it's a dead issue anyway


*cue rimshot*

12/13/2005 3:19:03 PM

Thank you, tired of hearing all of the boo hooing on the news from the typical sources when someone guilty is being executed

12/13/2005 3:24:25 PM

OUT OF YOUR ASS

12/13/2005 3:25:11 PM

Quote :

"refusing to give intellegence to gang officers, or support and encourage other crips that wanted to. He said he was no snitch."

If he had been a snitch in prison - we wouldn't be discussing his clemency. He'd already be dead.


My question to you, suprmn1020, is whether or not you believe the judicial system (as it is currently) is able to rehabilitate criminals?

[Edited on December 13, 2005 at 3:37 PM. Reason : []

12/13/2005 3:34:53 PM

Well first I'll say something about the snitch issue. California has a program called debriefing, where in exchange for intellegence and leaving a gang they will move you into a special unit where the gangs can't get to you. It has worked so far in protecting inmates leaving gangs.

The question about whether the system works to rehabilitate is a hard question to answer because it somewhat varies. If you are discussing active prison time no, it does not rehabilitate on the whole. It may have a deterrent effect in the future. However states like NC that have structured sentancing have little emphasis on rehabilitation aside from drug treatment. This is because for the most part only violent offenders, and habitual felons spend time in prison, and then they are in for the long haul so there is no reason to rehabilitate. Some of the shorter term offenders do really well. These are the ones that get work release, and home visits at the end of their terms. The receprocity rate for these convicts is small, mostly because they have money, a job, and a decent support system when they get out. The problem is that the prisions can only do this with a small percentage of inmates. So to sum it up, on the whole structured sentancing sucks as far as rehabilitation goes. It does incapacitate, punish, and to a degree deter.

12/13/2005 4:34:50 PM

he knew that his actions had consequences and decided to risk those consequences. THE END

[Edited on December 13, 2005 at 9:31 PM. Reason : grammar]

12/13/2005 9:30:56 PM

Quote :

"If you eliminate the problem at it's source it goes away"

The death penalty only works to deter the people who are being sentenced with it. As punishment it's effective. As a social deterrent, it's not.
So keep frying them, but look for another way to make crimes punishable by death go down.

12/13/2005 10:11:32 PM

Quote :

"Putting this guy to death did nothing. He did positive things with his life behind bars and may have 'eliminated the problem at its source' for some other young children who would have chosen his early path"

yeah cause all the ghetto nigz might have gone to barnes and noble and picked up his book and been forever changed!!!1

putting him to death DID do something. it made a statement. a lot of people thought he might be granted clemency. he had a LOT of supporters. snoop dogg, jessie jackson, and a bunch of other famous people. they thought all they had to do was protest enough or yell loud enough and he would live. but when arnold denied him clemency it made a statement that when you murder and you are convicted and sentenced to die, we are going to follow through with it no matter how hard you try to save yourself. it is a great deterrant and there are several other positive effects it has on society that i won't go into unless i have to.

12/13/2005 10:15:49 PM