The Death Penalty--Question for DP Advocates

Kristi - posted on 09/28/2012 ( 43 moms have responded )

1,355

3

78

As a supporter of the death penalty, do you think an inmate should be able to appeal for decades before the execution is carried out?



Should there be a time limit, for example, the execution should be carried out within X amount of year(s).



I mean why bother with the sentence if it is not going to be carried out?



Death penalty cases cost millions and millions of dollars based, in part, on the numerous automatic state and federal appeals a death row inmate is granted. Instead of modifing the number appeals to hasten this process, more efforts are being made to reform the system and narrow the scope that makes a criminal eligible for the death pentaly.



http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-de...





IMO, these dispicable, viscious, soulless, vile creatures are being treated with more respect and right to life than their victims were afforded. That just does not sit right with me.



Thoughts...opinions...

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Kristin - posted on 11/01/2012

621

0

174

I believe that a child molester, mass murderer, rapists and all others commited of heinous serious crimes should get the death penalty. In Canada we will never see it which is a shame, as why should taxpayers pay for mass murderes, rapists, child molesters to finish their education, give them shelpter and food it is stupid. If not the death penalty than ship all criminals to a deserted island and let them fend for themselves. Take the money invested in the jails and put that to feeding homeless or lower income families. The money spent on housing criminals would feed, clothe and shelter many a child. We had a 12 yr old girl in my hometown kill her parents and her brother with her older bf she got sentenced to 10 yrs in a mental facility and she was released at age 19 with 2 yrs probabtion. So in reward for killing her whole family the government is now paying for all her education and housing costs. Is this fair? I think not. Why is the law system rewarding bad behavior? Thats like saying to your child oh johnny dont hit poor sally but hear is a candy anyways? Really? and then the government wonders why there is more chaos and crime in youth today. Society teaches us that one can do what they want and the government will take care of them. I was sexually molested as a child for 5 years and he got 4 years in prison and it was his seconf offense? Is that fair? No because victims live forever with the abuse and yet the criminals are reformed and deemed fit for society deemed by a so called specialist?? WOW In my opinion a murderer who has killed many for the sheer joy of it will kill again either in or out of prison so kill them. A rapist will rape again a child molester will molest again eventually. So put them all on a deserted island and let them fend on their own. Give them the clothes on their back and thats it. let them find their own food and shelter build walls so they will never escape either that or kill them all with torture. AHhh poor johnny killed 10 people and 5 were children its ok we will house you feed you for the rest of your life. Wheres the justice? Nope i say hang johnny. Even in the states in the us that allow death penalty it is more often than not lethal injection whooo scary that will make the victims families feel better. The law protects the criminal and i am not sure why. I believe that once a person has stripped another of all their rights why should they have rights? Should not someone take away their rights and do to them what they did to someone else? I mean with technology today and DNA we have more than reasonable doubt that someone commited a crime. I feel that criminals should be treated as criminal and they should not be on deatnh row for 30 years. let them sit for 1 yr if need be and then inject them. Im sorry im rambling i am done that is my opnion lol

Lakota - posted on 11/01/2012

710

0

192

I believe in this: You live by the sword, you die by the sword. If someone takes a life, their life should be taken. It is disgusting that these criminals have any rights at all, let alone the right to appeal.

Heather - posted on 10/31/2012

38

46

0

Some crimes call for harsher punishments than most, and if the death penalty is what the court hands down then obviously that judgement was justified. Once again it's not about revenge, I'm sure a lot of victims families feel that way at some point and that's why they aren't allowed on the jury but for most I think It has more to do with peace of mind knowing justice was served and never having to worry about that person getting out somehow and coming after you or other innocent people. People don't ask questions to evoke a vengeful response from you but rather to get you to see it from the families stand point and how in their shoes you would want justice for your loved one too.

And having a worry free life in prison may not be justice enough for some depending on what they did.



When I say worry free I mean ( along with other problems I have with jail in general) they don't have to worry about bills because we pay for them, they don't have to worry about having grocery money because we supply their food. Some actually have it better in prison than they did on the outside. Not to mention the money involved housing these people who can never be a part of functioning society and we pay all this money for them to sit around and in many cases they are allowed to have computers, t.v., magazines, candy, soda all the things that my kids earn for good behavior. I believe there is not any prisoner that deserves these kinds of rewards. They should only have 3 nutritional meals a day, doesn't have to be good just nutritious,with only water to drink no other choices, no cigarettes, no candy, no gym, and they should only be allowed to have religious material of their choice and maybe some educational stuff. And the ones that don't have to be on constant lock down should be working everyday scrubbing toilets, floors, walls, doing grounds work, working in fields growing the food they will be eating etc. And for the non violent criminals should be housed outside in big tents. We need to make jail a place nobody wants to come back to and a place people are afraid to go to, this isn't summer camp people!!! I have rights, these people gave theirs up when they were arrested.

Heather - posted on 10/31/2012

38

46

0

It's not revenge it's justice. The majority of inmates that have been put to death have deserved that consequence. And you say you would rather have 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man die well I think you would have another outlook if that guilty man raped and mutilated your daughter or mother or grandmother. There is no perfect answer and mistakes will happen that's a fact of life but we can't let this type of crime go unpunished just for the sake of a few. I know that sounds harsh but it's just the reality. My heart bleeds for the families that have lost innocent sons and fathers, and in a perfect world this wouldn't happen but we live far from a perfect world.

Heather - posted on 10/30/2012

38

46

0

There shouldn't be a death penalty??? Tell that to the families of the ones who have been violently raped and killed or beaten to death or help captive and tortured until they died, there was even a 6 month old baby that died from being raped years ago!!! There are some sick and evil people out there and yes as with anything else there is human era but 140 wrongly imprisoned out of how many guilty ones? It's horrible that that happened and still happens, but you can't take away rightful punishment because some mistakes are made with a few. That's the same as saying we should never drop bombs in war because innocent lives will be lost. This is true and sad but a nessacery act non the less.

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

43 Comments

View replies by

Julie - posted on 11/14/2012

505

54

53

They should not be allowed to appeal for decades on the tax payers dollar. But they should be allowed the opportunity to appeal.

We just can't keep paying for all legal fees, lawyers, court dates and care taking of these people on death row forever.

Kristi - posted on 11/02/2012

1,355

3

78

Oh where do I start?! Let's go with your point that anybody can say or do what they want anywhere on this sight. Well, that is basically true. However, IMO, people that go into threads that specify they are for one specific group of people who have the same beliefs they do when they do not agree with that point of view are just being antagonistic. There hundreds of threads on here so you can find a thread or threads that are focused along your line of interests and knowledge. This particular thread was not set up for a debate over whether or not we should abolish the death penalty. When I opened this thread I was looking for other's opinions and ideas on how to make the death penalty more effective, etc. I don't give one rats ass whether or not other people think it is cruel and unusual punishment. If I wanted to know people's stance on that, I would have opened a thread to debate that. If I saw I thread that said Questions for mothers who breast feed and think that's the best way to go... I wouldn't join their conversation because a) I haven't breast fed and b) I think moms have to do what suits them best. So, why would I go in there if it were not to cause shit? If I disagree that strongly, I would make my own thread to more suit my opinion or to at least solicit objective opinions.



Next, if you think a law enforcement officer or a prosecutor does not get emotional over baby rapers and unspeakable acts of violence against fellow human beings, then you've sadly misjudged them as robots. Nobody, I don't care who you are, feels nothing for these victims. Why do you think they go after the death penalty? Because they got a flat tire on the way to work so they said ah WTH, let's give this guy the chair. As I stated earlier, the death penalty isn't working because we don't carry it out swiftly. If criminals were more afraid of the consequences of their crimes they might be less likely to do it or repeat it. Why should someone be allowed 5 DWI's before they see jail time? Why should the deadbeat dad who is only ordered to $50/mo because he quit his job before court and got a new one after not be jailed when the guy who is ordered $500/mo is jailed but they are both 7 months behind? No one is afraid of consequences.



http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime...



The population percentages are vastly different making it seem that minorities are unfairly prosecuted but check these statistics and you will see why the population ratio vs black vs white prison population is the way it is.



Well, once again, I have lost my train of thought. That happens more often when I'm on my phone because it is a PITA to go back and read through everything.



2 more points.



Meme--I am very, very sorry for the tragic loss of your Uncle and lack of justice your family received. My heart goes out to you.



For the record, if it came down to freeing an innocent person, thus freeing 100 guilty pedophiles or killing 101 people, I would gladly and without hesitation give up my life to see that those fuckers never took another breath.

Momma - posted on 11/02/2012

197

0

5

Ariana --- We have some pretty damn good ways of deciding if someone is guilty or not. You do realize that out of those 140 people that were found innocent, over half of them were GUILTY, there was just not enough evidence to keep them behind bars, right? I cannot fathom how anyone could say they would prefer letting 100 guilty prisoners go, to save 1 innocent man. Are you kidding me? WHOA! What about ALL the innocent people that have either lost their lives to a grave or to a mental status due to one of those 100 guilty prisoners. Imagine what they had/have to go through. Yet, your willing to let them out, so one innocent man, sitting on death row can be freed? OUCH!



I also don't care about the stats. If you commit an viscous, horrendous crime - you deserve to die! You'd better get your appeal going and do it within 5 years because if I was the deciding factor, you'd be shot between the eyes at exactly 5 years.



If something heinous was to happen close to you, I think you would have a different mindset there. My uncle was brutally murdered. Those bastards got off with in-home confinement because they were 18 and younger (18 is considered an adult in Canada, in regards to the judicial system). They should have been sentenced to life and the 18 year old given death. When I say it was a brutal murder, I mean it was brutal. My uncle was alive for it all, until the end!



ETA:

Also, this is not about revenge. It is about ensuring the life sucking, scumball, low lifes, never ever see the light of day again, so that they can't even come close to hurting another "true" innocent person. You know, such as someone really close to you.



Why the hell are we paying for them to remain in prison? Even if there isn't a death penalty, if the crime is bad enough, they will never ever get out. I'd prefer to pay the $5 for a bullet, than the thousands of $ for there life stay!



~Meme

Ariana - posted on 11/02/2012

1,309

0

624

People are allowed to come here and say they are against the death penatly just as you are allowed to come here and say you are for it. You don't get to pick and choose who speaks on a public forum on the internet. A forum like this is based on the fact that people are allowed to put their view points out whether you agree or disagree.



Besides the 'bleeding hearts' view it's already been shown that the death penalty does not deter crimes. It's revenge pure and simple.



If you're still for revenge and that doesn't matter, alright, I suppose that's an acceptable stance. Unfortunately the death penaltys stance, have a horrible punishment to deter a horrible crime, doesn't work.

Fact: The homicide rate is more than 5 times greater in the US that ANY European Country, none of which authorized the death penalty. It isn't simply regional. States like South Dakota, Connecticut and Virginia that have the death penalty have a higher murder rater than adjacent states of North Dakota, Massachusetts, and West Virginia that do not!



In states where the death penatly is held police officers are at most risk of being injured or killed. In 2006, South Carolina expanded their death penalty to included repeat sex offenders of children. In the heat of emotion, the state forgot to consider the fact that the incentive to keep the child alive was now taken away. Therefore making children LESS safe than they were before.



Our system of justice was set up with not only a presumption of innocence, but also set up so that we as a country would rather allow a guilty party to go free rather than condemn the innocent. This is something of which our nation is proud, as we should be. The death penalty goes against this presumption as people have already been shown to have died on death row who were innocent.



There is a racial bias involved in the death penalty. The combination of a African American defendant and white victim is most likely to result in the death penalty, even now. It rarely ever goes the other way around.



By supporting the death penalty it seems we're slowly moving away from rehabilitation (for all not just the horrible crimes, but even petty crimes) and depending on punishment and torture. Life without parole is a sensible alternative to the death penalty.



But what if it were a member of your family that was killed? Exactly right. That's why we depend on the state to keep us from making emotional decisions-and that's exactly what it would be in such a case.

Kristi - posted on 11/02/2012

1,355

3

78

This exactly why we shouldn't have the death penalty, right? Some of you are so self righteous it makes me sick. And the, "What if it was your mother, sister, whatever" argument is valid. I would be just as sickened and outraged by the rape and dismemberment of your child as I would my own. Obviously, I would feel the intense pain and grief much longer if it were my child as you would if it was yours but either way, the motherfucker, yah-I said it, should be tortured to death. Not slipped a little needle like he was giving blood so he could just stop breathing and go to hell, after all, our children weren't afforded that luxury. She was alone, terrified, beaten, raped, and terrorized and then cut up. Hmmmm, yah, let's spend our tax dollars paying for his attornies, the state's attornies, housing, food, cable, gym memberships, and when they do actual work by cleaning or reshelving books we'll pay them wages (no matter how small, they are still getting paid) to do it! This is just my example, read the article...it'll make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside. (note: if I could draw "sarcasm" dripping from my last statement, I would)



Btw, This was opened as a thread for people who already support the death penalty, not to debate whether or not it should be legal. If you bleeding heart cry babies want to protest to save the savage barbarians go start a new thread. Oh and when you say I am just as savage as they are because killing is killing, I will refer you back to think about it long and hard if it were loved one, back to this article, back to 12 dead victims of James Holmes movie shooter slayings, back to Deaver, Dohmer, BTK, Green River Killer and oh so many more. My ideas for killing are for justice and personally I will admit revenge sounds good but that is not the ultimate reason. Their ideas about killing are for pure pleasure, many of them get off sexually from it, many times their desires stem from a deep seeded lust to exact revenge on their parent or girlfriend.



It is common for pedophiles to have been sexually abused as children. Maybe if those children felt like the bad guy was taken away, longer than a couple of months or years, and the child felt safe again he would better be able to process what happened to him and not likely to become an offender. If we just casterated the pedophiles on round one it would be more difficult for round two and it might make those sick basrards think twice before hand if he knew he was going to lose his johnson. Same with death row, it might actually be a preventative if it was carried it out in 2-3 years instead of 2-3 decades! But now I've gone off on a further rant. Oh well, somebody had to say it. ; )





http://t.news.msn.com/us/prosecutor-kids...



Ditto--Kristin

Ditto--Lakota

Ditto--Heather

Ariana - posted on 10/31/2012

1,309

0

624

If those men had a life sentence instead of the death penalty they could have gotten out and lead the rest of their lives.



It IS revenge. That's the reason every time someone disputes it everyone brings up the 'if it was YOUR sister who was raped' argument. It stirs up all the emotions we'd feel to seek revenge on someone.



I'm not saying hand them gold and set them free, I just don't think murdering someone because they've murdered (or done other crimes to) someone is justifiable. It's like telling someone DON'T SLAP PEOPLE and then slapping them across the face. It doesn't make sense, we're not savages here.



Death is FINAL and I don't think you or I have the right to murder someone just because we've changed the laws to say it's ok.

Ariana - posted on 10/31/2012

1,309

0

624

Tell that to the families who had prisoners put to death and later found that they were totally innocent. I'd rather have 100 men who were guilty go free than one man who's innocent murdered. What's 140 innocent people dead so we can take revenge on others right?

Kimberlee - posted on 10/30/2012

80

0

4

Over 140 death row inmates have later been found innocent and released due to new evidence , The average length of time from initial conviction is almost 10 years. The justice system is flawed , there shouldn't be a death penalty.

Heather - posted on 10/29/2012

38

46

0

I believe they should be able to appeal one time and if found guilty for the second time that's it. And yes there should be a time limit. If they have been found guilty twice then I think within one year the execution should be carried out. Why are we letting them sit in prison and run up bills? Enough is Enough!!!!! I'm sorry but their are consequences for their actions and they they should be held accountable.



I also think jails should be self sufficient it shouldn't cost us anything, the inmates should be growing their own food and working within the jail, and they don't need tvs, computers, soft drinks, candy, cigarettes ect. these are privileges we don't owe them anything. Jail should not be a nice comfortable place to be!!

Ariana - posted on 10/14/2012

1,309

0

624

I'm against the death penalty. I just don't see how killing someone for doing horrendous crimes is somehow justifiable.



We can't go around playing god deciding who gets to live or who gets to die. Sure, lock them up forever if that's what it takes to keep society safe and teach them a lesson. Death is FINAL and I don't think anyone has the right to end someones life, no matter how dispicable a person you perceive the person to be.

Kristi - posted on 10/03/2012

1,355

3

78

"The US has a lot of issues."



Nice MeMe, thanks...lol



I agree about not giving drug offenders the option of treatment. It will cost millionsto provide in or out patient treatment and as MeMe stated, the vast majority will ot follow through or keep up after their "time" is up. They can get clean in prison (if they want) and they can be off the streets. It's a win-win. One less crack head I have to worry about robbing me or killing me to get something of value to ensure his next fix. Relatively clean "housing," clothing, meals, entertainment...treatment, for him...viola'! (I think that's how you properly spell wa-lah!)



If you want to piss your whole life away, thats on you. If you have a drug addiction you want help for, I'll be there to give you a hand. Once you start lying, thieving, car jacking, burglarizing, raping, murdering...you can go straight to hell with the other (MeMe this one is for you) fuktards. Before "you" get all up in my face that addicts don't rape, tell that to the woman at her office party after some coke head decides he's going to take what he wants or to the woman that has to pull a train because the old man owes his dealer a shit ton of money and will kill him otherwise.



How did we get into a legalizing HARD drugs debate? I opened this up as a death penalty debate... x )



Please forgive any errors, my keyboard is playing hard to get. I tried to catch them all but who knows!

Momma - posted on 10/03/2012

197

0

5

Jenny---As far as the stats go that's pretty damn good for 5 years. How is the drug war in the US reducing use?



The US has a lot of issues. The Government does not treat its people properly. Remember I live in Canada. Our stats are not anywhere near as bad as those in the states. Keep hard drugs illegal works well enough, here.



Also, in regards to the stats. Well, stats are often wrong. Show me how many people were involved with those stats. Surely, you don't believe that is a census on every single drug user. Shit, I can come up with more than 14% of people. I promise you that heroin, meth and crack users are NOT casual/recreational users. These drugs do NOT work that way. Therefore, all the stats in the world would not get me to change my stance there. When I first tried crack, I was not thinking of being a drug addict. After a couple weekends of splurging it surely did turn into a full blown, out of control, addiction. I am no different than the next person. These drugs fuck with your mind chemistry, they make you think your body needs it to live. Why do you think they tell you NOT to ever try it because it only takes ONE time to get hooked?



Rosie---instead of jail time they are to meet with a psychologist, social worker, and have the option of going into treatment.



The option? Sorry but drugs addicts are not thinking properly. Give them the option and their answer will be NO. Even if they said Yes, they won't stay, if they have the option. This sounds like another huge waste of money, if you ask me.



Kristi makes some excellent points and I completely agree with her. I do not want people to begin to think it is their right to get high and continue to socialize and work in public, while putting others in danger. Do you realize how many more people would do drugs just because it is legal? You may not believe it but it's a guarantee.



~Meme

Kristi - posted on 10/03/2012

1,355

3

78

"How many people did we have to put in jail to reduce smoking rates? Nicotine is one of the single most addictive substances out there. Think about that."--Jenny



How many cigarette smokers robbed their mothers, steal their children's piggy banks, stab someone in the back, murder someone who bought the wrong brand from the wrong person, etc.?



Deaths due to smoking and smoking usage has declined since restrictions were placed on cigarettes.



"Twentieth-century tobacco control programs and policies were responsible for preventing more than 795,000 lung cancer deaths in the United States from 1975 through 2000, according to an analysis funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), part of the National Institutes of Health."





"The researchers estimations only run through the year 2000 because, for more recent years, sufficiently detailed data were unavailable when the project began. However, it can be inferred that additional lung cancer deaths have been averted since the year 2000, because according to previous research, smoking rates among U.S. adults have continued to fall, dropping from 23.2 percent in 2000 to 20.6 percent in 2008, and leveling off in recent years. Previous research indicates that much of the decrease in smoking rates can be attributed to tobacco control policies. In addition, although beyond the scope of the journal article, rates of other smoking related cancers, and smoking-related diseases, such as cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, have declined due to tobacco control programs and policies."



http://www.nih.gov/news/health/mar2012/n...



Somehow I don't think health warnings are going to decrease drug usage. Nor will control programs or policies prevent its usage. The threat of jail/prison time doesn't affect users, neither would making them legal and trying to regulate them. Our (US) ATF Dept can't even keep up with all the new synthetic drugs that keep popping up. So even the ones that are "legal" are killing people just as quickly as the ones that aren't.



"Labs, often located in Europe or Asia, can use legal, common chemicals to produce huge batches of the drugs. Once one formulation is discovered, and banned, all the chemists have to do is slightly alter the structure of the molecules to create another, potentially legal, substitute until that one is banned."



http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/...



There is a reason these drugs are illegal and imo, they should stay that way. Too many people lack self control under normal circumstances, let alone when they are addicted to mind altering drugs. I, for one, don't want my pilot having hallucinations while flying my plane at 33,000 feet because he just consensually did some LSD with his co-pilot right before we took off. I don't want my mailman doing crack, either...he'll go straight through anybody and everybody's mail for a credit card, money, gift cards, etc. I don't want them any more easily accessible than they already are. With society's "We might as well let them do it because they are going to anyways" philosophy, the next thing you know parents will be buying meth for their kids and getting the whole damn family addicted.



Frankly, I'm not so sure about the study in Portugal. In my experience, meth and crack heads are not recreational users. My first exhusband robbed his mother blind, stole from his first exwife, pimped her out for a dime bag and other unspeakable things. He had (supposedly) been clean for 5 years when we started dating. But he wasn't. He stole my car, he staged a burglary at our own home so he and his buddy could steal everything. They even stole my tiara from my HS prom! But anyways...



I just don't think legalizing drugs is the way to go. But, that is just my opinion. And as I've said before...opinions are like a-holes, everybody's got one. ; p lol

Jenny - posted on 10/02/2012

4,426

16

126

Momma, a pound of marijuana costs the same as a pound of tomatoes to grow. It's just a plant. It grows in ditches of it's own accord. Cocaine comes from a plant. Heroin comes from a plant. Mushrooms (obviously) come from a plant.



A pound of marijuana can sell for 1,200-3,000 depending where you live (and yes I'm sure there are prices outside of that range). What's the last price you paid for tomatoes? Do you think they could tax tomatoes by even 100% and still come less than the minimum price people currently pay for marijuana? The profits margins are HUGE because of the legal status. There is plenty of room to drop prices and still raise revenue to be funneled into the health system and actually reduce use. As far as alcohol price, I am within my legal rights to brew my own for much less than I pay for convenience.



Rosie, I believe decriminalization is the first step but it still leaves the illegal market intact so it does not address the violence. I support legalization of all drugs for consenting adults. It is the ONLY way to get a handle on the drug issue. It address crime, it addresses health concerns, it reduces (not eliminates) access to minors and it does not punish consenting adults.



In addition, I am unsure of who anyone is trying to kid but a heroin user does not use it casually and neither do most meth or crack heads.



It was a study and those were the results. Facts are facts. You would be considered among the 14% (or less if it wasn't heroin) who continued to use but your experience does not reflect on all who have tried it or used it occasionally.



As far as the stats go that's pretty damn good for 5 years. How is the drug war in the US reducing use? Oh right, it's not. Imagine how it will be in 10 years and as the policies spread, the numbers will continue to drop. But remember, we will ALWAYS have users. It occurs all over the animal kingdom. Even water buffalo like to get a nice poppy high or elephants with their fermented fruit drunks. The only thing we can do is reduce harm to society and our current policies are sucking at that.



How many people did we have to put in jail to reduce smoking rates? Nicotine is one of the single most addictive substances out there. Think about that.

Rosie - posted on 10/02/2012

8,657

30

315

i think that maybe you are misunderstanding us a little. when caught with these drugs, instead of jail time they are to meet with a psychologist, social worker, and have the option of going into treatment. as jenny said it's worked astoundingly well in portugal. it's not just a free for all have at it, do what you want. :)

Momma - posted on 10/02/2012

197

0

5

Jenny---Why would the public want to buy home brew drugs anyway? Wouldn't they rather consume safer, regulated product? The mark up on illegal drugs is high enough to allow for that and still cut the price to cut out the illegal market.



Well for the very reason I said. The Government would raise the costs, I guarantee AND it would be far less potent. A gram of weed has been said it would cost anywhere from $15-$20. That is insane! I have done my readings on this, too. Just not extensive research on the legalization in other Countries.



Shit, do you realize how expensive alcohol is? It was not that expensive years ago. My husband works for the liquor commission where we live, they are a multi-billion dollar company (PROFIT is in the multi-million). The Government is greedy, it would not be cheaper than what is made and sold on the streets now. And what addict do you know, that cares about where and/or who is making the product? None.



In addition, I am unsure of who anyone is trying to kid but a heroin user does not use it casually and neither do most meth or crack heads. Again, I have been there. I lived it for 6 years. Pot users? Sure. There are many "casual" users. I am not arguing the joint smokers right to legalization. I have yet to see someone smoke a reefer and go and stab someone for money to get more. The harder drugs? Yeah, I HAVE seen what people will do to get it. Legalized or not, hardcore users are NOT going to be able to afford it, they will still need to commit crime.



Portugal has the most liberal drug laws in the world and is a success to be learned from: The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.



I am sorry but these stats are not all the great, to me. Also, methadone is also HIGHLY addictive. So, they are still addicted to a drug, just a regulated one. No difference, IMO. I am certain people will still go to their local dealer, since as I said, they aren't going to get any "deals" from the Government.



I am most definitely NOT for legalizing hard drugs.



You know, last I checked (sure, it has been years but I highly doubt it has changed) a drug user (recreational or not) was not running around saying how they wish that they could just find a "safe" source to buy their crack.



~Meme

Kristi - posted on 10/01/2012

1,355

3

78

MeMe--



My friend and his buddy just "came up" with it not too long ago. We (They, I've moved but...) live on the Canadian border, a couple of hours (at most) from Montreal. So, if you have been using it, they probably picked it up over there and brought back here and said they came up with it! LOL



I'm going to get back on FB and razz them about this!

Jenny - posted on 10/01/2012

4,426

16

126

Why would the public want to buy home brew drugs anyway? Wouldn't they rather consume safer, regulated product? The mark up on illegal drugs is high enough to allow for that and still cut the price to cut out the illegal market. Keep in mind the vast majority of drug users are recreational and are otherwise contributing members of society. We don't hear about them because they are not out in the open due to social stigma. http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/2k8/newUseDepe... Aside from heroin at 13% the percent of users using one year after trying a substance is less than 10%. Regulation and education is the only way to cut down on the violence associated with the drug trade and to focus on it as a health issue and not a criminal one. It's the only way that has ever worked.



Portugal has the most liberal drug laws in the world and is a success to be learned from: The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.



Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/...,8599,1893946,00.html

Momma - posted on 10/01/2012

197

0

5

I see your point but like anything, you will never stop illegal drugs. Even if made legal, the Government is not going to allow them to be "home made". They will still be illegal UNLESS Government made. So, there will still be drug wars and there will still be kids getting hooked and killing each other.



They simply cannot make it legal to make your own. Since, it is very dangerous and it would be extremely unethical. The Government is also going to want the monies created from their legalization decisions. Thus costing much more than current costs, for a drug that is way less potent. I truly think and believe, too many users will refrain from buying it and will go to the house down the street, instead. The Government isn't going to accept the users rings, other jewelry, car stereos and other items or even give fronts. This is how many of them get their fix. Many do not have cash. ;)



However, I do agree that pot users are clogging the system. You should be able to grow your own.



Mind you, I have not researched other Countries that have crack/coke, heroin or meth legal. I would have to look further into that and everything involved before I could make a comment, there.



~Meme

Rosie - posted on 10/01/2012

8,657

30

315

momma, there are already laws that make it so those offenses are illegal, so why do we need to take away peoples right to do with their own body what they want? people do illegal things while drunk as well, does that mean we should make drinking illegal?

countries that have legal drugs have less drug use, we are the number one country with drug use. making them illegal doesn't do a damn bit of good, all it does is clog up the system with cases of people having crack or weed on them, or for them selling it.

many prisons are run by private companies making a profit off of all of the inmates (which by the way is 7 times more than any other country), more than half of those like i said before are in for drug crime, 4 out of 5 of those are in for possession. because of this profit, some state governments have spent almost twice as much on prisons than colleges. the "war on drugs" has failed, and because we all like to look like we're tough on crime we all keep ignorant in our happy place knowing these "monsters" are locked up. but at what expense? we keep fathers away from their kids for having some crack, therefore spending more to have that woman on welfare since she can't support her family without him-some of these people will end up turning to stealing to help support themselves. plus, if drugs were legal you wouldn't have all the murders over turf, leaving their children without support again. it's a vicious cycle that if you really looked hard at the whole situation you'd realize that it's not worth it.

Tracey - posted on 10/01/2012

1,094

2

58

DNA testing is not 100% accurate, there was a young man recently accused of rape in a city he had never been too who spent several months in prison until someone discovered a mistake at the DNA lab.



I believe there was also a lab technician in Germany who did not follow procedure while making evidence collecting equipment and allowed her DNA to contaminate her products. German police thought there was a master criminal linked to over 600 crimes before they found out.



Yes - convict on the basis of DNA, but allow an appeal with the evidence being tested at a separate location.

Momma - posted on 09/30/2012

197

0

5

But how about the fact that a lot of the drug offenses lead to crime that does affect others? I think drug users do affect others, more often than not. They make places slummy, they commit offenses - like B&E's, home invasions, murders, rapes, assaults, theft, etc... - most drug users cannot afford their habit (this would be the case, even if they were legal), therefore they must commit offenses that incorporate harm to others, in order to get the monies for their fix. This is why they throw the cuffs on just for having drugs on the person. Since, this person probably has or will commit an intrusive offense.



However, when it comes to pot, it should be legal. I do agree, there.



Hard drugs, they cause a lot of grief for many, IMO. I lived it for years and I saw what people will do to get a quick fix (I am glad, I was never one of them - we just sold it, instead). You wouldn't believe what some of them would either bring us or do to get a hit, it is sad and it most definitely affects innocent people.



However, I do agree that they should be put through extensive therapy. I don't mean some stupid 12 step program. I mean a few year program. They then need to be re-localized, so they are not put right back into the same crowd they were with before. Although, if they have committed a crime, then they need to spend it behind bars and get therapy.



~Meme

Rosie - posted on 09/30/2012

8,657

30

315

i am for the death penalty only in cases that there is direct DNA evidence tying them to the murder. so after that, no i don't think it should be allowed to appeal for decades. one appeal that gets handled quickly and it's done.

i do think that the justice system wouldn't be so tied up if they didn't have so many trials for drug users. make drugs legal, get people in rehab instead of jail, and hopefully since more than half are in for drug crimes, that would create more time to deal with murders- you know crimes that actually effect others.

Momma - posted on 09/30/2012

197

0

5

Kristi--- I use fucktards! LOL I thought I made it up! bahahaaa



Also, I would not think you were psychotic, as I bet, I feel and think the same as you.... ;)



~Meme

Jenny - posted on 09/29/2012

4,426

16

126

I'm not an advocate but I do approve of the death penalty in extreme circumstances to be used as humane euthanization for those never able to be functioning people. This would be situations such as mass murder with concrete evidence and only after significant research on the person occurs to hopefully find information to help in the future.

Kristi - posted on 09/29/2012

1,355

3

78

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels like those scum sucking fuktards (a friend on FB made that up, I hope it is not offensive to anyone. If it is just say so and I'll take it down.) deserve the same amount of torture and hell they put their victim's and their victims' families through. I have a detailed account of what I think should happen to pedophiles and rapists but that is off topic, too. Plus you all may think I need more pyschological help! lol

Tabitha - posted on 09/29/2012

329

11

64

I agree meme that they shouldnt be allowed those ammenities, they should live their lives in isolation with no face time, no outside time, no tv and ect. I am not completely ignorant on this topic. I do know what goes on in there and i do know that there is a way to make inmates on death row unhappy. Will it ever happen? Probably not. But that is a whole nother argument.

Momma - posted on 09/29/2012

197

0

5

Sure but why allow them to have access to TV, showers, friends, outside time, games, phone and all the other "normal" parts to life? I am for the death penalty but we will never see it in Canada.



I am NOT for them getting to sit around and live a happy life. I know quite a few people that have been in prison and they keep going back (all 5 of my uncles on my Mom's side, included and my ex - no none of them are death row potential, just to put that out there). Tell me, why do you think they keep going back? I will tell you why. When in prison you get to "know" people and they get to "know" you. They become your family and it becomes a way of life. Many hardened criminals LIKE prison. They do not know how to live in the "real" world. They feel SAFE in prison. If you think for one second that death row inmates do not get all the same amenities as others, you're wrong. All they have to do is be "good" for a certain period of time, hell, they even let them work inside!



Why should any sick bastard get any of that? It's simple. They shouldn't. End their life, like they did to the innocent (whether the innocent are dead or alive, their lives were taken). Why should these inmates families be able to still see them and know they are OK, when the families of the hurt do not get that chance? No, get rid of the shits and move on.



Only problem I have is the way they carry out their death. It is way too humane. They need to go back in time and do it like the old days. Hang them by chains, torture them and then kill them slowly! They did something extremely heinous to be on death row, they deserve to suffer a slow and excruciating death.



~Meme

Tabitha - posted on 09/29/2012

329

11

64

I really just think the death penalty is way to humane for the sick bastards that deserve it. Who the hell wouldnt chose death over life in prison??? Makes no sense to me. Off topic i know just had to squeeze in my 2 cents :)

Dove - posted on 09/29/2012

6,563

0

1337

I'm 100% against the death penalty, so... I can't answer your question. ;)

Momma - posted on 09/29/2012

197

0

5

Yep, I do not agree with how long they sit on death row. I mean, we are talking - in some cases and many, that is - 10+ years. If the crime was that damn heinous and with DNA today, they should be pretty damn confident if the person is guilty. When it is proven without any doubt, then they need to be taken care of within a year or two, IMO. This is costing millions in costs. It takes up space, making the prisons over populated, it costs to keep them in there and it enables the assholes to figure out ways to get out.



If they are on death row, then death is what they are suppose to be getting, isn't it?



Sure, I get the "well they have rights" but 10+ years of rights? I don't think so, that is a wee bit lengthy!

Kristi - posted on 09/29/2012

1,355

3

78

Foster v. Florida, No. 01-10868. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to decide the case of Charles Foster, a Florida inmate who has served 27 years on death row. Foster asked the Court to determine whether the lengthy proceedings in his case violate the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. In a dissent from the denial of certiorari, Justice Breyer wrote that the Court should hear the case, noting, "The length of [Foster's] confinement has resulted partly from the state's repeated procedural errors."

Breyer added:

Death row's inevitable anxieties and uncertainties have been sharpened by the issuance of two death warrants and three judicial reprieves. If executed, Foster, now 55, will have been punished both by death and also by more than a generation spent in death row's twilight. It is fairly asked whether such punishment is both unusual and cruel.




This is all the more reason to expeditiously carry out these sentences. Why, after 10-20 years, when a witness comes forward are they considered credible, whether it is a "new" witness or the same one from 10-20 years ago? If eye witnesses are unreliable so often, who's to say this witness has a better recollection of said events, times, faces, etc. decades later?



I go back to the statement I made about going about these proceedings the right way, completely, from the get go. "People" don't come forward for 15 years or more because they know this guy is going to live on death row until he's just about dead anyways so they figure, why should I get involved. It's like telling a 5 year old to go wait in his room until you come in for the spanking. He gets scared shitless waiting, meanwhile if big sister would admit she "did it," none of this would be happening but she doesn't care because she knows mom always gets busy and forgets about the spanking so why put herself in jeopardy. But if mom actually followed through with a spanking (or grounding, or extra yard work, whatever) then big sister (ideally) would not be so quick to walk away. Of course, this is extremely simplistic and maybe a problem in the work place would have been a better example. But, I'm sure you see where I am coming from.



I don't want to see an innocent man get fried anymore than the next person does. I just feel there has to be a more effective, timely manner in which to do this. When all this new evidence shows up, I question why wasn't it found 15 years ago and are these convicts really innocent or are they getting off because the police officer didn't let him pee right away and that was a violation of his rights or it turns out the judge was seeing prostitutes during law school so all of his sentencings should be commuted because he clearly lacks good judgement and is just as immoral as the people he's sentencing.



“The surer you are, the slower you move.” (Atlanta Constitution, October 27, 2001).



Slow and meticulous is one thing, decades are completely different.



I do wish I had the answers and I wish there were officials who cared enough to stop wasting tax payers money and who care about letting a man (guilty or innocent) rot in prison before someone takes things serious enough to follow through.



I hope I'm not coming across as bitchy...that is the absolute last thing I want to do. If my "tone" indicates otherwise, I am sorry, it is definitely not to be that way. ; )

Bobbie - posted on 09/29/2012

500

9

169

@Kristi, I am for the death penalty, I really am. What I was trying to point out is better put by http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/time-dea...

this excerpt from the website......

Death-penalty proponents and opponents alike say such careful review is imperative when the stakes are life and death. “People are adamant . . . that every avenue should be exhausted to make sure there is no chance (the condemned) are not guilty,” former Georgia Attorney General Mike Bowers said in 2001. “The surer you are, the slower you move.” (Atlanta Constitution, October 27, 2001).

as also says ........

When the constitution was written, the time between sentencing and execution could be measured in days or weeks. A century later, the Supreme Court noted that long delays between sentencing and execution, compounded by a prisoner’s uncertainty over time of execution, could be agonizing, resulting in “horrible feelings” and “immense mental anxiety amounting to a great increase in the offender’s punishment.” (In re Medley, 1890, as cited in Foster v. Florida, 2002).

Kristi - posted on 09/29/2012

1,355

3

78

How many criminals usually plead guilty to most of the original charges, let alone when they are facing the death penalty? Not many.



They also get more than one appeal, a lot more.



Prisoners sentenced to death also file habeas petitions challenging the constitutionality of the state death penalty law. Note that habeas writs are different from and do not replace appeals, which are arguments for reversal of a conviction based on claims that the judge conducted the trial improperly. Often, convicted prisoners file both.



http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_co...



This is the response I received when clicking on your first link:

We're sorry. The page you are looking for could not be found. You may have followed a bad link, used an outdated bookmark, or it may have moved to another part of the ACLU.org website. We have recently updated our website in order to improve your experience. Most links will automatically redirect to the page's new location, but if you have a problem finding something, please try one of these options:



Try browsing by topic using the navigation menus (above).

Use the ACLU website's site search engine (above right)."




I also found other sites that indicate your numbers are off. Which really isn't the point because I opened this debate for people who are pro-death penalty already, not to persuade someone who is anti-death penalty into changing sides.



Just for the record, your numbers are low compared to the references I found.



Freddie Peacock of Rochester, New York, was convicted of rape in 1976. Last week he became the 250th person to be exonerated by DNA testing since 1989. According to a new report by the Innocence Project, those 250 prisoners served 3,160 years between them; 17 spent time on death row. Remarkably, 67 percent of them were convicted after 2000—a decade after the onset of modern DNA testing.



http://reason.com/archives/2010/02/08/ho...



If we actually followed through on executions in a timely matter it would prove more of an incentive to do the job right the first time, by both sides, more people might be afraid to lie instead of sitting on their ass for 30 years before they decide they saw or didn't see something or that their attorney sucked or they were under duress, etc...It would actually be more effective if a person was charged, convicted, sentenced and served time for the actual crime they committed instead of dropping the charges because he said it was rough, consenual sex and she said he beat the shit out of and raped her. Or we have bigger fish to fry or the prisons are over crowded already, so plead this one out, why is someone allowed to get 5 DWI's before they serve time or a pedophile gets off on a stupid technicality. IMO, our justice system is ridiculous. Criminals have more rights than victims, it is wrong.



Sorry for that little rant, I know I said this is not about anti or pro death penalty.

Bobbie - posted on 09/28/2012

500

9

169

My debate.....

Inmates that pleaded guilty are not part of the appeals process. They are sent to death row and the sentence is carried out.



You can only appeal any conviction once, however under some circumstances a writ may be filed after an appeal has been denied.



As of February 2004, 113 inmates had been found innocent and released from death row. More than half of these have been released in the last 10 years. That means one person has been exonerated for every eight people executed.



The vast majority of those exonerated were found innocent because someone came forward to confess committing the crime; key witness testimony was found to be illegitimate; or new evidence was found to support innocence



Although there has been much attention surrounding the use of DNA testing, only 13 death row inmates of 113 have been exonerated by use of DNA.

http://www.aclu.org/capital/innocence/10

Source(s):

15 according to the Innocence project (two more since 2/04).



Seventy-seven percent of post-conviction DNA exoneration cases in the U.S. involve mistaken eyewitness identification testimony, making it the leading cause of these wrongful convictions.

http://txcommie.wordpress.com/2007/07/27

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms