate facilities for the life-without-parole types or put them in solitary. Of course, that jacks the cost of housing them up even more, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted September 29, 2003 Share Posted September 29, 2003 Titan, there are many automatic appeals that are included in capital punishment trials that aren't available for non-capital trials. In a non-capital trial, appeals are usually only granted if there was an error in the original trial. This excerpt comes from Death Penalty Information.org-Yes, it is an anti-death penalty site. Death penalty cases are so expensive because they take longer at every stage and require vast resources for both the prosecution and the defense. The authors of the North Carolina study identified 24 principal areas in which a death penalty case would likely be more expensive than if the case were tried non-capitally. These areas included: More investigative work by both law enforcement officials and the defense team More pre-trial motions More questioning concerning individual jurors' views on capital punishment and more peremptory challenges to jurors at jury selection The appointment of two defense attorneys A longer and more complex trial A separate penalty phase conducted in front of a jury A more thorough review of the case on direct appeal More post-trial motions Greater likelihood that counsel will be appointed for a federal habeas corpus petition Greater likelihood that there will be full briefing and argument on federal review More preparation for, and a longer clemency proceeding. Wishbone, if there were no death penalty then the families wouldn't be 'waiting' for ten years to have the fate of the convicted to be carried out. It would begin to be carried out the moment a guilty verdict was announced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,339 Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 Wishbone, if there were no death penalty then the families wouldn't be 'waiting' for ten years to have the fate of the convicted to be carried out. It would begin to be carried out the moment a guilty verdict was announced. Now that is the smartest thing you've ever suggested. Just like the old days, drag'em out of curt straight to the gallows. Saves time and money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU4Ever 0 Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 I'm for the death penalty. I'm not for or against guns. I don't own one, but feel like it's everyone's right to decide on their own. But, I watched the PPV 'Bowling for Columbine" last weekend. The movie brings up a lot of valid points and highlights the numbers on murder in the USA compared to many others in the world. It makes the viewer think. I'm not a Michael Moore fan, but this movie was worth the price of admission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CCTAU 3,339 Posted September 30, 2003 Share Posted September 30, 2003 I'm for the death penalty. I'm not for or against guns. I don't own one, but feel like it's everyone's right to decide on their own. But, I watched the PPV 'Bowling for Columbine" last weekend. The movie brings up a lot of valid points and highlights the numbers on murder in the USA compared to many others in the world.It makes the viewer think. I'm not a Michael Moore fan, but this movie was worth the price of admission. Please investigate and ask if his numbers are correct and if they are actual numbers and not just made-ups according to his criteria. A lot of numbers can be skewed either way. But the anti gun crowd are best at making you think all these children are dying when in actuality, the numbers are less than playground accidents. They also add the gang-bangers who die committing a crime into the number of children getting killed. Michael Moore is an idiot that even hard-core liberals boo. So be careful of the endorsements you give without having investigated the facts. Good questions are brought up by many people. Its just that the intelligent people give credible solutions. He has not an ounce of credibility in his brain. Gald you enjoyed it. Now go and read a few books with a different perspective. "Guns. Freedom. and Terrorism." "Guns, Crime, and Freedom". "More Guns, Less Crime." Yes, it has to be books because there aren't any staunch conservatives in Hollywood who would give money to tell people the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.