Posted on 05/15/2009 3:21:42 PM PDT by Chet 99
-snip-
Castro is accused of killing his girlfriend's cocker spaniel with a ball-peen hammer in 2007.
Because he has previous felony convictions, prosecutors say if the 48-year-old Castro is convicted again he could be sentenced to life in prison under the state's three-strikes law.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The last part of what you were talking about is — For me there is a point where I decide that the safety of the innocent is more important than one more chance for the guilty, and I’m okay with that for violent felons after a third conviction, almost regardless of the details [and I’m sure a creative person can invent an exception, but that’s what pardons are for].
—
Well, it comes down to two things, I think. First, it comes down to doing the time for the crime, and then, secondly, it comes down to the penalty being commensurate with the crime itself.
That’s the whole thing in a nutshell...
If you don’t carry through on either part, then the system breaks down. But, if you follow through on each of those two parts, you don’t have a big problem.
—
And then..., another more esoteric consideration is what the founding fathers created in our justice system — in other words, their “philosophy” having to do with being able to convict criminals, versus, preserving the rights of the ones who are actually innocent.
The founding fathers knew that we could have a system that would be geared to convicting the most criminals possible, or a system that would be designed to preserving the rights of the most citizens who are actually innocent.
In doing one or the other, they knew that if they designed a system guaranteed to convict most of the criminals, that kind of system would sweep in a lot of innocent victims, too. And they also knew that with the current system that they did design, in protecting the most citizens who are actually innocent, that this would allow a number of guilty ones to go free, too.
They determined that it was more important for designing a system to make as sure as possible, in a human system, to preserve the rights of the most citizens who are actually innocent. That has resulted in the fact that there will be guilty ones who go free. That’s the *structure* that was designed — on purpose — by our founding fathers. And I know that this is what will happen.
It would seem that some people want to change it from the founding fathers philosophy — to one that convicts the *most criminals possible* even when it sweeps in a large number of innocent citizens. I’m not looking for that kind of change from what our founding fathers created.
That’s why I say that the system will work if sentences are served and the penalty is commensurate with the crime. And just from calculating the age of a convicted person if they repeat a few times, you’ll see they get too old, real quick... :-)
You asked — In what cases is the death penalty a moral imperative?
—
Never in any case if you kill an animal...
===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== ===== =====
And then you asked — Are you against the death penalty in all cases?
In all cases having to do with animals, yes... (and that includes life in prison, too...).
You said — I think counting animal cruelty along with the slice of pizza theft case too are absurdities in a three strikes and you’re locked away with life with no parole.
I think it’s crazy actually.
—
Yes, and people who think it’s okay for that, are absurdities of “life” in general... :-)
[ I sure have noticed a lot of nutty people on Free Republic, it seems... :-) ... A lot of them remind me of sitting in the doctor’s office and he taps your knee and it kicks out, involuntarily. I think someone must “tap” something in their brain and it spurts out something involuntarily... LOL...]
Star—You’ve only told me exclusions.
Yes, animals are lesser beings than humans. For the sake of this question, consider only crime by humans vs. humans.
In what cases for crimes against humans is the death penalty emphatically mandated, morally?
How about the case cited in Post 56?
You said — Star—You’ve only told me exclusions.
—
No..., I’ve given you the answer in terms of what this thread was about and for which it was posted. That’s what the topic is about.
BUT, for your information, I already spoke to the issue you raised, in post #51.
It can get “confused” to someone reading this, in a hurry, though, because I don’t cover all contingencies and it *can vary*.
For example, I would not condone the death penalty for someone killing a person — under the situation that the other person was actually and immediately (at that exact moment) threatening their life and thus, they were in imminent danger of being killed.
But, that same person would be subject and liable to being convicted of murder, if they were reacting from some verbal threats only (in a similar situation). I’ve had a lot of verbal threats where people threatened to kill me. It’s happened a lot to me (out on the street and mostly with people I don’t know...). That would require, perhaps (have to examine the facts here) the death penalty, or maybe life in prison, if the person killed someone on the basis of verbal threats to their life.
So, there’s an example where I would not condone the death penalty, and where I would condone the death penalty.
I would not condone the death penalty for someone that killed another person, which was from an accident or carelessness.
For example, there was a person who killed another person sitting next to them, when they were handling a gun (they didn’t know there was a round in the chamber, as I understand it...). I’m talking here, about a real example that I personally know, and they were never even charged and there was never a thought to having them “pay” with the death penalty (or even being charged or even sitting in jail any amount of time).
The person handling the gun was an older adult who did have a good deal of experience with guns, and the person who was killed, was a young person sitting next to them.
I would give the death penalty for anyone who “wantonly killed” a life (again, not accidents or mistakes or carelessness, to be examined carefully by the situations), no matter how young or how old the life was. In some of those cases, I would give the death penalty for doctors who aborted unborn human beings, along with anyone else who was *directly complicit* in the action, too.
And so, as you see, there are varying considerations that I bring up. And you’ll definitely see, that some of them don’t require the death penalty, and in several cases, don’t even require being charged for murder or being in jail for any length of time.
You’ll also see, as I said earlier, that I did answer the question, “in general” (without a lot of specifics...) in that answer I gave above (post #51).
But, this is off-topic for “wantonly killing” an animal and warranting *even* a life sentence (and only if it were outside of societal norms for that animal and that situation). At most, it might be three months, if even that.... That’s the level of comparison I would give to an animal as compared to a human being.
Believe me, someday the issue will not be "how" you kill an animal; the issue will simply be that you "did" kill an animal.
You may think I'm exaggerating, but just look at what our government has managed to change over the past 45 years or so.
And how about PETA. If they had their way, you couldn't even own a fly swatter or a mouse trap.
I'm not defending the guy who killed the dog, but the punishment is too severe.
...or the description/depiction of the crime is out of whack with what really occurred. You also conveniently skip over the point that committing a thrid, violent, felony is also a separate offense and violation of societies trust. The dog gets him about 5 years; the third violent felony is what nets him "25 to life"...not necessarily life.
In every case of 'facing life in prison for just stealing a _______________' that I have read, and researched, there were a host of other criminal factors involved, which went mostly unreported; were 'bargained' away; were glossed over in the name of sensationalistic headlines. Also always note the stories only mention the maximum POSSIBLE sentence; not the range.
You make it sound like a free market economic transaction: you can beat Mr___ for X number of years; but for just a few years more, you can maim him for life, or even kill him.
In this particular case, we have several factors not in this 'story'.
First, it was a torture killing of the animal that involved not 'hitting it over the head' with a hammer, but beating, drop kicking, stomping, and finally using the hammer...but NOT to just get jollies from killing an animal; but to "punish" and intimidate the owner, his 'girlfriend'. That, plus his two previous acts of serious violence against humans; PLUS several other stints in prison for various parole violations clearly demonstrate a person who can not be trusted to live peaceably in society, the quintessence of 'three strikes. laws.
As to my take, prison is neither a 'payment' nor a rehab center. It is a warehouse for societies dregs. Jails MIGHT teach a lesson, but by the time criminals are incarcerated imprisons, it is a whole different level. If this leaves you scratching your head, look up the legal differences between 'jail' and 'prison'.
The "rehabilitation" crap is a 200+ year old failed Quaker experiment in social engineering, which no one has the guts to end for a return to the previous, "PUNISHMENT" model.
Excellent post.
A considered response. Thank you.
Life is indeed precious.
To Democrats, the lives of the wicked are precious.
To Republicans, the lives of the innocent are precious.
As your post points out, our society has gotten things somewhat topsy turvy. I love animals and believe God wants us to care for our animals and be good stewards of all His blessings, including our pets, our livestock, and so on, but this guy’s got some issues. Next time the ball peen might be used on his girlfriend, particularly if no dog IS available.
Meanwhile, Hitler and his pals were great animal rights people. While torturing and killing animals is a huge red flag for people who often later kill humans, many who LOVE animals have been known to be true brutes to humankind; thus, animal lovers are not necessarily good people.
As for PETA, I could write a book on those boneheads. Bet there’s a lot of ‘em out in Cali.
Exactly. No tears here either.
If this had been the guy’s first offense, I think I’d agree with you perhaps but I’d say more than a thousand hours. I also agree that people need to be held accountable, but then on the other side of the coin, would you want to work with this nut? I wouldn’t.
The point, I believe, is that he has committed a third offense and the crime is significant enough that it meets the requirements for the 3rd felony (if I understand correctly). This guy is the type of person that society needs to lock up - he is a danger and nobody knows who’s going to be on the end of the ball peen hammer next time. I wouldn’t want that on my conscience - that’s for sure.
Opinion noted......... Stay safe !
liberal animal rights laws will destroy human rights. Life in prison for an animal???? the taxpayers have better stuff to pay for than a life sentance (about $50,000 a year I think) does this man deserve to give up his life for this animal.
animal laws are out of control. but what do you expect in californazia????
did nto an illegal in another state get a considerably shorter sentance for running over and killing a boarder guard with his drug loaded SUV when illegally entering this nation while smuggling drugs???
talk about waked out, life in prison for a stupid animal. there is no justice anymore. the judge should be executed, this is a huige violation of human rights. you dont lock up some one for life over an animal. he should be fined to pay for a new animal. no life prison, this is dumb, sick and liberal to the core. but that is californazia for you.
not scum of the earth. scum of the earth is the government for allowing legal murder of human babies. abortionsists deserve death, as they kill people. this animal thing, he is not scum of the earth, there are manymany crime aginst humans that rank much higher in scum than teh life of an animal.
I ran over an animal in my car, killed it shoudl I be charged for involentary animal slughter??? what is I dont stop, is it an inhanced hit and run??? what if it is a dog, a deer, a posum, a squirel, a rabbit, a bird, a fly??? where does it end??? dogs are granted rights? but what about cows, rats??? (I love to kill rats, I am sicko about it, got to kill them all, dont want them even near my home, bait them all the time, must make me a member of unpolite society????? maybe makes me more likely to be a serial killer since I kill rats with no remorse, and I actually enjoy it. you think that is bad, wait till you hear my attitude towards mosquitos. No mercy!!!
this law is bad, animals have no rights, people have rights. peopels rights should not be taken over by animal rights. these should be a simply property crime, he ruined property and if it is less than $500 in value or what ever stautory limits, it should not be a felony either.
I can buy and slaughter a bull, chicken, pig most any animal, yet I am jailed for life over a dog???? this man has moral justification to kill his captors and escape in my view. to put him in jail for life is a travisty of justice. And I dotn want ot hear about any whinning from doggy owners that think there dogs are like little people, get with reality, humans EAT animals.
god I hate animal rights!!!
Would you excuse a person, who beat to death a valuable race horse, or other valuable livestock? If so, why is there a distinction?
Well, you’re not going to want to excuse the destruction of property, but simply have the crime (or accident, if that’s what it is) matched up to what the nature of the incident is.
It’s like I was saying in another post about this subject. There are — two things — that should be done (and “if” there is jail time).
Make the “time” be commensurate with the crime (i.e., don’t have one guy “in” for murder and serving 7 years, while someone else throws a brick through a window and serves life in prison, for example).
And the second item, make sure “time is served” for the crime.
If you do those two things, it will work out. I pointed out how (if one was inclined to commit crimes a lot) that they would pretty soon run out of “life” (how many years they have to live in any case) pretty quickly. You can’t do too many crimes *unless* people are simply “not serving the time” in the first place. If they are serving the time, you simply run out of years left to live real quickly (and even with “proportionate sentencing” as I’m saying).
As far as value of things destroyed, that’s something to have compensated, too. Of course, not everyone will be able to compensate fully, in all cases, but it can be demanded, anyway, and taken out of money earned in the future.
Thanks for the answer, ST.
FWIW, Virginia made it a felony to shoot and kill a dog, some time back. My problem with that is, if the dog is threatening you, your family or your animals, waiting for the dog catcher to arrive may get you severely injured or even killed.
Should people go around shooting dogs or cats for thrills, and get away with it? No, but if you are threatened by someone irresponsibly allowing his aggressive animal to roam loose, you should be able to defend yourself if needed.
I apologize, I replied to the wrong person.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.