[inthebox]

I would also venture to say that at the time of the second amendment a gun was necessary for survival.

No police force, protection from animals, from the natives, from the British, and also to hunt for food.

Now those issues are not as relevant.

I am NOT against the second amendment. Sorry about the double negative and contributing to this thread going off to never never land. :p




Grace and Peace

[ETWolverine]

ITB,

I respect that you advocate some form of gun control. I don't and I don't think that the 2nd Amendment leaves any basis for doing so. Perhaps that's a radical position, but I don't shy away from it.

I have heard the argument that "in the old days" we needed a gun for survival against crime, wildlife, to supply food, etc. but today we do not.

Have you ever heard of the concept of the "social contract"? Essentially, it says that individuals agree to give up certain rights and liberties to the community in exchange for being able to live together as a society and so that society can provide certain protections. It is a very old concept that dates back to Socrates. In modern times, it says that we give up certain rights and liberties to the government in order for the government to be able to take care of us. In essence, that is the argument that you are making. "Now that the government protects us from various dangers, we no longer need weapons to protect us, and guns are no longer essential."

But what if the government is failing to do their job? What if the social contract has been broken? Government is clearly unable (or unwilling) to stop crime. The police are REACTIVE not proactive. They can only react after a crime takes place, they do not prevent crimes. So the government is NOT really able to do the job.

At that point the question becomes, if government isn't keeping their side of the social contract, should I keep mine? If the government cannot protect me from crime, then should I not have the ability to protet myself? And if that is the case, don't guns become an essential survival tool again?

That is where I see our country right now. And that is one of the many reasons that I do not support any sort of gun control at all.

Elliot

[ETWolverine]

Duckling,

Using your own statistic of 1700 rapes in the military in 2005...

First of all, it was 2004, according to the BBC article you cited.

Second of all, the article states that

Of the 1,700 cases reported in 2004:

• 880 involved an alleged assault by a military person against another
• 425 involved an alleged assault by a military person against a non-military person
• 99 involved an alleged assault by a non-military person against a military person
• 296 involved an unidentified assailant against a military person

Seems to me that the only one that is germain to our discussion of rape in the military is the first and last ones combined. That's not to say that the others aren't important, they are. But the only ones that are germain to the discussion of gun control are military vs military or unidentified vs. military. Combined that makes 1,176 cases. Not a small number. However, considering that there are roughly 1,400,000 people in the military, that number becomes 84 per 100,000 of population. That is still a large number... easily as large as Alaska, which has the worst rate of rape in the USA.

So we need to ask a few questions.

1) Where any of the victims carrying guns? I would guess not. A gun isn't a deterrent if they aren't available to be used.

2) Where the assailants carying guns? Probably not. If they were, they would have shot their victims to keep them from talking at all.

3) Where did the rapes take place? Was it in view of people who were armed? Again, probably not, or else the armed bystanders would have stopped the rape from taking place.

4) What is the actual level of gun availability in the military? Do people walk around armed all the time, even if their duties have nothing to do with carrying a gun? Usually not.

5) What has been the law enforcement environement? Gun availability alone is not enough to stop crime. Gun availability combined with proper law enforcement are required to do the job properly. And it seems to me that the military has NOT been doing enforcement propely vis-à-vis rape cases.

So in fact, gun availability played no part in the crime, and not having a gun left the victim unable to defend herself. If the victims had a gun, they probably would have used it. If witnesses had a weapon, they would have stopped the rape fom occurring. So having a gun would have changed the entire event, wouldn't it?

As for the 37 women who came out of Iraq and claimed to have been raped, please keep in mind that there were at the time of the article roughly 130,000 troops in Iraq. That means that the number of rapes was roughly 28 per 100,000 of population. That actually makes it lower than the national average, and comparable to the lowest third of all states. And yet even that number is too high. No question about that.

So why were these women unarmed? And if they were armed, why didn't they use their weapon?

This is not to blame the victims. I blame a system that disallows anyone to carry a weapon in a dangerous environment. I blame a bureaucracy that keeps weapons out of the hands of female soldiers who are not considered "combat" troops.

Duckling, don't you think that these women would have been better served to be armed than unarmed when they were attacked? I certainly do.

Nor am I arguing that guns can take the place of law enforcement. If the hierarchy of the military isn't taking law enforcement seriously, the result can only be an increase in crime. However, in cases where law enforcement does their jobs seriously, gun availability can add to crime prevention. I blame the military for that lack of enforcement.

There is one thing that I have a bit of a problem with, Duckling, and that is your use of the word "torture". As far as I can tell, none of these women have been water-boarded, forced to sleep in cold cells, or any of the other acts that have been categorized as torture in the media. Have these women suffered? Certainly, and I do not diminish their suffering. But torture is a LEGAL term, and it is one that does not apply in these cases, by-and-large.

Now... you might think that my post is minimizing the problem. I'm not. I'm just looking at it through the lens of analysis. I look at the facts unemotionally and draw conclusions based on those facts. Oftentimes that is seen as "cold" or "harsh". But that is the only logical way to go about gathering data and reviewing it. Emotion clouds judgement. I deal with facts, not emotions.

Fact: guns, while more prevalent in the military than outside the military, are NOT widely available and are in fact restricted to certain personnel.

Fact: none of the victims were armed.

Fact: none of the witnesses, if there were any, were armed.

Fact: the military has been lax with regard to sexual crimes law enforcement.

Conclusion: if the victims or witnesses had been armed, the rapes might not have taken place. Restriction of guns did not prevent these crimes, whereas gun availability might have prevented these crimes. The military needs to take a stronger hand in enforcement as well.

Elliot

[gallivant_fellow]

As i have said before and ill say it again. I see the main difference in our point of views as a cultural one. It is ingrained into your minds. Thats fine. I respect that. Where as me and where im from it isnt. We arent taught that is a attack on our freedom to not carry a gun. We dont think that way.
No problems that you do. Its just hard to fathom for most of us! Like it is for you to fathom our thinking!

Yup, not everyone got a boat ride out of England:)

What I've typed below might sound a little bit repetitive at first, but I hope it helps you to understand a larger spectrum and more details. It's long but I promise it's not boring.

First of all, we have always had guns, guns made this country, our forefathers hunted with them, etc. They are such a regular part of life here. My grandpa needs his gun quite a lot to keep wild animals like deer, red squirrels, etc. from chewing up his wiring or eating his crops. A lot of people live like this here. The US isn't just NYC, Chicago, LA, Seattle, and the big cities, there are a ton of people here living the way I explained my grandpa lives. To them, they think: Why should this perfectly practical tool, which everyone in my family has used in the past, be taken away from me?

However, I think you are more upset about gun crimes in big cities. Drive-bys, school shootings, little boys finding daddy's Glock. You have to narrow down on this specific problem or else people will get guns taken away who don't deserve it. Frankly, I don't think my grandpa and many others are quite fit enough to be chasing a deer with a spear, they need that .22 sometimes.

I agree that a handgun is for killing a man. I see no other use out of it. But people who use guns to murder, many times use illegal guns. If guns were banned, criminals could still easily obtain them. Here's an example: Cocaine is illegal in the US (you're smart enough to figure the rest of this one out).

If guns were banned, responsible farmers and similar people would loose their tool, hunters would lose their sport, everyone would lose their tradition and freedom, and people in big cities would be defenseless against criminals with illegal guns.

[Skell]

Yup, not everyone got a boat ride out of England:)

What I've typed below might sound a little bit repetitive at first, but I hope it helps you to understand a larger spectrum and more details. It's long but I promise it's not boring.

First of all, we have always had guns, guns made this country, our forefathers hunted with them, etc. They are such a regular part of life here. My grandpa needs his gun quite a lot to keep wild animals like deer, red squirrels, etc. from chewing up his wiring or eating his crops. A lot of people live like this here. The US isn't just NYC, Chicago, LA, Seattle, and the big cities, there are a ton of people here living the way I explained my grandpa lives. To them, they think: Why should this perfectly practical tool, which everyone in my family has used in the past, be taken away from me?

However, I think you are more upset about gun crimes in big cities. Drive-bys, school shootings, little boys finding daddy's Glock. You have to narrow down on this specific problem or else people will get guns taken away who don't deserve it. Frankly, I don't think my grandpa and many others are quite fit enough to be chasing a deer with a spear, they need that .22 sometimes.

I agree that a handgun is for killing a man. I see no other use out of it. But people who use guns to murder, many times use illegal guns. If guns were banned, criminals could still easily obtain them. Here's an example: Cocaine is illegal in the US (you're smart enough to figure the rest of this one out).

If guns were banned, responsible farmers and similar people would loose their tool, hunters would lose their sport, everyone would lose their tradition and freedom, and people in big cities would be defenseless against criminals with illegal guns.

This was a good post and I agree with you for the most part. I just want to stress that I am in no way advocating the banning of guns used as 'tools'. I think it would be silly to ban farmers and the likes if your grandpa having a gun. He needs it to survive just as our farmers in Australia needs there's to keep pests at bay. He and they NEED to have it. And I'm sure he would have it legally registered and only uses it where necessary. My gripe is by no means with your grandpa and his gun. I would never want to take that practical tool away from you.

My gripe is why does Elliot need to carry his sniper rifle? Why does he need this? He claims he needs it for protection because the police cant. Well perhaps therein lies the whole problem. Policing. Perhaps the Government needs to spend more on policing in the US rather than policing the rest of the world. Im sure if the trillions of dollars spent on the War in Iraq was spent at home in the US fighting crime then perhaps the police and government would live up to their side of the social contract and Elliot wouldn't need to carry his gun? But alas, no, he still needs it for the day he and the rest of america take down the government.

Put simply I see much credit in the argument that some form of gun control reduces crime. Im sorry if I have come across that I want guns used as tools taken away. Not at all. I stress that point. Guns used for work and sport should be registered legally and stored according to some sort of strict code. If a gun is owned for clay shooting then store it at the rifle range. If a farmer needs his gun for work then there should be strict conditions on where and how is to use his weapon.

I just find it perplexing to think that someone can't walk down the street and feel safe unless they have a handgun. I actually feel sorry for you. We don't have this problem here. I have lived in some of the worst parts of Sydney (our biggest and most 'dangerous' city) and have never ever felt the need for a gun.

To me Elliot is an irresponsible gun owner. He wants it shoot another human. To me you will never justify that. Your grandpa however is the responsible one and id never take it from him!

But thanks for your post. It makes a lot of sense to me and I agree with you!

[gallivant_fellow]

Well thanks skell:) , but the part of my post where I said criminals will always have guns is what I must stress the most. If more gun laws come, crime will just evolve again like it always has and guns will be out there again. Plus, all of the old guns in black market circulation will still be out there. Gun control wouldn't really do much. From what I've seen, the guns used in the worst crimes, like where there are innocent bystanders, are illegal in the first place. I saw something on TV about a little girl being shot while one guy was chasing another guy with a fully automatic AK-47. People order the parts from other countries and put them together, or just have them smuggled into this country.

As for handguns, like I said, they aren't good for anything else but killing. But thank god we have them because if a woman is in her bedroom and she turns around to see a man in a ski mask approaching her, I hope she has a pistol to save her life with (This happened to a lady my mom knew). As for Elliot, who is from NY, right? Improved policing won't do anything for him. Imagine this scenario:

Bad guy: Gimme you money, now!
Elliot: One moment, let me grab my cell phone and contact the police
Bad guy: Uuuuu... POW!

What can I say, it will always be the wild west over here. It's good that you want to keep people from dying, but fire is sometimes best fought with fire.

[Skell]

Yes but Galliant fellow citizens owning guns doesn't seem to stop this violent crime. Even in the cities where gun laws are non existent violent crime is still higher than that in most other western countries. To me it doesn't seem that guns are helping too much.

So perhaps the problem is deeper than simply gun control. Perhaps it is policing. I too still think that it is culture. Australia has a violent culture but not as violet as the US according to statistics. I think a reason for this is that we have limited the use of guns. It has changed our culture. At the time of gun laws being introduced there was an outcry, however now a decade or more on there is barely a whimper of discontent. We still have violent crime, but it doesn't involve near as many gun deaths and violence. The next step is controlling knives and other weapons. This I would argue will contribute again to a change in culture.

Crime will always occur and indeed crime has not changed much since our gun laws have been introduced. Robberies have gone from robbery by gun to by knife. But a telling stat for me is that mass murders / shootings have reduced significantly. In fact they have ceased to exist except for ONE involving two people only.

Where as in the States you have an epidemic of mass murders involving guns. It may not reduce crime but it will reduce murders and that's a start! Ive never heard of 32 people being stabbed to death in one go!

Perhaps the US should look at better policing and changing a culture. Then maybe one day you guys will be happy to turn in your guns because you no longer live in fear. I doubt though that day will ever come. And if it does Elliot still needs his to shoot down the government. :)

[CaptainRich]

Well perhaps therein lies the whole problem. Policing. Perhaps the Government needs to spend more on policing in the US rather than policing the rest of the world. Im sure if the trillions of dollars spent on the War in Iraq was spent at home in the US fighting crime then perhaps the police and government would live up to their side of the social contract and Elliot wouldnt need to carry his gun??

The police can't prevent every crime as it is committed. In any country! Even yours! You read the part about acknowledging the police are re-active not pro-active, right?

If the US Gov't turned the focus on fighting crime here, we'd all be in a group hug while terrorist over-run us.

What I see is the citizen's here have the constitutional right to own firearms, if desired, and YOU don't like it.

Further, I see you have an opinion on US policy, but we do, too. You want to change our policies and our opinions, but you can't. You've clearly stated the US isn't involved in any way in your country, why your intense concern for ours?

You can't change my thoughts about personal liberties, and I have NO interest in even knowing yours.

[michealb]

I've said it before but it seemed to get lost in all of the other posts so I'll say it again. If you want to get rid of something that is dangerous why not start with swimming pools.
Swimming pools kill more people in United States than guns do. Swimming pools have no use except for recreation. A swimming pool often take the youngest most innocent of our society. So given this information should we ban swimming pools? They clearly present more of a danger to the public than guns do. What about cars? They are kill more people that swimming pools and gun combined. Cars are very often used to avoid police and commit murder. Where does it end? Once cars, swimming pools and guns are gone. Do we get rid of pointy objects just how far do we take this train of thought

[gallivant_fellow]

So perhaps the problem is deeper than simply gun control. Perhaps it is policing. I too still think that it is culture.

Like Captain Rich said: police are re-active, not pro-active. And as for our culture: A huge capitalist economy + much racial tension = excessive violence. That's why our culture is so violent. I know how we can solve this problem, we can just kick out all of the other races, throw Adam Smith's and the founding father's ideas in the garbage, and start a new country where the cream stays at the bottom. Sounds good, right? If people can't handle this jungle, then they can get plane tickets to another English speaking country like Australia where they can be perfectly safe and perfectly average.

[Dark_crow]

Has anyone considered punishment as a factor….Saudi Arabia has a very very low % of violent crimes….Hmmmmm, wonder what kind of sentence a person gets, and I bet they don't provide movies and great food.

[gallivant_fellow]

Has anyone considered punishment as a factor…

I have. Me carrying a gun. Instead of someone attempting to murder me getting a life sentence, they get a death sentence.

[Skell]

The police can't prevent every crime as it is committed. In any country!! Even yours! You read the part about acknowledging the police are re-active not pro-active, right?

If the US Gov't turned the focus on fighting crime here, we'd all be in a group hug while terrorist over-run us.

What I see is the citizen's here have the constitutional right to own firearms, if desired, and YOU don't like it.

Further, I see you have an opinion on US policy, but we do, too. You want to change our policies and our opinions, but you can't. You've clearly stated the US isn't involved in any way in your country, why your intense concern for ours?

You can't change my thoughts about personal liberties, and I have NO interest in even knowing yours.

Whoa up there Captain. You got it all wrong. Its not that I don't like it, it that I don't agree with it or understand it. But that isn't your problem, its mine.

Im terribly sorry for expressing an opinion on a public opinions forum. That is all I am doing. Im not telling you how you should run your country and what opinion you should have. Not at all. Im just giving an opinion based on my experience and my research.

And the thing is Captain you do have an opinion on the policies in my country. You have stated them. I think gun control works and is a good idea, you don't. You think it stinks and doesn't work. You think it goes against your rights. You think the policy is wrong. Therefore you think the policy in my country is wrong. You don't like it shall I say!!

I don't have an opinion on your countries policy. I have an opinion on the policy of guns and law enforcement and we just so happen to be talking about the US. There have been previous posts in this thread where Australia's policy has been discussed and attacked. I cop that on the chin and research those claims and come back to discuss / debate.

You seem to be taking it all the wrong way Captain. I don't think my country is better than yours (although it is :) joke.. ), not at all, I'm just discussing something that I believe in, just as your fellow country men here are. They aren't acusing me of anything like you are! They are simply debating with me. Most of your post wasn't a debate, it was an attack on me for having an opinion.

Perhaps I've got it all wrong about how it works on a public forum. Perhaps I should refrain from having input on any thread that doesn't pertain to the country I live in. Perhaps I have no business here.
Because my opinions don't align with yours you don't care for them and you don't want me to express them. Im sorry for that. I just gathered that when someone comes to a public forum they will expect to read other peoples opinions on all matters, particularly on the politics board. Perhaps I should go back to the relationships board where I first met you Captain and where you did want my opinion! Perhaps I was wrong all along in thinking that people of the 'most free country in the world' wouldn't mind someone else other then them having an opinion.

Im sorry my opinion and subsequent enlightening (for me anyway) discussion with Elliot offended you Captain. It was not my intention.

Perhaps you should read the post below to see how most of us feel about others and their opinions here;

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politi...-146794-4.html

I know you have no interest in what I have to say and I'm sorry for expressing it again here but don't for a minute think you will bully or attack me and ill lie down and cop it Captain!!

[Skell]

Has anyone considered punishment as a factor…

You have. The Death Penalty was brought back in but it doesn't seem to deter violence.

"The dozen states that have chosen not to enact the death penalty since the Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that it was constitutionally permissible have not had higher homicide rates than states with the death penalty, government statistics and a new survey by The New York Times show.

Indeed, 10 of the 12 states without capital punishment have homicide rates below the national average, Federal Bureau of Investigation data shows, while half the states with the death penalty have homicide rates above the national average. In a state-by- state analysis, The Times found that during the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent to 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.

The study by The Times also found that homicide rates had risen and fallen along roughly symmetrical paths in the states with and without the death penalty, suggesting to many experts that the threat of the death penalty rarely deters criminals.

"It is difficult to make the case for any deterrent effect from these numbers," said Steven Messner, a criminologist at the State University of New York at Albany, who reviewed the analysis by The Times. "Whatever the factors are that affect change in homicide rates, they don't seem to operate differently based on the presence or absence of the death penalty in a state."

That is one of the arguments most frequently made against capital punishment in states without the death penalty — that and the assertion that it is difficult to mete out fairly. Opponents also maintain that it is too expensive to prosecute and that life without parole is a more efficient form of punishment.

Prosecutors and officials in states that have the death penalty are as passionate about the issue as their counterparts in states that do not have capital punishment. While they recognize that it is difficult to make the case for deterrence, they contend that there are powerful reasons to carry out executions. Rehabilitation is ineffective, they argue, and capital punishment is often the only penalty that matches the horrific nature of some crimes. Furthermore, they say, society has a right to retribution and the finality of an execution can bring closure for victims' families.

Polls show that these views are shared by a large number of Americans. And, certainly, most states have death penalty statutes. Twelve states have chosen otherwise, but their experiences have been largely overlooked in recent discussions about capital punishment.

"I think Michigan made a wise decision 150 years ago," said the state's governor, John Engler, a Republican. Michigan abolished the death penalty in 1846 and has resisted attempts to reinstate it. "We're pretty proud of the fact that we don't have the death penalty," Governor Engler said, adding that he opposed the death penalty on moral and pragmatic grounds.

Governor Engler said he was not swayed by polls that showed 60 percent of Michigan residents favored the death penalty. He said 100 percent would like not to pay taxes.

In addition to Michigan, and its Midwestern neighbors Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota and Wisconsin, the states without the death penalty are Alaska, Hawaii, West Virginia, Rhode Island, Vermont, Maine and Massachusetts, where an effort to reinstate it was defeated last year.

No single factor explains why these states have chosen not to impose capital punishment. Culture and religion play a role, as well as political vagaries in each state. In West Virginia, for instance, the state's largest newspaper, The Charleston Gazette, supported a drive to abolish the death penalty there in 1965. Repeated efforts to reinstate the death penalty have been rebuffed by the legislature.

The arguments for and against the death penalty have not changed much. At Michigan's constitutional convention in 1961, the delegates heard arguments that the death penalty was not a deterrent, that those executed were usually the poor and disadvantaged, and that innocent people had been sentenced to death.

"The same arguments are being made today," said Eugene G. Wanger, who had introduced the language to enshrine a ban on capital punishment in Michigan's constitution at that convention. The delegates overwhelmingly adopted the ban, 141 to 3. Mr. Wanger said two- thirds of the delegates were Republicans, like himself, and most were conservative. Last year, a former state police officer introduced legislation to reinstate the death penalty. He did not even get the support of the state police association, and the legislation died.

In Minnesota, which abolished capital punishment in 1911, 60 percent of the residents support the death penalty, said Susan Gaertner, a career prosecutor in St. Paul and the elected county attorney there since 1994. But public sentiment had not translated into legislative action, Ms. Gaertner said. "The public policy makers in Minnesota think the death penalty is not efficient, it is not a deterrent, it is a divisive form of punishment that we simply don't need," she said.

In Honolulu, the prosecuting attorney, Peter Carlisle, said he had changed his views about capital punishment, becoming an opponent, after looking at the crime statistics and finding a correlation between declines in general crimes and in the homicide rates. "When the smaller crimes go down — the quality of life crimes — then the murder rate goes down," Mr. Carlisle said.

Therefore, he said, it was preferable to spend the resources available to him prosecuting these general crimes. Prosecuting a capital case is "extremely expensive," he said.

By the very nature of the gravity of the case, defense lawyers and prosecutors spend far more time on a capital case than a noncapital one. It takes longer to pick a jury, longer for the state to present its case and longer for the defense to put on its witnesses. There are also considerably greater expenses for expert witnesses, including psychologists and, these days, DNA experts. Then come the defendant's appeals, which can be considerable, but are not the biggest cost of the case, prosecutors say.

Mr. Carlisle said his views on the death penalty had not been affected by the case of Bryan K. Uyesugi, a Xerox copy machine repairman who gunned down seven co-workers last November in the worst mass murder in Hawaii's history. Mr. Uyesugi was convicted in June and is serving life without chance of parole.

Mr. Carlisle has doubts about whether the death penalty is a deterrent. "We haven't had the death penalty, but we have one of the lowest murder rates in the country," he said. The F.B.I.'s statistics for 1998, the last year for which the data is available, showed Hawaii's homicide rate was the fifth-lowest.

TBC

[Skell]

The homicide rate in North Dakota, which does not have the death penalty, was lower than the homicide rate in South Dakota, which does have it, according to F.B.I. statistics for 1998. Massachusetts, which abolished capital punishment in 1984, has a lower rate than Connecticut, which has six people on death row; the homicide rate in West Virginia is 30 percent below that of Virginia, which has one of the highest execution rates in the country.

Other factors affect homicide rates, of course, including unemployment and demographics, as well as the amount of money spent on police, prosecutors and prisons.

But the analysis by The Times found that the demographic profile of states with the death penalty is not far different from that of states without it. The poverty rate in states with the death penalty, as a whole, was 13.4 percent in 1990, compared with 11.4 percent in states without the death penalty.

Mr. Carlisle's predecessor in Honolulu, Keith M. Kaneshiro, agrees with him about deterrence. "I don't think there's a proven study that says it's a deterrent," Mr. Kaneshiro said. Still, he said, he believed that execution was warranted for some crimes, like a contract killing or the slaying of a police officer. Twice while he was prosecuting attorney, Mr. Kaneshiro got a legislator to introduce a limited death penalty bill, but, he said, they went nowhere.

In general, Mr. Kaneshiro said, Hawaiians fear that the death penalty would be given disproportionately to racial minorities and the poor.

In Milwaukee, the district attorney for the last 32 years, E. Michael McCann, shares the view that the death penalty is applied unfairly to minorities. "It is rare that a wealthy white man gets executed, if it happens at all," Mr. McCann said.

Those who "have labored long in the criminal justice system know, supported by a variety of studies and extensive personal experience, that blacks get the harsher hand in criminal justice and particularly in capital punishment cases," Mr. McCann wrote in "Opposing Capital Punishment: A Prosecutor's Perspective," published in the Marquette Law Review in 1996. Forty-three percent of the people on death row across the country are African-Americans, according to the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

The death penalty also has been employed much more often when the victim was white — 82 percent of the victims of death row inmates were white, while only 50 percent of all homicide victims were white.

Supporters of capital punishment who say that executions are justified by the heinous nature of some crimes often cite the case of Jeffrey L. Dahmer, the serial killer who murdered and dismembered at least 17 boys and men, and ate flesh from at least one of his victims.

Mr. McCann prosecuted Mr. Dahmer, but the case did not dissuade him from his convictions on the death penalty. "To participate in the killing of another human being, it diminishes the respect for life. Period," Mr. McCann said. He added, "Although I am a district attorney, I have a gut suspicion of the state wielding the power of the death over anybody."

In Detroit, John O'Hair, the district attorney, similarly ponders the role of the state when looking at the death penalty.

Borrowing from Justice Louis E. Brandeis, Mr. O'Hair said: "Government is a teacher, for good or for bad, but government should set the example. I do not believe that government engaging in violence or retribution is the right example. You don't solve violence by committing violence."

Detroit has one of the highest homicide rates in the United States — five times more than New York in 1998 — but Mr. O'Hair said bringing back the death penalty is not the answer.

"I do not think the death penalty is a deterrent of any consequence in preventing murders," said Mr. O'Hair, who has been a prosecutor and judge for 30 years. Most homicides, he said, are "impulsive actions, crimes of passion," in which the killers do not consider the consequences of what they are doing.

Nor, apparently, do the people of Detroit see the death penalty as a way of cutting crime. Only 45 percent of Detroit residents favored capital punishment, a poll by EPIC/MRA, a polling organization in Lansing, Mich., found last year; in Michigan over all, 59 percent favored executions, which is roughly the level of support for the death penalty nationally.

To illustrate the point that killers rarely considered the consequences of their actions, a prosecutor in Des Moines, John Sarcone, described the case of four people who murdered two elderly women. They killed one in Iowa, but drove the other one across the border to Missouri, a state that has the death penalty.

Mr. Sarcone said Iowa prosecutors were divided on the death penalty, and legislation to reinstate it was rejected by the Republican-controlled legislature in 1997. The big issue was cost, he said.

Last year in Michigan, Larry Julian, a Republican from a rural district, introduced legislation that would put the death penalty option to a referendum.

But Mr. Julian, a retired state police officer, had almost no political support for the bill, not even from the Michigan State Troopers Association, he said, and the bill died without a full vote. The Catholic Church lobbied against it.

State officials in Michigan are generally satisfied with the current law. "Our policies in Michigan have worked without the death penalty," said Matthew Davis, spokesman for the Michigan Department of Corrections. "Instituting it now may not be the most effective use of people's money."

Today in Michigan, 2,572 inmates are serving sentences of life without parole, and they tend to cause fewer problems than the general prison population, Mr. Davis said.

They are generally quieter, not as insolent, more likely to obey the rules and less likely to try to escape, he said. Their motivation is quite clear, he said: to get into a lower security classification. When they come in, they are locked up 23 hours a day, 7 days a week, and fed through a small hole in the door. After a long period of good behavior, they can live in a larger cell, which is part of a larger, brighter room, eat with 250 other prisoners, and watch television.

One thing they cannot look forward to is getting out. In Michigan, life without parole means you stay in prison your entire natural life, not that you get out after 30 or 40 years, Mr. Davis said.

In many states, when life without parole is an option the public's support for the death penalty drops sharply. "The fact that we have life without parole takes a lot of impetus from people who would like to see the death penalty," said Ms. Gaertner, the chief prosecutor in St. Paul.

In most states with the death penalty, life without parole is not an option for juries. In Texas, prosecutors have successfully lobbied against legislation that would give juries the option of life without parole instead of the death penalty.

Mr. Davis said a desire "to extract a pound of flesh" was behind many of the arguments for capital punishment. "But that pound of flesh comes at a higher price than a lifetime of incarceration."

Mr. O'Hair, the Detroit prosecutor said, "If you're after retribution, vengeance, life in prison without parole is about as punitive as you can get."

States With No Death Penalty Share Lower Homicide Rates

Sorry it's a bit long winded but I thought it was all relevant.

Have I just opened up another can of worms? :)

[CaptainRich]

And the thing is Captain you do have an opinion on the policies in my country. You have stated them.

Where have I stated my opinions about your country? On this thread or any other? No where! You have made your version of conclusions, that is all.

I think gun control works and is a good idea, you dont. You think it stinks and doesnt work. You think it goes against your rights. You think the policy is wrong. Therefore you think the policy in my country is wrong. You dont like it shall i say!!!

You're making conclusions based on your interpretations, not mine! You are NOT stating my opinion.

I dont have an opinion on your countries policy. I have an opinion on the policy of guns and law enforcement and we just so happen to be talking about the US.

You think gun control works and it's a good idea, therefore you think the policies in my country are wrong. And, you don't like it shall I say!!
Does that sound at all familiar?? If not , just see your own quote above.

You seem to be taking it all the wrong way Captain. I dont think my country is better than yours (although it is :) joke..), not at all, im just discussing something that i believe in, just as your fellow country men here are. They arent acusing me of anything like you are! They are simply debating with me. Most of your post wasnt a debate, it was an attack on me for having an opinion.

I am not accusing you of anything , simply pointing your own words at YOU! YOU contradict yourself twice in a single post and it's boring. You regurgitate (your favorite word again) your opinion over and over again. And I say it's off topic for this thread. Period.

Perhaps i should refrain from having input on any thread that doesnt pertain to the country i live in. Perhaps i have no business here.

Perhaps you simply forgot the original threads question here. Either that or there's something else you want to start a thread on...

Perhaps i was wrong all along in thinking that people of the 'most free country in the world' wouldnt mind someone else other then them having an opinion.

Everyone has the right to hear others express their opinion, but not to be subject to having it crammed down our throat, in my opinion.

Im sorry my opinion and subsequent enlightening (for me anyway) discussion with Elliot offended you Captain. It was not my intention.

You pointed out that this is a public forum and now you want me to buzz off when I am in agreement with my brethren? Not going to happen!

[Skell]

You think gun control doesn't work. Didn't you say that? That's an opinion on a policy in my country. Pretty straight forward captain.

Why are you so hostile? What's your problem?

How am I cramming anything down your throat Captain.. I'm having a debate with Elliot. Why am I any more at fault than he is?
Why don't you interpret his posts as cramming an opinion down throats!

As is said Captain you were quite happy to ask for my opinion and take in your post in the relationships board. I offered it there and you even PM's me asking further opinion.

Now I don't agree with you my opinion is all of a sudden an attack on your country. My opinion is now being rammed down your throat.

You have double standards.

If you don't like my opinions or think I'm ramming something down your throat either report me to the mods or put me on your banned list. That way you won't have to read them! I won't exist.

Where did I tell you to buzz off Captain? I haven't. I don't want you to. You attack me and when I take you to task on it you rile up.

Its an easy option for you Captain. If you don't like my opinion don't take any notice of it or answer. That's your choice.

Elliot and I were having a debate about an issue and it was back and forth. Im sure if you ask him he quite enjoyed it as did I. He didn't tell me my opinion was not wanted. He told me I was wrong but not unwanted.

That's the difference Captain. You just attacked me and my opinion because you didn't like it!

[Skell]

I am not accusing you of anything , simply pointing your own words at YOU! YOU contradict yourself twice in a single post and it's boring. You regurgitate (your favorite word again) your opinion over and over again. And I say it's off topic for this thread. Period.

So I'm off topic but Elliot and everyone else isn't. Again I'm sorry Captain.

I laugh harder every time you mention that regurgitate is my favorite word. You really got me there again Captain. Good one!

I say your attack on me is off topic for this thread but ill get over it.

If you can't then report me to the mods as I said. That's your option so use it!

[ETWolverine]

Skell, as a side note, I've been enjoying this debate too.

On the topic of the death penalty (yes, you did open a can of worms there), I have opinions on that subject too. Most states where the death penalty has been reinstated, it has rarely been actually used. New York State, for instance, has a death penalty on the books, but it has not been used since it was reinstated, and the Manhattan District Attorney, Robert Morgenthau, has stated repeatedly that he will refuse to seek the death penalty in any case, regardless of how heinous.

So the question is whether having a death penalty that is not actually used makes any difference. I don't think it does.

I don't have as much data on the death penalty as I do on gun control issues. Gun control is a pet topic of mine, whereas the death penalty is one that I spend less time with. I haven't run an actual correlation between crime rates and usage of the death penalty, but I would be surprised if there isn't some sort of correlation there. When I find the time, I'll try to do that analysis and then get back to you with my data, but I won't be able to do it for at least a couple of weeks, possibly more like months. I am curious about the results, though.

On a personal note, I happen to be in favor of the death penalty (big shock there, huh) but I have less data to back up that opinion. I fully recognize that in this instance my opinion is not based in fact, and that when I run the numbers my opinion may change.

Elliot

[Dark_crow]

I didn't have the death penalty in mind at all, Skell. Living conditions and conditions of punishment is what I thought my post alluded to. It seems to me that countries with harsh [By Americas standards] have much lower violent crime rates.

The point I make is that although you point out the truth….Americas % per 100 of populace is high relative to the majority of other countries I wonder if in fact it is because of liberty and the leniency of its criminal justice system…just a thought.