Connecticut abolishes death penalty. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Boxbot219;35738471]Yeah I agree. I'm so glad the American prison system is so shitty that some people consider it worse than death. That way petty criminals can be turned into hardened criminals during their imprisonment. Totally worth your hard-on for watching criminal scum squirm am I right?[/QUOTE] Never said I wasn't against rehabilitation nor did I say I support the system. I'm just saying I believe there is nothing after death so the death penalty nothing but an easy way out.

[QUOTE=W00tbeer1;35739120]The thing is though when you're on death row you don't know when your execution date will be. You can be on death row for years, even decades, just waiting for the last minute of them pulling you out to execute you.[/QUOTE] That's probably worse.

The problem with a death penalty is the situations where it is used. Let's say one man brutally murders his entire immediate family. there is no chance of it not being him as he confessed to the crime. He is deemed mentally sane. He should be executed within a year, not left to rot in solitary confinement for 15 years before he runs out of appeals not to die. HOWEVER, let's say another family is found dead, and they have a suspect with SOME evidence and they give him the death penalty. Not right, as they cannot be sure they have the right man.

[QUOTE=Carne;35717023]So you are happy they're abolishing the death penalty, yet you hope they get killed by inmates instead?[/QUOTE] Well, it DOES cost the state less that way.

doggunn for worst poster 2012

[QUOTE=Bobie;35743040]doggunn for worst poster 2012[/QUOTE] What? Because I actually understand the function and purpose of criminal sanctions? Unlike users on this forum. [editline]28th April 2012[/editline] P.S. Why post if you've got nothing to add to the conversation? [editline]28th April 2012[/editline] Also amazes me at how many people think I was arguing for capital punishment, when no such thing was done.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;35743057]What? Because I actually understand the function and purpose of criminal sanctions? Unlike users on this forum. [editline]28th April 2012[/editline] P.S. Why post if you've got nothing to add to the conversation?[/QUOTE] because you're refusing others views; preventing yourself from keeping an open mind, and 'understanding criminal sanctions' even though there were hundreds of posts before you started posting to prove why the US justice system is entirely idiotic at its core. i have nothing to say to people like you, because i know it would be reduced to pointless bickering due to your child-like naivety and stubborn-ness.

[QUOTE=Bobie;35743123]because you're refusing others views; preventing yourself from keeping an open mind, and 'understanding criminal sanctions' even though there were hundreds of posts before you started posting to prove why the US justice system is entirely idiotic at its core.[/quote] I have an open mind. I've looked at the alternatives. However, they are attempting to post incorrect facts, not views. First was Numidium posting about how the formation of Government cannot represent the views of the public, due to the method in which they are voted in. That was incorrect. Then there was Numidium again, expressing how the aims of criminal sanctions are irrelevant. This is not the case. Then it was telling me how retribution should not be apart of the criminal sanctions. This is an impossibility. Then about how prisoners should be rehabilitated, because it's fair - which is a claim, in which I personally cannot accept (so far, the only view in which I have refused). I have also never once mentioned the US justice system, nor was I referring to it specifically. The aims of criminal sanctions are common throughout the developed world. [QUOTE=Bobie;35743123] i have nothing to say to people like you, because i know it would be reduced to pointless bickering due to your child-like naivety and stubborn-ness.[/QUOTE] Because the argument has not been about views - it has been about facts. So far, nobody here has demonstrated they know a thing about sentencing. Until such a time where one of you posters demonstrate the slightest tid bit of knowledge on the topic (p.s. rehabilitation is only one of many key aims in criminal sanctions), it's hard to take any of what you say seriously.

The court system has been wrong, sometimes is wrong, and will be wrong on occasions. There have been many cases were DNA has saved a condemned man from an undeserved fate. There are probably more than a couple who were already executed. The goal of the justice system today is for rehabilitation, not revenge. I am glad Connecticut got rid of it.

You try to make it about facts. It's not, and multiple people told you this. We're not here to argue about how the legal system is, but about how it should be. And when the extent of your [B]open-mindedness[/B] is [B]"You're either too young or too stupid to have any relevant opinion."[/B], don't expect anyone to take your shit seriously. [I] talking to doggunn, not the guy above me[/I]

[QUOTE=Numidium;35746013]You try to make it about facts. It's not, and multiple people told you this.[/QUOTE] Of course it's about facts. Just as an example, you've previously said that retribution has no relevance in criminal sanctions, which is clearly not correct. [QUOTE=Numidium;35746013]We're not here to argue about how the legal system is, but about how it should be.[/QUOTE] It's kinda hard for you to argue a relevant point if you have no idea on how it operates or the requirements for it to operate. Someone who has solid understanding on the requirements of sentencing cannot state that any single element is not applicable, which is what you have done so previously. [QUOTE=Numidium;35746013]And when the extent of your [B]open-mindedness[/B] is [B]"You're either too young or too stupid to have any relevant opinion."[/B], don't expect anyone to take your shit seriously.[/QUOTE] That's fine by me.

"you've previously said that retribution has no relevance in criminal sanctions" This is what I said: "When you say that "Retribution is a key element in criminal sanctions", I'm not arguing that that happens. Not at all. Nobody here is. What we're trying to argue is that that is injust and [B]should not happen.[/B]" You see that "[B]should[/B]" there? Yeah. Should is [U]not an IS[/U] statement, [U]it's an OUGHT[/U] statement. Not about facts. If I said it wasn't an important element, I was wrong. Alright. Now take another look at what I said and tell me if that matters in my [B]should[/B] statement.

It's still wrong. Retribution will always and must always be used in sentencing. However, the amount of impact it has will vary. If you feel that it should have a lesser impact, that's fine (that is your opinion, which I would disagree with), but it [I]cannot[/I] have no impact. It is a critical part of sanctions. A judge will always refer to the damage, and therefore require them to either pay damages, fines etc or possibly serve some sort of imprisonment as a direct result of their actions. [editline]29th April 2012[/editline] For someone that has such strong views about sentencing and criminal sanctions, I recommend you listen to a few sentence hearings. I think you will be surprised at what you hear, and the amount of detail and study that goes into the result. As I mentioned though, you will always hear about retribution. [editline]29th April 2012[/editline] Sentence hearings for such heinous crimes such as murder.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;35746210]It's still wrong. Retribution will always and must always be used in sentencing. However, the amount of impact it has will vary. If you feel that it should have a lesser impact, that's fine (that is your opinion, which I would disagree with), but it [I]cannot[/I] have no impact. It is a critical part of sanctions. A judge will always refer to the damage, and therefore require them to either pay damages, fines etc or possibly serve some sort of imprisonment as a direct result of their actions. [editline]29th April 2012[/editline] For someone that has such strong views about sentencing and criminal sanctions, I recommend you listen to a few sentence hearings. I think you will be surprised at what you hear, and the amount of detail and study that goes into the result. As I mentioned though, you will always hear about retribution. [editline]29th April 2012[/editline] Sentence hearings for such heinous crimes such as murder.[/QUOTE] "A judge will always refer to the damage, and therefore require them to either pay damages, fines etc or possibly serve some sort of imprisonment as a direct result of their actions." Compensation is not the same as retribution.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;35746210]It's still wrong. Retribution will always and must always be used in sentencing.[/QUOTE] why

[QUOTE=Numidium;35746305]"A judge will always refer to the damage, and therefore require them to either pay damages, fines etc or possibly serve some sort of imprisonment as a direct result of their actions." Compensation is not the same as retribution.[/QUOTE] Damages or compensation is a form of retribution, particularly if it's being paid to the aggrieved party. [QUOTE=Cone;35746349]why[/QUOTE] Note, we're talking about for serious crimes not petty (what's commonly known as indictable offences or felonies). It must be included to ensure that the convicted realises their acts or omissions are bad and should not happen again.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;35746403]It must be included to ensure that the convicted realises their acts or omissions are bad and should not happen again.[/QUOTE] well that would work if convicts lived entirely altruistically, but unfortunately if they did that they wouldn't be convicts try looking at it like this; you've just been told you are going to spend twenty-five years in a grey concrete cell with a man who could stab you in the ribs for every second of those years you'll be with him, you may or may not be violated during your stay, nobody cares if you live or die, and the people with guns think you're scum would your first response in this situation be to say "I deserve this"?

[QUOTE=Cone;35746489] try looking at it like this; you've just been told you are going to spend twenty-five years in a grey concrete cell with a man who could stab you in the ribs for every second of those years you'll be with him, you may or may not be violated during your stay, nobody cares if you live or die, and the people with guns think you're scum would your first response in this situation be to say "I deserve this"?[/QUOTE] If a convicted person chooses not to understand or accept their specified punishment, that is up to them. They've been told by the court that their action is wrong - and that's the point.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;35746515] They've been told by the court that their action is wrong [/QUOTE] And the court is always right.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;35746515]If a convicted person chooses not to understand or accept their specified punishment, that is up to them.[/QUOTE] yeah, but they're not going to get it, are they? everything I just described will turn any man into a hardened, self-serving criminal, and they will commit more crimes against your people because [I]you put them in there[/I] just saying "well that's the way it is" is only going to get more crimes committed, and they will be because of what goes on in those prisons [QUOTE=DogGunn;35746515]They've been told by the court that their action is wrong - and that's the point.[/QUOTE] again, they are not going to get it because crimes are almost always thought of as being justified from the convict's point of view like, if you ever stole money, it was because you are poor, or because you really needed it, not because you're a street urchin, but because you aren't paid enough at your job people will always find a way to deflect the blame onto others because they would utterly cave in if they didn't

[QUOTE=Numidium;35746572]And the court is always right.[/QUOTE] What's the point of this post? I've never suggest that the court is an infallible institution. But again, the court must, in order to remain relevant, sentence people with the aim of retribution, however, the degree in which it impacts such a sentence can be limited depending on the circumstances.

[QUOTE=Sanius;35734052]yep let them suffer for the rest of their lives in a corrupt penal system thats so much more humane!![/QUOTE] "Our prison system is totally fucked up so let's keep the death penalty instead of fixing it." What?

[QUOTE=Cone;35746590] again, they are not going to get it because crimes are almost always thought of as being justified from the convict's point of view like, if you ever stole money, it was because you are poor, or because you really needed it, not because you're a street urchin, but because you aren't paid enough at your job people will always find a way to deflect the blame onto others because they would utterly cave in if they didn't[/QUOTE] I have to disagree here. Having met murderers who had their trial turn up a result of guilty, some are more than happy to explain their reasons behind their actions. What you've suggested is an over simplification, and I can understand your point, if some responsibility for criminal's actions lie on someone else. It depends on the person. Some will accept it, others will not. However, if they accept it or not, it doesn't change the need for the court to punish those who commit crimes.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;35746646]It depends on the person. Some will accept it, others will not. However, if they accept it or not, it doesn't change the need for the court to punish those who commit crimes.[/QUOTE] yeah, so it doesn't always work this is a flaw that can be fixed if you'll just cut the "retribution is a totally essential part" bull and focus on the teaching rather than the beating

[QUOTE=Cone;35746666]yeah, so it doesn't always work this is a flaw that can be fixed if you'll just cut the "retribution is a totally essential part" bull and focus on the teaching rather than the beating[/QUOTE] ... What is the flaw? That some criminals don't accept they deserve to be punished for their acts or omissions?

Capital punishment is the only effective kind of punishment. Just look at society in general today, prisons are over crowded, the youth are running riot, crime rates are sky rocketing. The death penalty would help solve the prison population issue and other things such as being allowed to beat children would put the youth in their place. Just watch as the quality of life in Connecticut goes down now because of this.

[QUOTE=Splarg!;35746626]"Our prison system is totally fucked up so let's keep the death penalty instead of fixing it." What?[/QUOTE] It's called sarcasm.

[QUOTE=Numidium;35746769]It's called sarcasm.[/QUOTE] Yes...? I think you missed something.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;35746684]... What is the flaw? That some criminals don't accept they deserve to be punished for their acts or omissions?[/QUOTE] essentially, yes this is not the kind of thing in a person you can just "fix", you will be forced to adapt to your populace rather than the other way around. basically, your system doesn't work for everyone because it doesn't [I]account[/I] for everyone, and because of that you will have greater crime rates from those who've already gone through your system so sure, it may be a bad thing that not everyone instantly thinks of things from the government's point of view, but it's your job to make sure that everybody has a chance at seeing it like that

[QUOTE=Cone;35747043]essentially, yes[/QUOTE] How silly then. [QUOTE=Cone;35747043]this is not the kind of thing in a person you can just "fix", you will be forced to adapt to your populace rather than the other way around. basically, your system doesn't work for everyone because it doesn't [I]account[/I] for everyone, and because of that you will have greater crime rates from those who've already gone through your system[/QUOTE] I would assume that rehabilitation is the part that involves "fixing" a person, not retribution. I think you've gotten confused about how sentencing works. There are different elements in sentences. The elements used in deciding the appropriate sentence are explained. Retribution is only one element. Rehabilitation can be another. A person is not imprisoned with the sole reason of retribution, nor would they be imprisoned for the sole purpose of being rehabilitated. But even ignoring the confusion, I have no idea how you managed to substantiate such a claim, that 'my system' doesn't work... it's not my system. It's not going to work for everyone. And welcome to the issue of recidivism.