# Tookie Williams y la pena de muerte



## chula

Hoy fue ejecutado Tookie Williams en el Estado de California. A pesar de tantas peticiones de miles de personas para que le perdonaran la vida. Parece ser que él era inocente del crimen que lo acusaban, puede ser. El caso es que culpable o no ha sido ejecutado. 
Escribió libros para ninios, con el afán de mantenerlos fuera de la violencia. Aconsejándoles que esa no era la salida. Se ganó el carinio de muchas personas, las cuales lucharon para que le perdonaran la vida. Pero no, no fue así. Se merecía este hombre que lo ejecutaran? O hubiese sido mejor dejarlo vivo, aunque sea en la cárcel, pero al menos vivo, para que continuara su buena obra? Hizo Schwarzenegger lo correcto? Es que no importa cuánto quieras cambiar tu vida, o cuánto la cambies, de todos modos perdón no conseguirás, siempre seguirás siendo el mismo? Pensarán esto los presidiarios o los miembros de pandillas?  Qué piensan sobre la ejecución de Tookie Williams o en general, es la pena de muerte la solución?


----------



## siljam

La pena de muerte no es otra cosa que un asesinato cometido por el Estado, y además con un sadismo repugnante. Encima lo convierten en un espectáculo público al seleccionar "invitados especiales" para que lo presencien. Pero no debe extrañarnos. Los norteamericanos tienen una larguísima tradición de amor a la violencia y a la muerte. Y tampoco era previsible que el austríaco nazi gobernador de California mostrara algún rasgo humano. Después de todo el es "Terminator", y debe cumplir con su papel en todo lo que haga.


----------



## Fernando

1) I am against death penalty.
2) Death penalty is not a State murder. You have courts, witnesses and so on.
3) Sadism. Why? They use the less hurting and painful instruments they can.
4) Special guests. The family of the victim? Well, maybe it is bad-tasted.
5) US people have a long tradition of violence and death. Unlike everybody else, I think.
6) Austriaco. Nop. US citizen. Is this an insult?
7) Nazi. Why?


----------



## Viriato

En el día de ayer, Stanley Williams, negro y de 51 años, fue asesinado en la prisión de San Quintín del estado de California mediante inyección letal. El preso se quejó porque no le encontraban la vena. Una vez que se la encontraron bastaron 35 minutos para acabar con su vida.
Estaba encarcelado y sentenciado a pena de muerte por varios atracos con resultado de muerte, dentro de la banda callejera que fundo en su adolescencia.
Durante todos estos años en los que ha permanecido en la cárcel, ha escrito 9 libros en contra de la pena de muerte y de la violencia (propuesto en una ocasión para el Nobel de Literatura), su vida fue retrada en una película y han sido numerosas sus manifestaciones en contra de la violencia (también ha sido propuesto en 7 ocasiones para el Nobel de la Paz).
Pero todo esto no ha sido suficiente para Arnold Schwarzenegger, para dos tribunales de California ni para el Supremo de EEUU. El primero argumentó que Williams nunca se arrepintió de sus delitos, entre otras cosas porque él siempre se consideró inocente de las muertes que le atribuían. Los tribunales y el Supremo han declinado intervenir.
De musculitos a actor mediocre, siendo actor mediocre encarnó a Terminator, de actor mediocre a asesor de la Casa Blanca en deportes, de asesor a gobernador del estado de California y de gobernador a Terminator de nuevo. Éste repugnante personaje parece que quedó anclado y poseído por el papel que desempeñó de robot exterminador y, como tal, sin cerebro que piensa por sí mismo y aniquilador.
Maldigo a éste personaje, Terminator, y a todos aquellos que han sido sus cómplices.
Como parece que es habitual para todos los condenados a muerte que tristemente van a ver cumplida su sentencia, se le ofreció una última cena y la compañía de un consejero espiritual. Qué protocolo tan siniestro y tan vomitivo. Qué poca vergüenza. ¿El que cocine esa comida podrá cocinar después para sus hijos? ¿Ese consejero espiritual qué pinta ahí? ¿El practicante que le inyectó el veneno letal se atreverá a poner una vacuna contra la malaria?
NO A LA PENA DE MUERTE.
CALIFORNIA, POR FAVOR, ECHAD A TERMINATOR DE VUESTRO ESTADO.


----------



## cuchuflete

Una mezcla interesante de hechos y opiniones personales  disfrazados de hechos...





			
				chula said:
			
		

> Hoy fue ejecutado Tookie Williams en el Estado de California. A pesar de tantas peticiones de miles de personas para que le perdonaran la vida. Hay en California un sistema legal que no hace decisiones a base de encuestas y peticiones.  ¿Es distinto en otros países?  Parece ser ¿Verdad? ¿Por qué te parece así? Obviamente sabes más que los tribunales.  que él era inocente del crimen que lo acusaban, puede ser. El caso es que culpable o no ha sido ejecutado.
> 
> Escribió libros para ninios, con el afán de mantenerlos fuera de la violencia. Aconsejándoles que esa no era la salida. Se ganó el carinio de muchas personas, las cuales lucharon para que le perdonaran la vida. Pero no, no fue así. Se merecía este hombre que lo ejecutaran? O hubiese sido mejor dejarlo vivo, aunque sea en la cárcel, pero al menos vivo, para que continuara su buena obra? Hizo Schwarzenegger lo correcto? Es que no importa cuánto quieras cambiar tu vida, o cuánto la cambies, de todos modos perdón no conseguirás, siempre seguirás siendo el mismo? Pensarán esto los presidiarios o los miembros de pandillas? Qué piensan sobre la ejecución de Tookie Williams o en general, es la pena de muerte la solución?



I don't see the point of the death penalty.  I am opposed to it.  I am also opposed to polemics that conveniently mix fact and wishful thinking to make a point.  When the man was tried in court for murder, he was sentenced based on his conviction for having committed a murder in which he shot another man to death, in the back, twice.  

The subsequent reformation and good works were not part of the basis for the sentence. The murder of another human being, the taking of a life, were the causes.  I would have preferred a long jail term to a death sentence.  But then I suppose a prisoner rotting in a cell for 40 or 50 years 
wouldn't evoke such a sympathetic outcry...it's just not fashionable.

Have you any thoughts or words about the murder victim?  I think that needs to be part of the conversation.  He too was assassinated, deprived of life, killed, snuffed out.  Does that matter?


----------



## BasedowLives

I'm against the death penalty as well.

The majority of californians, however, are not.  They just reintroduced the death penalty rather recently i believe.

As far as being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, anybody can be nominated for it.  Bush and Blair and Arafat have been nominated for the nobel peace prize in the past.

I'm not sure what to think for this issue though.  If they were to give him clemency, then they should be prepared to give everyone else clemency as well, including those who put up façades, as it's sometimes hard to diferentiate.

difficult subject.


----------



## BasedowLives

> Parece ser que él era inocente del crimen que lo acusaban, puede ser.


they said that they had scrutinized the evidence from every possible angle to make sure that it was a proper conviction. though people are only human. 

I'm against the death penalty though.

edit:  ill post what i put in the other thread just incase that one gets closed.


> I'm against the death penalty as well.
> 
> The majority of californians, however, are not.  They just reintroduced the death penalty rather recently i believe.
> 
> As far as being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, anybody can be nominated for it. Bush and Blair and Arafat have been nominated for the nobel peace prize in the past.
> 
> I'm not sure what to think for this issue though. If they were to give him clemency, then they should be prepared to give everyone else clemency as well, including those who put up façades, as it's sometimes hard to diferentiate.
> 
> difficult subject.


----------



## foxfirebrand

If Tookie had been deliberately killed, with state sanction, by a late-term abortion-- who would've raised any outcry?  Is abortion a death sentence?

Not to generalize, but in my experience most people who oppose abortion are in favor of the death penalty for those duly convicted of heinous crimes.  Those who hate the death penalty seem void of any qualms about abortion, even in the third trimester.

The same division probably exists between those who see abortion and execution as facets of the same topic-- and those who think them mutually irrelevant.

Where's the consistency?

Anyone here like me, who isn't for one issue and against the other?  This isn't a challenge-- I have no quarrel with people whose convictions differ on this ultimately unknowable moral issue.  We all take our best guess.

.


----------



## Fernando

I oppose abortion.
I am against death penalty.

In the US you have both, then I assume you are both pro abortion and pro death penalty, so you are "foxfirebrand-consistent". Anyway,
Aborted children (or foetus, if you like) has done nothing wrong.
People who die as a result of death penalty have murdered people.


----------



## Mei

chula said:
			
		

> Se merecía este hombre que lo ejecutaran?


 
A mi parecer, nadie se lo merece.




> Es que no importa cuánto quieras cambiar tu vida, o cuánto la cambies, de todos modos perdón no conseguirás, siempre seguirás siendo el mismo?


 
Por lo que tengo entendido, el objetivo de tener una persona en la cárcel es para poder reintroducirla en la sociedad, no? Estoy segura que Tookie Williams no hacia lo que hacia (Escribió libros para ninios, con el afán de mantenerlos fuera de la violencia, entre otras cosas.) para "poder salir a la calle" y ya está, más bien creo que creía en lo que hacia. Además, no proponen a cualquiera para el Nobel de la Paz, y menos, en más de una ocasión!




> Qué piensan sobre la ejecución de Tookie Williams o en general, es la pena de muerte la solución


 
Yo pienso que al ejecutar a alguien es un asesinato y para nada es la solución, estaríamos arreglados, matandonos unos a otros!!


Creo que debemos tener en cuenta que no sólo en Estados Unidos existe este castigo, hay muchos países en el mundo donde se solucionan las cosas así. 

Tengo entendido que hay dos países de America del Sur que han avolido la pena capital, estamos avanzando, lentamente, pero avanzando.

Saludos

Mei


----------



## Fernando

Mei, la mayor parte de los países de América del Sur han aBolido la pena de muerte.

Mei, most S American countries have abolished death penalty or do not apply it.


----------



## Mei

Fernando said:
			
		

> Mei, la mayor parte de los países de América del Sur han aBolido la pena de muerte.
> 
> Mei, most S American countries have abolished death penalty or do not apply it.


 
si, claro, me referia que oí ayer en la tele que recientemente dos países la aBolieron o gracias).

Mei


----------



## Fernando

Disculpa, te había entendido mal. Un saludo


----------



## luis masci

*Tengo entendido que hay dos países de America del Sur que han avolido la pena capital, estamos avanzando, lentamente, pero avanzando.
*
Mei, el hecho de que la pena de muerte exista o no, no es indicación alguna de que se esté avanzando si los delitos que se cometen en las actuales sociedades son tan aberrantes como siempre. 
Por el contrario, yo diría que estamos retrocediendo porque los crímenes que se ven hoy son mucho peores que los que se cometían en el pasado. 
Lo preocupante no es que la pena de muerte exista, sino que haya quienes la merezcan.​


----------



## valerie

Fernando said:
			
		

> Mei, most S American countries have abolished death penalty or do not apply it.



and in Europe no countries allows death penalty


----------



## belén

Death penalty for me is a defectuos system from the moment that by mistake, an innocent person can be killed. Even if it just one, in the whole planet, from that moment, death penalty should be abolished.

Besides, of course, my personal opinion that there is no point on it and it isn't helping reduce crime and that there are better justice systems than this terrible one.


----------



## Mei

luis masci said:
			
		

> *Tengo entendido que hay dos países de America del Sur que han avolido la pena capital, estamos avanzando, lentamente, pero avanzando.*
> 
> Mei, el hecho de que la pena de muerte exista o no, no es indicación alguna de que se esté avanzando si los delitos que se cometen en las actuales sociedades son tan aberrantes como siempre.
> Por el contrario, yo diría que estamos retrocediendo porque los crímenes que se ven hoy son mucho peores que los que se cometían en el pasado.
> Lo preocupante no es que la pena de muerte exista, sino que haya quienes la merezcan.
> ​


 
No claro, sólo hay que ver el indice de criminalidad que hay en los países en el que existe la pena capital. (No quiero ni saberlo)

Sólo quería decir que la pena capital no es la solución. Para mi, el echo de que haya menos muertes es un avance, sea quien sea quien mate, aunque mates a una mosca que tiene el mismo derecho a vivir que cualquier ser vivo.

Pero claro, sólo es una opinión.


----------



## luis masci

*Para mi, el echo de que haya menos muertes es un avance, sea quien sea quien mate, aunque mates a una mosca que tiene el mismo derecho a vivir que cualquier ser vivo.


*
**
Permítanme jugar el rol “de abogado del diablo”. 
Supongamos alguien que ha cometido un crimen y luego es liberado, volviendo a matar (en Argentina sobran estos casos).
En realidad en ese caso el estado está permitiendo más muertes (con el agravante que son gente inocente) por ser “blando” o tener clemencia con un asesino.


----------



## Mei

luis masci said:
			
		

> *Para mi, el echo de que haya menos muertes es un avance, sea quien sea quien mate, aunque mates a una mosca que tiene el mismo derecho a vivir que cualquier ser vivo.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Permítanme jugar el rol “de abogado del diablo”.
> Supongamos alguien que ha cometido un crimen y luego es liberado, volviendo a matar (en Argentina sobran estos casos).
> En realidad en ese caso el estado está permitiendo más muertes (con el agravante que son gente inocente) por ser “blando” o tener clemencia con un asesino.


 
Bueno, "Abogado del Diablo", a mi parecer una persona que es capaz de matar es una persona que esta enferma, o que no tiene cultura o que por alguna razón no teiene sentido común y se tiene que tratar cómo tal. 

La solución a los problemas del mundo no la tengo, sino, no habría, te lo puedo asegurar pero sigo pensando que matar a quien mata no nos lleva a ninguna parte. Es como cuando ves a una mosca dandose contra una ventana que está cerrada (vease a Mafalda en una tira cómica observando esta situación y a su madre preguntando "qué haces?" a lo que ella responde "observo a la humanidad", gran tipo este Quino)  

¿Qué me dices de los muchos casos en los que se ha aplicado la pena capital y después resulta que no era culpable? si es que....

Saludos

Mei


----------



## Talant

Hi,

I'm against death penalty. I'm againsta abortion unless a very serious motive is aduced (probable death of the mother, for instance). In those cases the issue is choosing the less of two evils, and I can't force anybody to take my point of view.

Following the thread. I agree that anybody can be nominated to a Nobel prize. Thus, it's of no consequence whether he has been nominated or not.

What I think more important is whether he is repentant or not (I think yes), and whether his having stayed for 25 years (!!!!) in prison is not a life sentence as well. He has been killed and sentenced to life sentence as a result of one crime.

On the other hand, the justice system in the US is still far better then the one in China and other countries which kill hundreds of "criminals" every year.


----------



## luis masci

*¿Qué me dices de los muchos casos en los que se ha aplicado la pena capital y después resulta que no era culpable? si es que....

*
Bueno Mei... obviamente. 
Si de casos extremos vamos a hablar, permíteme decir que si tuviese que decidir para alguien con probada o semi probada culpabilidad entre la pena de muerte o la libertad con el riesgo de que vuelva a matar, elegiría lo primero siguiendo el principio de buscar el mal menor.


----------



## Mei

luis masci said:
			
		

> *¿Qué me dices de los muchos casos en los que se ha aplicado la pena capital y después resulta que no era culpable? si es que....*
> 
> 
> Bueno Mei... obviamente.
> Si de casos extremos vamos a hablar, permíteme decir que si tuviese que decidir para alguien con probada o semi probada culpabilidad entre la pena de muerte o la libertad con el riesgo de que vuelva a matar, elegiría lo primero siguiendo el principio de buscar el mal menor.


 
Buff... me quitas un peso de encima!


----------



## Mei

luis masci said:
			
		

> *Tengo entendido que hay dos países de America del Sur que han avolido la pena capital, estamos avanzando, lentamente, pero avanzando.*
> 
> Mei, el hecho de que la pena de muerte exista o no, no es indicación alguna de que se esté avanzando si los delitos que se cometen en las actuales sociedades son tan aberrantes como siempre.
> ​




¿En serio crees que el hecho de que no haya pena de muerte o desaparezca no es un avance para la humanidad? ¡Qué miedo!

Saludos
 Mei​


----------



## Alunarada

For me Death penalty is a State murder becaurse for me  executions are never justified

3) Sadism. Why? YES , because they use poison to kill , the procedure of killing one, the planning of killing a PERSON is always sadistic, yes. 

4) Special guests. No just the family of the victim. By the way what victim? the actual one or the former ones? Journalists.

6) Austriaco. Although he is a us citizan he was born in Austria, so in somehow he is austrian, don't you think?


This is my personal point of view.


----------



## Fernando

I do not understand your comment about the families.
Then "nacido en Austria"  is a terrible insult?


----------



## luis masci

*¿En serio crees que el hecho de que no haya pena de muerte o desaparezca no es un avance para la humanidad? ¡Qué miedo!*
* *
Si Mei, en serio lo creo. Lo que sí sería un avance para la humanidad tendría que ser que aunque existiese la pena de muerte no hubiera quien la mereciera. 
Si el índice de criminalidad es el mismo, no hay avance alguno (con o sin pena de muerte) 
Saludos
Luis​


----------



## Mei

luis masci said:
			
		

> *¿En serio crees que el hecho de que no haya pena de muerte o desaparezca no es un avance para la humanidad? ¡Qué miedo!*
> 
> Si Mei, en serio lo creo. Lo que sí sería un avance para la humanidad tendría que ser que aunque existiese la pena de muerte no hubiera quien la mereciera.
> Si el índice de criminalidad es el mismo, no hay avance alguno (con o sin pena de muerte)
> Saludos
> Luis
> 
> ​


 
Ah, entonces es muy fácil, si no hay vida no hay muerte por tanto que no nazcan más personas, no podremos solucionar la violencia actual pero nos aseguramos que en un futuro exista. En serio, Luis, no te quiero ofender pero me das miedo. No se puede ir por ahí solucionando las cosas a base de ostias para decirlo de una manera fina....

Saludos

Mei


----------



## luis masci

Mei, si me conocieras verías que lo que menos puedes sentir de mi es miedo. Soy muy pacífico y dulce.
Solo que me gusta que exista justicia en su justa medida. Insisto que no podemos hablar de avances porque no haya pena de muerte. 
Si tu eres maestra de unos niños terribles y decides no castigarlos más que levemente, aunque los niños se sigan comportando tan o más terriblemente¿ puedes decir que a habido un avance porque decidiste que no hay castigos duros? 
 ​


----------



## Mei

luis masci said:
			
		

> Mei, si me conocieras verías que lo que menos puedes sentir de mi es miedo. Soy muy pacífico y dulce.
> Solo que me gusta que exista justicia en su justa medida. Insisto que no podemos hablar de avances porque no haya pena de muerte.
> Si tu eres maestra de unos niños terribles y decides no castigarlos más que levemente, aunque los niños se sigan comportando tan o más terriblemente¿ puedes decir que a habido un avance porque decidiste que no hay castigos duros?
> 
> ​


 
Defineme castigos "duros", porque creo que las cosas se pueden arreglar hablando, en mi caso, si he recibido alguna bofetada por portarme mal cuando era niña... y a día de hoy no creo que sea el mejor "método" de educar a los niños, menudo ejemplo les damos, (después nos extrañamos de que haya tanta violencia) es una cosa que yo no haré jamás y tengo sobrinos que creeme, se portan mal, como todos los niños, es el papel que les toca, ser curiosos, ir más allá pero ¿agredirles? No gracias. Eso no.

Aquí estamos hablando de matar, lo siento pero le tengo demasiado respeto a la vida como para decir eso tan a la ligera. También te diré que, no sé tu, pero nunca me he encontrado en medio de un caso de algun conocido que esté condenado a la pena capital, con lo cual tampoco sé que pensaría o qué haría, sólo sé lo que pienso ahora.

Saludos

Mei


----------



## Mei

luis masci said:
			
		

> Mei, si me conocieras verías que lo que menos puedes sentir de mi es miedo.


Lo que me da miedo es que hay gente que, desgraciadamente, a mi parecer, piensa igual que tu y lo pone en práctica, eso es lo que me da miedo. Qué hay gente capaz de hacerlo.


----------



## LV4-26

Agreed, the fact that Tookie Williams said he was innocent is no evidence he was. 

But what I'm concerned with is the news that a few executed  convicts in the US have proved innocent after their execution. Which is why a few states have stopped enforcing the death penalty. Is that just a rumour? I'd like some lights on this issue. If it's true, it's just terrfying.

I'm against Williams's execution because I'm against the death penalty. I'm against the death penalty because it means enforcing the 5th commandement by...infringing it : "nobody should kill anybody, that's why we're killing you". I do like paradoxes but only to a certain extent.


----------



## Papalote

Hola todos,

After reading all opinions so far I can’t help but notice that none of you sound like you have been a victim of crime or have had a member of your family murdered. Had you been, none of your writings would be so self assured, so judgemental, and so clear-cut against the death penalty. If I’m wrong, I apologize. Not everyone is as slow to forgive as I am, so I apologize if I misinterpreted your writings.

I too was against the death penalty most of my life. Crime changes you. The loss of an innocent life changes you. The devastation left behind amongst the victim’s relatives changes individuals and family relations. The death penalty, in my opinion, exists so that other families will not have to go through what mine has been through; so that there are no more innocent victims, not only the dead ones, but the living ones, the ones who have to try to *forgive* without ever knowing why the act happened.

But I guess it is much easier to only think about the living. It is much easier to live with a clear conscience if we are not part of a deliberate death. So, let’s forget about the victims. After all, the consensus amongst most people I’ve heard express an opinion on the death penalty is that victims were stupid enough to get murdered.. I mean... isn’t that why we all forget them... after all, they’re no longer here.. if they got killed ... well, they must have done something to get killed.. like walk in a darkened street at 6.p.m because a bus was missed because class lasted too long... because... whatever... the victim is gone, let’s forget a life was lost and just think of the one who killed, let’s feel sorry for that one...after all, he still has a chance to make us believe that evil does not exist, that evil can change, that our society can redeem bad people.... whether the victim was a good person or a useless one to society doesn’t matter anymore, he/she doesn’t have another chance to prove his/her potential, but the killer does, doesn’t he? 

But let’s not forget that the main difference between the victim and the killer is that the killer knows what his punishment will be if he kills, he has a choice between doing and not doing, the victim has no choice whatsoever.

Having said all this, would I personally inject or electrocute a killer?. No, I wouldn’t. For many reasons, but mainly because for me, a life sentence, no freedom for the rest of my life, living in jail for the rest of my life, is a worse loss of life than being dead, no matter how many children’s books I could write.

If Williams repented and wrote books so that no one else would commit his crime, then he must have been at peace with his conscience, or with God if he believed. He must have accepted that with the crime comes the punishment. I would be curious to know what his last thoughts were.

Thanks for reading me,

Papalote


----------



## Alunarada

Si, eso también parece ser cada vez más frecuente en España, la delicuencia y la violencia con que se actua en los delitos y crímenes que se cometen está aumentando alarmantemente. Parece que muschos criminales cometen delitos y entran y salen de la cárcel igual o peor de como entraron, por ejemplo un asesino al que le caen un entre 25 y 30 años más o menos por un asesinato, esa suele ser la sentencia, puede estar perfectamente en la calle a los 10 años, es eso justo con la víctima y su familia? es eso bueno para la sociedad? Definitivamente no. La vedad dudo mucho de que el sistema penitenciario español, cumpla su labor de reinserción de la persona perpetradora de un delito, el sistema judicial y penitenciario español se supone que está pensado para reinsertar a los presos, pero la verdad a mi persolamente me parece que no cumple su función.
Y que pasa con los violadores y pedófilos??? son una autentica y terrible para la sociedad, claro dentro de la cárcel son presos modelos, pero a quién van a hacer daño allí? el objetivo de su crímen no esta a su alcance. pero si cuando dalen y vuelvena  repetir y vuelven a destrozar vidas, no solo la de sus victimas, también las de sus familias, el dolor de sus actos va más alla de el acto, se extiende por años, arrebatan la felicidad, amargan a otras personas y als dejan psicologicamente heridas para toda la vida y no se arrepienten porque son in capaces de reconocer que hacen daño. Se puede decir que son enfermos mentalesl, lo son, pero no dejan de ser una amenaza para las personas y no se les puede permitir repetir sus crimenes ni por segunda vez. No es justo para la primera victima ni lo sería con la segunda.
A menudo me da la sensación que el sistema judicial y penitenciario, el cual está falto de psicologos, psiquiatras y de personas que se dediquen a analizar detenidamente a estos sujetos, hace la prueba de dejar libres a ciertos sujetos para "ver que pasa, bah venga que no es para tanto" hasta que te toca de cerca, no?
He oído que se están construyendo más prisones en España por el gran incremento de presos.
En españa cada vez hay más violencia y personalmente pienso que la razón para ello es porque la gente está perdiendo todo tipo de respeto hacia el projimo y porque a las autoridades y a la justicia se la toman a cachondeo (pitorreo), las personas que cometen delitos no les importa el alcance de sus actos y no respetana  nada ni a nadie. Este también es un problema educacional. Los adolescentes vienen "pisando fuerte" veamos como se desarollan las cosas y veamos este país dentro de veinte años, me gustaría pensar lo contrario, pero vamos a peor, me da miedo pensar como estaremos de aquí a un par de generaciones. Y además parece que España está siendo un objetivo para mafias, terroristas, fugitivos y demás.

Yo personalemente estoy en contra de la pena de muerte pero en algunos casos me parece que se debería aplicar la cadena perpetua (que no existe en este país) pero también me parece que un asesinato, una violacion no valen tan solo diez años de prisión (que es en lo que se quedan los 24 iniciales), así que si, me parece que la cadena perpetua se debería aplicar a violadores y/o asesinos y/o pedófilos y genocidas.


----------



## Flip

Creo que la pena de muerte es una barbaridad. No creo que nadie sea tan superior como para poder decidir sobre la vida de otra persona, ya sea un asesino como podria serlo un gobernador. 
En el fondo están haciendo lo mismo, quitarse de enmedio una persona que les molesta. Pero recordad que hablamos de *personas humanas.*


----------



## Fernando

Sí, vamos a centrarnos en las personas humanas. Las sociedades mercantiles humanas y las personas animales son segmentos demasiado reducidos para que nos ocupemos de ellos.


----------



## BasedowLives

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> Agreed, the fact that Tookie Williams said he was innocent is no evidence he was.
> 
> But what I'm concerned with is the news that a few executed convicts in the US have proved innocent after their execution. Which is why a few states have stopped enforcing the death penalty. Is that just a rumour? I'd like some lights on this issue. If it's true, it's just terrfying.
> 
> I'm against Williams's execution because I'm against the death penalty. I'm against the death penalty because it means enforcing the 5th commandement by...infringing it : "nobody should kill anybody, that's why we're killing you". I do like paradoxes but only to a certain extent.



"122 inmates were found to be innocent and released from  death row."  
they say, however, that since the death penalty's reinstitution in the 70s no innocent person has actually been executed.


----------



## luis masci

Mei, lo que estoy viendo es que eres de quedarte con la última palabra y no dar el brazo a torcer.
Me estás cambiando el foco de la discusión. El ejemplo de los niños te lo di solo para hacer más claro que, el hecho de aminorar castigos no significa  avance alguno.
De acuerdo a las estadísticas, la pena capital no disminuye los delitos. Abolirla tampoco. 
Es evidente que la solución pasa por otro lado.


----------



## Mei

Papalote said:
			
		

> Hola todos,
> 
> After reading all opinions so far I can’t help but notice that none of you sound like you have been a victim of crime or have had a member of your family murdered. Had you been, none of your writings would be so self assured, so judgemental, and so clear-cut against the death penalty. If I’m wrong, I apologize. Not everyone is as slow to forgive as I am, so I apologize if I misinterpreted your writings.
> 
> I too was against the death penalty most of my life. Crime changes you. The loss of an innocent life changes you. The devastation left behind amongst the victim’s relatives changes individuals and family relations. The death penalty, in my opinion, exists so that other families will not have to go through what mine has been through; so that there are no more innocent victims, not only the dead ones, but the living ones, the ones who have to try to *forgive* without ever knowing why the act happened.
> 
> But I guess it is much easier to only think about the living. It is much easier to live with a clear conscience if we are not part of a deliberate death. So, let’s forget about the victims. After all, the consensus amongst most people I’ve heard express an opinion on the death penalty is that victims were stupid enough to get murdered.. I mean... isn’t that why we all forget them... after all, they’re no longer here.. if they got killed ... well, they must have done something to get killed.. like walk in a darkened street at 6.p.m because a bus was missed because class lasted too long... because... whatever... the victim is gone, let’s forget a life was lost and just think of the one who killed, let’s feel sorry for that one...after all, he still has a chance to make us believe that evil does not exist, that evil can change, that our society can redeem bad people.... whether the victim was a good person or a useless one to society doesn’t matter anymore, he/she doesn’t have another chance to prove his/her potential, but the killer does, doesn’t he?
> 
> But let’s not forget that the main difference between the victim and the killer is that the killer knows what his punishment will be if he kills, he has a choice between doing and not doing, the victim has no choice whatsoever.
> 
> Having said all this, would I personally inject or electrocute a killer?. No, I wouldn’t. For many reasons, but mainly because for me, a life sentence, no freedom for the rest of my life, living in jail for the rest of my life, is a worse loss of life than being dead, no matter how many children’s books I could write.
> 
> If Williams repented and wrote books so that no one else would commit his crime, then he must have been at peace with his conscience, or with God if he believed. He must have accepted that with the crime comes the punishment. I would be curious to know what his last thoughts were.
> 
> Thanks for reading me,
> 
> Papalote


 
Hi Papalote,

I'm sorry to hear (read) that. As I said before, I've never lived this situation and I don't know how I would react or what I would think or what I would do. Life is not fair, we all know it. I really do think about the victim as I think of a person who has Aids just because she was helping a boy who was ill (I was living with a person who had this illness but not the one I mention, he was my uncle) or a baby who died because of a tumour, (she was a familiar of mine) and more people who dies everyday in wars or whatever, they can't choose either, and they are victims too. What we can do is think about the lives that we can save. What we can do is think about to fine antother way to solve the world problems. 

And I have friends who tell me that I should belive in God but I can't. (But this is another history)

Cheers

Mei


----------



## Alunarada

I dont know if life penalty is worse than death penalty but at least i consider it enough, and there is always one oportunity if the person is really innocent, we can commit mistakes  because justice is not perfect as we know... 

 
I too was against the death penalty most of my life. Crime changes you. The loss of an innocent life changes you. The devastation left behind amongst the victim’s relatives changes individuals and family relations. The death penalty, in my opinion, exists so that other families will not have to go through what mine has been through; so that there are no more innocent victims, not only the dead ones, but the living ones, the ones who have to try to *forgive* without ever knowing why the act happened. I Wanted to quote Papalote, obviously it didn't work and i've been trying many times and it still is not working!


When someone is executed, it leaves more inoccent victims behind, the executed one's family, there are many inoccent affected people, when someone commits crime. The one who does it should think before doing it. It takes so many consequences. 

For me the education is the key.


----------



## GenJen54

I've been watching this thread with care for a few days now.  

Like Papalote, I am largely against the death penalty, mostly because it does not serve as an apt deterrent to crime and eats up years of our court system and tax dollars. 

I also believe, however, that in some cases the punishment fits the crime. 

Ten years ago, on April 19, 1995, 169 of my city's citizens, _including nineteen children_, were brutally murdered on a bright sunny morning in their own workplace by a man who was mad at the government. He did not choose a day when the building was empty. He chose, consicously, and in a well-planned effort that took several months, to kill those people on a beautiful spring morning, when people were going about their business, talking on phones, attending meetings, greeting co-workers. He chose a morning when twenty-eight children under the age of 4 were playing in a day care center.

Thousands of others were injured, many severely disfigured, some with life-long disabilities not to mention the emotional scars still wrought by the ordeal. A pain that will never go away. This was not an act by a terrorist cell, or an act of war by another government. This was an act by a single man who was doing what he felt was his right to do. 

This man was caught, tried, convicted in a Federal Court, sent to jail and then executed by lethal injection. This same man, when being tried, called the killing of children to be "collateral damage," just a part of "doing his business."

The families of those children and adults have never been the same since that moment. My city has never been the same. I have never been the same.

No punishment was apt enough for this man. In this case, the death penalty worked because it rid our world of him. In my opinion, he got off easy. His death was too peaceful, unlike those he rendered upon others.


----------



## Kelly B

I cannot imagine being the family member of a victim. But when I try to imagine it, I don't think that murdering the killer in revenge would actually make me feel any better.
I also wonder what this does to the souls of the people who carry out an execution. If I wouldn't insert the needle/flip the switch myself, how can I condone paying someone else to do it? And how does that person sleep at night? and what kind of person have we employed, if he actually _can_ sleep?


----------



## Mei

luis masci said:
			
		

> Mei, lo que estoy viendo es que eres de quedarte con la última palabra y no dar el brazo a torcer.


 
Ja! Eso no es cierto y las personas que me conoces lo saben, y si lees mis posts verás que no soy así (entiendo que no lo hagas, claro) De todas maneras, lo dejo, ya deje mi opinión, tampoco voy a solucionar nada desde aquí. 

Que tengaís una buena tarde.

Mei


----------



## Carlston

Yo quería hacer un comentario a cerca de los que dicen que ha sido propuesto varias veces para el Nobel de la Paz, bueno, a mi me parece un poco (y sin ofender) de risa, que a un asesino (no lo digo yo, lo dicen los jueces) se le proponga para el Nobel de la Paz, es como si Maradona protagonizara un anuncio cuyo eslogan fuera  "mente sana in corpore sano".

por cierto, yo toy en contra de la pena de muerte, quede claro!!
saludos


----------



## Fernando

I can not avoid recalling Maradona ACTUALLY starring a "Drugs no!" advertisement.

I also find the "Nobel Prize argument" laughable.

Please, avoid the naive arguments against death penalty. 99% of executed people are real sons of a woman-who-performs-sex-for-money.

I am still against because no modern society need to get rid of none.


----------



## luis masci

Como el caso que Jen Gen cita, hay actos de barbarie tan extrema que no merecen menos que la pena capital. Aunque sea una pena tener que admitirlo.
Veo a muchos aquí defendiendo los derechos humanos de terribles asesinos como si estos fuesen la madre Teresa de Calcuta. Me pregunto por que no miran un poco a las víctimas, que ni quisieron ni procuraron serlo? 
Ustedes que sentirían viendo al asesino de un ser querido paseando libremente a los pocos años del crimen cuando su familiar está a 2 metros bajo tierra para siempre? Pónganse un instante en el lugar de la víctima no miren siempre para un solo lado. ​


----------



## Carlston

Yo tengo muy claro porque estoy en contra de la pena de muerte, por si antes no ha quedado claro.
Cuando una persona mata a otra se produce un asesinato, cuando el estado mata a una persona, ya son dos los asesinatos.
Y por supuesto, creo en la reinserción de los presos (por supuesto no siempre) y que es uno de los fines, pero otro muy importante es la protección de la sociedad frente a esta gente.
Creo que está bastante demostrado que no por ejecutar penas de muerte se reduce la criminalidad.
Aún así, pienso que es la gente la que elige a sus gobiernos, con sus pros y sus contras, y es muy pintoresco elegir a un actor, incluso hace gracia, pero... ayyyyyyyyy amigos....
saludos


----------



## Alunarada

proponer yo creo que se puede proponer a cualquier, otra cosa es que se valore que una persona se lo merezca realemnte y por eso se le otrogue y creo que ese no ha sido el caso no? No se le ha concedido el premio nobel de la paz, creo que ese es una dato significativo de que no se lo merecía eso no quiere decir que posteriormente a sus delitos, tam´bién protagonizara buenos actos.


----------



## Alunarada

Kelly B said:
			
		

> I cannot imagine being the family member of a victim. But when I try to imagine it, I don't think that murdering the killer in revenge would actually make me feel any better.
> I also wonder what this does to the souls of the people who carry out an execution. If I wouldn't insert the needle/flip the switch myself, how can I condone paying someone else to do it? And how does that person sleep at night? and what kind of person have we employed, if he actually _can_ sleep?



I totally agree with you. The "legal assessination" or exectucion will never makes you feel better, the fact is that you will never recover your relative, the pain is already there. I really agree with you. You are so right.

Social problems, differences, injustices, makes offenders, although i believe one can choose to be a good or bad person if it has some sense or right or wrong, if he was educated on it first.


----------



## nabi

el unico que debe disponer quien vive y quien muere es Dios, pero nosotros los humanos muchas veces queremos hacer el papel de el, esto no significa que Dios mate gente, la gente muere por la razon que nuestros cuerpos no son eternos ya que se desgastan, pero nuestras almas son eternas.

nadie debe disponer de la vida de otra persona ni el asesino ni el juez


----------



## GenJen54

I'm just throwing this up for discussion.  What about the Biblical principal of "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth?" 



			
				nabi said:
			
		

> nadie debe disponer de la vida de otra persona ni el asesino ni el juez


 
You're right, but when someone does murder another in cold blood, does the murderer's life then become more valuable than the person whom he has killed?  What about the case of Scott Peterson, who was convicted of killing his wife, who was 8 months pregnant with their child. 

Why is his life more valuable than the two lives he took?  Why should Tim McVeigh's life have been considered more valuable than the 169 lives he took?


----------



## Fernando

Certainly their lives are less valuable. If I had to choose to kill them or everybody else I would chose them.

The problem is that this is no the election. The choosing is: Should we kill him or not?


----------



## Laia

Carlston said:
			
		

> Yo tengo muy claro porque estoy en contra de la pena de muerte, por si antes no ha quedado claro.
> Cuando una persona mata a otra se produce un asesinato, cuando el estado mata a una persona, ya son dos los asesinatos.
> Y por supuesto, creo en la reinserción de los presos (por supuesto no siempre) y que es uno de los fines, pero otro muy importante es la protección de la sociedad frente a esta gente.
> Creo que está bastante demostrado que no por ejecutar penas de muerte se reduce la criminalidad.
> Aún así, pienso que es la gente la que elige a sus gobiernos, con sus pros y sus contras, y es muy pintoresco elegir a un actor, incluso hace gracia, pero... ayyyyyyyyy amigos....
> saludos


 
Yo estoy de acuerdo contigo, la pena de muerte es horrible.

Por muchos motivos, la reinserción de los presos muchas veces acaba en fracaso, vuelven a delinquir. Creo que debería dedicarse más dinero y tiempo en investigación en este campo, y ver si se puede lograr alguna mejora. Realmente es muy complicado...

Por otro lado, una vez más no estoy de acuerdo con nabi. Yo creo firmemente que la vida de cada uno le pertenece tan sólo a sí mismo.


----------



## siljam

Because killing in cold blood a murderer, you became a murderer too. 
A killer could have some kind or reason: he/she is maybe mad, or was 
a drug addict, o was simply an idiot. But the State have not justification 
at all to kill sombody in cold blood and with extreme sadism, except that 
they like it that way.


----------



## nabi

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> I'm just throwing this up for discussion.  What about the Biblical principal of "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth?"
> 
> 
> 
> You're right, but when someone does murder another in cold blood, does the murderer's life then become more valuable than the person whom he has killed?  What about the case of Scott Peterson, who was convicted of killing his wife, who was 8 months pregnant with their child.
> 
> Why is his life more valuable than the two lives he took?  Why should Tim McVeigh's life have been considered more valuable than the 169 lives he took?



la ley que decia ojo por ojo diente por diente, fue establecida durante el establecimiento de la ley mosaica (moises y el pentateuco), al venir jesucristo el salvador a la tierra el renovo esta ley diciendo no juzgueis para que seais juzgados, perdona a tu hermano 70 veces 7 lo que para los hebreos este numero significa perfeccion y eternidad, se que son gente que hicieron cosas muy malas ya que el asesinato es algo que Dios condena pero que el en su infinita misericordia perdona, eso es lo espectacular del amor que el todo lo puede, parece ridiculo para los hombres, pero Dios nunca mira de lejos a nadie que esta arrpentido genuinamente.

nunca se debe comparar la ley de Dios con la de los hombres, sencillamente no guardan ningun espacio ni relacion.


----------



## cuchuflete

> nunca se debe comparar la ley de Dios con la de los hombres, sencillamente no guardan ningun espacio ni relacion. http://forum.wordreference.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=530726


 Y nunca se debe intentar convertir cada discusión en otra oportunidad para discutir la ley de Dios, que no existe para mucha gente.

Este hilo trata específicamente de una ley de nosotros seres humanos. 

Si quieres discutir otro sistema legal, inclusive uno extraterrestre, haz el favor de abrir otro hilo.


----------



## LV4-26

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> I'm just throwing this up for discussion. What about the Biblical principal of "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth?"


 In ancient Palestine, the reponses to (individual) offences were harsher than the offences themselves. Lex Tallionis was made to stop that. 
Then Jesus came to complete the Old Testament which can be thought as a preparation to the Gospel (at least in my view). When He came, the people had been prepared to receive a new message. His own comment on Lex Tallionis is in Matt. 5:38,39.

I'll let you make what you want of it. I don't wish to add more on this very sensitive topic. Except that I perfectly understand there are hundreds of reasons to support the death penalty, especially when placed under certain tragic circumstances. I would certainly never judge anybody on account of that. Still, my opinion that it is not right still stands, even though I'm almost ashamed to say that from my comfortable position.

EDIT : I've just seen Cuchu's answer to nabi. My own point was to bring an historical and theological angle to GenJen reference of Lex Tallionis. Anyway, feel free to delete this post if you find it off topic.


----------



## cuchuflete

I'm going to take a different approach to this...totally omitting the murder victim, who has no say in the application of whatever law is in force. That egregious omission is a regrettable necessity.


Possible motives for applying the death penalty (which was abolished around my village and state/province in the 1880s, long before it became fashionable to protest against it. I've already stated my personal opposition to it, but now I'm going to try to take the other side of the argument, to see where that leads me.)

- Prevention of heinous crimes? I have never seen good evidence that it is an effective deterent. Most people who commit murder do so while under the influence of some one or more of *rage, *drugs, including alcohol, *temporary or long-term mental derangement. If they are aware of the death penalty, or the possibility of imprisonment for life, or other harsh results, that awareness does not prevent the factors mentioned above from taking charge of them and their actions. Deterrence doesn't seem to be a valid motive for allowing for a death sentence. If it worked, perhaps I would feel otherwise, as the *potential* to kill a very few people might serve a greater good of preventing the murder of many more. In fact, if it were an effective deterrent, there would be very little need to apply it. As the political scientists like to say, the threat of force is much more effective than the use of force.

-Rehabilitation? Some prison systems supposedly exist to rehabilitate convicts and return them to society as law-abiding, morally correct citizens.
This doesn't seem to apply very well to a poisoned or electocuted or hanged corpse, so I'll discount it.

-Cost avoidance? I think that there is a bit of reality here. It costs the citizenry quite a lot to feed and house a murderer for decades, provide medical care and even modest clothing. Why, one may ask, should the citizens who have been victimized by a murderer then suffer the further costs of providing her or him with sustenance? Fair question. The answer depends, of course, on one's moral posture, and not just the economics. Arguments for and against are valid, depending on one's ethical or logical position. My own says this to me: I hate to work and pay tax dollars to support scum that deprives others of life. What I personally hate even more is to work and pay tax dollars to hire executioners, to take life through totally legal assassination.

What else have we got left to examine?  Ah yes, there is another possible motive for the death penalty:

-vengeance. Now this is clear cut. A murderer kills one or more innocents or not so innocents, and thus should be punished. The punishment should be on a par with the crime. Thus, take a life and have your own taken, so 'society' can get even. There is a valid logic here. I don't like it. I don't agree with it. Yet I can respect the consistent logic that drives it. GenJen's post about the beast who killed dozens of children and others even makes me sympathetic to this one. I ask only that we call it by its real name, vengeance. 
This is not a critique or diatribe against acts of vengeance, when so heinous an act provokes it. I just want to be very sure that I know what I'm doing when I give the lethal injection (what a fancy way to say "When I kill the prisoner with chemical poison."!) or burn her up with high voltage electric current.
Whether I inflict pain while doing the killing is besides the point. I'm taking away the murderer's life. Whether that hurts a little or a lot for a few minutes is a small potatoes question by comparison. Hell, if vengeance is the point, I may as well make it painful as well as life-ending. 
What's my proposed answer, in lieue of the death penalty? Life imprisonment without possibility of parole. That doesn't allow for rehabilitation, has no deterrent effect. It is probably another form of vengeance, wrapped up in the trappings of an argument --valid in its own right-- about protecting society from a monster by locking the monster away.


No good answers, I'm afraid.


----------



## Anna Più

El “ojo por ojo, diente por diente” no será nunca una solución para mí. Tampoco sé cuál es la solución/las soluciones, pero creo que una de las claves está en la educación y en la sanidad (mental). Y no en sólo en la educación y la sanidad para la reinserción, sinó también, y sobretodo,  en la educación y la sanidad para la formación y sanación de las personas.
Uf, Esto es muy complicado pero la adquisición del valor de respeto a los otros, al entorno y a la vida, empieza en la infancia y tendría que pasar por un tejido de esfuerzos de la família-sociedad-escuelas-sanidad-servicios sociales… No sé… pero si nuestros goviernos entendieran que educar y curar son una inversión… a lo mejor, diganme utópica, algunos de ellos ya no se tomarian tan a la ligera esotan espeluznante que es, para mi, la pena de muerte.
 
PN: Y no olvidemos la educación sentimental. Puede sonar cursi, pero para mi, en este contexto, no lo es nada.
A+


----------



## Anna Più

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> (..........) #*57*
> No good answers, I'm afraid.


 
Very intelligent and healthy ones, indeed 
A.


----------



## Edwin

Laia said:
			
		

> ....la pena de muerte es horrible.



Maybe not.  For many of us what happens after death is an open question. The real significance of human events (and non-human events, for that matter) is like invisible electromagnetic radiation, that is, not directly available to our consciousness.  

For example, it is possible that killing a person is doing them a favor.  In fact, according to some religions the death of a believer is to be celebrated. In the case of Tookie, if he really was a Christian and had repented shouldn't he have welcomed the death penalty?


----------



## GenJen54

*I've submitted my responses in violet...

*


			
				cuchuflete said:
			
		

> I'm going to take a different approach to this...totally omitting the murder victim, who has no say in the application of whatever law is in force. That egregious omission is a regrettable necessity.
> 
> It is and it is not. The victim may no longer have a voice, but their families do (I'll address the vengeance thing in a minute).
> 
> Possible motives for applying the death penalty:
> 
> - Prevention of heinous crimes? I have never seen good evidence that it is an effective deterent. If it worked, perhaps I would feel otherwise, as the *potential* to kill a very few people might serve a greater good of preventing the murder of many more. In fact, if it were an effective deterrent, there would be very little need to apply it. I agree with this completely.  The death penalty is *not a deterrent to violent crime, *as is supposedly its intent.
> 
> -Rehabilitation? Some prison systems supposedly exist to rehabilitate convicts and return them to society as law-abiding, morally correct citizens. And in some of these cases "rehabilitation" does work, although primarily for those prisoners who are considered "lower risk," and are in minimum or medium security prisons. Capital murderers generally do not fall into this category. Regardless, rehabilitation does not bring back the life that was lost.
> 
> This doesn't seem to apply very well to a poisoned or electocuted or hanged corpse, so I'll discount it.  Who can argue with that?
> 
> -Cost avoidance? I think that there is a bit of reality here. It costs the citizenry quite a lot to feed and house a murderer for decades, provide medical care and even modest clothing. Not to mention the scads of legal fees it costs not only to allow a death-row prisoner up to nine appeals during his "life time," but also the prosecution fees - also tax funded - that are utilized when a murder appeal clogs up the court system.
> 
> Why, one may ask, should the citizens who have been victimized by a murderer then suffer the further costs of providing her or him with sustenance? Fair question. They shouldn't.
> 
> The answer depends, of course, on one's moral posture, and not just the economics. Arguments for and against are valid, depending on one's ethical or logical position. My own says this to me: I hate to work and pay tax dollars to support scum that deprives others of life. Agreed.
> 
> What I personally hate even more is to work and pay tax dollars to hire executioners, to take life through totally legal assassination. I agree that not all "murders" should be subject to capital punishment, but I cannot argue that there are certain cases where there seems little alternative.
> 
> What else have we got left to examine?  Ah yes, there is another possible motive for the death penalty:
> 
> -vengeance. Now this is clear cut. A murderer kills one or more innocents or not so innocents, and thus should be punished. The punishment should be on a par with the crime. Thus, take a life and have your own taken, so 'society' can get even. There is a valid logic here. I don't like it. I don't agree with it. Yet I can respect the consistent logic that drives it. GenJen's post about the beast who killed dozens of children and others even makes me sympathetic to this one. I ask only that we call it by its real name, vengeance. You're right, it is vengeance. But it is also a matter of respect. How can one respect the life - or even the right to live - of a person who obviously saw not to respect the lives of others?
> 
> What's my proposed answer, in lieue of the death penalty? Life imprisonment without possibility of parole. That doesn't allow for rehabilitation, has no deterrent effect. I think part of our problem here is that the US prison system, even with its many faults, is still much more permissive than the prison systems in other countries whose respect for human rights is even lesser than that of the US. In those countries, to some prisoners, the Death Penalty may be a welcome escape.
> 
> No good answers, I'm afraid.  That's the point exactly.  In principal, I really _don't _like the death penalty, but I understand it and respect it for its place in our society - at least for now. Is it applicable in all cases? Certainly not. But there are some where I just don't see another alternative - and that I am afraid - at least for me - is the ugly truth.


P.S.  _*Thanks*_, LV4-26 for furthering the "eye for an eye" explanation.


----------



## ampurdan

I think that the comparison between abortion and death penalty is misleading. One thing is done for the sake of the would-be life and the other against the sake of the life of the convicted.

I agree that death penalty applied today is crude vengeance and it appeals to our lower instincts. It's not self-defense. It does not prevent crime. And obviously, does not help in the reinsertion of the convicted criminal, as Cuchu has said. But just think in the possibility that you were erroneously accused of some crime and then sentenced to death... Would you like all that vengeance pending over your head? And if you were a familiar of the victim, would the death of the criminal heal the real sorrow of not having there the beloved person anymore? Or would it just satisfy a likewise murderous instinct?


----------



## Don Borinqueno

No se puede comparar la pena de muerte y la interrupción del embarazo,


----------



## annettehola

It's true. There are no "good answers" here. Or else all of those all of us can come up with are more or less "good." But no, killing back can never be a good answer. Theoretically, you know. But reality is something much, much more complex than theory. We can exclude feeling from theory, from life we cannot. A victim is and remains a victim. It's a fact. And in fact it is only the victim her/himself who can work him/herself out of that position in time. "Society" is an abstract machine, and the measures it takes along the lines of "helping" the victim and "support" and bla-bla-bla are measures that can never ever correspond to the pain violently inflicted on any victim. Justice in society is money. I have a very beloved friend who recently was the victim of domestic violence. Her boyfriend hit her unconscious. The law forbid him to see her for 2 years after that, and a fine. We talked a lot about it. She refused the money, saying it would not help her in any way. She asked instead, that "society" did something for the man. Provide help of some kind, psychological assistance. It was refused. She could only choose between the money or nothing. She then chose nothing. 
I am of the opinion that offenders, no matter how grave their offence has been, should undergo some kind of real treatment. I am willing to pay via my tax money for this. Forgiveness on part of the victim is another matter altogether. 
I don't know if anyone remembers a case that happened in Germany quite some years ago? It was a case of a man having murdered and, as far as I remember now, abused a young girl. In court the mother of the dead girl appeared and suddenly pointed a gun at the accused and fired. She killed the offender dead in court. Her case was a big story then. How she had managed to smuggle the weapon in, and how she took vengeance into her own hands. I don't know what happened to her later. Can anybody remember? But whenever I think of that story I feel I understand that mother *completely.*
  Cuchu is right. There really is no answer.
Annette


----------



## chula

Es muy interesante leer las opiniones de todos ustedes. Estoy deacuerdo con las personas que son de la opinión que un aborto no se puede comparar con la pena de muerte. Si una mujer toma esa decisión, la cual supongo que no es fácil de tomar y que además deja después muchos traumas, será porque esta persona tiene una razón muy fuerte. 
Les diré que en mi país (Guatemala) el aborto es prohibido y la pena de muerte se aplica aún. El índice de criminalidad en mi país es muy alto. Hay mucha desigualdad social y además es un país que se está recuperando de una guerra civil muy larga. Por estas razones, la gente en sí es muy violenta. En la ciudad de Guatemala siempre estás con el miedo de que si sales te pueden robar y te alegras si sólo esto te pasa, es preferible a que te maten por robarte, como sucede en muchos casos.  Mucha gente es de la opinión que estos criminales no se merecen mejor cosa que la muerte. Viviendo en mi país se comprende esta mentalidad, porque tienes miedo todo el tiempo, no puedes comprarte lo que deseas porque te pueden matar por quitártelo. El salvajismo con que matan a la gente es increíble. No sé si han escuchado hablar de las llamadas "maras", que son unas bandas juveniles, muy violentas, que no dudan en matar a sangre fría. Al vivir en una sociedad tan acostumbrada al la violencia, no te queda otra cosa más que responder de la misma manera.
Yo no estoy deacuerdo con eso, pues hemos tenido la pena de muerte casi toda la vida y no ha mejorado la situación. Además que no es una pena justa. Les doy el caso de dos hombres campesinoes que violaron y mataron a una ninia de 5 anios. Este crímen fue espantoso y no me puedo imaginar cómo se sentían los padres de esa ninia. Los hombres fueron condenados a muerte y fueron ejecutados por un pelotón y para más morbo, lo televisaron en vivo a las 6 de la maniana. Esto sucedió hace como 10 anios. Algunos dirán, que se lo merecían, pero les cuento que por la misma época un joven de familia madia alta violó y asesinó brutalmente a una chica en el carro donde iban. Este tipo recibió 25 anios, creo, pero no le dieron la pena de muerte. La diferencia era que él tenía dinero y buenos abogados y los otros dos no. Y este joven no está en una cárcel normal sino que en una exclusiva, donde hasta prostitutas le llevan. 
Si la pena de muerte es aplicada, debería de ser aplicada igualmente para todos, sin distinción. Y si la aplican así para todos, el siguiente problema es saber si la persona es culpable o no en realidad.
La pena de muerte no es la mejor solución, ni tampoco la más justa


----------



## ampurdan

Esta es otra cuestión, ¿por qué la mayoría de condenados a muerte en EEUU son afroamericanos (¿o debo decir afroestadounidenses?), siendo como son una minoría? Creo que también los denominados "latinos" están superrepresentados. No creo que el índice de criminalidad de ese sector sea tan desproporcionado respecto a la otra población. Una causa es la calidad de los abogados que se pueden pagar unos y otros (no tiene nada que ver con el racismo, supongo, miremos el caso de OJ Simpson: por cierto, ¿por qué él no representa un peligro para el resto de ciudadanos y un criminal de bajo poder adquisitivo sí?).

Obviamente, este problema seguiría existiendo si no existiese la pena capital, pero no sería tan escandaloso y desorbitado como es ahora. Las diferencias sociales pueden determinar la impunidad o la muerte. No deja de ser un buen incentivo para ser rico...


----------



## annettehola

Deacuerdo!
Annette


----------



## Fernando

Edwin said:
			
		

> For example, it is possible that killing a person is doing them a favor.  In fact, according to some religions the death of a believer is to be celebrated. In the case of Tookie, if he really was a Christian and had repented shouldn't he have welcomed the death penalty?



If this is dark humour, it is OK to me. If not, you do not assist the church very often, do you?

Congrats for your 2k posts. Your posts use to be brilliant. Not this one.


----------



## ampurdan

I agree with Fernando in that Saint Theresa when saying "muero porque no muero" may seem somehow black joking, maybe even Saint Paul in some passage conveying the same ideas... After all, all the idea of Christianity may be a black joke.


----------



## Fernando

ampurdan said:
			
		

> I agree with Fernando in that Saint Theresa when saying "muero porque no muero" may seem somehow black joking, maybe even Saint Paul in some passage conveying the same ideas... After all, all the idea of Christianity may be a black joke.



But Saint Therese of Jesus did not accelerate her death. This would be tricky.
After all, an atheist should not find any difference between death and life: Death means they become non-sentient.


----------



## annettehola

Deacuerdo.
Annette


----------



## ampurdan

Fernando said:
			
		

> But Saint Therese of Jesus did not accelerate her death. This would be tricky.


 
Nobody has spoken about accelarating one own's death. Edwin talked about the willing to die and be in Heaven. Same as St. Therese and all those people purportedly seeking martyrdom.



			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> After all, an atheist should not find any difference between death and life: Death means they become non-sentient.


 
And you came across the difference here. Here I can experience the World, and as much as my overall experience of the World is a little bit pleasant, life deserves to be lived... Do I have to follow on this argument?

Well, maybe we are a little off-topic discussing these things.


----------



## nabi

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Y nunca se debe intentar convertir cada discusión en otra oportunidad para discutir la ley de Dios, que no existe para mucha gente.
> 
> Este hilo trata específicamente de una ley de nosotros seres humanos.
> 
> Si quieres discutir otro sistema legal, inclusive uno extraterrestre, haz el favor de abrir otro hilo.



es necesario que sepas que la base legislativa mundial, la cual siguio su *desarrollo* en paises como francia e italia(roma),comenzo y esta fundamentada en los populares diez mandamientos que poca gente practica, esto en la jerga actual se le denomina ley mosaica porque nace desde los tiempos de moises, es decir que la ley que usted cree que es humana, nacio hace muchos siglos atras incluso desde antes de romanos en los tiempos de moises.
perdon si le cause alguna molestia con mi acertado comentario


----------



## Fernando

ampurdan said:
			
		

> Do I have to follow on this argument?



Certainly not. Let us assume Edwin enjoys black humour. I do.

My apologies for the ex cursus (so called off-topic) argument.


----------



## annettehola

No. You are on the right track. No one can be "off-topic" when the topic is so broad. To pursue your argument, ampurdan, that "if the World is just a little bit pleasant, then life deserves to be lived," if you carry it to its utmost consequence in the context of death penalty, I believe it would look like this: we cannot not accept it. This is an example of logic. We simply have to say: *No one *has the right to kill. EVER. It includes everybody. There can be no excuse to kill. But what to do with those that do? Should we help them? Or should we get rid of them using the weapon they took into their hands? 
*How can we justify ourselves if we allow ourselves to become murderes?*

Annette


----------



## Kelly B

I'll be green, then. Please excuse me, Spanish-speaking friends, for failing to read your posts.

-Rehabilitation? Some prison systems supposedly exist to rehabilitate convicts and return them to society as law-abiding, morally correct citizens. And in some of these cases "rehabilitation" does work, although primarily for those prisoners who are considered "lower risk," and are in minimum or medium security prisons. Capital murderers generally do not fall into this category. Regardless, rehabilitation does not bring back the life that was lost. 
This doesn't seem to apply very well to a poisoned or electocuted or hanged corpse, so I'll discount it.  Who can argue with that?
This case is particularly poignant with respect to this argument. Mr. Williams has been actively demonstrating signs of rehabilitation (no thanks to the state, I suppose). He devoted what was left of his life to fighting gangs: writing childrens's books, participating in public service announcements, meeting with at-risk youth to warn them of the dangers of gangs and prison life. He created a “Protocol for Peace,” a model agreement to end gang feuds, and last year, the Crips and the Bloods in Newark, N.J., signed it, ushering in a truce that has remained in effect.
 
-Cost avoidance? I think that there is a bit of reality here. It costs the citizenry quite a lot to feed and house a murderer for decades, provide medical care and even modest clothing. Not to mention the scads of legal fees it costs not only to allow a death-row prisoner up to nine appeals during his "life time," but also the prosecution fees - also tax funded - that are utilized when a murder appeal clogs up the court system
Well, precisely. Because of the due process system intended to prevent the execution of the innocent, it is far less expensive in the US to house a criminal for life than to get him through the death-row legal system and, eventually, to execute him.

Is his life more valuable than that of the victims? Certainly not! But we are not in a position to trade. We cannot get them back. So the real question, to me, becomes - is it better for _us _to kill _him_? I still think not .


----------



## nabi

la pena de muerte no esta solo en las carceles, la verdadera pena de muerte esta en las calles donde a diario se distribuyen drogas, donde roban, donde asesinan. en cada calle muchos hombres sufren su pena de muerte.
la gente critica a los asesinos y creanme yo por la unica manera en que los debo amar es porque Dios me lo pide de otra manera no lo haria, los asesinos muchas veces tienen sus inicios por problemas familiares, economicos y sociales, aque voy con esto la sociedad crea asesinos y despues se queja de ellos, los goviernos crean asesinos y despues se quejan  de ellos.
la gente ve esto y todavia no se acercan a Dios dentro de los apostoles de jesucristo habia un hombre llamado simon el zelote el cual en su tiempo era un guerillero que hiba en contra del imperio romano, miren lo que hizo jesucristo el lo salvo y le cambio la vida.

conozco la historia de un pastor que se llama Ruben Hernandez de puerto rico que contaba la historia de como el novio de su hija le habia volado los sesos con una escopeta, el contaba esto llorando, pero lo que ms me impresiono es que el fue a la carcel y perdono al asesino de su hija y le dijo que lo perdonaba. este hombre es igual que ustedes y que yo la diferencia es que el si practico el amor de Jesucristo y fijence lo logro, esty seguro que su corazon esta mas tranquilo y mas limpio que toda la gente que condeno a tookie williams


----------



## Edwin

Fernando said:
			
		

> If this is dark humour, it is OK to me. If not, you do not assist the church very often, do you?



Hey, Fernando, call it dark humour if you wish. As Saint Paul said: "Now we see through a glass, darkly." That apparently includes me.  

And, no, I must admit I don't assist church often [and I don't attend church either]. Although I did recently enjoy a ritual  in a beautiful  Russian Orthodox Church. 

Since this is a language forum. I should say:  I suspect that you mean "attend church".  *assist* is a false friend for Spanish speakers. (to assist (English) = ayudar (Spanish).)


----------



## Fernando

I swear I knew it. Damn! I knew it!

Consider most Christian churches oppose death penalty.


----------



## annettehola

Death penalty pros and cons:

I am against it. I do not support it. I think it is wrong.

Pros: 1) The victim has the right to experience a sense of justice. This is what vengeance is about because it adjusts the scale.
2) The murderer took a life. He deserves to have his own taken as well.
3) How can we live on with a murderer? He must die/disappear because he could repeat his act.
4) How can a murderer live on with us? We need to take his life because he committed the most ultimate act of all: to kill.

Cons 1) Taking a murderer's life is to put ourselves on par with him.
2) Killing is wrong.
3) By killing we will never stop violence. We will provoke it forth instead.
4) Humanism: We should help people with problems. If we abandon them - fx. to themselves in a prison cell - we are inhuman.
5) Love is forgiveness. It will always be stronger than violence which is the sword.

Argumentation:

ad 1, pros) Adjusting the scale is a very logical and practical measure to take. Sure, the victim has the right to feel better. But if this can only be achieved by applying measures that equal the ones of the murderer, adjusting the scales is primitive.
ad 2, pros) But why? Killing is a sick act. To kill back, is not that just as sick?
ad 3, pros) To be sure someone, sick or not, would do it again is not that the same as to say:"One time a thief, always a thief"? Is not that a prejudice? Who can be willing to apply that always but a person of very limited intelligence and emotional power?
ad 4, pros) Right, but faced with an act of ultimate nature ought not we to do what we can to change that into an act of a new beginning, that is, to create circumstances that bring that forth? Help, simply.

I have no arguments against my own cons. That's logical according to my opening lines. I am from Denmark. I have lived outside my country since 1997. When I go back on holiday I always notice this: My country of origin is very human. I compare my experiences from living abroad with what I see in Denmark, and I bow my head to the way Danes are when it comes to justice. I dare say it is a very important issue for us. This is true.
Sure, I cannot speak for all Danes, and neither do I attempt to do so but I am not mistaken in saying that the feeling of justice is strong in the people from my country. Just one example: During World War II Danish sailors transported many Jews to Sweden (that had declared itself "neutral") in their fishing boats, pretending they were a load of fish in case anybody asked. It is glorious to think about, it is. For they risked their own lives saving those of other humans. This is, to me, to take justice into your own living hands to fight what is unjust.
But then you read the SAGAS.......and History comes banging in your face! You learn that the Vikings lived exactly according to the "a tooth for a tooth" parole. That Oluf Gudmundsson's wife was killed by Ralf Svettirsson (these names are Icelandic because our mythology started there), and so, Oluf killed Ralf's wife in return. Or burned his house down. Or killed his cattle. Or raped his daughter. Or destroyed his ships.

Who would take it into his hands calling this "primitive"? You? Not I. I partly enjoy it due to the poetic clarity, and so, beauty I find in it. Its logic shines right in your face.

I can't help it: I am forever on the side of those who suffer(ed), and I do believe they deserve their justice. One way or the other.
"I contradict myself? I do so, then, and so what?
(Walt Whitman)

Annette


----------



## ampurdan

Guys, I don't see pretty much why we approach the pros and cons of the death penalty putting the victims of the first crime on the one side of the balance and the person under sentence of death on the other. No one has the right to get another one killed, even in the countries where death penalty is in force. The retributive justice means that the criminal has to "pay a price" for what he has done, but he/she does not pay it to the victim (this is obvious in the case the victim has died), he pays to himself, to "his flesh", and the State is the one to ensure he does. This has been the idea at least since Kant, but it obviously existed before. 

I don't see the point in letting the familiar of the victim watch the execution: with all the due respect to them and to their feelings, what are they? Aztec gods to which the State sacrifice its criminals? 

Well, the one who has committed the the crime must pay for it. We all agree. Is "death" a suitable price? Maybe. But it is so drastic a sollution that we should be very, very certain that the criminal commited the crime. As long as innocent convicts are conceivable in any judicial system we should refuse to apply it. I will not go on other arguments that have been excellently expounded here.


----------



## Indio Campero

Talant said:
			
		

> Hi,
> 
> I'm against death penalty. I'm againsta abortion unless a very serious motive is aduced (probable death of the mother, for instance). In those cases the issue is choosing the less of two evils, and I can't force anybody to take my point of view.
> 
> Following the thread. I agree that anybody can be nominated to a Nobel prize. Thus, it's of no consequence whether he has been nominated or not.
> 
> What I think more important is whether he is repentant or not (I think yes), and whether his having stayed for 25 years (!!!!) in prison is not a life sentence as well. He has been killed and sentenced to life sentence as a result of one crime.
> 
> On the other hand, the justice system in the US is still far better then the one in China and other countries which kill hundreds of "criminals" every year.


 

Luis masci tiene razon.  No se puede dejar a un asesino suelto. Ni a ladrones ni a nadie. ABSOLUTAMENTE NO HAY EXCUSA PARA DELINQUIR, y si bien "tookie" se reformo dentro de la carcel, aca en argentina sucede lo contrario.  Aca lo que   falta es mano dura.


----------



## siljam

Es como digo en otro puesto. Estás fuera de época. Hubieras sido feliz durante los 70s.y podido darte el gusto de matar a algun "marxista".


----------



## Indio Campero

siljam said:
			
		

> Es como digo en otro puesto. Estás fuera de época. Hubieras sido feliz durante los 70s.y podido darte el gusto de matar a algun "marxista".


 

i HAVE NOT talked about 'killing" anyone, since what i just said in the former post (i even said that in SPANISH!) was that you cannot let a murderer free okay? i have NOT said that i am pro murder...so you better watch what you[re saying. WHy do you mention "killing a marxist"?   why do you take things to that extreme?  i can understand that violence makes you sick but we've got to see things clearly and impartially. Your post sounds so resented.


----------



## Carlston

Si a alguien le interesa www.ondacero.com a colgado una encuesta sobre este tema, y la verdad, no me esperaba ese resultado.

Saludos


----------



## Fernando

Pues sí, yo me esperaba muchos más votos a favor de la ejecución.


----------



## chula

Indio Campero said:
			
		

> Luis masci tiene razon. No se puede dejar a un asesino suelto. Ni a ladrones ni a nadie. ABSOLUTAMENTE NO HAY EXCUSA PARA DELINQUIR, y si bien "tookie" se reformo dentro de la carcel, aca en argentina sucede lo contrario. Aca lo que falta es mano dura.



Respeto mucho tu opinión Indio Campero. Lamento mucho que haya tanta gente que piense así. Esto de la "mano dura" es la primera solución que se le ocurren a las personas para acabar con los problemas. Claro, en una sociedad donde los hijos siempre hemos sido criados a base de golpes, no me extrania. Pero ya es hora de realizar que esta no es la solución y tratar de encontrar una solución más humana. 
Tendemos a juzgar a los criminales, y muy pocas veces nos preguntamos por qué razón determinada persona ha llegado a tal extremo? Qué ha pasado en sus vidas que se han vuelto criminales? Todos alguna vez fuimos ninios; ninios inocentes hemos sido todos, hasta el más cruel de los criminales. Olvidamos buscar las causas de su conducta y en mi país como en muchos otros, se invierte en castigarlos, en soltar todo nuestro odio y frustración sobre ellos, en lugar de preguntarnos por qué y en lugar de atacar las causas. 
Muchas veces somos nosotros mismos los culpanbles que exista un mundo así. Todos somos responsables de todos, pero lamentablemente es la indiferencia la que predomina.


----------



## GenJen54

Seeing as this thread has drifted off-topic into inflammatory mud-slinging, it is now _*permanately*_ closed.


----------

