R.I.P. Stanley Williams

[Scummbuddy]

Geoffkhan: We tell the jury that to even think of the death penalty, they have to have been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty. Plus its up to the judge to decide.

Yes, I'm sure there are innocent people in just plain jail. But hopefully, as technology improves, we will have at least a 99.9% accuracy when it comes to the death penalty. Of course 100% is wanted, but unlikely. And with the technology improvements, hopefully the innocent will be freed.

-------------
And I'm pretty sure that it costs the state the same amount of money to just put someone to death, as it does to keep them in a cell, and feed them for the rest of their life. I know, to me, it doesn't add up well, but that's what I've read. If anyone feels like correcting me, or backing me, thats cool. Whatever.
-------------
King, you dont seriously have a book like that for your children, do you?
{edit from post below} ahh, ok, for some reason, I was thinking of Nikolas.Ã,  nevermind.

[IM NOT TEH SPAM]

King, you dont seriously have a book like that for your children, do you?

I don't have kids... and no, i was joking...

Err, sorry.  I just realized how unclear i said that...

[Nikolas]

Anyway I don't thikn that this (like most debates in the internet), is going anywhere.

Let me take down to this:

I feel that death penalty is wrong! I don't think that any human being can have a call on anybodys life! And when it happens (murder), I think that the punishment should be severe! The worst possible, but not killing!

And Farlander I kinda answered your question with our own little Hitler (who is acutally responsible for a lot of lives, including my uncles Nikiforos Mandilaras, was his name). But still neither me or my parents want to see this guy of ours (Papadopoulos, reread my post), dead.

There are a lot of hypothetical questions here: Again, if someone murdered my family or a close friend of mine, would I kill the murderer? I don't know! I just don't know. But I am pretty sure that after the trial and his eternal lock up in jail I wouldn't care to kill him anumore. That's what I thinki. I'm not sure.

[ManicMatt]

I think that the punishment should be severe! The worst possible, but not killing!

Like... torture? Then it would be more humane to just kill them.

Okay okay I'm putting words into your mouth now!

Let it be know Nikolas, I do respect your regard for human life, but I myself am not so pure when it comes to evil bastards.

[Nacho]

I don't agree with a system that kills people who has been proven to be innocent more than 20% of the times, Mr. Geoffkahn. Actually, suspects that at least one innocent has been killed makes me go against death penalty.

Re-read my post, and realise that in first place I've been trying to say shitar that he must be respectfull with Squinky in first place. Then I inquired about the feelings of people about inducting a coma state to the prisoners... And then my attitude has been directed to realise where does the "Group B" people put the line for agreeing with death penalty.

See? I haven't said my opinion at the moment. Ã, 

I am against the "happy" administration that some states do about death penalty. I am sure that I would push the button if I were a relative of a person who has been killed, if I were sure of his fault, and I am sure it would me feel better.

As you can see... I am closer to you than "Group A" in this discussion... But not enough for moving a finger against this particular "Stanley Williams".

[Gregjazz]

Gregor: The innocent people on death row indicates a problem with the courts, not with the penalty itself. Say the penalty was reduced to life. Those innocent people would still be in there for life. But Williams was, by his own confession, not innocent. So rather than sucks for him, I say fuck him.

If the innocent people were had a life sentence they have a chance at being freed. Yes it is a problem with the courts... we still have problems that weren't completely resolved even after the Clarence Gideon case. In Gideon's case the original witnesses were found to be lying.

In my mind Williams was not innocent and therefore deserves punishment, though there is some controversy whether he committed those four murders. Apparently he pleaded not guilty in the murder case, and the day before his execution his lawyers found witnesses testifying that the original witnesses were lying, being also criminals like Williams. I don't know whether this is true or not, but it does present a doubt.

Economically it does favor the death penalty, since it does cost a LOT of money to keep people in prison for life as opposed to executing them with lethal injection which costs around $100 and some time to fill out forms.

[Gregjazz]

Geoffkhan: We tell the jury that to even think of the death penalty, they have to have been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty. Plus its up to the judge to decide.

Yes, I'm sure there are innocent people in just plain jail. But hopefully, as technology improves, we will have at least a 99.9% accuracy when it comes to the death penalty. Of course 100% is wanted, but unlikely. And with the technology improvements, hopefully the innocent will be freed.

Every year around 4 people on death row are found innocent and freed. In my opinion, that's a suprisingly high amount. You make it seem as though our justice system is very accurate in proclaiming someone guilty or not guilty.

And even if the innocent are freed, it's still on their record as being convicted. That and it's also quite an inconvenience as you can imagine.

[big brother]

I can imagine that would be a big hit at the job interviews.

Interviewer: We noticed on your resume that there's this period of time between when you quit your last job and today. Could you explain a little?
Former Death Row Inmate: Funny story, actually...

[shitar]

 I'm making my last post in this thread with this:

If you have ever lived in a city or area that was like the "Ghetto" and saw what the life there was like, read his book and you will understand what it's targetting.

If you have lived a fairly comfortable life, don't bother reading it unless you are out to prove that it's a giant "subliminal message".

He killed 4 people because of the man he was 25 years ago. If he would have been taken behind the court and executed IN HIS CRIMINAL MINDSET that would seem to be the most justifyable government killing. He was killed 25 years after he killed 4 people. In my opinion that was enough time to be redeemed and I think the point of executing a criminal is for what they would do if they were free, not because they 'broke the law'. He didn't try to get OUT of jail. He wanted life without parole so he could continue his writing.

Whether they were sincere or not his books appealed and had a positive message for the young black people that were victims to the American "ghetto" lifestyle. He saved potentially 1000s of young black men from getting his fate which in turn saved the people those black men would have killed if they joined a gang, to prove themselves.

I believe killing a human that killed a human can be justifyable in only some extremely rare cases. But then we could argue the entire human complex and ask 'who is to say killing is bad'? What universal scientific law is there that says Hitler is evil because of what he did. This is an interesting debate that should be brought up more in the world.

[ManicMatt]

"He saved potentially 1000s of young black men from getting his fate which in turn saved the people those black men would have killed if they joined a gang, to prove themselves."

Prove it.

[DonB]

Yo Big Brother,

about this:
"I like how you focus on my example and ignore the actual fucking argument, bub.

If you can't post something relative (or even something logical), don't."


I don't think you should talk to me like that, I am just discussing, don't have such arguments like; If you can't post something relative (or even something logical), don't....

About the content; I ment.. even the kind of murderers like terrorists, serial killers or what so ever, who are we to decide over a human life, if we would, we are just as bad as them self..

There are the blow-them-self-up terrorist yes, but there are thousands of "sleepers" and "brains" if I am right, all with horrible plans..

[IM NOT TEH SPAM]

About the content; I ment.. even the kind of murderers like terrorists, serial killers or what so ever, who are we to decide over a human life, if we would, we are just as bad as them self..

We are the ones being murdered and terrorized.

[DonB]

Yes, so should we kill them back them? and be as bad as they are?

If it gets personal I cant promise i wont, but in the objective way answer must be no!

And then there's the case of sick people, you can't kill sick people just because they are sick;
In the getto's kids see drugdealerd kill eachother over some money every day, all raised up only by mum, even saw there own dad killed, can't expect those people to live their life normally on..

Those people are just becoming sick, not knowing whats right and whats wrong, killing other people cause that's what they are grew up with, you can't kill those people because they are sick can you?!

[Gregjazz]

"You're out of your element, Donny."

I don't think you should talk to me like that, I ain't calling you names or something, I am just discussing, don't have such arguments like; If you can't post something relative (or even something logical), don't....

Somehow I don't think you got the reference...

[DonB]

Ahh i get it, The Godfather..
anyway shoudnt be so rude still..
ontopic now

[ManicMatt]

While I admit he did sound rather rude using the 'f' word, I sense that the "donny" bit is some kind of film reference or something, and therefore used playfully.

[DonB]

Ahh thanks, got it now..

[big brother]

Yes, so should we kill them back them? and be as bad as they are?

If it gets personal I cant promise i wont, but in the objective way answer must be no!

And then there's the case of sick people, you can't kill sick people just because they are sick;
In the getto's kids see drugdealerd kill eachother over some money every day, all raised up only by mum, even saw there own dad killed, can't expect those people to live their life normally on..

Those people are just becoming sick, not knowing whats right and whats wrong, killing other people cause that's what they are grew up with, you can't kill those people because they are sick can you?!

No wonder you didn't want to state your argument right away! So you're saying that some people DON'T have the will to choose their own actions (grew up in the ghetto, etc), but some us us need to DECIDE not to execute the wrongdoers?
(BTW killing them back and execution are very different terms, in the latter an objectivity exists). So according to you, all humans aren't created equal then, since some of us have this ability to choose our actions. Wow, if we suppose that the "ghetto = ethnic", this takes us back to the 3/5 Compromise (black people being worth 3/5 of a white person).

I can hear MLK, Malcolm X, Paul Robeson, etc. rolling in their graves.

[Mordalles]

have you guys seen "The Life of David Gale"
it really fits in with this topic.

[Helm]

This thread is pure gold really, and although I found lots of unintentionally hilarious quotes posted by people falling on all sides of the argument, I mainly felt that what I believe to be the most important aspect of this issue was not touched upon, until recently. I'm too tired to get into a full-blown debate, but since relativistic morality was mentioned, I might as well challenge a few perceptions.

big brother, first of all, do not say you are not putting a utilitarian value on human life. When someone says 'well, they cost more by keeping them alive' you're doing just that. 'good' or 'bad' thing to do, you did it, so don't shy away from it. You have your own pros and cons list just like nikolas (who no offense, is the one advocating the most tired and shallow and weak-kneed position on the subject in this thread) even though you didn't post it like him.

Okay so to quote you:

If there is no absolute morality, why are humans the only animals that live for ideals

To this I agree. There's no god-given or otherwise subjective morality to follow. So people have individual ethical codes, and societies operate under some communal morality, fortified through law. Now, when someones steps outside conventional morality, to say, breaks the law, he's breaking the social contract with his state. The ways to deal with that are various. Ancient greeks usually ostracised people, that is, banished them from the city-state, a fate at the time considered worse than death because the city state was the heart of the world. People just switched cities sometimes, or lived and died in the wild, or eventually were allowed back in after years and years. But there's something important to note on this example: The judgement was clear, but the punishment passive. The city-state didn't judge your morality and effectively punished you for it. You were simply judged unfit to operate within the confines of their society. Now, of course ancient greeks also had death penalties (the socratic fate) and etc, but I'm making a point here: exactly because there's no subjective morality, and right and wrong is invented, there's no morality that is more 'right' than another one. All are equally invalid/valid in their invention. Regardless of how many people may believe in it, or innumerable variations of it (because there's no two people with the exact same morality) I find it completely unjustified for the ruling morality (through numbers) to PUNISH deviations from it. Removal of the offending party is one thing. You lay on the bed you've made. You break the laws of a society, you're removed from the society, fine. But for the ruling morality to TAKE YOUR LIFE on the grounds that your breaking of their laws was too extreme is just an utilitarian leap that I don't see anyone should easily make.

If there is nothing universally perfect, why do we have ideas about improving ourselves and our society? Without an absolute measurement, the concept of measuring things becomes meaningless. (Think about this from a practical persective: without a metric system or any system of distance, everyone having her own incompatible unit of measurement defeats the purpose of measurement.)

Your analysis and example are base and invalid in certain ways. From that there's nothing universally perfect (sic) which I take to mean that there's no subjective truth on matters moral, it does not follow that we are unable to measure things relativistically. In fact, the whole of human existence is based on relativistic measuring of things we can only hope are to a degree compatible from a person to another. People have lived and died for such relativistically defined things as love, freedom, power and even for the fun of it. Your positivistic call for an invented abstract moral system is unrealistic, inapplicable and ill-defined. From that there's no abstract morality does not follow that we need to invent one, and even more PUNISH those that do not follow this sillyness.

What if I am an Islamic extremist (purely hypothetical) who sees killing infidels as a highest good? When I blow up schoolbuses full of children will you stand by and say, "It's not my right to judge his system of morality? It would be wrong to execute him even if the social majority agrees since social majorities have the potential to be wrong"?

Yeah, that's right, you have no right to judge his system of morality. And guess what? You don't have to. You have to judge his actions, and say "these actions clearly mean you are unfit to remain within this society" and then remove him. It's the difference between a judge that says an offender is unfit for this society and a judge that says that an offender is unfit for society at large and also EVIL. This is a world of difference. You can now talk about how ostracising wouldn't work in modern times because of this or that blah blah logistic reason, but I'm not debating logistics, and I'm not debating utilitarianism. I am not  utilitarian, I have personal absolute ethics. 100 deaths and 1 death cannot be weighed against each other and one found 'MORE tragic'. Not every argument can be dragged down to how much a human life costs in prison and how it's better to flush down your shit than scent it. Human life might be worth a bit more than that, and we might also, as finite beings, not be fit to remove it with silly morality-of-majority pretense.

Bullshit.