[Cavtanker]

I often ask I what would I do if I was released from prison. Can I get a job here? No, you have a criminal record. Can I rent this place? No, you have a criminal record. Can I live here? No, you have a criminal record and would be too close to a school/pre-school/kid-filled park, etc.

[Folgore]

I'm with Jack Raiden on this. Hard time for deserters (individual circumstances taken into account) and life without hope of parole for traitors, but not death. Look at former FBI agent and traitor Robert Hanssen, spending 23 hours a day in solitary confinement for the rest of his life. I don't think that qualifies as a cush lifestyle, and I very much doubt he's laughing now. Life in prision is as much an "individual deterrent" as execution.

It is ironic but true that under our current legal system, executing the death penalty actually costs more -- what with all those drawn-out appeals -- than does keeping someone locked up for life, so the argument that the death penalty saves taxpayers money doesn't hold water. Now, you can argue that the system should be changed to make the death penalty quicker and less costly, but do we really want to go down that road? As Jack Raiden points out, people have been wrongly convicted and sentenced to death in the past, and anything that speeds up the process will of necessity increase the risk that an innocent person is put to death. Another argument for life vs. death: just in case.

And here's another argument -- touched on by Kubikali and Jack Raiden -- I'll throw out: Should society be in the business of condoning death? There may be times when killing a human being is justified and the only solution -- as in war or self-defense -- but apart from those "kill or be killed" situations, is it OK for society to say, "Yep, killing people is fine"? Even really bad people? The death penalty serves revenge, not justice. Lock 'em up for life, I say -- but don't kill 'em.

By the way: Welcome, Jack Raiden! It's always good to have an officer on patrol in the Hangar.

[MoMo]

DESERTION: I want to say death, but will refrain with exception.They should be in Kansas making big rocks into small rocks for life, or used in a labor force that benifits the nation for the same term. Sort of like the CCC, but with convicts. Any attempt at escape brings on a death sentence.
IF the bleeding hearts let him/her out, then there should be some sort of Scarlet Letter that follows them for the rest of their days. And they get nothing from the Federal, State and Local govenment. In fact let them leave the country and find one they will stand and fght for. No statute of limitations! Same for those who aid in the desertion.

TREASON: Death, and something graphic and painful. It'll get the message across, and make others think twice.

Problem is noone wants to make anyone face the music for their actions, even in the military. Why should these folks enjoy a life, when their actions may have taken one or more?
Shawn 507

" Desertion ".....going over the hill. Very tribal ! People just get fed-up with Big Brother's BS and set up their own tribe. Good luck to them. I wouldn't want one standing shoulder-to-shoulder with me. But why kill or main them? Their greatest punishment is that they opt for self-preservation while their mates buy it....live with that !

" Treason ".....only exists because the old gangsters who ruled the old world thought that if you " treated with " or talked to the perceived enemy, you were a bad person who should be hung, drawn and quartered. One man's traitor is another man's hero. Look what happened to William Wallace : he was a Scottish hero, but because he told the English King to ---- off, he was partly hung, his entrails were removed from him and burned while he was alive, he was then decapitated then his body was cut into four pieces and displayed for others to take note.

Didn't some of your ancestors tell the English King where to go? Were your minute men traitors ? To the British Crown they were. They should have been hung, if caught. But they are heroes to some.

" Desertion in Face of the Enemy "..... a really hard one. Most soldiers dealt with it, on the spot! However, the British Army executed hundreds of soldiers in WW1 for deserting their posts in the trenches. It is now common knowledge that most of them were suffering from the effects of shell-shock. That's what happens when you accept Nationalism as a yardstick of loyalty.

Most General Officers are stupid. They are not qualified to judge. Killing those who go over the hill is the reaction of a spoiled child who thinks that he is the centre of the world !

[SKUNKY]

Originally Posted by Folgore

It's always good to have an officer on patrol in the Hangar.

I thought we already had a few of those....

[Old Crow]

" Treason ".....only exists because the old gangsters who ruled the old world thought that if you " treated with " or talked to the perceived enemy, you were a bad person who should be hung, drawn and quartered. One man's traitor is another man's hero. Look what happened to William Wallace : he was a Scottish hero, but because he told the English King to ---- off, he was partly hung, his entrails were removed from him and burned while he was alive, he was then decapitated then his body was cut into four pieces and displayed for others to take note.

Didn't some of your ancestors tell the English King where to go? Were your minute men traitors ? To the British Crown they were. They should have been hung, if caught. But they are heroes to some.

Good point, Mo Mo.

However, laws are the product of one's own nation. They are not interpreted or applied based on what another nation would do. If the British government has applied laws and extended righs according to what the American colonists had wanted, there likely would have ben no rebellion. That said, I would not have begrudged the right of England to prosecute and punish colonists they caught an perceived as traitors under their own laws.

While far from perfect, I do believe the United States has as much right and credibility as any nation in the history of the Earth to adopt a death penalty in whatever cases it deems appropriate. That is what a representative democracy is all about. Our Supreme Court has upheld the death penalty as constitutional, so it may be used subject to following constitutional safeguards. Are there times when it may be wrongly applied? Sure. Any time man is involved mistakes will be made.

For me personally, death is an appropriate penalty for treason but not for desertion. It is simply a matter of degree. The potential for innocents to die as a consequence of treason is too great. It matters not one bit to me, and would not generally be permitted in a court of law as evidence in defense of guilt, that the traitor was hailed as a hero by the citizens of the country to whom the traitor is beholden.

The eye for an eye reference is an Old Testament style of justice. This changed in the New Testament

Welcom to the forum, Jack Raiden. I appreciate and respect your work in law enforcement. I do not mean to turn this into a scriptural discussion but I have to disagree as I think there are a number of references that support the opposite view (see Matt. 5: 3-4, 17-19; Mark 7:8-11; 1 Tim 1:8-9; Rom 13:4; Rev. 13:10, etc.) But I certainly respect your view and understand the contrary view, including other New Testament references supporting that view. My point is simply that there are legitimate grounds for supporting the death penalty on grounds other than deterrence (or cost or any other argument).

[TopHat]

Originally Posted by Folgore

It is ironic but true that under our current legal system, executing the death penalty actually costs more -- what with all those drawn-out appeals -- than does keeping someone locked up for life, so the argument that the death penalty saves taxpayers money doesn't hold water.

Implicit in your argument is the idea that only death penalty cases are subject to appeals. That's just not the case, so I'm not sure that this argument holds water.

Originally Posted by Folgore

And here's another argument -- touched on by Kubikali and Jack Raiden -- I'll throw out: Should society be in the business of condoning death? There may be times when killing a human being is justified and the only solution -- as in war or self-defense -- but apart from those "kill or be killed" situations, is it OK for society to say, "Yep, killing people is fine"? Even really bad people? The death penalty serves revenge, not justice. Lock 'em up for life, I say -- but don't kill 'em.

I don't think you can be selective here. This argument seems to stand for the proposition that it is okay to kill foreigners, but not our own citizens. It's okay to defend against the outside attackers, but not those who attack from the inside. Further, since I don't recall any German units attacking us on US soil ( I think we inserted ourselves into the conflict in the ETO), I'm not sure that your "kill or be killed" example plays out the way you want. Not a logical argument, IMO.

[Old Crow]

Implicit in your argument is the idea that only death penalty cases are subject to appeals. That's just not the case, so I'm not sure that this argument holds water.

Actually, this point is valid. While other cases are also appealed, death penalty cases are mandatory appeals in most jurisdictions. More than that, they take far longer than all other appeals and there is no shortage of lawyers willing to take them on for free to file yet another writ, petition or appeal out of opposition to the concept of the death penalty itself. I worked as a law clerk for a Court of Appeal in California just out of law school and the cost and time of all other appeals is absolutely dwarfed by death penalty cases. This is why some argue the actual cost to put a defendant to death, as compared with incarcerating for life, can cost more.

[TopHat]

Originally Posted by Cavtanker

I often ask I what would I do if I was released from prison. Can I get a job here? No, you have a criminal record. Can I rent this place? No, you have a criminal record. Can I live here? No, you have a criminal record and would be too close to a school/pre-school/kid-filled park, etc.

Hmmm...planning something, Cav...?

[MoMo]

While far from perfect, I do believe the United States has as much right and credibility as any nation in the history of the Earth to adopt a death penalty in whatever cases it deems appropriate. That is what a representative democracy is all about. Our Supreme Court has upheld the death penalty as constitutional, so it may be used subject to following constitutional safeguards. Are there times when it may be wrongly applied? Sure. Any time man is involved mistakes will be made.
OLD CROW

I accept the point which you are making----but only in a perfect world ! You guys know, as well as I do, that if you are rich in the USA the death penalty does not apply ! The death penalty is reserved for the poor. Why have a sanction like that when it is patently obvious that it is applied according to principles which are clearly undemocratic?

[jim]

[quote=Old Crow;143356]Good point, Mo Mo.

If the British government has applied laws and extended righs according to what the American colonists had wanted, there likely would have ben no rebellion.


Erm well thats not exactly true, there was a group of men that wanted independence so they they could be the ones to run America.
Taxes and laws had nothing to do with it.
Power had a lot to do with it, typical human trait sadly.

I read that only 2% of the taxes were every paid by the colonialists, and the Boston tea party was a set up to instigate the revolution and had little to do with the tax on tea..

But I digress from the main topic, the death penalty has proved to be very good at stopping repeat offences, 100% sucess rate .

Problem is can we be sure that the person executed is definately guilty?