Connecticut abolishes the Death penalty

Which guy? Texas Execution InformationLet's look at a few, then you pick the one's YOU feel are NOT guilty.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

I just don't mean punishment in the sense that the worst is the best. I feel execution is enough. There is, in my opinion, no need to torture for example just to get more justice from the punishment. And most are not executed for that. But look at the video I posted for Strag, what do you do, what are those OTHER options when a guy has killed, been punished, killed again, was punished again, and is threatening to eventually kill again? I'm not saying kill him for making the threat, but lets say he goes through with it. He kills a third time. Now what? What are the options left? Cool Well they have to sit on death row, for a few reasons. 1, they are allowed to appeal, not just be put to death. Sometimes appeals take many, many years. 2, they are often high profile cases, and a good target for someone trying to make a name for himself in the jail. 3, they are Level 4 inmates, the most dangerous of the most dangerous, so they are deemed a high threat to staff. It is the one unit that must maintain these guys in solitary. Do you mean sedate them?- Oni

Are you inebriated?

If you want to cite self-defense as the criteria for imposing the death penalty then you need to apply that to those prisoners who pose most threat to the lives of other inmates. Regardless of what crime they have been incarcerated for.If however you want to inflict the death penalty on those who have committed particular crimes you cannot cite self defense as the criteria.Because the most dangerous prisoners and those who you think deserve the death penalty for their crime are not necessarily the same.Make up your mind. Are you being consistent or inconsistent on the self defense criteria? That is a fair question. But it is not the same question as asking whether or not the state has the moral right to kill defenseless and incarcerated people.A key question for any society is what to do with those who just refuse to operate by the rules and morality that everybody else agrees are required to make that society functional.There are multiple options for those who are completely unable to be rehabilitated and who are determined to impose their own warped lack of morality on others. None of them particularly satisfactory.We are basically talking about maximum security type restrictions. If he is known to be that dangerous then there is no excuse for allowing him to kill again whilst in custody is there? Genius style master manipulators who possess near superhuman abilities of the Hannibal Lector ilk are fictional.If we can't contain dangerous criminals then we need to improve the prison system. Not change our moral stance on self defense as the criteria upon which we base moral decisions.

What, and disturb your slumber? Never. The government is always right when it kills people --- with the exception of Osama Bin Laden.

Ehh, I was expecting more. You're better than that Dr. A.- Oni

At no point in this entire debate have I sighted SELF-defense as a criteria for the death penalty. I have repeatedly said in the defense of others.I'll repeat it, as I've done:

quote:

---

(A) it serves as justice for the victims family (B) the psycological effects of long-term solitary confinment actually increase the violent behavior (C) they possess a greater threat to those who come in contact with them.

---

See, nothing about SELF-defense at all. Curiously, those two videos I posted, with the inmates who kill other inmates, were commited in a SuperMax - the best of the best. As the link describes it: a prison within a prison.And hey, wouldn't you know it, there is a controversy regarding that type of inmate housing too:

quote:

---

Controversy

​

Supermax and Security Housing Unit (SHU) prisons are controversial; some claim that the living conditions in such facilities violate the United States Constitution, specifically, the Eighth Amendment's proscription against "cruel and unusual" punishments. In 1996, a United Nations team assigned to investigate torture described SHU conditions as "inhuman and degrading". A New York Bar association comprehensive study suggests that supermax prisons constitute "torture under international law" and "cruel and unusual punishment under the U.S. constitution".

---

So now what? Please tell me what that is? Death Penalty is no good. Supermax is considered torture, and cruel and unusual. Where does that HONESTLY leave us?No matter what is tried as a solution to the problem of extremely violent offenders, it seems someone is going to take issue with it. Either it's not morally just to have a death penalty, or, it is unconstitutional to place them in a supermax.And yet another question now needs to be dealt with, what is worse, torture or the death penalty? But how do you stop it? Because that my friend would be a great help not just in this thread but to those responsible for housing these people. Another blanket statement...- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

I posted it while suspended upside down in a tank of live piranhas.

db postEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Then I retract my previous statement and award you badass of the week, sir. Now, seriously, I will actually go to sleep. Hope America is ok when I wake up.- Oni

You've been shown a few cases where a government has admitted that a mistake has been made. There are more where those who have been convicted of what would have been capital crimes before capital punishment was repealed having their convictions quashed after new evidence has been revealed to clear them, or the convictions had been declared unsafe.I don't think that you can realistically argue errors won't be made, so you need to say what you think of those mistakes. Does it affect your opinion that the death penalty is ok?

Are you sure about that? I only watched the first video, but they never described what prison he was in, just a California State Prison. His name is Robert Glen, but in a brief bit of searching I was unable to find someone with that common a name (though, funnilly enough, the first result on Google was for a guy executed in Tennessee).His first murder of a cellmate was committed in county jail. His second was in prison, but it doesn't sound like Wikipedia's description of a Supermax facility. For starters, he wasn't in solitary confinement, because he killed his cellmate. Secondly, these facilities are described as being under constant surveillance, while he had time to kill his cellmate and be discovered in the morning.

As I first wrote in Message 133Straggler: "If self defense (and I use the term widely to include protecting others as well) is our criteria I am failing to see how we can justify killing a prisoner who poses no serious threat to anyone as long as they are incarcerated. Explain the self defense issue to me."So self-defense (in the widest sense of the term that includes the defense of others) isn't your criteria then? Forgive my confusion. I thought we agreed on this as the criteria upon which the morality of killing someone rests. No?From Message 133If you want to cite self-defense as the criteria for imposing the death penalty then you need to apply that to those prisoners who pose most threat to the lives of other inmates. Regardless of what crime they have been incarcerated for.If however you want to inflict the death penalty on those who have committed particular crimes you cannot cite self defense as the criteria.Because the most dangerous prisoners and those who you think deserve the death penalty for their crime are not necessarily the same.Make up your mind. Are you applying self defense (in the wider sense) as your criteria or not?I'll come to the rest of your post once we have ascertained what your position actually is on the self defense (in the wider sense) issue.

No, you are correct. Not in a supermax. The footage is from Lock up Raw - I did some editting for that show so I've obsessed on jails ever since then.The prison in question is California State Prison, Corcoran - which does have a (SHU) Special Housing Unit. Which has been described as unconstitutional, etc...The problem ISN'T that the person is housed in a SHU or Supermax, it's that you can't keep them there forever. They are rewarded for good behavior, which in those units it's pretty much you just did your time. The will, in most cases, see general population again. And that is where they can get violent.But I'd still like the issue to be addressed that, given that the death penalty is seen as wrong, and the SHU type housing is seen as wrong, as are Supermax's, what then is the right thing to do with the extremely violent offenders?- Oni

We corrected it in message 136 - "You (Straggler) didn't just say self-defense, you also said in the defense of others. The "others" is what I'm talking about."I addressed the confusion already. In the defense of OTHERS is what I'm talking about. I didn't, as you can hopefully see from what I wrote. So pick up the needle and move it to the next song so the party can continue.I gave you my criteria, now going on three time. My main one has always been (A) justice for the victim and their family...- Oni