Michael Lambert was 20 years old when the following happened in Indiana (source):

quote:

---

Lambert consumed an excessive amount of alcohol on Dec. 27, 1990. He began drinking during the afternoon hours and continued to drink heavily throughout the remainder of the day and well into the evening. A patron of a bar that Lambert went to that evening described his demeanor as “wild-eyed.” Clearly, he was heavily intoxicated.

In the early morning hours of Dec. 28, Muncie police spotted Lambert attempting to crawl under a car in order to go to sleep off his drunkenness. Lambert was subsequently arrested for public intoxication. Officer Winters handcuffed Lambert, placed him into the backseat of his cruiser, and then proceeded to drive him towards the local jail. At some point during the commute, Lambert managed to obtain access to a pistol that was located on his person and shot Officer Winters multiple times. Officer Winters passed away 11 days later as a result of the gunshot wounds.

---

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that much of the victime impact testimony had been improperly admitted and that this might have influenced the jury's decision to impose the death penalty - but by a split decision the judges went on to uphold it anyway.

Mitigating evidence of substance impairment and mental disorder were never heard at the trial:

quote:

---

Much to Lambert’s detriment, mitigating evidence pertaining to his mental condition was not presented at trial. Dr. Edmund Haskins, a neurophysiologist, and Dr. Robert Smith, a clinical psychologist, separately examined Lambert following the trial. Their findings indicate that Lambert suffers from “organic brain dysfunction, dysthymia, and substance dependence with antisocial and dependent personality features.” Haskins and Smith both concluded that these conditions may hinder Lambert’s ability to control his impulses and act in accordance with the law.

---

quote:

---

Amnesty International's figures also showed that 77 countries had abolished the death penalty for all crimes by the end of 2003. This year the Samoan parliament adopted a bill in January abolishing the death penalty, while in March a royal decree abolishing capital punishment was issued in Bhutan.

"This year's figures show that as the majority of countries follow an abolitionist path, others choose to remain on the wrong side of the justice divide", Amnesty International said.

"Countries retaining the death penalty because of its supposed power as a unique deterrent to crime are flying in the face of scientific studies that fail to establish any such effect."

In Canada, for example, the homicide rate per 100,000 population has fallen 40 per cent since the abolition of the death penalty for murder in 1975.

Furthermore, the death penalty always carried the risk of executing the innocent can never be eliminated."

Since 1973, 113 prisoners have been released from death row in the USA after evidence emerged of their innocence of the crimes for which they were sentenced to death. Some came close to execution after spending many years under sentence of death. Recurring features in their cases include prosecutorial or police misconduct; use of unreliable witness testimony, physical evidence, or confessions; and inadequate defence representation. Other US prisoners have gone to their deaths despite serious doubts over their guilt.

"It is time for all governments to comply with their international obligations. The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment and a flagrant denial of the right to life," Amnesty International said.

---

quote:

---

Sorry, that other thread has become uninhabitable.

---

Yes it has. And sadly, I'm partly responsible for that because I let myself get roped into yet another futile exercise with the usual apologist sources.

Sorry to the rest of folks here for this. It wasn't my intention.

In the other thread, I posted some AI stats on the use of the death penalty in the US, and the movement to abolish the death penalty there.

Here, for those interested, are those links:

AI--US death Penalty stats

AI--Abolish death penalty in US

Official stats report that 1,029 (as of July 1, 2006) people have been put down, and 3,370 are currently on Death Row, out of a population of 285 million.

The abolitionist movement reports having a tough time mainly because the federal government there does not regulate the death penalty. It's left up to each state whether to adopt it and, to some limited degree, what laws to apply it to (there are apparently constitutional limits to what crimes can be punishable by death). So it becomes a matter of lobbying many governments instead of just one.

If the whole bullshit starts up in this thread because of it, then I can always close this one too, I suppose.

At this point, though, I'm just about ready to tell you both that if either of you addresses the other in this thread after this, you'll be suspended from babble for a few days. This is ridiculous. As I said in the other thread: what is this, kindergarten?

quote:

---

Well, and now you've done it again with your snarky little remark here, Steppenwolf, thanks very much for that.

---

Sorry, Michelle. You right, and I apologize. It's just that what in the real world is just background noise, seems to take on a bigger role in this type of media. I guess I'm getting so used to the fact that every time I post something somewhere on some subject, some of the same characters show up and it starts all over again--no matter how I try to ignore it.

Maybe I'm just not cut out for this type of media, since it appears I’m a bit of a lightning rod for trouble (kind of like part of my happily-forgotten teen years ).

I request that you do not close this thread, as the discussion is good so far, and the other posters here have some good insight on what is also an important issue for me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steppenwolf Allende:
In Canada, it is a federal issue, and a simple vote in Parliament is all it took to scrap the death penalty (in 1976, if memory serves).

---

Yes though I believe the last execution in Canada was in 1962.

I'm sorry you found my thread unhabitable, unionist. There's no need to single out Cuba but ANY defence of the death penalty disgusts me.

[ 19 June 2007: Message edited by: Max Bialystock ]

quote:

---

Because the hijackings have stopped, and the death penalty for hijacking has actually worked to curb that particular criminal behaviour.

---

Sorry I'm an abolitionist. I don't base my views on the death penatly on pragmatic grounds, on whether or not it "works."

Can we have a definition of what a "Terrorist" is?

[ 19 June 2007: Message edited by: Webgear ]

Death Penalty and People with Mental Illness

quote:

---

Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, there have been 733 executions; nearly seven percent of these executions occurred in 2001. Today, more than 3,700 people are on death row in America. More than 300 people on death row suffer from a mental disorder. Thirty-one of these people have already been executed, and an appalling 61 percent of these executions took place in the last five years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
In the other thread about capital punishment, there was a discussion about terrorism and terrorists.

Can we have a definition of what a "Terrorist" is?

[ 19 June 2007: Message edited by: Webgear ]

---

I gave you a rough answer on the other thread. But I think we could include militant countries whose armies march into sovereign countries and declare local people the enemy.

[ 19 June 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I also consider it a human rights issue on par with those ones, Max. Especially since it's an issue which is so intertwined with other oppressions, in particular, race and class.

---

Today, the parent of a victim of a fatal stabbing said that the perpetrator only received a sentence of 6 years while the victim's family got the life sentence.

The convicted,one Mr. Crossley, was a young offender at the time but had 10 convictions for violent acts.

The victim was running away from a house party scenario when he was chased and stabbed to death by Mr. Crossley.

Canadian media make much of the "lenient" sentencing given to murderers but fail to analyse the judicial decisions beyond a superficial scrutiny that supports their sensationalism because unbias analysis does not sell while sensationalist innuendo does.

Even when the convicted have served their full sentences,their crimes will impact them for life.

Witness the recently released "Balcony Rapist",Mr Callow. He and many other violent offenders are finding reintegration in the community very difficult.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Max Bialystock:

So aren't pro-death penalty posts just as indefensible as anti-abortion, anti-same sex marriage or anti-union posts.

---

Is this some kind of game of definitions?

You are comparing (I) freedoms (such as the right to life, to speak, to association, to conscience, etc.) with (II) anti-discrimination laws (such as the prohibited grounds in human rights legislation - race, sex, colour, sexual orientation, disability, etc.).

Then, you forget that in every civilized society, there are restrictions on freedoms, and there are situations where discrimination is permissible.

For example (category II), it is unlawful to discriminate in employment on the basis of disability. But when one's disability renders one incapable of performing essential parts of the job, and accommodation short of undue hardship is not possible, then it is perfectly lawful to discriminate.

Likewise, you can't refuse to hire me on the basis of my religious convictions. If those convictions prevent me from performing work from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset, and to schedule a shift for me that respects those limitations would significantly impact on the rights of other workers, or safety, or be economically prohibitive - then you can tell me to either stuff my religious inhibitions or go work elsewhere.

Likewise, I have freedom of speech and of the press, but if I persist in slandering individuals, or yelling "FIRE!", I will lose those freedoms. And my freedom of association does not permit me to engage in criminal conspiracies.

The right to life is no different. It is circumscribed by the situation, the interests of other individuals, and the interests of the society as a whole. If I join the armed forces and march into someone else's country, I may end up getting blown to bits by a roadside bomb, or my head smashed in while I sleep - even not in situations which are strictly definable as "self-defence". Is that the "death penalty"? Sure it is. Is it justifiable? You can't say "no", you have to say, "it depends".

Our society has reached a stage where we have a high degree of social order. The enemies are not at the gate. Foreign states don't have armed gangs ready to assassinate our elected leaders and forcibly take power. We have reached the point where we can say, "the state will deprive you of freedom of movement, and many other freedoms - but not freedom to live". That is an achievement of which we are proud, and we should never look back.

But it's not the same as telling women that they are shit, or Aboriginals that they are inferior, or telling workers that they have to be a lower class without the right to face the wealthy on a less unequal footing. There are no circumstances which can justify abrogating the rights which underlie those situations.

My parents were intensely moral people. They opposed any kind of racism and sexism; they always cheered on the poor vs. the rich (they came by it honestly...); they scorned those who would tell women what to do with their own bodies (my mother came by that honestly as well...); they cheered when Canada stopped hanging people; and they witnessed and suffered from the crime of genocide. But when it came to Nuremburg, there was not a shred of a doubt in their minds. Those accused had, by their deeds, forfeited the right to live among human beings.

Today, I personally am not sure how I feel about that. Want to kick me off this board as an unreconstructed reactionary? Go ahead - but it won't help me sort this issue out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
Fidel

Do you think that Terrorists should be held as POWs or as criminals?

---

That's a tough one. I think if we use Afghanistan as an example, there is the real chance that "enemy combatants" may well be proxy fighters from surrounding countries. But that's their side of the world not ours. I don't think they should be extricated and brought to Gitmo or to secret prisons in Eastern Europe.

I'm not sure what the Soviets did in the same situation. One witness to it all on RAWA's sight said the Soviets tortured them with electric shocks, but that it was a "humane torture" compared to the current situation. She said that with the Soviets, Afghanis weren't beat to death during the process of being tortured that they knew of.

In my mind, to be both a POW and a terrorist is to be an enemy of the country he or she is helping to to invade or occupy. The people defending the sovereignty of their country could be referred to as defenders of the sovereign country, the United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan or whomever.

If you open a thread about terrorism, I will post my view as to why there is no such thing as a "Terrorist" (with or without a capital "T"), and why its usage is synonymous with "Bastard".

But this thread isn't about that.

Fidel quoted a site talking about the "mentally ill." Then, in his commentary, he changed the discussion to the "mentally disabled" as if they were the same thing. They're not. For those that aren't sure, Rush Limbaugh is mentally disabled but I'm mentally ill.

You know what, babblers? They're not the same thing at all! And, one day, discrimination against those you call mentally ill will fall into the same shameful museum alongside sexism and racism, where it belongs.

ETA: If "mental illness" is a reason not to execute someone, then I'm all for the label. But that's only because I'm opposed to capital punishment.

[ 19 June 2007: Message edited by: Phonz ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Okay, the fascists of recent history were merely accidental tourists on their way to somewhere else. Carry on.

---

[thread drift] Fidel, please understand me. Of course the fascists used terror. But to label them as "terrorists" rather than as "fascists" obscures their origins and aims. Their aim was not terror - it was one of their methods. Same for Lenin ("red terror") and Trotsky and Stalin and Putin. Same for the Jewish and Polish and French and other anti-Nazi partisans. Same for the African National Congress and Mandela's Umkhonto we Sizwe. Same with the revolutionaries of the 13 colonies. Same with the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and George W. Bush.

You see what I mean? Nothing in common except terror being one of their means. "Terrorist" as an ideology, a political cause, is a lie. It's just like hurling a dirty word against someone. In Webgear's usage, it's dangerous - because he wants to know whether capital punishment is justifiable against "terrorists". Read my above list and see the danger.

[Drifting harder toward capitalist punishment in the USA ]

[ 19 June 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

A cousin of the late Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein has been sentenced to death by an Iraqi court for the murder of some 180,000 Kurds in 1988.

Ali Hassan al-Majid, known as "Chemical Ali" for using poison gas in the Anfal campaign, was convicted of genocide.

Two fellow defendants were equally sentenced to death while two others received life prison sentences.

---

"They hate us for our freedom". Check "for our bullying and oppression".

Might makes right indeed.

.-

[ 24 June 2007: Message edited by: bohajal ]