Without the Death Penalty....?

[Baron Max]

Conn. prison: Inmate slit guard's neck with blade
Published: 12/23/09, 11:45 AM EDT

SOMERS, Conn. (AP) - Officials at Connecticut's highest security prison say an inmate slashed a guard's throat with a homemade blade, prompting the correctional facility to go on lockdown.

State Police Lt. J. Paul Vance says the officer was taking the prisoner out of his cell Tuesday for a routine security check at Northern Correctional Institution in Somers. He says the inmate punched the guard and slashed him with the weapon.

The guard received stitches. His injuries are not life-threatening.

Vance didn't think the inmate was on death row. The prison houses all 10 of Connecticut's death row inmates.

The prison has been on lockdown several times over the past few months. Most recently, an inmate set his mattress on fire in September, forcing guards to temporarily relocate about 40 prisoners.

Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Interesting, huh? I mean, think about it, without the death penalty, what can they do to the guy? ...put him in prison? ...LOL! He's already in maximum security, what else can they do?

So does this mean that prisoners with life sentences can just cut people's throats whenever they can/want to, and nothing can be done ...UNLESS... the state has the death penalty?

Baron Max

 

[Norsefire]

They could simply and logically execute him and stop wasting their time.

But no..........you can't be hard on criminals!

 

[spidergoat]

They can take away privileges, put them in solitary, take them to court again...

 

[Norsefire]

They can take away privileges, put them in solitary, take them to court again...

Then execute them. That's simpler, and justice is promptly served.

 

[spidergoat]

It depends what state, but maybe they will.

 

[Norsefire]

It depends what state, but maybe they will.

Connecticut has capital punishment, I believe. Some people sent a bill to get rid of it a while back but the logical governor vetoed it and said "we will not go easy on crime"
Bravo to him.

 

[spidergoat]

If not, I'm sure the guards will beat the crap out of him.

 

[Norsefire]

If not, I'm sure the guards will beat the crap out of him.

Hopefully.

 

[Tiassa]

So is this just a useless thread?

Interesting, huh? I mean, think about it, without the death penalty, what can they do to the guy? ...put him in prison? ...LOL! He's already in maximum security, what else can they do?

So does this mean that prisoners with life sentences can just cut people's throats whenever they can/want to, and nothing can be done ...UNLESS... the state has the death penalty?

Interesting, huh? So prison and execution are all about punishment? That's a problematic presupposition, Max, which undermines any credibility in your proposition.

 

[Read-Only]

Interesting, huh? So prison and execution are all about punishment? That's a problematic presupposition, Max, which undermines any credibility in your proposition.

Ha! So you say! In this particular instance, what would you estimate the chances of his rehabilitation to be? I'd place them somewhere between zero and none.

 

[Norsefire]

Interesting, huh? So prison and execution are all about punishment? That's a problematic presupposition, Max, which undermines any credibility in your proposition.

I believe that criminals that genuinely want to amend for their past should be given the opportunity; they can be counseled, rehabilitated, and given an education and given support. Sure. No problem.

But certainly we must reach a threshold, where the criminals that do NOT want to co-operate and have committed acts beyond heinous are to be punished as harshly as possible. Certainly!

 

[Tiassa]

Killer instinct

In this particular instance, what would you estimate the chances of his rehabilitation to be? I'd place them somewhere between zero and none.

So your estimation is good enough to justify homicide? In your opinion?

 

[Norsefire]

So your estimation is good enough to justify homicide? In your opinion?

It's already a justified homicide (homicide simply means the taking of a human life, not murder).

The state establishes laws; the criminal broke them, and he will thus suffer the consequences. Don't we need rules in our society? Yes, and if you break them, you pay the ultimate penalty.

 

[Read-Only]

So your estimation is good enough to justify homicide? In your opinion?

Eh? What homicide? If you're talking about execution, you're sadly, sadly mistaken.

 

[Norsefire]

Eh? What homicide? If you're talking about execution, you're sadly, sadly mistaken.

No, he's not. Homicide means the killing of a human; homo, and cide.

He's mistaken if he says execution is murder, however, because the state says it is not and the criminal broke the rules.

 

[Asguard]

isnt it facinating that on adverage the people who surport the death penelty are both anti abortion for any reason and anti vollentry euthanasia?

 

[Norsefire]

isnt it facinating that on adverage the people who surport the death penelty are both anti abortion for any reason and anti vollentry euthanasia?

I am personally pro-all three

However I wouldn't think the execution of a rapist is the same as abortion.

 

[Read-Only]

No, he's not. Homicide means the killing of a human; homo, and cide.

He's mistaken if he says execution is murder, however, because the state says it is not and the criminal broke the rules.

OK, I'll grant that. But I think in his mind he was equating murder with homicide with execution. Just as do all of those that oppose execution.

The real truth is that there ARE people in this world that are not fit to live in society because they pose a serious threat to others.

And I believe when such an individual is identified, they are NOT entitled to a "humane" painless execution along with all the expenses it incurs. They should be taken to the center of the prison yard - in full view of all other prisoners - and shot in the eye with a .22 caliber pistol. The cheapest form of execution available. Quick and simple solution. In fact, I think the executions should be shown on public TV as a reminder to the "would-bes" of the future as to what may be waiting for them if they cross certain lines.

 

[Doreen]

Interesting, huh? I mean, think about it, without the death penalty, what can they do to the guy? ...put him in prison? ...LOL! He's already in maximum security, what else can they do?

What they do do: take away reading materials, increase searches, withhold outdoor or social time, cut down on 'priviledges' (showers per week, radio in the room, visitation rights, etc.) etc.

Things we on the outside might not immediately think of as enormously important or devastating to go without or near torture to endure daily can easily be taken away from or added to the prisoner's life. And it happens all the time.

And that is the legal stuff. From there are beating, glass or shit in the food, waking prisoners up through the nights, 'losing' mail, etc. etc. I mean you mess with the people who have near total control of your life and they will mess back. They may mess with you just for the heck of it.

 

[Norsefire]

OK, I'll grant that. But I think in his mind he was equating murder with homicide with execution. Just as do all of those that oppose execution.

The real truth is that there ARE people in this world that are not fit to live in society because they pose a serious threat to others.

And I believe when such an individual is identified, they are NOT entitled to a "humane" painless execution along with all the expenses it incurs. They should be taken to the center of the prison yard - in full view of all other prisoners - and shot in the eye with a .22 caliber pistol. The cheapest form of execution available. Quick and simple solution. In fact, I think the executions should be shown on public TV as a reminder to the "would-bes" of the future as to what may be waiting for them if they cross certain lines.

Precisely, it's a perfect opportunity for the state to make an example out of that guy.