Ant. please read

[Anthony]

Forgive me, bonovista, if I seemed hostile. I was actually genuinely curious as to the nature of the statistics.

Again, I apologised for my forwardness.

Ant.

[bonovista]

No apology needed Anthony.

I too feel your hostility, as many of people from this forum know, I myself was a victim and a survivor. Came out in the end stronger than ever. One day I will have the guts to tell my story.

I have to thank so many from Interference. They know who they are.

[melon]

I would disagree that castration of rapists, etc. are the answer, because I don't think it is the sexual organs that are the cause of such behavior. Rather, I think it is addiction. Rape likely appeases the addiction center of the brain and simply castrating them is an extreme measure that could be fixed in other manners. Basically, why remove an entire organ when you could just remove the tumor?

Why we are failing on solving addictions is because of the nature of the pharmaceutical industry and Western nutrition. We are under more stress than ever, and, in the "survival of the fittest" model, a portion of society is buckling under that stress. Stress, combined with the heavy loss of magnesium content in food due to processing (an estimated 70% of Americans are deficient) are leading to chemical imbalances in dopamine. But the trouble with treating that is that dopamine drugs have great potential for abuse--an ecstacy tablet infuses large amounts of artificial dopamine, causing the high. However, without solving this issue, one will resort to compulsive behavior, panic attacks, and, yes, addictions. A correct dopamine level in the brain keeps the addiction center of one's brain placated; a low level causes addiction, and a high level causes hallucination and schizophrenic behavior.

Life is a series of chain reactions, in my opinion, and while it is easy to demand Draconian measures, I don't think it solves anything in the long term. Castrating people will stop the current offenders who are already rotting in prison, but will do nothing to prevent future offenders.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Originally posted by speedracer:
I find this hard to believe.

Could you point me to figures indicating how much it costs to execute someone, and how much it costs to keep someone locked away for 20-50 years? It didn't seem to cost Dr. Jack Kevorkian a whole lot to administer lethal injections to his patients.

This is taken from the ACLU's website.

It is sometimes suggested that abolishing capital punishment is unfair to the taxpayer, on the assumption that life imprisonment is more expensive than execution. If one takes into account all the relevant costs, however, just the reverse is true. "The death penalty is not now, nor has it ever been, a more economical alternative to life imprisonment."56 A murder trial normally takes much longer when the death penalty is at issue than when it is not. Litigation costs � including the time of judges, prosecutors, public defenders, and court reporters, and the high costs of briefs � are mostly borne by the taxpayer. A 1982 study showed that were the death penalty to be reintroduced in New York, the cost of the capital trial alone would be more than double the cost of a life term in prison.57

In Maryland, a comparison of capital trial costs with and without the death penalty for the years 1979-1984 concluded that a death penalty case costs "approximately 42 percent more than a case resulting in a non-death sentence."58 In 1988 and 1989 the Kansas legislature voted against reinstating the death penalty after it was informed that reintroduction would involve a first-year cost of "more than $11 million."59 Florida, with one of the nation's most populous death rows, has estimated that the true cost of each execution is approximately $3.2 million, or approximately six times the cost of a life-imprisonment sentence."60

A 1993 study of the costs of North Carolina's capital punishment system revealed that litigating a murder case from start to finish adds an extra $163,000 to what it would cost the state to keep the convicted offender in prison for 20 years. The extra cost goes up to $216,000 per case when all first-degree murder trials and their appeals are considered, many of which do not end with a death sentence and an execution.61

From one end of the country to the other public officials decry the additional cost of capital cases even when they support the death penalty system. "Wherever the death penalty is in place, it siphons off resources which could be going to the front line in the war against crime�. Politicians could address this crisis, but, for the most part they either endorse executions or remain silent."62 The only way to make the death penalty more "cost effective" than imprisonment is to weaken due process and curtail appellate review, which are the defendant's (and society's) only protection against the most aberrant miscarriages of justice. Any savings in dollars would, of course, be at the cost of justice: In nearly half of the death-penalty cases given review under federal habeas corpus provisions, the murder conviction or death sentence was overturned.63

In 1996, in response to public clamor for accelerating executions, Congress imposed severe restrictions on access to federal habeas corpus64 and also ended all funding of the regional death penalty "resource centers" charged with providing counsel on appeal in the federal courts.65 These restrictions virtually guarantee that the number and variety of wrongful murder convictions and death sentences will increase. The savings in time and money will prove to be illusory.

References
56. Spangenberg and Walsh, in Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review (1989), p. 47.

57. N.Y. State Defenders Assn., "Capital Losses" (1982).

58. U.S. Govt. Accounting Office, Limited Data Available in Costs of Death Sentences (1989), p. 50.

59. Cited in Spangenberg and Walsh, note 56.

60. David von Drehle, "Capital Punishment in Paralysis," Miami Herald, July 10, 1988.

61. Cook and Lawson, The Costs of Processing Murder Cases in North Carolina (1993), pp. 97-98.

62. Dieter, Millions Misspent: What Politicians Don't Say About the High Costs of the Death Penalty (1992), p. 9.

63. Greenhouse, "Judicial Panel Urges Limits on Appeals by Death Row Inmates," The New York Times, Sept. 22, 1989.

64. See Tabak, in Seton Hall Law Review (1996); Yackel, in Buffalo Law Review (1996); Coyle, in National Law Journal (May 20 1996); and the Panel Discussion in Loyola University Chicago Law Journal (1996).

65. Carol Castenada, "Death Penalty Centers Losing Support Funds," USA Today, Oct. 24, 1995, p. 38; Coyle, in National Law Journal (Sept. 18, 1995 and Jan. 15, 1996).

-------

Sorry the referencing is so confusing the part I've quoted is taken from a longer article which you can find here: http://www.aclu.org/library/case_against_death.html

[kobayashi]

Originally posted by Anthony:
Kobayashi, when did I ever say that a person deserves to die?

We do not differ in our respect for life, Kobayashi, I respect it almost as much as love, and I repeat; I do NOT condone the death penalty.

oh i understand and respect that i apologize. i see now by starting my post that way it seemed i was focusing on that, it just seemed like the appropriate place to start. but i do realize that you are against capital punishment, our motivations are different in my opinion but the end result is the same.

[b]originally posted by kobayashi

"I do not believe that anyone should ever undergo state sanctioned torture. It is inhumane. I realize the actions of your candidates were equally, if not moreso, inhumane but when operating within a belief structure based in the assumption that human life is tantamount to all else such is the only option."


originally posted by anthony

Think about it for a moment. For what use is the present so-called 'humanised' treatment of certain convicts if it won't rehabilitate them? If it wont, for want of a better expression, 'teach them a lesson', what good is it for? What does it do? WHAT IS ITS FUNCTION?
I have always been one to think that the end result justifies the means, in most circumstances. Human life is tantamount? Can you look into the eyes of the girl I spoke to you of and tell her that you value the life of her rapist just as much as hers? Speak your sense of justice to her, and we shall see how the sides will meet. Once you look into the eyes of someone who's suffering is greater than you will ever understand, your sense of justice changes, let me assure you. Its no longer as 'black' and 'white' as the modern world has made, its not about respecting human life - its about PRESERVING it.

Ant. i understand you're point but i find it thouroughly flawed. my premise is that human life should be respected in all cases. if a girl is raped her life has obviously been disrespected, very few will disagree with that. but it is not disrespect to her life if i choose not to cause the criminal pain as a result, i find it a greater disrespect to the perpetrator of the rape. believe it or not Ant. but i believe you're system of punishment creates an entire new dynamic of victims and perpetrators. what is it that makes you so certain you're system will serve as a better deterrant? why is it that THIS will stop things from happening?

I find the mentality that we must 'restrain' ourselves in the name of sleeping at night with a clean conscience instead of helping the weak and punishing the wrong selfish as it is stupid.

i'm sorry you feel my mentality is stupid. i don't look at my stance as a 'restrain' in any sense. it's a matter of respect.

I too believe that our prison systems have differed and distanced themselves from the original goals, however, we believe so to different extents. You are prepared to hold back the cane, I think that applying it sometimes is necessary.

Ant.

it is obvious we both see a need for change. what we would each like to see in the end are vastly different systems of being as you pointed out. it is obvious from your displeasure for the likes of amnesty international and the prison system in general that you have little patience for such organizations. i agree that the ideals and concepts of ngo's such as ai have become highly politicized and in some cases, misdirected. however i still agree with thier basic principles and yes, they still do get my annual donation.

i have, unfortunately, had to look into the eyes of someone who has been raped. this is a person who is very close to me and perhaps the only thing that softened the blow(and the fact that she asked me not to get upset) was that it had happened months earlier before i was this close to her. you know what the worst part is though? we know who did it and said individual is about to enter a professional sports league when he should be serving time. the girl in question however chose to let it be, she made sure she was alright and continued with her life and has done her best to forget it and thus far is showing no ill effects. in accordance with her decision(and the fact that if i were to touch this individual lawyers would be all over me) i have also decided to let it go. if there is a good thing that has stemmed from this incident it is that i was able to practice what i preach.

it seems quite obvious that we are each set in our thoughts. in my mind we both make convincing arguments. i think i just hold out a lot of hope for the human spirit.


[This message has been edited by kobayashi (edited 01-27-2002).]

[Klodomir]

Ant, while I agree with your basic idea of various level systems, I have to disagree with your opinion that rape is worse than murder. I think that the experience of your friend is clouding your judgment a bit there, but that's okay - the general idea is good.

One question for the castration supporters, especially those opposed to the death sentence: Do you mean actual physical castration, or chemical castration, as used in for instance Denmark? My reason for asking is that a lot of people are wrongly convicted of crimes, and it would be a shame to lop off an innocent man's penis, wouldn't it?

[Anthony]

Kobayashi;
I respect the reasons you give for your opinions, though I thoroughly disagree with them. Having said that, I apologise for calling them 'stupid'. Klodomir did point out that my feelings in some areas were clouded my acquaintance's experience (though she was not my friend, Klodomir - proximity is not that big an issue here) and I guess it showed, however, I respect the hope you have for humanity.

I don't agree with it, and I don't support it, as I think it is misguided, but I respect it. I just don't think that humanity can be put in one category and be given a nice gold star of hope. We're not all the same.

Klodomir;
Initially I DID think castration the literal sense. ie - cutting off a man's penis, though I wonder if other methods would be in store, I should have to research it. Concerning the nature of evidence and putting the wrong person in jail and punishing him, the evidence surrounding a rape is far more conclusive on most occasions, if not all - it would be highly unlikely to make a mistake when you have the man's DNA and other conclusive evidence presented.

I am intrigued, why do you think murder is worse than rape?

Ant.

[pax]

Unfortunately, the reality is that rape is a VERY difficult crime to prove. Far too often, it comes down to the woman's word against the man's (or, as the case might be, the man's against the woman's.) People aren't taught, for example, that showering immediately after one is raped is a bad thing to do. You need to get to a hospital immediately to not only be treated for potential injuries and receive emergency contraception if necessary, but also so that trained professionals can salvage any physical evidence that might remain.

In rape cases, there is very rarely a weapon or even a clear motive. Physical evidence and witnesses are difficult to come by. Rape survivors are often so devastated by what has happened to them because it is more difficult to punish a rapist than it is to punish a murderer.

And I have had not one but two of my friends experience the trauma of rape, and I feel the same way about castration as I do about the death penalty--at least in the abstract.

------------------
If you cannot live together in here, you cannot live together out there, let me tell ya. --Bono

You've got to cry without weeping, talk without speaking, scream without raising your voice... --Bono

[Klodomir]

Originally posted by Anthony:
Initially I DID think castration the literal sense. ie - cutting off a man's penis, though I wonder if other methods would be in store, I should have to research it.

Chemical castration seems to work. They have been using it in Denmark for a few years now, on a strictly voluntary basis. There are sex offenders who know that what they are doing is wrong and ask to be given medication that will make it physically impossible to commit such a crime. Some people think it's inhumane, but they really do ask for it themselves.

It would be highly unlikely to make a mistake when you have the man's DNA and other conclusive evidence presented.

OK, but there are still plenty of men convicted on circumstantial evidence, especially in cases of child molestation, and apart from that, think of the possibilities of framing a man... I'm not saying it happens often, but hell hath no fury...

I am intrigued, why do you think murder is worse than rape?

Because if you're raped and not murdered, you get to live on, and possibly do something good with your life. I know that a lot of people are of the opinion that rape is a fate worse than death, and I'm sure that it is for some people, but considering that it would seem that even in Europe, as many as 25% of women have been subjected to some kind of involuntary sex, counting date rape, rape by a husband etc., I think that the majority of victims get through it (though not necessarily over it) somehow.