# An eye for an eye



## Gardenlover (Jan 28, 2021)

Do you believe in an eye for an eye justice system? Why or why not?

My thoughts are don't do the crime if you can't pay the price.


----------



## Gaer (Jan 28, 2021)

Aw You fun killer!  I wanted to do the crime!


----------



## Gardenlover (Jan 28, 2021)

Gaer said:


> Aw You fun killer!  I wanted to do the crime!


That is so unlike me. I'm usually the life of the party - just ask me. (The song "You're So Vain" by Carly Simon playing in the background.)


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jan 28, 2021)

I absolutely, positively believe in an eye for an eye.

Our justice system today is a farce.


----------



## MarciKS (Jan 28, 2021)

careful what you wish for


----------



## asp3 (Jan 28, 2021)

Nope.  I don't believe it works well on a personal level or on a societal level.  On a personal level one often finds that the "eye" that one extracts from another is seen by more than an "eye" by the party that did the first damage/crime.  Then the two parties often start going back and forth at each other often hurting innocent people in the process.


----------



## win231 (Jan 28, 2021)

I believe in 5 eyes for an eye.  The person who harmed you (or tried to harm you) had no right to do it in the first place, so he deserves more than he was trying to do to you.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jan 28, 2021)

asp3 said:


> Nope.  I don't believe it works well on a personal level or on a societal level.  On a personal level one often finds that the "eye" that one extracts from another is seen by more than an "eye" by the party that did the first damage/crime.  Then the two parties often start going back and forth at each other often hurting innocent people in the process.


There would be no extracting a single eye from anyone if I was in charge, it would be off with the individuals head. The end.

No gouging hard-working folk to keep such criminals housed in luxury, and all while supplying them with educations, degrees, and 3-square meals a day, no listening to them complaining, no incarceration reviews, and no repeat offenders.


----------



## Irwin (Jan 28, 2021)

Too often with white-collar crime, the criminals only have to pay back a small portion of what they stole or just pay a small fine for the damage they caused. Because of that, they have no incentive to not do what they did again. We see that time and time again with oil companies and Wall St. firms.

With poor people, on the other hand, the punishment often far exceeds the crime. People go to prison for stealing a bit of food or for drugs.


----------



## Ruthanne (Jan 28, 2021)

asp3 said:


> Nope.  I don't believe it works well on a personal level or on a societal level.  On a personal level one often finds that the "eye" that one extracts from another is seen by more than an "eye" by the party that did the first damage/crime.  Then the two parties often start going back and forth at each other often hurting innocent people in the process.


I whole-heartedly agree with you it doesn't work on a personal level at all it just creates a terrible environment for both.

Understanding is the  key.  We all fall short at times and may not do what's best and forgiveness of one another is a better way to perpetuate peace.  An eye for an eye is the easy way out for those who judge too harshly.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 28, 2021)

Going back to the source - there is a context for this phrase

*Exodus 21:22-25* 22"If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24*eye* *for* *eye*, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

It has been explained to me that this is a sanction against excessive punishment. I can't help thinking that it is not about the pregnant woman though but the damage to the husband's property. Something like hanging cattle rustlers because they ate the steer..


----------



## peramangkelder (Jan 28, 2021)

We are all aware that the crime rate has increased since the abolition of corporal punishment....in Australia anyway


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jan 28, 2021)

I cant help but think about the poor individual who was in perfect health, happy, well-adjusted, held down a promising job, and was heading for a promising career, had dreams, goals, and ambitions, possibly a wife or husband, maybe children, and all that was taken away from them by some societal scum that woke up one morning and decided that he or she was going to throw acid in someone's face.

That same person who was full of life is now blind, horribly disfigured, they have months, possible years of rehabilitation and therapy ahead of them, their spouse left them, and all of the goals, dreams, and ambitions they once had are now gone forever.

But the societal scum that did this, not so. He/she is caught, convicted, and charged accordingly, and they receive a sentence, however, 5-10 years after being locked-up, they're released, partially due to good behaviour, and partially due to the fact legal experts claim that the criminal has been rehabilitated, has remorse, and so life carries on for them just as normal as ever, just as it did prior to their heinous crime against another human being, and while the poor person that sustained the acid attack, their life will never be the same, the perpetrator walks freely, lives freely, and life is good once again for them.

Rubbish.


----------



## peramangkelder (Jan 28, 2021)

Or @Aunt Marg as so often happens all over the world they get off 'on a technicality'


----------



## jerry old (Jan 28, 2021)

(Good one Warrior. put what if the cowboy was romancing the cow?  Not an uncommon courting behavior in my early years.
Boys were hell on heifers.  Hey not  me, people i knew...)

Thirty years ago i would welling execute a big time drug dealer.  I wouldn't do it now, age and my looming demise makes me think
more about this issue.

So, if one were to say, 'no death penalty;'. what do you do with the Masons. the Bundys.

I do not see these guys and those like them (child rapers, killers) as normal folks.
If i don't classify them as human, is it okay to kill them?

I do think all executions should be public and in the area where the crime was committed.; 'Hang 'um on the court house square...'

This is a complicated issue that we have never resolved.


----------



## Rosemarie (Jan 28, 2021)

Criminals should certainly be made to compensate for their crimes, whether it's to pay back the value of items stolen, repair damage to property, do unpaid work etc.
In the case of murder, if you take the life of another, you give up your own...simple as that. However, we must make the distinction between intended murder and accidental.


----------



## Gary O' (Jan 29, 2021)

Gardenlover said:


> Do you believe in an eye for an eye justice system? Why or why not?


I've been too close to the 'justice system' to give a rat's pooper what happens up there

On a personal note?

Real simple

Anyone harms or intends to harm my lady, kids, grandkids, anyone in my care

They'll wish they hadn't


----------



## Rosemarie (Jan 29, 2021)

Gary O' said:


> I've been too close to the 'justice system' to give a rat's pooper what happens up there
> 
> On a personal note?
> 
> ...


If criminals were simply handed over to the victims and their families to deal with, then we might get real justice for a change......and none of this 'I forgive them' nonsense.


----------



## mellowyellow (Jan 29, 2021)

If we still had executions, this lady would be dead - so I'm glad we don't.


----------



## horseless carriage (Jan 29, 2021)

An eye for an eye makes the world go blind. Our police are famously known for not carrying sidearms, whenever a police officer has been murdered on duty the police force have been asked if they wish to be armed. The response has always been no. It's a sentiment that I understand and agree with.


----------



## win231 (Jan 29, 2021)

Gary O' said:


> I've been too close to the 'justice system' to give a rat's pooper what happens up there
> 
> On a personal note?
> 
> ...


Just hang that photo on your front door.


----------



## hollydolly (Jan 29, 2021)

mellowyellow said:


> If we still had executions, this lady would be dead - so I'm glad we don't.
> 
> View attachment 146808


I believe in the death penalty for heinous crimes...but ONLY if proved without doubt... in the case of Lindy Chamberlain  she was subject of horrendous supposition..  so  in my scenario she couldn't have been sentenced to death

( that poor woman, my God how she suffered)


----------



## hollydolly (Jan 29, 2021)

horseless carriage said:


> An eye for an eye makes the world go blind. Our police are famously known for not carrying sidearms, whenever a police officer has been murdered on duty the police force have been asked if they wish to be armed. The response has always been no. It's a sentiment that I understand and agree with.


except , that they _are_ armed on occasion... in fact I personally  watched a house arrest just recently... 12 armed officers.. at a house where they were calling for the occupant to ''come out with your hands up''.... which he did without any problem, and was marched off in his pyjamas and dressing gown ...

Funny thing is.. that old people were walking past without a care..as though it was naughty boys playing with guns..


----------



## Rosemarie (Jan 29, 2021)

hollydolly said:


> I believe in the death penalty for heinous crimes...but ONLY if proved without doubt... in the case of Lindy Chamberlain  she was subject of horrendous supposition..  so  in my scenario she couldn't have been sentenced to death
> 
> ( that poor woman, my God how she suffered)


The public are very quick to accuse parents when something happens to a child. People make mistakes, we all do..trial by Twitter has become the norm, with ignorant people making assumptions.


----------



## horseless carriage (Jan 29, 2021)

Actually, Holly, I contacted a police officer that I know just to be sure. Armed response units are trained officers that attend incidents where life is endangered. Only those officers that have been trained carry firearms.


----------



## Lee (Jan 29, 2021)

Depends on the circumstances. I could not condemn a child soldier to death for taking the life of another. Or a young teen who participated in a crime along with older people.

Karla Holmolka if anyone recalls the name, well it burns me to a crisp that she is walking the streets leading a comfortable life.


----------



## hollydolly (Jan 29, 2021)

horseless carriage said:


> Actually, Holly, I contacted a police officer that I know just to be sure. Armed response units are trained officers that attend incidents where life is endangered. Only those officers that have been trained carry firearms.


yes in this instance there was 12 holding up a house calling for a man to come out with his arms up, because his wife said he was going to ''kill her'' after finding out she was being unfaithful ( 12 ?) ...apparently it was a lie, and the man was released the very same day..( I know these people vicariously) but I watched the arrest with my own eyes this was just 3 months ago


----------



## hollydolly (Jan 29, 2021)

Lee said:


> Depends on the circumstances. I could not condemn a child soldier to death for taking the life of another. Or a young teen who participated in a crime along with older people.
> 
> Karla Holmolka if anyone recalls the name, well it burns me to a crisp that she is walking the streets leading a comfortable life.


never heard of her Lee, just looked her up..OMG !!!! pity Canada doesn't have the death sentence


----------



## Aunt Bea (Jan 29, 2021)

I'm a firm believer in justice for you and mercy for me.


----------



## john danson (Jan 29, 2021)

Turning the other cheek usually gets you hit in the other cheek.No justice no peace.


----------



## old medic (Jan 29, 2021)

With the possibilities that this could turn political, I will refrain from answering....
But will highly recommend it would be in a persons best interest to leave me and mine alone...


----------



## Gary O' (Jan 29, 2021)

win231 said:


> Just hang that photo on your front door


Well, I do hang it on my face, on occasion
Funny thing, I don't even know it's there (my lady took that pic of my mug to show me)


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 29, 2021)

Aunt Bea said:


> I'm a firm believer in justice for you and mercy for me.


Aren't we all? When it is personal we all regress a thousand years.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jan 29, 2021)

peramangkelder said:


> Or @Aunt Marg as so often happens all over the world they get off 'on a technicality'


Isn't that the truth, Peram!


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jan 29, 2021)

Lee said:


> Depends on the circumstances. I could not condemn a child soldier to death for taking the life of another. Or a young teen who participated in a crime along with older people.
> 
> *Karla Holmolka if anyone recalls the name, well it burns me to a crisp that she is walking the streets leading a comfortable life.*


You and me both, Lee.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 29, 2021)

john danson said:


> Turning the other cheek usually gets you hit in the other cheek.No justice no peace.


I don't know if you are, really don't care, but if by some reason you do call yourself a Christian, you are not.  Anyone who uses Jesus' words to contradict his words aren't Christians.  ps, I am not which may be why I can see things like this so clearly.


----------



## asp3 (Jan 29, 2021)

peramangkelder said:


> We are all aware that the crime rate has increased since the abolition of corporal punishment....in Australia anyway



I'd love to see the statistics on that.

Here in the US violent crime rates have generally been going down since about the early to mid 70's.  Property crime rates have gone up though.  I forget about what their trajectory has been though.  I think they went down for a while and then started going up again.


----------



## asp3 (Jan 29, 2021)

peramangkelder said:


> We are all aware that the crime rate has increased since the abolition of corporal punishment....in Australia anyway



I just looked up the Australian crime statistics which are summarized here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Australia .

Some of the entries in the article:

Between the 1989-1990 and 2013-2014 statistical years, the national homicide rate decreased from 1.8 per 100,000 people to 1 per 100,000.[14] There were 238 homicide incidents in Australia in 2013-14 compared with 307 in 1989–90.[15] From the National Australian Homicide Monitoring program report 2012: "The homicide rate has continued to decrease each year, since 1989-90. The periods 2010–2011 and 2011–2012 are the lowest homicide rate since data collection began in 1989"

So for homicides what you're aware of is incorrect unless there has been a huge spike between 2014 and now.

I think that it's been shown that we tend to be more aware of crimes than we used to be as opposed to there being more crimes.  So many people think the crime rate has gone up as opposed to their knowledge of crimes in their areas going up.


----------



## Jules (Jan 29, 2021)

Lee said:


> Karla Holmolka if anyone recalls the name, well it burns me to a crisp that she is walking the streets leading a comfortable life.


Can never forget that horror.


----------



## john danson (Jan 29, 2021)

Pepper said:


> I don't know if you are, really don't care, but if by some reason you do call yourself a Christian, you are not.  Anyone who uses Jesus' words to contradict his words aren't Christians.  ps, I am not which may be why I can see things like this so clearly.


My statement was not meant as a religious contradiction but as a secular observation,and it's not for you to make judgements on my religious status.So you "see things so clearly" because you're not Christian ? That kind of hubris is disturbing.


----------



## Pepper (Jan 29, 2021)

Sorry to have disturbed you @john danson 
It was my first comment of the day and I woke up grumpy.  If I remembered I wrote that I'd have deleted it.
Let's start over, is that okay with you?


----------



## Pecos (Jan 29, 2021)

Gardenlover said:


> Do you believe in an eye for an eye justice system? Why or why not?
> 
> My thoughts are don't do the crime if you can't pay the price.


I am not sure that things are always simple enough to apply this rational sounding approach to justice. In principal, an eye for an eye sounds good, but when you dig into the details things can get muddy in a hurry.

I will certainly agree that all too often, lawbreakers are not sufficiently punished to dissuade them from doing it again. I have also seen cases where the punishment is unduly harsh.

A truly informed opinion is difficult for me to come up with despite having served as head of military court martial boards, as a Jag investigator, and as a Commanding Officer. There is no simple answer, only lots of questions before passing judgement, and still you hope that you got it right.


----------



## Aneeda72 (Jan 29, 2021)

Aunt Marg said:


> I cant help but think about the poor individual who was in perfect health, happy, well-adjusted, held down a promising job, and was heading for a promising career, had dreams, goals, and ambitions, possibly a wife or husband, maybe children, and all that was taken away from them by some societal scum that woke up one morning and decided that he or she was going to throw acid in someone's face.
> 
> That same person who was full of life is now blind, horribly disfigured, they have months, possible years of rehabilitation and therapy ahead of them, their spouse left them, and all of the goals, dreams, and ambitions they once had are now gone forever.
> 
> ...


There is no such thing as societal scum.  People are not scum, ever.


----------



## Aneeda72 (Jan 29, 2021)

Rosemarie said:


> If criminals were simply handed over to the victims and their families to deal with, then we might get real justice for a change......and none of this 'I forgive them' nonsense.


Often times the victims and their families forgive the criminal, sounds like a dose of Christianity by some, true believers.  This is always where I have an problem.  We expect forgiveness from our various gods and belief systems for our failures, but harshly judge others for their failures.

Calling people scum,, by another poster.  Harsh words from the Bible.  I am sure if someone’s adult child, on the forum, commits a crime they will not want a death sentence for that child.  “Those without sin, cast the first stone.”  Seems to be a lot of stone casting on the thread.


----------



## Aneeda72 (Jan 29, 2021)

Aunt Bea said:


> I'm a firm believer in justice for you and mercy for me.


Exactly!!


----------



## john danson (Jan 29, 2021)

Pepper said:


> Sorry to have disturbed you @john danson
> It was my first comment of the day and I woke up grumpy.  If I remembered I wrote that I'd have deleted it.
> Let's start over, is that okay with you?


It's OK Pepper, I have my moments too these days.


----------



## Knight (Jan 29, 2021)

Gardenlover said:


> Do you believe in an eye for an eye justice system? Why or why not?
> 
> My thoughts are don't do the crime if you can't pay the price.


There are a wide variety of crimes. The justice system in America tries to deal with them but can fall short. 
The attitude of people is another factor that plays into what justice is. Lets use theft as an example

Poor family is robbed of their TV & appliances
Wealthy family is robbed of their TV & appliances. 

Same crime but how does the average person look at that & what punishment would be just?


----------



## JonDouglas (Jan 29, 2021)

I am reminded of the time when innocent children were free to run around, walk to school and play without fear.  When you figure out why that's no longer true, you may get a little closer to some answer to the OP's question.


----------



## Rosemarie (Jan 29, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> I am reminded of the time when innocent children were free to run around, walk to school and play without fear.  When you figure out why that's no longer true, you may get a little closer to some answer to the OP's question.


Good point. I'm sure people are still the same, but crime has increased. The same crimes were being committed, but less frequently. Apart from the poor justice system, I think the current trend in child-rearing has a lot to do with it. Children are given less guidance and discipline these days, not just at home but at school too.
I don't know how much influence religion has, but it is a fact that church schools have much higher standards than state schools. Where I live, there are a large variety of schools and the schools run by the church have much greater academic success as well as better behaved pupils.


----------



## jerry old (Jan 29, 2021)

If you are willing to throw the switch that executes the miscreant, then your vote is valid.
If you favor execution, but are not willing to throw the switch-your vote is invalid


----------



## asp3 (Jan 29, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> I am reminded of the time when innocent children were free to run around, walk to school and play without fear.  When you figure out why that's no longer true, you may get a little closer to some answer to the OP's question.



I think that fear has increased while the actual crimes have gone down overall.  Here's a site with some interesting statistics but it appears to be a little dated since the latest years it talks about are 2014 and 2013.

https://www.freerangekids.com/crime-statistics/

With our smart phones and amber alerts we're more aware of crimes or potential crimes involving children.  However I'm willing to bet that such things were occurring when we were children, but they were considered "family matters" and didn't make the news.  I don't have anything to back up my claims though.


----------



## JonDouglas (Jan 29, 2021)

asp3 said:


> I think that fear has increased while the actual crimes have gone down overall.  Here's a site with some interesting statistics but it appears to be a little dated since the latest years it talks about are 2014 and 2013.
> 
> https://www.freerangekids.com/crime-statistics/
> 
> With our smart phones and amber alerts we're more aware of crimes or potential crimes involving children.  However I'm willing to bet that such things were occurring when we were children, but they were considered "family matters" and didn't make the news.  I don't have anything to back up my claims though.


Let us know when children are free to walk to play, run around and walk to school with out a parental guard.


----------



## asp3 (Jan 29, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> Let us know when children are free to walk to play, run around and walk to school with out a parental guard.



Many children do these days.


----------



## asp3 (Jan 29, 2021)

Here's a 2015 article from the Washington Post showing that it's never been safer to be a child in the US.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ver-been-a-safer-time-to-be-a-kid-in-america/


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Jan 29, 2021)

In my private life, if I'm wronged, it's goodbye, forever. I'm not that great on forgiveness. That's not something I'm proud of. But if you're talking about the justice system, for me, it's what works. And it depends on what you are trying to do. Punishment or prevention.  But I firmly believe we don't know what  really does  work.  We have to unemotionally figure that out. I  believe if you maliciously kill somebody, you die in prison. I'm not that great on forgiveness.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 29, 2021)

asp3 said:


> I think that fear has increased while the actual crimes have gone down overall.  Here's a site with some interesting statistics but it appears to be a little dated since the latest years it talks about are 2014 and 2013.
> 
> https://www.freerangekids.com/crime-statistics/
> 
> With our smart phones and amber alerts we're more aware of crimes or potential crimes involving children.  However I'm willing to bet that such things were occurring when we were children, but they were considered "family matters" and didn't make the news.  I don't have anything to back up my claims though.


I think you are onto something here. I would have been considered a free range kid back in the 1950s. I walked to school without  a parent after the first week of starting school. As kids we played games in the street and on the road and were allowed to go to the municipal swimming pool, the local park and the matinee picture shows all unsupervised by an adult. This all took place in a suburb on the then edge of Sydney that had the nickname of 'little Chicago'.

However, my mother who was raised in country towns, made sure that she educated me about danger and how to handle it, from crossing a street, travelling on public transport, getting lost and encounters with creepy men. I raised my daughter the same way. I threw in how to stay safe in the bushland and what to do if lost overnight. The lessons were passed on to her three daughters. We believe that to raise strong women it is necessary to allow them enough freedom to learn how to navigate a world that contains a certain amount of personal risk. In today's world the risks are different. We never had to negotiate the dangers of the internet but even in that potential swamp there are ways to handle danger.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jan 29, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> I think you are onto something here. I would have been considered a free range kid back in the 1950s. I walked to school without  a parent after the first week of starting school. As kids we played games in the street and on the road and were allowed to go to the municipal swimming pool, the local park and the matinee picture shows all unsupervised by an adult. This all took place in a suburb on the then edge of Sydney that had the nickname of 'little Chicago'.
> 
> However, my mother who was raised in country towns, made sure that she educated me about danger and how to handle it, from crossing a street, travelling on public transport, getting lost and encounters with creepy men. I raised my daughter the same way. I threw in how to stay safe in the bushland and what to do if lost overnight. The lessons were passed on to her three daughters. We believe that to raise strong women it is necessary to allow them enough freedom to learn how to navigate a world that contains a certain amount of personal risk. In today's world the risks are different. We never had to negotiate the dangers of the internet but even in that potential swamp there are ways to handle danger.


I was definitely a "free-range" kid, too.

Walked to and from school starting in kindergarten, which was an easy mile (plus) away, did it all on my own, went to the swimming pool, park, to the theatre, never a parent by my side.


----------



## Tish (Jan 29, 2021)

Aunt Marg said:


> I was definitely a "free-range" kid, too.
> 
> Walked to and from school starting in kindergarten, which was an easy mile (plus) away, did it all on my own, went to the swimming pool, park, to the theatre, never a parent by my side.


Same this way, I was a "free-range kid also.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jan 29, 2021)

Tish said:


> Same this way, I was a "free-range kid also.


It's amazing to watch, Tish, but I see few kids walking to and from school anymore, they're all chauffeured to and from and all around.

Makes me shake my head.


----------



## Judycat (Jan 29, 2021)

...and mercy triumphs over justice.


----------



## Dana (Jan 29, 2021)

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." (Gandhi). I believe the punishment should fit the crime according to the legal system. An eye for an eye is usually about vengeance not justice.


----------



## gennie (Jan 29, 2021)

In our legal system, severity of punishment often depends on who can afford a good attorney.


----------



## Butterfly (Jan 29, 2021)

gennie said:


> In our legal system, severity of punishment often depends on who can afford a good attorney.



This is true of life in general, the more money you have, the better stuff you get; and it's true of everything from medical care to legal advice, and cars, clothing, shoes, and everything else.


----------



## grahamg (Jan 30, 2021)

gennie said:


> In our legal system, severity of punishment often depends on who can afford a good attorney.


Funny you should mention that, no really funny concerning a private battle I'm engaged in those very same sentiments were expressed by "the other side" in front of the respective lawyers!
However, if it were to be true every time, that the one with the most money to spend on lawyers always won, then by extension of the argument, all that is needed to decide any dispute is an assessment of the respective wealth of the parties, then once this is done, there would be no need for lawyers to argue on points of law, or strength of evidence, no need for lawyers at all in fact, and courts would only be needed to rubber stamp orders in favour of the wealthiest!


----------



## horseless carriage (Jan 30, 2021)

Butterfly said:


> This is true of life in general, the more money you have, the better stuff you get; and it's true of everything from medical care to legal advice, and cars, clothing, shoes, and everything else.


Try telling that to former US President Richard Nixon.


----------



## grahamg (Jan 30, 2021)

asp3 said:


> Here's a 2015 article from the Washington Post showing that it's never been safer to be a child in the US.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ver-been-a-safer-time-to-be-a-kid-in-america/


The question for each parent is not a simple one of the level of risk you feel comfortable exposing your child too, there is the attitude of the other parent if any mishap were to occur when the child was in your care.
Then there is a maybe understandable fear any parent might have due to children being more able to communicate over the internet, plus's using almost ubiquitous mobile phones, none of these aspects needed to be considered forty years ago, and those possibly posing a risk to children can groom children via these new means.


----------



## JonDouglas (Jan 30, 2021)

asp3 said:


> Here's a 2015 article from the Washington Post showing that it's never been safer to be a child in the US.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ver-been-a-safer-time-to-be-a-kid-in-america/


Some might want to pick sources other than the WaPo, perhaps picking more directly from the DOJ, FBI, , CDC and Children's Bureau of DHS.  Fortunately, the ICRW has done that for you in one of their reports on Child ****** Abuse.  I found this bit of data interesting. 

Out of every 100 Rapes:
40 get reported to the police
10 lead to an arrest
8 get prosecuted
4 lead to a felony conviction
3 will spend even a single day in prison.
---------------------------------------------
97 will walk free.

Draw you own conclusions about children being safer.


----------



## HoneyNut (Jan 30, 2021)

Gardenlover said:


> Do you believe in an eye for an eye justice system? Why or why not?


I guess if someone caused me to lose an eye I'd be much happier if they had to pay me a quarter million dollars, it wouldn't do me any good for them to lose an eye.

Regarding free range children, if the stats are saying kids are safer now, doesn't that mean that the practice of not allowing them free range has been successful at protecting them?  When I did foster care I discovered that children unsupervised by neglectful/drug-using parents get VERY VERY HURT OFTEN.  But I personally really enjoyed the freedom kids had when I was young.


----------



## Aneeda72 (Jan 30, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> I am reminded of the time when innocent children were free to run around, walk to school and play without fear.  When you figure out why that's no longer true, you may get a little closer to some answer to the OP's question.


Really, when where innocent children were to run around?  Or was it just the shame of the parents over what happened to their children so great that the crimes were never reported?  Or was it just children were chattels to do with as people pleased?

Children have always known fear especially before the 1970’s.  I was kidnapped and raped in, hmm, 1953 from my yard.  How safe was I?  I was never safe not from my parents or others.  The crime was not reported.  The rapist was known and unpunished.  My parents thought me ruined from that day forward.


----------



## Aneeda72 (Jan 30, 2021)

asp3 said:


> Many children do these days.


Just because they do ”these days” that doesn’t make children safe, it means their parents are idiots, unaware of the danger, stupid, or they just don’t care.


----------



## JonDouglas (Jan 30, 2021)

Aneeda72 said:


> Really, when where innocent children were to run around?  Or was it just the shame of the parents over what happened to their children so great that the crimes were never reported?  Or was it just children were chattels to do with as people pleased?
> 
> Children have always known fear especially before the 1970’s.  I was kidnapped and raped in, hmm, 1953 from my yard.  How safe was I?  I was never safe not from my parents or others.  The crime was not reported.  The rapist was known and unpunished.  My parents thought me ruined from that day forward.


When and where I grew up things were different.  Children had parents and family who taught them about values, limits and consequences, which gave kids like me a lot of freedom and its associated responsibility.  It may be hard to understand if you weren't there but we had far more freedom.  We walked to kindergarten and early grade school, played with firecrackers, held down jobs, rode scooters, motorcycles and tractors to grade school,  carried guns by the time we were 13 and traveled cross country  age 16 - all of this with nobody getting shot, hurt, in trouble.  We were of and from a generation that fought and were not afraid of much.  People watched out for each other and folks came down real hard on crime, criminals, miscreants and kids who misbehaved..  Virtually all of us prospered as a result.


----------



## asp3 (Jan 30, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> Some might want to pick sources other than the WaPo, perhaps picking more directly from the DOJ, FBI, , CDC and Children's Bureau of DHS.  Fortunately, the ICRW has done that for you in one of their reports on Child ****** Abuse.  I found this bit of data interesting.
> 
> Out of every 100 Rapes:
> 40 get reported to the police
> ...



Rape is a horrible act and as a society we should work towards eliminating it.  However I don't think it's a major factor when discussing the safety of children especially when talking about letting them walk to school and go out to play by themselves.

The link you provided to the ICRW was very useful.  I found two sections especially interesting.  One was about the perpetrators.

Taken from the ICRW report @JonDouglas shared:
Perpetrators of CSA are often patient, manipulative and willing to put a lot of energy into molding a relationship with a victim, which makes it difficult for the victim to easily detach. The National Center for Victims of Crime website, like many others, captures the general process of cultivation (often called grooming) that allows a perpetrator to gradually introduce ****** acts into a relationship with a child.

The other was about locations:

Perpetrators most often sexually abuse their victims in a home. A report from the Child Advocacy Center of Houston shows that 84 percent of ****** victimization of children under 12 years old took place in a residence — either the victim’s or the perpetrator’s — which was also true for 71 percent of victims ages 12-17.

Another study I found from The Rape Crisis Center lists 12 to 17 year old victims of rape represent 15% of all rape victims.  Interestingly enough it seems as if rape victims under 12 are less than 1% based on the numbers they reported, but that may be a reporting problem.

https://rapecrisis.com/statistics/

Additionally from the first report it appears children from rural areas (which many people would consider safer for the to walk to and from school and to go out and play) have higher rate of child ****** abuse than urban areas.

Again from the report @JonDouglas provided the link to:
The National ****** Violence Resource Center produced the report Unspoken Crimes: ****** Assault in Rural America, which shows the unique challenges of dealing with CSA in rural settings. For example, there are fewer services in general for all forms of ****** violence, including for children. The communities themselves are notable because the small populations, though spread across more land, tend to be closely knit. Potential interveners outside of the home — teachers, nurses, child care providers, etc. — may be less inclined to identify signs and symptoms as CSA because they likely have longstanding friendships with potential perpetrators. Another, similar report from the National Coalition against Domestic Violence underscores that although the number of CSA victims is higher in urban areas, the rate of CSA is higher in rural areas.

What is missing from these reports is whether or not the incidence of rape and ****** abuse is higher, lower or the same between the time when many of us were free to walk to school and play outside unsupervised.  I still contend that it is safer for children now but I don't have any statistics to back that up when talking about ****** abuse and rape.


----------



## asp3 (Jan 30, 2021)

Aneeda72 said:


> Just because they do ”these days” that doesn’t make children safe, it means their parents are idiots, unaware of the danger, stupid, or they just don’t care.



Or their parents are aware of the dangers their children may face, teach their children how to respond to dangerous situations and also to assess whether or not they feel safe walking home or playing outside and give them options for when they don't feel safe.  It is much easier today to provide a child a way to communicate with you than it was in the past.

When my son was in kindergarten and first grade he walked to school with two other neighborhood kids (both of whom were older.)  I was friends with their parents and we discussed the maturity of our kids and their likelihood to act out or do foolish things before we thought it would be a good idea for them to walk together.

I would definitely agree that not all kids can handle the task of walking to school or walking home from school.

I do not think that I was unaware of the danger, stupid and I definitely cared enough to make sure both my son and I were comfortable with his walking to school before he started doing it.  As I recall I also walked him to school a few times before the arrangement was made so that we could discuss the important things to look out for when walking to school.


----------



## grahamg (Jan 30, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> Some might want to pick sources other than the WaPo, perhaps picking more directly from the DOJ, FBI, , CDC and Children's Bureau of DHS.  Fortunately, the ICRW has done that for you in one of their reports on Child ****** Abuse.  I found this bit of data interesting.
> Out of every 100 Rapes:
> 40 get reported to the police
> 10 lead to an arrest
> ...


Rape is a tricky one in my view, horrendous crime though it undoubtedly is, but our focus here should be on the abuse of children, or risk of abuse, or them succumbing to violence of one kind or another, in some sphere of their lives, rather than whether women choose to report rape, and whether their allegations of rape are taken seriously, (accounting for 90% of those cases covered in the statistics you quoted).
I think, as I've said, it is the far wider range of dangers, due to the internet, social media offering the opportuninity for grooming etc, these are new risks, then there is the prevalence of family breakdowns, failures of marriages, new blended families being formed more often, all these situations bring the possibility of increased risks to children.


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Jan 30, 2021)

Aunt Marg said:


> I absolutely, positively believe in an eye for an eye.
> 
> Our justice system today is a farce.


When Islamic Sharia law enacts the "eye for an eye" type of justice Americans think it's barbaric. But some of it is definitely a deterrent. As for the OP...maybe sometimes and other times there's probably a better option. If somebody puts his/her hands on me or my family.....*look out!*


----------



## JonDouglas (Jan 31, 2021)

grahamg said:


> Rape is a tricky one in my view, horrendous crime though it undoubtedly is, but our focus here should be on the abuse of children, or risk of abuse, or them succumbing to violence of one kind or another, in some sphere of their lives, rather than whether women choose to report rape, and whether their allegations of rape are taken seriously, (accounting for 90% of those cases covered in the statistics you quoted).
> I think, as I've said, it is the far wider range of dangers, due to the internet, social media offering the opportuninity for grooming etc, these are new risks, then there is the prevalence of family breakdowns, failures of marriages, new blended families being formed more often, all these situations bring the possibility of increased risks to children.


I believe the report was about children and trends of adjudication are a big clue, regardless of the specific crime.


----------



## JonDouglas (Jan 31, 2021)

asp3 said:


> Rape is a horrible act and as a society we should work towards eliminating it.  However I don't think it's a major factor when discussing the safety of children especially when talking about letting them walk to school and go out to play by themselves.
> 
> The link you provided to the ICRW was very useful.  I found two sections especially interesting.  One was about the perpetrators.
> 
> ...


I recall that Channel 7 San Diego did a 7 part series on the rise child sex trafficking and exploitation in the county and beyond. Yet another clue. Also, there was the following statement by the UN: "Rising human trafficking takes on horrific dimensions; almost a third of victims are children." Next, if you wish, add in the drug problem and number of children whose lives are affected by that. Next, look into the rise of youth gangs and related violence in both suburban areas and inner cities. As for statistics, it is quite easy to use probability and statistics to reach a false conclusion (e.g., null hypothesis, confusing statistical significance with practical significance, etc). Smart people should always be suspicious of statistics.

Finally, if you really think children are safer today, believe the statistics, take yours into the south side of Chicago (e.g., around 138th street south) and turn them loose to run around like I was able to do in my youth when visiting relatives there.


----------



## Buckeye (Jan 31, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> Going back to the source - there is a context for this phrase
> 
> *Exodus 21:22-25* 22"If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24*eye* *for* *eye*, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
> 
> It has been explained to me that this is a sanction against excessive punishment. I can't help thinking that it is not about the pregnant woman though but the damage to the husband's property. Something like hanging cattle rustlers because they ate the steer..


Well, if we want to live under Old Testament instructions, let's also review a few things from Leviticus. In Leviticus 11 we are told we can't eat shrimp or lobster, etc.  In Leviticus 18 we are told we can stone gay men to death.  In Leviticus 19 we are told that tattoos are a sin.  These are just a few examples. 

In today's world, age old sayings about justice are not relevant.  Almost all civilized countries have moved past Old Testament judgments.

And I'm not giving up my tats!


----------



## Sunny (Jan 31, 2021)

In fact, isn't there something about violations of the Sabbath being punishable by death?


----------



## Pepper (Jan 31, 2021)

Just because there can be a very hard punishment, that does not mean it was used.......according to my readings, it was either very rare or nonexistent.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jan 31, 2021)

OneEyedDiva said:


> When Islamic Sharia law enacts the "eye for an eye" type of justice Americans think it's barbaric. *But some of it is definitely a deterrent.* As for the OP...maybe sometimes and other times there's probably a better option. If somebody puts his/her hands on me or my family.....*look out!*


I agree.

There isn't enough of a deterrent today, hence repeat offenders and more and more heinous crimes.


----------



## Buckeye (Jan 31, 2021)

Aunt Marg said:


> I agree.
> 
> There isn't enough of a deterrent today, hence repeat offenders and more and more heinous crimes.


Sorry, but there is zero evidence that the death penalty serves as a deterrent.


----------



## Buckeye (Jan 31, 2021)

Pepper said:


> Just because there can be a very hard punishment, that does not mean it was used.......according to my readings, it was either very rare or nonexistent.


That's my point exactly and makes the whole "eye for and eye" "justification" irrelevant.  

Thanks!


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jan 31, 2021)

Buckeye said:


> Sorry, but there is zero evidence that the death penalty serves as a deterrent.


Evidence or not, I believe the death penalty does have an effect on crime, as miniscule as it may be.

One thing is for certain, today's namby-pamby justice system sure doesn't aim to deter crime, in fact, it welcomes it.


----------



## asp3 (Jan 31, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> I recall that Channel 7 San Diego did a 7 part series on the rise child sex trafficking and exploitation in the county and beyond. Yet another clue. Also, there was the following statement by the UN: "Rising human trafficking takes on horrific dimensions; almost a third of victims are children." Next, if you wish, add in the drug problem and number of children whose lives are affected by that. Next, look into the rise of youth gangs and related violence in both suburban areas and inner cities. As for statistics, it is quite easy to use probability and statistics to reach a false conclusion (e.g., null hypothesis, confusing statistical significance with practical significance, etc). Smart people should always be suspicious of statistics.
> 
> Finally, if you really think children are safer today, believe the statistics, take yours into the south side of Chicago (e.g., around 138th street south) and turn them loose to run around like I was able to do in my youth when visiting relatives there.


I'm not up to date on human trafficking statistics so I'm not sure if they're up or not.  Also I'm not sure what the UN said is true for the US as opposed to the world in general.

As per your southside Chicago feedback.  When one says that children are safer these days it means as an overall general condition that doesn't always hold in some areas.  I'm sure you're well aware of that.

I think that we're at an impasse here.  I believe based on the information I've seen that it's safe enough for some parents to let their children walk to and from school and play outside unsupervised and you disagree.  I also think that the increased awareness of child related crimes has increased fear about them as opposed to the number of crimes increasing overall.

I would agree that it is impossible to keep a child 100% safe from crimes if you do give them that freedom.  However I think the benefits outweigh the risks for many but not all children and certainly not in all areas.


----------



## Sunny (Jan 31, 2021)

Aunt Marg, can you show us any statistics demonstrating that the countries with the strictest, cruelest, most archaic punishment systems on earth have the lowest crime rate? What is the relation between the death penalty and crime in those countries?

Or that the converse is true, that the countries with the most decent, supportive prisons, which try to rehabilitate prisoners have the highest crime rate?

Where are your statistics?  Making a statement that begins, "Evidence or not..."  doesn't exactly do much to prove your point. It just means you are determined to cling to antiquated values. It's all about evidence!

(If you were on a jury, would you make your decision about guilty vs. innocent, by starting out with "Evidence or not?")


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jan 31, 2021)

Sunny said:


> Aunt Marg, can you show us any statistics demonstrating that the countries with the strictest, cruelest, most archaic punishment systems on earth have the lowest crime rate? What is the relation between the death penalty and crime in those countries?
> 
> Or that the converse is true, that the countries with the most decent, supportive prisons, which try to rehabilitate prisoners have the highest crime rate?
> 
> ...


No stats to present to you, Sunny, but judging by the mickey-mouse justice system in place today, it's apparent to me something more needs to be done to reverse and help curb the crime rate we're seeing.

My stance on this topic is purely driven by my very own experience in seeing petty criminals given a slap on the wrist for breaking and entering, and a few months later they're back at it and in the news again. 

As for sitting on a jury and deciding guilty vs innocent, I would be as open minded as any other honest person, but when it comes to heinous crimes and murder, I would have no remorse, no guilt, and no qualms over seeing death sentences applied to such individuals, and none of this namby-pamby death row stuff that's become all too common where criminals sit on death row for years and even decades.


----------



## asp3 (Jan 31, 2021)

Aunt Marg said:


> No stats to present to you, Sunny, but judging by the mickey-mouse justice system in place today, it's apparent to me something more needs to be done to reverse and help curb the crime rate we're seeing.
> 
> My stance on this topic is purely driven by my very own experience in seeing petty criminals given a slap on the wrist for breaking and entering, and a few months later they're back at it and in the news again.
> 
> As for sitting on a jury and deciding guilty vs innocent, I would be as open minded as any other honest person, but when it comes to heinous crimes and murder, I would have no remorse, no guilt, and no qualms over seeing death sentences applied to such individuals, and none of this namby-pamby death row stuff that's become all too common where criminals sit on death row for years and even decades.



Aunt Marg, there are plenty of articles out there showing that the overall violent crime rate is significantly down from the 70's or 90's (depending on the crime) until now.  Many people incorrectly believe that the crime rate has been increasing when just the opposite is true. 

In addition a report from the Justice Department from September 2020 shows that the violent crime has declined over the last three years as well.  https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/fbi-...ine-violent-crime-rate-third-consecutive-year .


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jan 31, 2021)

asp3 said:


> Aunt Marg, there are plenty of articles out there showing that the overall violent crime rate is significantly down from the 70's or 90's (depending on the crime) until now.  Many people incorrectly believe that the crime rate has been increasing when just the opposite is true.
> 
> In addition a report from the Justice Department from September 2020 shows that the violent crime has declined over the last three years as well.  https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/fbi-...ine-violent-crime-rate-third-consecutive-year .


Thank you for the article, Asp.

I do still believe, even taking into consideration the fact that crime has come down in the past three to four decades, that violent, murderous, heinous crimes should carry with it a death sentence.

I personally cannot justify allowing an acid-throwing individual to see daylight again. There is no place on earth for such scum.


----------



## asp3 (Jan 31, 2021)

Aunt Marg said:


> Thank you for the article, Asp.
> 
> I do still believe, even taking into consideration the fact that crime has come down in the past three to four decades, that violent, murderous, heinous crimes should carry with it a death sentence.
> 
> I personally cannot justify allowing an acid-throwing individual to see daylight again. There is no place on earth for such scum.


You can achieve the not seeing the light of day through life without possibility of parole.

The point I was trying to make and that others seem to be making is that you believe that the death penalty is a deterrent but statistics seem to contradict that.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jan 31, 2021)

asp3 said:


> You can achieve the not seeing the light of day through life without possibility of parole.
> 
> The point I was trying to make and that others seem to be making is that you believe that the death penalty is a deterrent but statistics seem to contradict that.


I do understand your point, Asp, but I am against warehousing violent criminals.

Being locked up for life with no possibility of parole isn't the answer. Getting rid of such criminals is. Get them off the face of the earth, plant them, remove them from everyone's eyes forever.

Regardless of capital punishment being a deterrent, taking the life of another human should carry with it an ultimate cost. Take a life of someone, your life is taken from you.


----------



## win231 (Jan 31, 2021)

asp3 said:


> You can achieve the not seeing the light of day through life without possibility of parole.
> 
> The point I was trying to make and that others seem to be making is that you believe that the death penalty is a deterrent but statistics seem to contradict that.


Personally, I'm not in favor of the death penalty because it may be a deterrent.  I'm in favor of it because no one who has been executed has ever victimized another person.  The same cannot be said for paroled criminals.


----------



## Sunny (Jan 31, 2021)

When DNA started to be used to prove guilt or innocence in crimes, a huge part of the Texas death row population, especially those who were Black, turned out to be innocent, beyond a shadow of a doubt. They were released, of course.  I thought it was shocking how often "mistakes" were made in murder cases. 

So, Aunt Marg, how would you justify killing these people, "planting" them, getting them off the face of the earth?  (My God, you sound angry!) That can't be undone after the fact, no matter what the evidence shows about their innocence. I suspect that many of them were  on death row for committing the crime of having a not-too-good lawyer. That, and being Black, of course.

Some day, this country will evolve to where it sees how pointless, cruel, and primitive this kind of punishment is. Right now, I don't know if we are moving in that direction, but looking at the larger historic picture, that is what will happen.  And people reading about it in history books will shake their heads in disbelief, especially about this "vengeance is mine" philosophy finding its way into the law.  It may take a few centuries.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jan 31, 2021)

Sunny said:


> When DNA started to be used to prove guilt or innocence in crimes, a huge part of the Texas death row population, especially those who were Black, turned out to be innocent, beyond a shadow of a doubt. They were released, of course.  I thought it was shocking how often "mistakes" were made in murder cases.
> 
> So, Aunt Marg, how would you justify killing these people, "planting" them, getting them off the face of the earth?  (My God, you sound angry!) That can't be undone after the fact, no matter what the evidence shows about their innocence. I suspect that many of them were  on death row for committing the crime of having a not-too-good lawyer. That, and being Black, of course.
> 
> Some day, this country will evolve to where it sees how pointless, cruel, and primitive this kind of punishment is. Right now, I don't know if we are moving in that direction, but looking at the larger historic picture, that is what will happen.  And people reading about it in history books will shake their heads in disbelief, especially about this "vengeance is mine" philosophy finding its way into the law.  It may take a few centuries.


And that's a shame, those who were wrongfully condemned to death.

No anger, just disgust with today's nanny-like justice system, it's coddling, poor little Johnny, slap on the wrist methodology.

Johnny, has been a good little boy, so we're going to let Johnny out early, because Johnny, he's learned his lesson, and a few days later, a few weeks later, a few months later, or a few years later, Johnny, repeats.

Once a criminal, always a criminal in my eyes.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 31, 2021)

Aunt Marg said:


> I do understand your point, Asp, but I am against warehousing violent criminals.
> 
> Being locked up for life with no possibility of parole isn't the answer. Getting rid of such criminals is. Get them off the face of the earth, plant them, remove them from everyone's eyes forever.
> 
> Regardless of capital punishment being a deterrent, taking the life of another human should carry with it an ultimate cost. Take a life of someone, your life is taken from you.


Does that include drunk drivers who cause death?


----------



## Gardenlover (Jan 31, 2021)

My, my, my - what a can of snakes I've opened. 

Logically, what deters people from committing crimes?

I believe it's the culture of self-importance that breeds the corruption.


----------



## win231 (Jan 31, 2021)

Sunny said:


> When DNA started to be used to prove guilt or innocence in crimes, a huge part of the Texas death row population, especially those who were Black, turned out to be innocent, beyond a shadow of a doubt. They were released, of course.  I thought it was shocking how often "mistakes" were made in murder cases.
> 
> So, Aunt Marg, how would you justify killing these people, "planting" them, getting them off the face of the earth?  (My God, you sound angry!) That can't be undone after the fact, no matter what the evidence shows about their innocence. I suspect that many of them were  on death row for committing the crime of having a not-too-good lawyer. That, and being Black, of course.
> 
> Some day, this country will evolve to where it sees how pointless, cruel, and primitive this kind of punishment is. Right now, I don't know if we are moving in that direction, but looking at the larger historic picture, that is what will happen.  And people reading about it in history books will shake their heads in disbelief, especially about this "vengeance is mine" philosophy finding its way into the law.  It may take a few centuries.


Think about the criminal histories of inmates on death row.  They are not decent, honest working people.  They became suspects because they have _lengthy criminal histories & have committed other violent crimes they weren't convicted of or charged with for various reasons.  They're not innocent people investigated at random._
As far as I'm concerned, any armed robber, kidnapper, rapist, or anyone who commits a violent crime should be executed; whether or not they were wrongly convicted of the murder they are incarcerated for.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jan 31, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> Does that include drunk drivers who cause death?


I don't believe any drunk driver intentionally sets out to kill anyone, as stupid as the act is, but for those who purposely set out to maim, kill, rape, or torture, I would like to see the death penalty imposed.

Reflecting on statistics that show overall violent crime has come down in the past three to four decades, my bet is violent crime would come down a shade more if a guillotine awaited with a freshly honed blade and an executioner holding the rope.

No, Aunt Marg doesn't have anger issues, she's just put off by today's pathetic justice system that all too often sees hardened criminals released from jail for violent crimes, while the poor family members at the brunt of the losses are left to pick up the pieces and be slowly eaten alive by sorrow, grief, and loss, for their remaining days as a result of some pathetic waste-case.

Justice? I think not.


----------



## win231 (Jan 31, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> Does that include drunk drivers who cause death?


Why not?  It would make driving safer for the rest of us.  Same goes for street racers.


----------



## Warrigal (Jan 31, 2021)

Aunt Marg said:


> I don't believe any drunk driver intentionally sets out to kill anyone, as stupid as the act is, but for those who purposely set out to maim, kill, rape, or torture, I would like to see the death penalty imposed.


Yes, and the other problem with holding drunk drivers to account is that people with deep pockets can get lenient treatment for themselves and for their kids. Lady Justice is supposed to be blind but I fear her ears often respond to the chink of coin. When justice is truly impartial then I might think differently.


----------



## Gardenlover (Jan 31, 2021)

win231 said:


> Think about the criminal histories of inmates on death row.  They are not decent, honest working people.  They became suspects because they have _lengthy criminal histories & have committed other violent crimes they weren't convicted of or charged with for various reasons.  They're not innocent people investigated at random._
> As far as I'm concerned, any armed robber, kidnapper, rapist, or anyone who commits a violent crime should be executed; whether or not they were wrongly convicted of the murder they are incarcerated for.


What happened to innocent until proven guilty?


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jan 31, 2021)

Warrigal said:


> *Yes, and the other problem with holding drunk drivers to account is that people with deep pockets can get lenient treatment for themselves and for their kids.* Lady Justice is supposed to be blind but I fear her ears often respond to the chink of coin. When justice is truly impartial then I might think differently.


Exactly, hence our current pathetic justice system.


----------



## win231 (Jan 31, 2021)

Gardenlover said:


> What happened to innocent until proven guilty?


The problem with the current system is that they're often guilty - they're just found not guilty.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jan 31, 2021)

win231 said:


> Personally, *I'm not in favor of the death penalty because it may be a deterrent.*  I'm in favor of it because no one who has been executed has ever victimized another person.  The same cannot be said for paroled criminals.


My sentiment to a T.


----------



## grahamg (Jan 31, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> I believe the report was about children and trends of adjudication are a big clue, regardless of the specific crime.


I apologise but I've not followed this thread diligently enough to know there was a report being referred to. 
 "My bad" as they apparently say nowadays


----------



## grahamg (Jan 31, 2021)

JonDouglas said:


> I recall that Channel 7 San Diego did a 7 part series on the rise child sex trafficking and exploitation in the county and beyond. Yet another clue. Also, there was the following statement by the UN: "Rising human trafficking takes on horrific dimensions; almost a third of victims are children." Next, if you wish, add in the drug problem and number of children whose lives are affected by that. Next, look into the rise of youth gangs and related violence in both suburban areas and inner cities. As for statistics, it is quite easy to use probability and statistics to reach a false conclusion (e.g., null hypothesis, confusing statistical significance with practical significance, etc). Smart people should always be suspicious of statistics.
> 
> Finally, if you really think children are safer today, believe the statistics, take yours into the south side of Chicago (e.g., around 138th street south) and turn them loose to run around like I was able to do in my youth when visiting relatives there.


Those are very worrying accounts and reports I agree, and in the end it doesn't matter so much whether the risks are greater or less than they once were, but whether anyone can do anything about the risks we all know exist in any era.
Good luck, good mates, avoiding known crime hotspots have protected me and mine largely till now, though there is no guarantee about tomorrow, but I'll hope for more of the same as I get older, and probably less able to protect myself.
 I did see off a couple of hawkers of stolen goods in my local supermarket carpark yesterday, and I was just in the mood for them, after the couple of weeks I've had. After I'd bored them with my own tales for a minute or two, as they tried their chummy approach I used the famous phrase, "Stop right there", when they sought to show me their merchandise!
"Direct approach can get the job done pretty efficiently some times!"


----------



## Phoenix (Jan 31, 2021)

Aunt Marg said:


> I absolutely, positively believe in an eye for an eye.
> 
> Our justice system today is a farce.


In the case of an eye for and eye and a tooth for a tooth means everyone is blind and toothless.


hollydolly said:


> I believe in the death penalty for heinous crimes...but ONLY if proved without doubt... in the case of Lindy Chamberlain  she was subject of horrendous supposition..  so  in my scenario she couldn't have been sentenced to death
> 
> ( that poor woman, my God how she suffered)


I could have invited you to watch my brother executed then, had the death penalty not been struck down.  Statistics show that the death penalty is not a deterrent.  When my brother killed the people the death penalty was in effect.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jan 31, 2021)

I see this thread wandering into the zone of, an eye for an eye is not a deterrent.

Myself, I'm good with it not being a deterrent.

The OP simply asks, "_Do you believe in an eye for an eye justice system? Why or why not_"?

I've stated my opinion and given reasons as to how I feel about eye for an eye, I have little more to say.

Congratulations to those who feel today's justice system is satisfactory and working.


----------



## mellowyellow (Jan 31, 2021)

I would never allow my grandchildren to walk home alone from school, too many paedophiles around.  I don't know where they were when I was a child, we never heard of a child being grabbed off the street like they do today.  Child pornography seems to be on the increase, these slime balls sending obscene photos to each another on the dark web.  As soon as Interpol announces they have cracked another paedophile syndicate involving several countries in the world, another one soon takes it place.  If they were to receive the death penalty, I wouldn't turn a hair.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Jan 31, 2021)

mellowyellow said:


> I would never allow my grandchildren to walk home alone from school, too many paedophiles around.  I don't know where they were when I was a child, we never heard of a child being grabbed off the street like they do today.  Child pornography seems to be on the increase, these slime balls sending obscene photos to each another on the dark web.  As soon as Interpol announces they have cracked another paedophile syndicate involving several countries in the world, another one soon takes it place.  If they were to receive the death penalty, I wouldn't turn a hair.


I think the same, Mellow, I don't recall ever hearing about child abductions and things when I was younger. Maybe technology and the internet has helped get the news out more than when you and I were young and growing, but it sure does make me wonder.


----------



## Devi (Jan 31, 2021)

In the mid-fifties, I was walking out on the front lawn of our family home ... and a man in a green fifties-style sedan slowed, pulled up to the curb and opened the door, clearing inviting me to step in. I told my little brother, who was following me, to run back to the house, and then I followed.


----------



## grahamg (Jan 31, 2021)

Devi said:


> In the mid-fifties, I was walking out on the front lawn of our family home ... and a man in a green fifties-style sedan slowed, pulled up to the curb and opened the door, clearing inviting me to step in. I told my little brother, who was following me, to run back to the house, and then I followed.


I once refused a lift home when I'd walked from a nearby village and was almost home, (I'd be eleven or twelve, and had caught a different bus and was endeavouring to get home to watch Celtic football team play against AC Milan, or was it Inter Milan in the European cup final). 
This was probably a very innocent occurence, seeing a young boy hot and bothered trying to hurry home, but it was my mothers training that we were never to accept lifts that came into my mind, "just in case", as you really do never know!   .


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Jan 31, 2021)

Buckeye said:


> Sorry, but there is zero evidence that the death penalty serves as a deterrent.


Who said anything about the death penalty? Personally I think the death penalty would let people off easy if not for the fact that most of the time they're usually in prison for a long time before the sentence is carried out. I don't believe in the death penalty. One reason is that quite a few people have been proven innocent after incarceration. It would be tragic to kill somebody and find out after the fact that he/she didn't really do the crime.


----------



## Rosemarie (Feb 1, 2021)

mellowyellow said:


> I would never allow my grandchildren to walk home alone from school, too many paedophiles around.  I don't know where they were when I was a child, we never heard of a child being grabbed off the street like they do today.  Child pornography seems to be on the increase, these slime balls sending obscene photos to each another on the dark web.  As soon as Interpol announces they have cracked another paedophile syndicate involving several countries in the world, another one soon takes it place.  If they were to receive the death penalty, I wouldn't turn a hair.


I think the most worrying aspect is that so many people (mostly men) want to have sex with children. In some countries it is actually part of the culture. What sort of monsters are we breeding?
Sorry if I've gone off-topic. I would also like to add that I think the current jury system is flawed, as it's too easy for clever lawyers to influence inexperienced people; but I suppose that's off-topic too.


----------



## MrPants (Feb 1, 2021)

I do believe in an eye for an eye but I also wonder if the death penalty is really what I want to see applied in the case of murder. From a perspective of vengeance which is worse? Killing the offender or letting them rot in a federal prison for a long period of time - like the rest of their lives for really nasty killings.
I agree, our justice system is a farce most times. It's way too heavily weighted toward the criminal's rights and not the victim but, that is just the way the system works and until we can change it, we have to work within it so I still ask; which punishment is worse for the criminal offender? The prison terms for premeditated murder are pretty stiff. That also applies to multiple murderers. 

Consider what you've seen personally this past year with Covid restrictions. Many people are going loony-toons over the Covid restrictions on their lives and that's only been in place for 1 year. Plus, people haven't totally lost their freedom in this case. Can any of us truly imagine what it would be like staring at 25 years or longer of complete loss of freedom? It's made me think about what it would be like to be locked up for life; that's for sure. And in terms of costs? It's a huge cost to the tax payer no matter what option is applied. In places where the death penalty is legal, the appeals process goes on forever and that represents a very large cost to the system as does incarceration.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Feb 1, 2021)

IMO our law enforcement/justice/prison system has become a business and the people that have a vested interest in keeping that business going are more worried about their continued employment than they are about public safety, punishment, rehabilitation, etc...

I don't believe that all crimes or criminals are created equal.  Some decent people have done horrible things for very good reasons and they should be punished but not written off by our society.  There is a big difference in my mind over a battered spouse or child that murders their abuser and a kid that commits a murder for the thrill of it.

I have mixed feelings about the death penalty but I do believe that in some cases it is the only merciful thing to do with a severely damaged career criminal, mass murderer, etc...

IMO we would be better served to create a system that allows people to learn, work and remain productive while they are incarcerated. I also believe that we should expand the halfway house programs that allow prisoners to participate in work release, find housing, etc... before their sentence ends.  It's no wonder that the recidivism rate is so high when under our current system we release people from prison with little more than a bus ticket and gate money.

_"Let the punishment fit the crime."_ - W.S. Gilbert


----------



## Pepper (Feb 1, 2021)

When @Aunt Bea writes, wisdom flows.


----------



## rgp (Feb 1, 2021)

Aunt Bea said:


> IMO our law enforcement/justice/prison system has become a business and the people that have a vested interest in keeping that business going are more worried about their continued employment than they are about public safety, punishment, rehabilitation, etc...
> 
> I don't believe that all crimes or criminals are created equal.  Some decent people have done horrible things for very good reasons and they should be punished but not written off by our society.  There is a big difference in my mind over a battered spouse or child that murders their abuser and a kid that commits a murder for the thrill of it.
> 
> ...




  What did our new prez say just the other day? He wants to end for profit prisons ? If I heard correctly, I agree. Private for profit business just does not belong in certain branches of our government & civil service. And IMO prisons are certainly one of them.

  "IMO we would be better served to create a system that allows people to learn, work and remain productive while they are incarcerated. I also believe that we should expand the halfway house programs that allow prisoners to participate in work release, find housing, etc... before their sentence ends.  It's no wonder that the recidivism rate is so high when under our current system we release people from prison with little more than a bus ticket and gate money."

You are talking a correction system ~v~ penial system. IMO, some criminals just cannot be rehabilitated _period _, therefore they need to be dealt with with a more punishment approach. But I do however agree with you that many of them need a closer look, and then an appropriate change made.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Feb 1, 2021)

grahamg said:


> I once refused a lift home when I'd walked from a nearby village and was almost home, (I'd be eleven or twelve, and had caught a different bus and was endeavouring to get home to watch Celtic football team play against AC Milan, or was it Inter Milan in the European cup final).
> This was probably a very innocent occurence, seeing a young boy *hot and bothered* trying to hurry home, but it was my mothers training that we were never to accept lifts that came into my mind, "just in case", as you really do never know!   .


ROFLMAO!

"_Hot and bothered_" here in Canada has a different context. I'll leave it at that.


----------



## ohioboy (Mar 5, 2021)

Gardenlover said:


> Do you believe in an eye for an eye justice system? Why or why not?
> 
> My thoughts are don't do the crime if you can't pay the price.



On the West Pediment of the U.S. Supreme Court building it reads:

"Equal Justice under law". 

An "eye for an eye" has no rational application in modern Jurisprudence, and is an after-life judgment doctrine.


----------



## fuzzybuddy (Mar 7, 2021)

What is an appropriate "punishment"? And what exactly is a punishment supposed to do? And to get even more fundamental, what is a "crime"?  Libraries are filled with huge books on these subjects, so I doubt the Senior Forum has the definitive answer. I don't. An eye for an eye is simple. Life isn't. It's easy to grasp at simple solutions, I just don't know how realistic those "simple" solutions are.  If you steal $10 from Walmart, does that mean Walmart can steal $10 from you? What if you stole $1 million from Walmart, and you're broke. We live in a world of gray. Walmart has to prove you stole either the $10, or the million? Humans are complex critters. And life isn't as simple as "He stole my pen". So a simplistic eye for an eye may not benefit a complex situation. You want to be treated fairly for a crime, not just simple revenge.


----------



## mellowyellow (Mar 7, 2021)

With so many people being found innocent after years spent in prison, it doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## SetWave (Mar 7, 2021)

I believe in equal justice under the law. (good luck with that)


----------



## fmdog44 (Mar 7, 2021)

Why even have a death penalty if there are people on death row for decades?


----------

