Even if he is truely guilty, which I think he is, there is simply not evidence to convict him of murder. I am really shocked they sentenced him to death let alone find him guilty. There was no murder weapon found, no direct forensic evidence on him, and no murder scene. Whatever happens I think Mark Gerahgoes needs to start looking for another line of work.
from what i know, i agree with jg, but i'm sure there is a lot we don't know. the sad thing for me, i that they are putting him to death. lock him up for life. the pain of never seeing a free day again is more punishing than anything. the u.s. needs to stop killing it's prisoners.
twelve people thought exactly like you bloodclot.
devil's advocate coming out here, how freakin bad would it suck if he is innocent (not saying he is or isn't), just posing a question.
considering california's relatively very slow appeal process, peterson's defense will have many many years to try to find any evidence that he didn't do it.
peterson is actually in a much safer environment while awaiting execution. if he were to be committed to life in prison, he would likely be tortured and killed in prison by other inmates.
paul says it best though... he would probably become someone's sweetheart in prison, a far worse fate than a quiet painless(?) death.
they would eat him up in there
so he won't be in a prison where he can get properly "punished"? thats bull.
meversusyou - there are plenty of people that get sentenced to death that are later found innocent. mostly in texas where they get death penalty happy.
why do americans have the death penalty? why are you facinated with killing? death? destruction?
spend more money on that, and less on promoting the coverage of this trial, and we'll all be better off. just a thought.
I agree that he shouldnt be put to death, but not necesarily because of the fact that he will "suffer more" in prison (as opposed to a "painless" death). Thats rather sadistic, although he is a psycho killer bitch ass...
I just do not believe in the need for killing for revenge, although the families of the victims may say otherwise). As a so called civilized and progressed society, We should put him away for life in prison for him to be punished for his actions, as well as to protect the public from a murderer. We should not condemn him solely for revengeful reasons ...surely we are not that barbaric...??
I wonder if and when they are ever going to find Lacy's head? Her head was whacked off - they only found her body.
If you have ever been on a jury or foreman on one, there is basic human nature. SP was convicted for in my opinion his basic nature which did not conceal itself too well under intense scrutiny. There was no one else with the op, motive(S) etc. The missing head, and the breathing talking mistress, christmas fishing trip and bodies washing up in EBRPD property + add Connor and its not too nice. Lacy went fishing in SF bay as bait. Connor was collateral damage in SP's living the high life.
People have been convicted and executed on a whole lot less than that. They did not find blood or the killing implement ...................... but they figured out almost everything else.
Also, as an aside - did anyone ever happen to remember that SP was investigated as a suspect for some coed out in Claremont area who disappeared and was never found?? It made me sort of perk up and wonder. Lacy might not have been his first. I betcha the detectives on that one are lined up to gently look for some hint of conscience to let some other woman's family find 'closure'.
alfredocheese - we are that barbaric. even in a blue neck state like california, an eye for an eye ...............
think about it this way - would you trust him to date or marry your sister? I don't think so. For sheer selfishness- arrogance sociopathy: SP qualifies as sub scum. rather handsome though. Put him in the general population. please. Let some San Quentin con have a few moments alone with him and he would ask for the death penalty. That will not happen now.
I doubt that someone with the brain chemistry necessary to kill someone in cold blood would have a hard time becoming accustomed to prison life. Its a frame of mind and with his complete lack of remorse, i think he resigned himself to one fate or the other two years ago. neither sentence would be torture for Peterson.
Look at the Menendez boys. America has an affliction/affection for sociopaths and folks get worked up for psychopaths too. those two killers got so much fan mail while in jail, one even got married while behind bars. so, is it punishment to sit in a cell by yourself all day, answering fan mail and corresponding with a new love? watch tv, 3 squares, do some laundry to pay your debt to society???.... the same would have happened with Peterson. Prison is too easy for most every guilty criminal, at least in the US. For my money, Peterson, gets the needle and he gets off easy.
my justice would not be as swift, painless or pretty. you take a life you forfeit your own.
this is why we have trial by jury for all cases, especially for capital cases. 12 reasonable, emotional, average human beings judge you based on the same characteristics....rationale, (e)motive, "human-beingness". They are your peers. the system was set up to allow people to judge you based on your actions, based on facts, conjecture, personal emotion...everything...reasonable doubt allows them an out at the time of judgement and sentencing. A jury knows the case. they eat, sleep, and breathe it. Its not an easy thing to sentence someone to death...some jurors are never right afterwards...but they do it because it needs to be done. Juries are right and wrong because they are human, they are not immune to the faults we all possess, be it a lack of reason or too much of it. they can convict an innocent man or worse, let a guilty one free...they are fallible and that's why their job is crucial and credible.
"Satanists Don't Wear Gold"
(The marriage of Ramirez and Doreen Lioy)
By Anthony Bruno
The bride wore a calf-length, white wedding dress with long lace sleeves. The groom wore a starched set of prison blues, the pants a little too long, the shirt tails hanging out. She was glowing; he was nervous. The ceremony took place on October 3, 1996, in the large, gray-walled main visiting room of California's San Quentin Prison. According to Jim Doyle writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, the bride, Doreen Lioy, age 41, was a freelance magazine editor with a bachelor's degree in English and an I.Q. of 152. The groom, serial killer and rapist Richard Ramirez, was on Death Row, awaiting execution.
Seven years earlier in 1989, Ramirez had been convicted on 43 counts, including 13 murders, and the authorities have good reason to believe that he had committed several others. For over a year starting in the spring of 1985, the residents of Los Angeles County lived in fear of the anonymous "Night Stalker" as he was called, forcing many to alter their nighttime habits, install better locks on their doors and windows, and invest in electronic security systems. The newspapers dubbed him the Night Stalker because he always attacked at night like a vampire.
The visiting room at San Quentin with its rows of orange plastic seats bolted to the floor and assorted vending machines lined up against one wall, was crowded that day with other prisoners and family members who had come on their appointed visiting day. Many of them stared at the infamous inmate and kept their distance even though the Night Stalker seemed considerably less ferocious than he had been when he had spooked the courtroom at his lengthy trial back in 1989. Instead of his signature dark glasses, Ramirez, now age 36, wore round prescription glasses. He moved a bit hesitantly and seemed ill-at-ease.
The long-haired brunette who longed to be the Night Stalker's bride had first contacted Ramirez after his arrest in 1985 and had written him nearly 75 letters during his incarceration. He finally proposed to her in 1988, but prison rules delayed their wedding. Other women tried to steal him away from her, visiting him in prison and lavished him with all kinds of attention. Doreen often ran into them when she came to for her visits, and at least one woman threatened physical violence if Doreen didn't abandon her claim on the Night Stalker. But Doreen persevered, and in the end she got her man.
She claimed to be a virgin at the time of their wedding, and marrying Ramirez wouldn't change that because conjugal visits are not permitted for death-row inmates. According to Philip Carlo, author of The Night Stalker, Ramirez was drawn to her precisely because she was a virgin. Doreen had been raised a Roman Catholic, but she considered herself an agnostic and could accommodate Ramirez's professed Satanism. When she had purchased their wedding rings, she'd bought a gold band for herself but a platinum band for her husband-to-be. "Satanists don't wear gold," he'd explained to her.
The civil ceremony started at 11:10 a.m. and was performed by Mr. L. Weister, who joined two other inmates to their brides that morning. Ramirez's sister Ruth, his brother Joseph, and Joseph's teenage daughter attended. Ramirez cautioned his niece to pull down her skirt; he knew other inmates were ogling her. As the couple said their vows, Doreen was bursting with joy and happiness. Her long-awaited dream was finally coming true. She was becoming Mrs. Richard Ramirez.
i dont want to open a can of worms with this question, but what is the difference between the death penalty and abortion then? (if you shouldnt kill a murderer, why can you kill a fetus?)
two wrong (or in this case three) don't make a right. disrespect for life is disrespect for life, regardless of the circumstances. thats my quasi-buddhist perspective on this whole thing...
Whoa, is this a diversion into politics or what? Ahh, what the hell, I'm bored today.
I don't believe in capital punishment because I don't see it as a deterrant to crime. Nobody expects to get caught so they don't think that they could die for their crime. That's why I'm opposed even though some crimes are so vile that I almost feel compelled to strangle the person myself.
Abortion disgusts me in both the physical procedure and the absolute selfishness of it. That said I don't oppose it on a legal level. Note precedent of prohibition. I just wish people would have higher morals and wouldn't do that.
Why is it selfish not to want to bring a child into the world who may have physical or mental defects, be abused, unloved, or simply ignored? In understand the theory that all babies can be loved, and put up for adoption, and if the mother were only willing to nurture and carry it for 9 months and just relinquish it then everything would be fine and a happy healthy person would be added to this joyous world we live in, but reality is much more complicated. I should give men more slack, but it irks me that more men than women are opposed to abortion when they could never be in that position themselves(I know that's not really fair but it still bothers me)...
Pregnancy initiates a huge number of emotional changes, can be very trying, taumatic, physically exhausting and even dangerous to the mother. What if the mother has a drug problem, or an abusive boyfriend, or a job that she would be unable to perform and would lose if she had the baby?
I have been pregnant myself, and can tell you that my feelings swung much more widely than they normally do(which is already a lot). I became extremely sensitive and even cried during a studio crit (it was my first year of architecture school...). Although I am against the death penalty for a number of reasons (don't think we should give the government the power to execute someone who does not pose an imminent threat, respect for life, lack of deterrent, cost to taxpayers, etc), abortion is much more difficult for me and the consequences and effect on society not so clearly defined. I also feel intuitively that the child and mother are one up until a certain point (and where that point is becomes nearly impossible to define with modern technology). The growing child is part of the mothers body, and in many circumstances I feel she should have the right to determine what happens. Of course, I also believe in legalizing euthanasia.
I recently went and saw the exhibit Body Worlds at USC, and they have a pregnant mother and baby on display in addition to several fetuses in various stages of growth. It is truly awe-inspiring to see and definitely makes you realize that the unborn fetus is highly developed from even a few weeks old. Anyways, it's complicated but I find it interesting how many different views people have on these various issues and why.
well, i feel every life is precious, no matter what the circumstance. Im not a religious nut or anything, either. to abort a life because it is possible defects or lack of care that is present is not justification enough. To me it somewhat says, "you are not normal enough: you do not have to be born"--not that the fetus can distinguish at this point, it is sad to see that such a judgement can be made on life by another human being.
To tell you the truth, I am not completely against abortion; in fact, I believe more in the woman's rights (i have very liberal views, despite what may seem). I allow the woman to choose whether to have birth or not, as I do recognize circumstances. However, I just do not like the idea of society moving towards a lack of respect towards life, whether it be wars, capital punishment, etc. No matter what the case, these issues call for a judgement of another human being. Although we are civil enough in many cases, Its a huge thing to ask from a human being who does not always understand themsevles anyway.
e...i guess our opinions on the matter of capital punishment differ. you disagree with it. i do not.
also, you took my quote out of context. i don't appreciate that. i was speaking on the topic of a jury member doing their duty to serve the community. They had completed the judgement of the defendant and are required to dictate punishment. They saw and heard all the testimony. you didn't. they saw and heard all the evidence. you didn't. your personal detachment from the case and from the issue frankly reduces your argument to one of 'ethics' and 'morals'.
The issue of capital punishment as a deterrant is a moot one to me. The system doesn't work as it was intended. the fact that California has 640 convicted killers on death row and is considering building more space to house them instead of carrying out their sentences shows how the state considers their task. I'd enjoy a debate with you on the issue at hand, but please try to bring a rational and well-thought out argument instead of the untenable 'that's just wrong'.
what's the big deal with this peterson anyway. im sure if he was black from the inner city, nobody would have gave a damn. I'm sure there are many cases like this.
instrument, disagree we do. i'm sorry if you feel that i took you statement out of context. i don't disagree with you on the fact that the jurors know more than you or i. i said so much in an earlier post.
i don't believe in capital punishment because as people, we all make mistakes. jurors can make mistakes. prosecutors can make mistakes. the police can make mistakes. knowing this, i could not put a person to death. death can not be undone. our system has been proven to be imperfect. innocent people are occasionally sentenced for crimes they did not commit. i am not saying that it is so in this case, but it happen on too frequent of a basis to be certain that we might be killing the killer. i also feel that if i were to commit someone to death, that it would make me no different than the killer that i was sentencing to death.
i guess i wonder, what is wrong with a life in prision without parole for someone who commits a horrible crime?
what's the big deal with this peterson anyway. im sure if he was black from the inner city, nobody would have gave a damn. I'm sure there are many cases like this.
- ieugenei
yeah, there are lots of cases of guys killing their pregnant wives on christmas eve in order to live a fun single life.
you are obviously too naive. of course it takes a person who's never lived "below the line" to know that murders don't happen. I remember 2 black students get shot by another at a highschool a week before graduation at neary by h.s. when i was in middle school...... never saw that on CNN.
Is it really more men than women who oppose abortion? Not from my group of friends.
If you would re-read my post I didn't say I was in favor of overturning row v. wade. like alfredocheese I think you get on a slippery slope when you argue the defected fetus thing. Anyway, I'm only guessing, but I'd bet most abortions are done on perfectly healthy fetuses for reasons more aligned with birth control.
And the Scott Peterson thing was news because his wife was nearly full term pregnant. Had she not been preganant it would've been a short blip in the local media. Most of the white people killed don't get national media attention either. Don't play the race card, it doesn't apply here.
of course it takes a person who's never lived "below the line" to know that murders don't happen. I remember 2 black students get shot by another at a highschool a week before graduation at neary by h.s. when i was in middle school...... never saw that on CNN.
yeah, that wasn't on CNN because it happens all the time, which is a huge socio-cultural problem in this country. the issue needs more attention. the peterson case WAS NOT typical, hence the over-exposure within the media.
i think it's funny that you're calling me naive when you're the one who isn't aware of the biggest murder case in this country's last two years.
Wow...although this thread was started on the topic of capital punishment, abortion, sexism and now racism(you just could help it could you ieugenei), are now rearing their ugly heads.
Perhaps I can sum up my viewpoints on these topics by stating that I feel that killing is murder in all cases other than self defense. I suppose if a mother is having pregnancy complications then abortion could be a form of self defense. However, abortion as solution to a mistake made by the mother and father is BS. If a nutjob like SP is a danger to others then I see capital punishment as an act of self defense by society. The US has capital punishment because prison life here is a cake walk.
e, i respect your opinion and your response. if your question wasn't rhetorical, i'd like to respond to it.
"i guess i wonder, what is wrong with a life in prison without parole for someone who commits a horrible crime?"
In my opinion, prison sentences in the United States are a joke. The American justice system has a hard time justifying their decisions to the public. Taxpayers bemoan raising taxes to build more prisons yet they also bemoan early release programs that put violent, convicted felons back on the street. This paradox has paralyzed the system.
Furthermore, the issue of prison conditions muddies the waters. The prison system in the late 20th C. has focused more on rehabilitation than on punishment, and this plays into the hands of advocates of early release programs. Who can say when a criminal is rehabilitated? Can a court-appointed psychologist who spends 20 minutes per week or month with a rapist guarantee that he won't attack again? "Prison overcrowding" and its negative publicity force the hand of the legal system, allowing criminals back on the street after serving small fractions of their sentences.
Once the legal system altered the way it looked at prisoners, pushing rehab over punishment, it changed its prisons. Fewer facilities, fewer staff and society’s PC attitudes, etc have allowed prisons freedoms unheard of 50 years ago. Time outdoors, social fraternization, televisions, fitness facilities, college education credits...all of these privileges do nothing to deter crime, do they? Prisoner work details are found in fewer numbers these days and working a few hours a day in the prison laundry or woodshop may teach marketable skills but are not punishing or what most consider to be difficult or demeaning labor.
The eighth amendment is said to guarantee prisoners the protection from cruel and unusual punishment during incarceration, even death row inmates. What's interesting in a number of supreme court cases regarding this matter is that the court has upheld that even if prisoners are kept in their cells alone for up to 23 hours a day, if reading materials, television and legal visitations are permitted, a prisoner has no grounds for claim.
So, what constitutes punishment for a death row inmate? Each state has its own guidelines for incarceration, with federal and military differing as well.
The question at hand is: Does the punishment fit the crime? Does a life of sitting in a room, reading, watching television all day, doing little to no work and being allowed visitors, eating three squares a day wearing clean clothes, having internet access and contact with your legal team befit a criminal who stole the life of another? Prison time is supposed to tell a prisoner that that society has deemed them inappropriate for interaction with the rest of the population. Often times, the aforementioned privileges are a step up from life on the outside of prison…how then is one supposed to change their life if their punishment is privilege?
Does the 'burden' of being labeled a killer or knowing you'll never be free again outweigh the burden you've cost others...the burden of knowing a son or daughter, mother or father, brother or sister will never live their life because of this criminal's actions?
The burden our society bears isn't punishment and crime equality, its taking a stand against behavior and working towards the improvement of society. If we aren't going to carry out the sentences that juries across the country have handed down, then isn't the entire system at odds with the people it is supposed to protect? If a jury has spoken, its our job to listen.
with all the capital punishment scenario debate, the sister issue of abortion was raised. Emotional thread here, eh? Maybe there is too much carelessness in how people chose to conduct their sex lives but take this scenario. It really might be at the heart of what might be in hindsite an issue of Scott vs. Lacy. It becomes quite obvious that Scott was not interested in being 'Daddy' and appears to be a great deal of the underlying motivation for murdering his wife & unborn child.
The scenario =
Rehnquist passes away in the near future. Another two justices retire. The religious right sways (takes over) the supreme court and reverses Roe vs. Wade. Then a constitutional amendment makes all abortion illegal carried by a narrow margin of red states - the ban on abortion is universal. Mother's health is no longer an issue or anything else. The FDA bans all forms of contraception.
Now a woman is raped. She was badly beaten, and held in captivity for a couple of days .......later escaping. Beyond the limits of a now illegal morning after pill, she discovers to her further suffering that she is late, and realizes pregnant.
The clock is ticking along with two pulses.
Who has the duty or right to chose what is fair to the victim of a violent crime with both a survivor and living decendants?
Does the woman decide as in the past - or is some bunch of men going to tell her to just grin & bare it?
If the woman dies as a complication of a rape pregnancy carried to term............... is it a 'man'slaughter case or murder?
If the woman goes out of the country to have an abortion somewhere else, can she be proscecuted for any crime when she returns?
The predominant weight as always is dumped on the woman who certainly did not ask for it.
For men & women to consider -
Is the woman - your mom,
your little sister,
a bellie button pierced vixen coed,
your wife,
a schoolmate
or a complete stranger you see on the street?
Flames - let us fan the flames of coherent thought.
oh forgot another factor - the woman's brother, husband or boyfriend takes her out of the country and is arrested with her as an accessory or codefendant.
art tech geek, do you hear the black helicopters yet? I like to ponder the what if scenarios, however absurd so here's one I've heard. The fed gov't decides that handicapped and children of poverty are too big of burden on society, as well as over population issues. Thus the government imposes mandantory abortions for women within the poverty limit and/or carrying a non-healthy fetus. With this policy already in place they fed's impose a maximum child limit, similar to China, to control the population of the country under limited resources. After many years of this some fanatical leader uses abortion to systematically create a superior race, a la Hitler.
That's a condenced story that I heard from an aquaintance whom isn't religious but very "afraid of big brother," if you will. So, one far fetched story for another. Personally I don't see a day in my life when roe v. wade will be over turned.
I agree that it is indeed a splippery slope when talking about what we believe are "legitimate" reasons for allowing various types of abortions... in the case of my pregnancy, I was planning on having an abortion but I miscarried - perhaps my mental state initiated it, or the stress, not sure. But I at least have been in the position of being pregnant and having to decide what to do - I did not know if anything was wrong with the fetus (although I was very sick for the whole first year of school because of allergies and no doubt that contributed), but I did not like the father (at that point we had broken up) and did not want to bring a baby into the world that would tie me to him, nor did I feel emotionally or physically capable of sustaining a baby for nine months... From an outsiders point of view, I suppose you could call it selfish and it would be true, if you projected yourself into the future and the baby turned into a healthy adult who was happy to be living. But at that point in time, it was a part of myself, sustained by my body and under my control. It was not yet an individual, with a consciousness and feelings and an identity (at least that's my opinion). Where this discussion gets tricky for me is at what point do we separate the fetus from the mother, and give it it's own identity?
I guess my personal philosophy feels that the universe is more holistic than that - the line between the individual and every other living thing is not that sharply defined, it's fluid. Ideally our individual actions would be based on doing what is most beneficial to society. And people who are totally opposed to abortion would argue that that is what they believe - in the same way that I believe it is beneficial to allow a woman to choose whether to carry a baby to term or not.
Brian, it seems simplistic to say that abortion as a solution to a mistake made by the mother and father is BS. There are just too many variables and individual circumstances for anyone to be able to judge another person's actions without knowing why and the feelings and specifics in the lives of everyone involved.
I also wonder how you guys who are at least morally against abortion, even if you wouldn't politically mandate it, it feel about killing animals - for food, hunting, clothing, etc. It seems to me in many cases that people who "value life" really value human life but don't make the same extension when it comes to animals. For me it's part of the same fluidity, and if you are willing to admit that killing animals for some circumstances is justified, then the same should be extended to humans as well. For myself I don't eat red meat or fowl and try to buy organic, cheese, fee-range eggs etc. because I have the ability to do so(haven't eaten meat since I was 13). My husband and I have adopted three stray animals. But I also wear leather shoes, eat fish and drive when I could walk - I just go by my intuition and try not to harm anything, person, animal or plant, if I can. There is always a positive and negative effect of any decision on the individual and on society - collectively we must weigh these effects and try to do what we think is right.
Recently there was an article in the NYTimes sunday magazine (if I'm remembering correctly) about the question of how to treat fetuses/babies with abnormalities. At the center of the article was a debate between a university professor (don't remember if it was a sociologist, psychologist or what but someone respected at an ivy league) who had written about the merits of allowing parents to decide whether children with birth defects and diseases should live or not, and a woman who had some kind of serious disability (sorry I don't remember again) who argued that she had just as much right to be alive as anyone else, contributed as much to society (if not more in her case because she was an author and activist), etc. It brought up some really interesting questions and definitely made me examine my beliefs more closely. I personally am terrified of having a child with disabilites - I just don't know if I am strong enough and generous enough to be able to give them the life they would deserve. I'm sure if the situation arrived I would adjust and be able to figure out a way to make it work, but I also think when and if my husband and I are able to have kids I will have the fetus tested for every possible disease and probably stop the pregnancy early if certain things are detected.
instrument, thx for you reply. it was not a rhetorical question at all. while i agree that prisoners probably get more perks than you would prefer to see, i don't think it is a 'cake walk' as brian suggests. my guess is he would not feel this way if he were in prison.
i think some of your observations about the problems of the prison system are good ones. is a life of sitting in a cell reflecting on the life you took befitting? it depends on the person, but i think it is for most though. ol scotty is going to have a rough time of it in prison. his life will be so drastically different than anything he has ever known. he will have a tough time in his new environment. i would personally like to see some of the rights stripped for those who commit the worst offenses. if the system is too easy, why not change the system instead of killing them?
ultimately, the u.s. needs to focus on building schools and lifting people out of impoverished conditions. until we focus more of our efforts on these fronts, our problems will continue to grow. our country builds way to many prisons, imprisons more people than most countries in the world, and i believe, is only second to china and the congo in terms of the number of people they put to death. not very good company when it comes to human rights violations. we must be doing something wrong.
for me, two wrongs don't make a right. killing someone who has killed would make me no different. i guess it always comes back to knowing we are dealing with an imperfect system. i would hate to be in the shoes of someone who was wrongfully sentenced to death. mistakes can be righted until you are dead.
i often found it odd that the church and the right claimed the moral high ground with abortion, but never mentioned the system our government has in place that sentences people to death. as meversusyou said, what's the difference? a life is a life.
as rudolph has indicated with her own struggle, these are complicated and layered issues that can not be easily dealt with and understood. well said rudolph, and thanks for sharing.
apologies for my thoughts being scattered, but i gotta go and wanted to respond to your thoughtful response.
R.A. Rudolph...that was very honest and forthright of you. I commend you and thank you for giving us quite a bit to think about.
e, this is a good conversation. i don't think the two of us will ever agree, but i think this is very constructive. thank you.
a few things...you said that Peterson will have a rough time of it in prison because its so radically different from his past life and you seem to be inferring that this is enough. if the only variable between a life sentence and that of any other convicted felon is time in our current legal system, how can that be rationalized to the families like Laci's? How could it be that he would get away with a sentence that is essentially a library card for life and her family gets a lifetime of loss, torture and grief? If you can justify that to me, i'll gladly listen.
I agree that the US has its priorities out of wack on a lot of issues, education and healthcare being paramount, but how can change those variables without thinking of the repurcussions it will cost society before those issues begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel (if there is one)?
if it takes 15 years to get our education and welfare system on track and this theoretically would alter the lives of millions of underprivileged that could grow into a life of crime, then we have over thirty years until we see a marked improvement in the rates of adult felons....and of course that is all a moot point since socio/psychopaths like Scott Peterson probably went to the best schools and grew up in a rosy family atmosphere and look how he turned out. how would those solutions have affected Scott Peterson. How do they help Laci?
How does the issue of America 'building too many prisons' as you say, affect the issue of crime? if we didn't build another prison starting today do you know what we'd have? Prison overcrowding. Stopping the construction of prisons only serves to decrease sentences for criminals, putting more of them on the streets without rehabilitation OR punishment. the number of criminals won't magically taper off if there are no cells to put them in. we imprison more people because we have a large population, well regulated and trained law enforcement and more laws than other countries. we have more theft because there is more to steal. there are more murders because there are more people to murder and more things to murder over. Do you think other countries are immune to this?
take the issues of gun control, another of my hot topics on this board that we probably won't agree on. i'll try to use it to segway into addressing the last portion of your post so bear with my rant, please. the violent crime rates in Britain and Australia have skyrocketed since they imposed strict blanket gun control legislation....with violent assaults up 35 percent in five years! This type of control didn't fix a damn thing. The law can't be the only thing that changes and still produce change for the good. Someone must have forgotten to tell the criminals to turn in their guns.
i will pose this question to you, e. please feel free to tell me to go to hell, as it demands your complete honesty and thats a lot to ask of anyone on a public forum. This thread has reitterated a point i value a great deal...that family and children are the foundation for our lives. Raising and nurturing your family demands our undivided attention and our utmost dedication. Their happiness is paramount.
That said, are you willing to defend your family from that which we fear the most...the unknown quantity of the criminal element? If faced with the situation of defending your family against an attacker bent on doing them bodily harm, you have a judgement call to make. Are you willing to defend them? Could you take the life of another human being to protect them? If 'a life is a life' as you and others have put it...and if you would feel like a killer by sentencing someone to death while on a jury, what happens when its your family that is involved? Would you allow an attacker to kill a member of your family if you had the means to defend them? Wouldn't you have that responsibility? Your judgment call...your husband or wife, your children........or some lowlife psychopath?
Unless you've had a loved one in harms way,or been there yourself, its hard to tell what you'd do...i hope none of you have to...but you'd best reconcile your gut reaction to this question with your question of capital punishment...don't you think that Laci's father would have killed Scott had he walked in on him strangling his daughter? would he have been justif ied? would we even be discussing this if somebody had been there to defend laci? someone has to fight for her, and for the next person in need.
you're the cool guy. you have me convinced. what this peterson fella did has so much to do with my life and everyone in the world, because we're all murderers and we all have to see this whole process and know the outcome to save our own God damn murderous lives.
I've never been so impacted in my life.
hold on. i dont even have a t.v.
damnnn
no but honestly, i actually know what the actual deal is with this case. it's really hard to avoid, don't you agree? but the fact of the matter is, if it's news its news. the reason i had to make my first comment a smartass one is that i'm simply just fed up with the news always talking about the downsides of what's going on.
I've traveled a lot, what i see different in other countries is that there are actually less violence worshipped in news-media. you know well that it's actually just entertainment. how many of you "peterson case" enthusiasts actually can say you mourned more than you've been interested and entertained by this drama.
im just making a statement that things like this, IMO, are really stupid. as with kobe bryant, OJ, Clinton etc
sorry for the delay and thx for your response. too much work right now.
will we agree on everything? rarely do two individual agree on everything, but i think we actually agree on quite a bit. we both acknowledge problems in the system. we both agree that the u.s. has its priorities wrong. we agree that, at least the most violent offenders sent to jail have too many luxuries [see my above post. gawd, i think i said that. if not, i certainly meant to say it]. we agree that the victims friends and families deserve a proper and fair sentence.
we agree that families and children are the foundation of our lives. and yes, i would defend my family and friends against harm. i know it is probably naive of me, but i don't think having a gun will ultimately lead to a better outcome for me or my family. it could end worse. i think violence can beget violence. let's say a robber breaks into your house and has a gun just in case or to maybe scare a naive family, but he really has no intention of using it. rightfully so, you pull out a gun to protect your family. you may shoot and/or kill the attacker. you have every right to at this point. he has violated your home and safety, but you may not kill him though. they may shoot and disable you and then be so upset at you that they kill or harm the rest of your family. this would be a horrible outcome that i wish upon no one.
i'm sure you can come up with hypotheticals for the other side. i know i can, but it's kind of like poker. it's a gamble, and you don't know who will win until the cards are turned over. you may think you have a great hand, but there is usually the possibility that someone has better.
more later as i have to run again. i just didn't want you to think i was ignoring your reply. all the best.
There is a big difference between abortion and capital punishment.
One is an individual making a choice that not only affects their life, but also their body. There is no guarantee of birth - a fetus is entirely dependent on the women's body - so you can't argue that the fetus is independent.
Capital punishment on the other hand is about our government or society making the decision. I don't think that they should have that power. Group think isn't exactly the best way to determine someone's death.
Scott Peterson gets death penalty
discuss
i didn't think it would happen.
Even if he is truely guilty, which I think he is, there is simply not evidence to convict him of murder. I am really shocked they sentenced him to death let alone find him guilty. There was no murder weapon found, no direct forensic evidence on him, and no murder scene. Whatever happens I think Mark Gerahgoes needs to start looking for another line of work.
from what i know, i agree with jg, but i'm sure there is a lot we don't know. the sad thing for me, i that they are putting him to death. lock him up for life. the pain of never seeing a free day again is more punishing than anything. the u.s. needs to stop killing it's prisoners.
awesome...that cold blooded killer deserves to die...
anyways if he didn't want to be with her and the kid he could have just divorced her...kill her and the baby? wtf? what a lowlife.
twelve people thought exactly like you bloodclot.
devil's advocate coming out here, how freakin bad would it suck if he is innocent (not saying he is or isn't), just posing a question.
considering california's relatively very slow appeal process, peterson's defense will have many many years to try to find any evidence that he didn't do it.
peterson is actually in a much safer environment while awaiting execution. if he were to be committed to life in prison, he would likely be tortured and killed in prison by other inmates.
the family wanted him to live. is that crazy??
he's not innocent if you have listenend to the tapes between him and his mistress... he's definately guilty...but yeah that would suck
oh yeah he also threatened to kill his former girlfriend since she busted him
paul says it best though... he would probably become someone's sweetheart in prison, a far worse fate than a quiet painless(?) death.
they would eat him up in there
^ i don't that is a rationalization for killing someone. the government should get out of that business of condemning people to death.
so he won't be in a prison where he can get properly "punished"? thats bull.
meversusyou - there are plenty of people that get sentenced to death that are later found innocent. mostly in texas where they get death penalty happy.
why do americans have the death penalty? why are you facinated with killing? death? destruction?
spend more money on that, and less on promoting the coverage of this trial, and we'll all be better off. just a thought.
you wanna know why americans have the death penalty?
http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm
thats why
I agree that he shouldnt be put to death, but not necesarily because of the fact that he will "suffer more" in prison (as opposed to a "painless" death). Thats rather sadistic, although he is a psycho killer bitch ass...
I just do not believe in the need for killing for revenge, although the families of the victims may say otherwise). As a so called civilized and progressed society, We should put him away for life in prison for him to be punished for his actions, as well as to protect the public from a murderer. We should not condemn him solely for revengeful reasons ...surely we are not that barbaric...??
although some things may prove otherwise...
I wonder if and when they are ever going to find Lacy's head? Her head was whacked off - they only found her body.
If you have ever been on a jury or foreman on one, there is basic human nature. SP was convicted for in my opinion his basic nature which did not conceal itself too well under intense scrutiny. There was no one else with the op, motive(S) etc. The missing head, and the breathing talking mistress, christmas fishing trip and bodies washing up in EBRPD property + add Connor and its not too nice. Lacy went fishing in SF bay as bait. Connor was collateral damage in SP's living the high life.
People have been convicted and executed on a whole lot less than that. They did not find blood or the killing implement ...................... but they figured out almost everything else.
Also, as an aside - did anyone ever happen to remember that SP was investigated as a suspect for some coed out in Claremont area who disappeared and was never found?? It made me sort of perk up and wonder. Lacy might not have been his first. I betcha the detectives on that one are lined up to gently look for some hint of conscience to let some other woman's family find 'closure'.
alfredocheese - we are that barbaric. even in a blue neck state like california, an eye for an eye ...............
think about it this way - would you trust him to date or marry your sister? I don't think so. For sheer selfishness- arrogance sociopathy: SP qualifies as sub scum. rather handsome though. Put him in the general population. please. Let some San Quentin con have a few moments alone with him and he would ask for the death penalty. That will not happen now.
I doubt that someone with the brain chemistry necessary to kill someone in cold blood would have a hard time becoming accustomed to prison life. Its a frame of mind and with his complete lack of remorse, i think he resigned himself to one fate or the other two years ago. neither sentence would be torture for Peterson.
Look at the Menendez boys. America has an affliction/affection for sociopaths and folks get worked up for psychopaths too. those two killers got so much fan mail while in jail, one even got married while behind bars. so, is it punishment to sit in a cell by yourself all day, answering fan mail and corresponding with a new love? watch tv, 3 squares, do some laundry to pay your debt to society???.... the same would have happened with Peterson. Prison is too easy for most every guilty criminal, at least in the US. For my money, Peterson, gets the needle and he gets off easy.
my justice would not be as swift, painless or pretty. you take a life you forfeit your own.
There was more evidence in the OJ Trial.
Discuss.
this is why we have trial by jury for all cases, especially for capital cases. 12 reasonable, emotional, average human beings judge you based on the same characteristics....rationale, (e)motive, "human-beingness". They are your peers. the system was set up to allow people to judge you based on your actions, based on facts, conjecture, personal emotion...everything...reasonable doubt allows them an out at the time of judgement and sentencing. A jury knows the case. they eat, sleep, and breathe it. Its not an easy thing to sentence someone to death...some jurors are never right afterwards...but they do it because it needs to be done. Juries are right and wrong because they are human, they are not immune to the faults we all possess, be it a lack of reason or too much of it. they can convict an innocent man or worse, let a guilty one free...they are fallible and that's why their job is crucial and credible.
"Satanists Don't Wear Gold"
(The marriage of Ramirez and Doreen Lioy)
By Anthony Bruno
The bride wore a calf-length, white wedding dress with long lace sleeves. The groom wore a starched set of prison blues, the pants a little too long, the shirt tails hanging out. She was glowing; he was nervous. The ceremony took place on October 3, 1996, in the large, gray-walled main visiting room of California's San Quentin Prison. According to Jim Doyle writing in the San Francisco Chronicle, the bride, Doreen Lioy, age 41, was a freelance magazine editor with a bachelor's degree in English and an I.Q. of 152. The groom, serial killer and rapist Richard Ramirez, was on Death Row, awaiting execution.
Seven years earlier in 1989, Ramirez had been convicted on 43 counts, including 13 murders, and the authorities have good reason to believe that he had committed several others. For over a year starting in the spring of 1985, the residents of Los Angeles County lived in fear of the anonymous "Night Stalker" as he was called, forcing many to alter their nighttime habits, install better locks on their doors and windows, and invest in electronic security systems. The newspapers dubbed him the Night Stalker because he always attacked at night like a vampire.
The visiting room at San Quentin with its rows of orange plastic seats bolted to the floor and assorted vending machines lined up against one wall, was crowded that day with other prisoners and family members who had come on their appointed visiting day. Many of them stared at the infamous inmate and kept their distance even though the Night Stalker seemed considerably less ferocious than he had been when he had spooked the courtroom at his lengthy trial back in 1989. Instead of his signature dark glasses, Ramirez, now age 36, wore round prescription glasses. He moved a bit hesitantly and seemed ill-at-ease.
The long-haired brunette who longed to be the Night Stalker's bride had first contacted Ramirez after his arrest in 1985 and had written him nearly 75 letters during his incarceration. He finally proposed to her in 1988, but prison rules delayed their wedding. Other women tried to steal him away from her, visiting him in prison and lavished him with all kinds of attention. Doreen often ran into them when she came to for her visits, and at least one woman threatened physical violence if Doreen didn't abandon her claim on the Night Stalker. But Doreen persevered, and in the end she got her man.
She claimed to be a virgin at the time of their wedding, and marrying Ramirez wouldn't change that because conjugal visits are not permitted for death-row inmates. According to Philip Carlo, author of The Night Stalker, Ramirez was drawn to her precisely because she was a virgin. Doreen had been raised a Roman Catholic, but she considered herself an agnostic and could accommodate Ramirez's professed Satanism. When she had purchased their wedding rings, she'd bought a gold band for herself but a platinum band for her husband-to-be. "Satanists don't wear gold," he'd explained to her.
The civil ceremony started at 11:10 a.m. and was performed by Mr. L. Weister, who joined two other inmates to their brides that morning. Ramirez's sister Ruth, his brother Joseph, and Joseph's teenage daughter attended. Ramirez cautioned his niece to pull down her skirt; he knew other inmates were ogling her. As the couple said their vows, Doreen was bursting with joy and happiness. Her long-awaited dream was finally coming true. She was becoming Mrs. Richard Ramirez.
putting someone to death does not 'need to be done.'
i dont want to open a can of worms with this question, but what is the difference between the death penalty and abortion then? (if you shouldnt kill a murderer, why can you kill a fetus?)
discuss or ignore
i believe in abortion, but i dont believe in capital punishment
two wrong (or in this case three) don't make a right. disrespect for life is disrespect for life, regardless of the circumstances. thats my quasi-buddhist perspective on this whole thing...
Whoa, is this a diversion into politics or what? Ahh, what the hell, I'm bored today.
I don't believe in capital punishment because I don't see it as a deterrant to crime. Nobody expects to get caught so they don't think that they could die for their crime. That's why I'm opposed even though some crimes are so vile that I almost feel compelled to strangle the person myself.
Abortion disgusts me in both the physical procedure and the absolute selfishness of it. That said I don't oppose it on a legal level. Note precedent of prohibition. I just wish people would have higher morals and wouldn't do that.
Why is it selfish not to want to bring a child into the world who may have physical or mental defects, be abused, unloved, or simply ignored? In understand the theory that all babies can be loved, and put up for adoption, and if the mother were only willing to nurture and carry it for 9 months and just relinquish it then everything would be fine and a happy healthy person would be added to this joyous world we live in, but reality is much more complicated. I should give men more slack, but it irks me that more men than women are opposed to abortion when they could never be in that position themselves(I know that's not really fair but it still bothers me)...
Pregnancy initiates a huge number of emotional changes, can be very trying, taumatic, physically exhausting and even dangerous to the mother. What if the mother has a drug problem, or an abusive boyfriend, or a job that she would be unable to perform and would lose if she had the baby?
I have been pregnant myself, and can tell you that my feelings swung much more widely than they normally do(which is already a lot). I became extremely sensitive and even cried during a studio crit (it was my first year of architecture school...). Although I am against the death penalty for a number of reasons (don't think we should give the government the power to execute someone who does not pose an imminent threat, respect for life, lack of deterrent, cost to taxpayers, etc), abortion is much more difficult for me and the consequences and effect on society not so clearly defined. I also feel intuitively that the child and mother are one up until a certain point (and where that point is becomes nearly impossible to define with modern technology). The growing child is part of the mothers body, and in many circumstances I feel she should have the right to determine what happens. Of course, I also believe in legalizing euthanasia.
I recently went and saw the exhibit Body Worlds at USC, and they have a pregnant mother and baby on display in addition to several fetuses in various stages of growth. It is truly awe-inspiring to see and definitely makes you realize that the unborn fetus is highly developed from even a few weeks old. Anyways, it's complicated but I find it interesting how many different views people have on these various issues and why.
well, i feel every life is precious, no matter what the circumstance. Im not a religious nut or anything, either. to abort a life because it is possible defects or lack of care that is present is not justification enough. To me it somewhat says, "you are not normal enough: you do not have to be born"--not that the fetus can distinguish at this point, it is sad to see that such a judgement can be made on life by another human being.
To tell you the truth, I am not completely against abortion; in fact, I believe more in the woman's rights (i have very liberal views, despite what may seem). I allow the woman to choose whether to have birth or not, as I do recognize circumstances. However, I just do not like the idea of society moving towards a lack of respect towards life, whether it be wars, capital punishment, etc. No matter what the case, these issues call for a judgement of another human being. Although we are civil enough in many cases, Its a huge thing to ask from a human being who does not always understand themsevles anyway.
i am not trying to justify anyone's position at all, either.
i am not trying to justify anyone's position at all, either.
e...i guess our opinions on the matter of capital punishment differ. you disagree with it. i do not.
also, you took my quote out of context. i don't appreciate that. i was speaking on the topic of a jury member doing their duty to serve the community. They had completed the judgement of the defendant and are required to dictate punishment. They saw and heard all the testimony. you didn't. they saw and heard all the evidence. you didn't. your personal detachment from the case and from the issue frankly reduces your argument to one of 'ethics' and 'morals'.
The issue of capital punishment as a deterrant is a moot one to me. The system doesn't work as it was intended. the fact that California has 640 convicted killers on death row and is considering building more space to house them instead of carrying out their sentences shows how the state considers their task. I'd enjoy a debate with you on the issue at hand, but please try to bring a rational and well-thought out argument instead of the untenable 'that's just wrong'.
what's the big deal with this peterson anyway. im sure if he was black from the inner city, nobody would have gave a damn. I'm sure there are many cases like this.
he's from california, just like OJ.
instrument, disagree we do. i'm sorry if you feel that i took you statement out of context. i don't disagree with you on the fact that the jurors know more than you or i. i said so much in an earlier post.
i don't believe in capital punishment because as people, we all make mistakes. jurors can make mistakes. prosecutors can make mistakes. the police can make mistakes. knowing this, i could not put a person to death. death can not be undone. our system has been proven to be imperfect. innocent people are occasionally sentenced for crimes they did not commit. i am not saying that it is so in this case, but it happen on too frequent of a basis to be certain that we might be killing the killer. i also feel that if i were to commit someone to death, that it would make me no different than the killer that i was sentencing to death.
i guess i wonder, what is wrong with a life in prision without parole for someone who commits a horrible crime?
- ieugenei
yeah, there are lots of cases of guys killing their pregnant wives on christmas eve in order to live a fun single life.
idiot
you are obviously too naive. of course it takes a person who's never lived "below the line" to know that murders don't happen. I remember 2 black students get shot by another at a highschool a week before graduation at neary by h.s. when i was in middle school...... never saw that on CNN.
cracker
apples and oranges fellas
Is it really more men than women who oppose abortion? Not from my group of friends.
If you would re-read my post I didn't say I was in favor of overturning row v. wade. like alfredocheese I think you get on a slippery slope when you argue the defected fetus thing. Anyway, I'm only guessing, but I'd bet most abortions are done on perfectly healthy fetuses for reasons more aligned with birth control.
And the Scott Peterson thing was news because his wife was nearly full term pregnant. Had she not been preganant it would've been a short blip in the local media. Most of the white people killed don't get national media attention either. Don't play the race card, it doesn't apply here.
yeah, that wasn't on CNN because it happens all the time, which is a huge socio-cultural problem in this country. the issue needs more attention. the peterson case WAS NOT typical, hence the over-exposure within the media.
i think it's funny that you're calling me naive when you're the one who isn't aware of the biggest murder case in this country's last two years.
Wow...although this thread was started on the topic of capital punishment, abortion, sexism and now racism(you just could help it could you ieugenei), are now rearing their ugly heads.
Perhaps I can sum up my viewpoints on these topics by stating that I feel that killing is murder in all cases other than self defense. I suppose if a mother is having pregnancy complications then abortion could be a form of self defense. However, abortion as solution to a mistake made by the mother and father is BS. If a nutjob like SP is a danger to others then I see capital punishment as an act of self defense by society. The US has capital punishment because prison life here is a cake walk.
what about stem cell research?
enjoy
e, i respect your opinion and your response. if your question wasn't rhetorical, i'd like to respond to it.
"i guess i wonder, what is wrong with a life in prison without parole for someone who commits a horrible crime?"
In my opinion, prison sentences in the United States are a joke. The American justice system has a hard time justifying their decisions to the public. Taxpayers bemoan raising taxes to build more prisons yet they also bemoan early release programs that put violent, convicted felons back on the street. This paradox has paralyzed the system.
Furthermore, the issue of prison conditions muddies the waters. The prison system in the late 20th C. has focused more on rehabilitation than on punishment, and this plays into the hands of advocates of early release programs. Who can say when a criminal is rehabilitated? Can a court-appointed psychologist who spends 20 minutes per week or month with a rapist guarantee that he won't attack again? "Prison overcrowding" and its negative publicity force the hand of the legal system, allowing criminals back on the street after serving small fractions of their sentences.
Once the legal system altered the way it looked at prisoners, pushing rehab over punishment, it changed its prisons. Fewer facilities, fewer staff and society’s PC attitudes, etc have allowed prisons freedoms unheard of 50 years ago. Time outdoors, social fraternization, televisions, fitness facilities, college education credits...all of these privileges do nothing to deter crime, do they? Prisoner work details are found in fewer numbers these days and working a few hours a day in the prison laundry or woodshop may teach marketable skills but are not punishing or what most consider to be difficult or demeaning labor.
The eighth amendment is said to guarantee prisoners the protection from cruel and unusual punishment during incarceration, even death row inmates. What's interesting in a number of supreme court cases regarding this matter is that the court has upheld that even if prisoners are kept in their cells alone for up to 23 hours a day, if reading materials, television and legal visitations are permitted, a prisoner has no grounds for claim.
So, what constitutes punishment for a death row inmate? Each state has its own guidelines for incarceration, with federal and military differing as well.
The question at hand is: Does the punishment fit the crime? Does a life of sitting in a room, reading, watching television all day, doing little to no work and being allowed visitors, eating three squares a day wearing clean clothes, having internet access and contact with your legal team befit a criminal who stole the life of another? Prison time is supposed to tell a prisoner that that society has deemed them inappropriate for interaction with the rest of the population. Often times, the aforementioned privileges are a step up from life on the outside of prison…how then is one supposed to change their life if their punishment is privilege?
Does the 'burden' of being labeled a killer or knowing you'll never be free again outweigh the burden you've cost others...the burden of knowing a son or daughter, mother or father, brother or sister will never live their life because of this criminal's actions?
The burden our society bears isn't punishment and crime equality, its taking a stand against behavior and working towards the improvement of society. If we aren't going to carry out the sentences that juries across the country have handed down, then isn't the entire system at odds with the people it is supposed to protect? If a jury has spoken, its our job to listen.
Let me toss a match on the gasoline here.
with all the capital punishment scenario debate, the sister issue of abortion was raised. Emotional thread here, eh? Maybe there is too much carelessness in how people chose to conduct their sex lives but take this scenario. It really might be at the heart of what might be in hindsite an issue of Scott vs. Lacy. It becomes quite obvious that Scott was not interested in being 'Daddy' and appears to be a great deal of the underlying motivation for murdering his wife & unborn child.
The scenario =
Rehnquist passes away in the near future. Another two justices retire. The religious right sways (takes over) the supreme court and reverses Roe vs. Wade. Then a constitutional amendment makes all abortion illegal carried by a narrow margin of red states - the ban on abortion is universal. Mother's health is no longer an issue or anything else. The FDA bans all forms of contraception.
Now a woman is raped. She was badly beaten, and held in captivity for a couple of days .......later escaping. Beyond the limits of a now illegal morning after pill, she discovers to her further suffering that she is late, and realizes pregnant.
The clock is ticking along with two pulses.
Who has the duty or right to chose what is fair to the victim of a violent crime with both a survivor and living decendants?
Does the woman decide as in the past - or is some bunch of men going to tell her to just grin & bare it?
If the woman dies as a complication of a rape pregnancy carried to term............... is it a 'man'slaughter case or murder?
If the woman goes out of the country to have an abortion somewhere else, can she be proscecuted for any crime when she returns?
The predominant weight as always is dumped on the woman who certainly did not ask for it.
For men & women to consider -
Is the woman - your mom,
your little sister,
a bellie button pierced vixen coed,
your wife,
a schoolmate
or a complete stranger you see on the street?
Flames - let us fan the flames of coherent thought.
oh forgot another factor - the woman's brother, husband or boyfriend takes her out of the country and is arrested with her as an accessory or codefendant.
art tech geek, do you hear the black helicopters yet? I like to ponder the what if scenarios, however absurd so here's one I've heard. The fed gov't decides that handicapped and children of poverty are too big of burden on society, as well as over population issues. Thus the government imposes mandantory abortions for women within the poverty limit and/or carrying a non-healthy fetus. With this policy already in place they fed's impose a maximum child limit, similar to China, to control the population of the country under limited resources. After many years of this some fanatical leader uses abortion to systematically create a superior race, a la Hitler.
That's a condenced story that I heard from an aquaintance whom isn't religious but very "afraid of big brother," if you will. So, one far fetched story for another. Personally I don't see a day in my life when roe v. wade will be over turned.
I agree that it is indeed a splippery slope when talking about what we believe are "legitimate" reasons for allowing various types of abortions... in the case of my pregnancy, I was planning on having an abortion but I miscarried - perhaps my mental state initiated it, or the stress, not sure. But I at least have been in the position of being pregnant and having to decide what to do - I did not know if anything was wrong with the fetus (although I was very sick for the whole first year of school because of allergies and no doubt that contributed), but I did not like the father (at that point we had broken up) and did not want to bring a baby into the world that would tie me to him, nor did I feel emotionally or physically capable of sustaining a baby for nine months... From an outsiders point of view, I suppose you could call it selfish and it would be true, if you projected yourself into the future and the baby turned into a healthy adult who was happy to be living. But at that point in time, it was a part of myself, sustained by my body and under my control. It was not yet an individual, with a consciousness and feelings and an identity (at least that's my opinion). Where this discussion gets tricky for me is at what point do we separate the fetus from the mother, and give it it's own identity?
I guess my personal philosophy feels that the universe is more holistic than that - the line between the individual and every other living thing is not that sharply defined, it's fluid. Ideally our individual actions would be based on doing what is most beneficial to society. And people who are totally opposed to abortion would argue that that is what they believe - in the same way that I believe it is beneficial to allow a woman to choose whether to carry a baby to term or not.
Brian, it seems simplistic to say that abortion as a solution to a mistake made by the mother and father is BS. There are just too many variables and individual circumstances for anyone to be able to judge another person's actions without knowing why and the feelings and specifics in the lives of everyone involved.
I also wonder how you guys who are at least morally against abortion, even if you wouldn't politically mandate it, it feel about killing animals - for food, hunting, clothing, etc. It seems to me in many cases that people who "value life" really value human life but don't make the same extension when it comes to animals. For me it's part of the same fluidity, and if you are willing to admit that killing animals for some circumstances is justified, then the same should be extended to humans as well. For myself I don't eat red meat or fowl and try to buy organic, cheese, fee-range eggs etc. because I have the ability to do so(haven't eaten meat since I was 13). My husband and I have adopted three stray animals. But I also wear leather shoes, eat fish and drive when I could walk - I just go by my intuition and try not to harm anything, person, animal or plant, if I can. There is always a positive and negative effect of any decision on the individual and on society - collectively we must weigh these effects and try to do what we think is right.
Recently there was an article in the NYTimes sunday magazine (if I'm remembering correctly) about the question of how to treat fetuses/babies with abnormalities. At the center of the article was a debate between a university professor (don't remember if it was a sociologist, psychologist or what but someone respected at an ivy league) who had written about the merits of allowing parents to decide whether children with birth defects and diseases should live or not, and a woman who had some kind of serious disability (sorry I don't remember again) who argued that she had just as much right to be alive as anyone else, contributed as much to society (if not more in her case because she was an author and activist), etc. It brought up some really interesting questions and definitely made me examine my beliefs more closely. I personally am terrified of having a child with disabilites - I just don't know if I am strong enough and generous enough to be able to give them the life they would deserve. I'm sure if the situation arrived I would adjust and be able to figure out a way to make it work, but I also think when and if my husband and I are able to have kids I will have the fetus tested for every possible disease and probably stop the pregnancy early if certain things are detected.
instrument, thx for you reply. it was not a rhetorical question at all. while i agree that prisoners probably get more perks than you would prefer to see, i don't think it is a 'cake walk' as brian suggests. my guess is he would not feel this way if he were in prison.
i think some of your observations about the problems of the prison system are good ones. is a life of sitting in a cell reflecting on the life you took befitting? it depends on the person, but i think it is for most though. ol scotty is going to have a rough time of it in prison. his life will be so drastically different than anything he has ever known. he will have a tough time in his new environment. i would personally like to see some of the rights stripped for those who commit the worst offenses. if the system is too easy, why not change the system instead of killing them?
ultimately, the u.s. needs to focus on building schools and lifting people out of impoverished conditions. until we focus more of our efforts on these fronts, our problems will continue to grow. our country builds way to many prisons, imprisons more people than most countries in the world, and i believe, is only second to china and the congo in terms of the number of people they put to death. not very good company when it comes to human rights violations. we must be doing something wrong.
for me, two wrongs don't make a right. killing someone who has killed would make me no different. i guess it always comes back to knowing we are dealing with an imperfect system. i would hate to be in the shoes of someone who was wrongfully sentenced to death. mistakes can be righted until you are dead.
i often found it odd that the church and the right claimed the moral high ground with abortion, but never mentioned the system our government has in place that sentences people to death. as meversusyou said, what's the difference? a life is a life.
as rudolph has indicated with her own struggle, these are complicated and layered issues that can not be easily dealt with and understood. well said rudolph, and thanks for sharing.
apologies for my thoughts being scattered, but i gotta go and wanted to respond to your thoughtful response.
I'll put in the needle.
R.A. Rudolph...that was very honest and forthright of you. I commend you and thank you for giving us quite a bit to think about.
e, this is a good conversation. i don't think the two of us will ever agree, but i think this is very constructive. thank you.
a few things...you said that Peterson will have a rough time of it in prison because its so radically different from his past life and you seem to be inferring that this is enough. if the only variable between a life sentence and that of any other convicted felon is time in our current legal system, how can that be rationalized to the families like Laci's? How could it be that he would get away with a sentence that is essentially a library card for life and her family gets a lifetime of loss, torture and grief? If you can justify that to me, i'll gladly listen.
I agree that the US has its priorities out of wack on a lot of issues, education and healthcare being paramount, but how can change those variables without thinking of the repurcussions it will cost society before those issues begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel (if there is one)?
if it takes 15 years to get our education and welfare system on track and this theoretically would alter the lives of millions of underprivileged that could grow into a life of crime, then we have over thirty years until we see a marked improvement in the rates of adult felons....and of course that is all a moot point since socio/psychopaths like Scott Peterson probably went to the best schools and grew up in a rosy family atmosphere and look how he turned out. how would those solutions have affected Scott Peterson. How do they help Laci?
How does the issue of America 'building too many prisons' as you say, affect the issue of crime? if we didn't build another prison starting today do you know what we'd have? Prison overcrowding. Stopping the construction of prisons only serves to decrease sentences for criminals, putting more of them on the streets without rehabilitation OR punishment. the number of criminals won't magically taper off if there are no cells to put them in. we imprison more people because we have a large population, well regulated and trained law enforcement and more laws than other countries. we have more theft because there is more to steal. there are more murders because there are more people to murder and more things to murder over. Do you think other countries are immune to this?
take the issues of gun control, another of my hot topics on this board that we probably won't agree on. i'll try to use it to segway into addressing the last portion of your post so bear with my rant, please. the violent crime rates in Britain and Australia have skyrocketed since they imposed strict blanket gun control legislation....with violent assaults up 35 percent in five years! This type of control didn't fix a damn thing. The law can't be the only thing that changes and still produce change for the good. Someone must have forgotten to tell the criminals to turn in their guns.
i will pose this question to you, e. please feel free to tell me to go to hell, as it demands your complete honesty and thats a lot to ask of anyone on a public forum. This thread has reitterated a point i value a great deal...that family and children are the foundation for our lives. Raising and nurturing your family demands our undivided attention and our utmost dedication. Their happiness is paramount.
That said, are you willing to defend your family from that which we fear the most...the unknown quantity of the criminal element? If faced with the situation of defending your family against an attacker bent on doing them bodily harm, you have a judgement call to make. Are you willing to defend them? Could you take the life of another human being to protect them? If 'a life is a life' as you and others have put it...and if you would feel like a killer by sentencing someone to death while on a jury, what happens when its your family that is involved? Would you allow an attacker to kill a member of your family if you had the means to defend them? Wouldn't you have that responsibility? Your judgment call...your husband or wife, your children........or some lowlife psychopath?
Unless you've had a loved one in harms way,or been there yourself, its hard to tell what you'd do...i hope none of you have to...but you'd best reconcile your gut reaction to this question with your question of capital punishment...don't you think that Laci's father would have killed Scott had he walked in on him strangling his daughter? would he have been justif ied? would we even be discussing this if somebody had been there to defend laci? someone has to fight for her, and for the next person in need.
alright cracker cracker
you're the cool guy. you have me convinced. what this peterson fella did has so much to do with my life and everyone in the world, because we're all murderers and we all have to see this whole process and know the outcome to save our own God damn murderous lives.
I've never been so impacted in my life.
hold on. i dont even have a t.v.
damnnn
no but honestly, i actually know what the actual deal is with this case. it's really hard to avoid, don't you agree? but the fact of the matter is, if it's news its news. the reason i had to make my first comment a smartass one is that i'm simply just fed up with the news always talking about the downsides of what's going on.
I've traveled a lot, what i see different in other countries is that there are actually less violence worshipped in news-media. you know well that it's actually just entertainment. how many of you "peterson case" enthusiasts actually can say you mourned more than you've been interested and entertained by this drama.
im just making a statement that things like this, IMO, are really stupid. as with kobe bryant, OJ, Clinton etc
hey instrument
sorry for the delay and thx for your response. too much work right now.
will we agree on everything? rarely do two individual agree on everything, but i think we actually agree on quite a bit. we both acknowledge problems in the system. we both agree that the u.s. has its priorities wrong. we agree that, at least the most violent offenders sent to jail have too many luxuries [see my above post. gawd, i think i said that. if not, i certainly meant to say it]. we agree that the victims friends and families deserve a proper and fair sentence.
we agree that families and children are the foundation of our lives. and yes, i would defend my family and friends against harm. i know it is probably naive of me, but i don't think having a gun will ultimately lead to a better outcome for me or my family. it could end worse. i think violence can beget violence. let's say a robber breaks into your house and has a gun just in case or to maybe scare a naive family, but he really has no intention of using it. rightfully so, you pull out a gun to protect your family. you may shoot and/or kill the attacker. you have every right to at this point. he has violated your home and safety, but you may not kill him though. they may shoot and disable you and then be so upset at you that they kill or harm the rest of your family. this would be a horrible outcome that i wish upon no one.
i'm sure you can come up with hypotheticals for the other side. i know i can, but it's kind of like poker. it's a gamble, and you don't know who will win until the cards are turned over. you may think you have a great hand, but there is usually the possibility that someone has better.
more later as i have to run again. i just didn't want you to think i was ignoring your reply. all the best.
There is a big difference between abortion and capital punishment.
One is an individual making a choice that not only affects their life, but also their body. There is no guarantee of birth - a fetus is entirely dependent on the women's body - so you can't argue that the fetus is independent.
Capital punishment on the other hand is about our government or society making the decision. I don't think that they should have that power. Group think isn't exactly the best way to determine someone's death.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.