View Poll Results: Are you in favour of capital punishment?

Voters
238. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes and it should be used often

    101 42.44%
  • Yes, but it should be sparingly

    84 35.29%
  • No it is immoral

    14 5.88%
  • No because miscarriages of justice are inevitable

    29 12.18%
  • Other (please elaborate)

    10 4.20%
Page 3 of 57 FirstFirst 123456781353 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 567

Thread: Are You in Favour of the Death Penalty/Capital Punishment?

  1. #21
    Account Disabled on Request

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, January 8th, 2010 @ 08:32 AM
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Subrace
    Alpinid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Lappland Lappland
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Posts
    3,255
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7
    Thanked in
    7 Posts

    Question Do you believe in capital punishment?

    There are certain crimes I feel very strongly about which should carry absolutely mandatory DEATH SENTENCES!:

    1. Intentional murder of a child by anyone over the age of 12 (Yes, I would execute 13-year-old murderers, by that age you know right from wrong completely). No excuses like "post partum depression" and other BS for women who murder their own kids.

    2. Any kind of sexual abuse, molestation, pornography or prostitution of a child under 14 years of age by an adult 18 and over. Statutory rape cases involving, for instance, an 18 year old male and 13 year old female (which is not uncommon) would be an exception and resulting in counselling/rehab for both involved.

    3. Intentional murder of an elderly person by anyone.

    4. Violent, premeditated rape (not date rape).

    5. Premeditated homicide.

    6. Incest. Because it's just sick and those people have absolutely no place in decent society.

    The preferred method I would choose for executions is hanging. Laying on a table or sitting in a chair for lethal injection/electrocution is too comfy in my eyes. The gallows psychologically are much more frightening and hence more of a deterrent.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Stríbog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Last Online
    Wednesday, January 12th, 2005 @ 11:45 PM
    Subrace
    Nordid-Baltid (Aistin)
    Country
    Vinland Vinland
    Location
    Where Rust Belt meets Farm Belt
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Occupation
    college student
    Politics
    Environmentalism and eugenics
    Religion
    occultism & Nature worship
    Posts
    2,135
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts

    Post

    I believe in mandatory death penalties, where a jury conviction carries an automatic death sentence, for the following crimes:

    Violent rape of any kind
    Premeditated murder
    Bestiality or sick animal torture
    Child molestation of the kind you described

    My 3 preferred execution methods would be:
    Firing squad
    Gallows
    Riding the lightning

  3. #23
    Account Disabled on Request

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Friday, January 8th, 2010 @ 08:32 AM
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Subrace
    Alpinid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Lappland Lappland
    Gender
    Family
    Married
    Posts
    3,255
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    7
    Thanked in
    7 Posts

    Post

    I forgot animal torturers, those bastards need to be taken out. If you look at serial killers most of them started out torturing or killing animals.

  4. #24
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, March 13th, 2018 @ 09:14 AM
    Status
    Prolonged Absence
    Ethnicity
    Dutch
    Gender
    Posts
    2,668
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post

    I prefer exile to capital punishment. Capital punishment should only be applied to spies and grave terrorists.

    edit: I also think the judge who condemns a certain criminal to death, should also be the one to execute the judgement (ie. he should be the one to inject/shoot the criminal, pull the lever that will elektrocute him, etc. You get the idea.)
    Last edited by Siegfried; Sunday, September 28th, 2003 at 03:00 PM.

  5. #25
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Thursday, November 8th, 2018 @ 04:17 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Other Other
    Gender
    Occupation
    student
    Politics
    Irish Nationalist
    Posts
    1,742
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post

    I really don't know - at times i can say a vehement ''YES!!'' and at other times, I can't agree with it at all.
    Leopold and Loeb murdered a young boy - Bobby Franks - when they were both 19. By a lot of people's stances, including LG's and Stribogs, they should have got the Death Penalty, they didn't and most put that down to Clarence Darrow's speech on their behalf:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the court please, I shall not take much time to review this agrument, if it was one, and after I get through my associates will probably have something to add.

    Now I understand that when everything has been said in this case from the beginning to the end, the position of the State's Attorney is that the universe will crumble unless these two boys are hanged.

    I must say that I have never before seen the same passion and enthusiasm for a death penalty as I have in this case, and there have been thousands of killings before this, much more horrible in detailsm where there was some motive for it. There have been thousands before and there will probably be thousands again, whether these boys are hanged or go to prison.

    If I thought that hanging them would prevent any future murders I would probably be in favor of doing it. In fact I would consent to have anybody hanged, excepting myself, if Ithought it would prevent all future murders. But I have no such feelings. I know the world will go on about the same in the future as it has in the past, at least I think so. My clients are not so important to the economy of things, either in their life or their death, and if this case is like all other cases, it ought to be tried calmly and dispassionately upon the facts in this case.

    I think the Court knows, and everyone else who cares to know, that the defense in this case has met these issues perfectly squarely. It had been a distressing case from the beginning, and, as a matterof polict if nothing else, it is our duty to be open handed and state what we expect and what we claim, and we have done it at every stage of these proceedings. We have not invoked any harsh and strained rules of the law to save the lives of these defendants, and we protest against any such rules of law being invoked to kill them. Any technicality, any foolish or strained argument is enough that they might accomplish their ends, and their ends are death, that is all.

    Really, there is not any occasion for a long talk and for piling authorities mountain high. My old friend might just as well have taken, beginning at the earliest times when courts reported their proceedings, and read from cases down to the present, so far as it had any bearing on this case. He has not cited one which has the remotest bearing upon the issue that is before this court now, not one.

    This question has never gotten to the Supreme Court but once or twice, once in Nebraska and once in Colorado. In Nebraska they held directly that this kind of evidence was competent, and in Colorado they held that any evidence such as they contempted in mitigation was competent, and I defy them to find anywhere any authority upon it; there isn't any.

    The cases that have been read hera are absolutely irrelevant. They might have taken any book, sacred or profane, and read as long as time and it would have had as much to do with this case as all these volumes had to do with it.

    Now let us take the proposition as to what we claim here first/ We have stated it often enough, and yet they seem not to understand it. Many authorities have been read to this court stating what constitutes insanity in law. They have read them a hundred yeard old; they have read them from England, hoary with time and they have nothing but time to commend them; they have read them from Pennsylvania, delivered years ago; and one case from New York, seventy five years old, before anybody knew even what the mind was, or, what is still more important, what it was not; utterly irrelevant. They have read a case from Alabama which said if you had one atom of consciousness you were good enough to hang. I thought I was dreaming. To put it in the exact language of the court, if you have a glimmer of reason, you may be hanged for having a glimmer of reason.

    Well, they couldn't hang everybody under that. I don't know when the Alabama case was decided, but any case from Alabama is old; that involves a scientific question. That is not the law in Illinois.

    Many of these cases, read over and over and over again, without purpose except to consume time and pile up law books mountain high, that is easy, anybody can do that; all you need is to send for a dray and bring them in. So you have plenty of books, whether they have anything to do with the case or not; that is easy.

    But now, just how does this case stand? And I want to call the attention of the Court directly to what is claimed once more. OPf course it will be forgotten when they come to reply, but anyway, I want to make it plain, if it is not already plain.

    Tere is no question, in the state of Illinois, but what legal insanity, which is the only insanity known in this branch of jurisprudence--there is other insanity known in the Probate court, in Civil courts and in some phases of this Court, but not in this kind of case.

    Legal insanity means such mental disease as makes one unable to understant the difference between tight and wrong. Or destroys his power of will so that he cannot resist the wrong and choose the right, that is all there is of it.

    A man may be wholly, or nearly wholly, defective, and still it doesn't come under the definition of legal insanity, in the State of Illinois.

    If these defendants were unable to distinguish between right and wrong, or if their will, whatever that is, was so obliterated that they had not the power to choose the right and reject the wrong, then it could be no defense in this case before a jury and it would not constitute legal insanity. Now that is perfectly plain.

    There is no claim before your Honor that these defendants are legally insane, so that it could have been used as a defense to this homicide.

    What has the Court got to show here in this case that they are legally insane? We haven't said so.

    Mr Crowe informed the court that it was piffle, that they were perfectly sane. He even put it stronger than that. He said my clients were as sane as he is. So I don't see anything on the record at this time to show there is any legal inanity, or any other kind of insanity.

    Now let us see. I might, in passing, say this. I am as a loss to know, except for the purpose of consuming time, why all these old cases have been dug up from the graveyards of the past and presented to this court.

    Our own court has defined insanity; our own courts have defined it. We have had cases from England, a hundred years old, at a time when they could hang a boy of seven. We have progresses; we cannot hang them until they are ten. They could do it at seven.

    They have given us the decisions of courts which are absolutely barbarous and come from the middle ages, and which are not the law in the state of Illinois and nothing like it.

    A great change has come over the law in reference to insanity within the last twenty five years; in fact there is a very great change within the last ten years, and even later than that.

    My brother used the strongest word he could think of for piling up, and he uses the word mountain.I suppose he means Himalaya. A great mountain of authorities are accumulated, and it makes it hard for courts to keep progress with science. But in this state and in most of the western states we have done something in that direction, we have done a great deal in that direction.

    The policy of the law in this state is not the policy in England a hundred years ago, it isn't what the policy was in Pennsylvania fifty years ago or perhaps even today, it isn't what it is in the south, it isn't what it is in many states in the East, especially years ago.

    We have learned something from positions and something from imagination. There are very few men nowadays, who cannot remember, among his friends or inside of his family or his acquaintences, insane people. There is almost nobody that doesn't know something about mental diseases also. It reaches everywhere, and men of science and learning have been investigating it, and they have been investigating toward humanity.

    In the olden days when a man was insane they loaded him with chains and locked him in a dungeon. We have abandones all that, and we consider that a person who is insane is a human being, entitled to particular treatment.

    And we also know that there are many mental conditions and diseases that come far short of a legal defense of insanity; and it would not avail us, for a minute, as a defense in this case.

    We know that men and women may be and are very seriously ill mentally;their minds are very seriously affected, and still they may know the difference between right and wrong; they generally do. And still they may, in some instances at leat, be able to resist the wrong and do the right, and they are still mentally affected, and courts today take account of that.

    Now we have in this state a statute which says that the Court may inquire into any facts mitigating punishment, or aggravating it. My friend put the aggravation first, and then brings the mitigation, but my remembrance of the statute is that mitigation comes first, and it should, anyhow. With a common feeling of humanity it ought to.

    A court before he passes sentence on a human being may inquire as to whether there are any mitigating circumstances.

    Now what does that mean? Is there any catalogue of those mitigating circumstances? Is the State's Attorney to tell you what mitigating circumstances are?

    There is only one person that can say whether circumstances are mitigating or not, and that is the Court himself, who is charged with the life and the responsibility and the fate of the defendants who are before him. He can tell. Even though he is not sure he must tell, and if a circumstance is mitigating it is for him to say and for no one else. ] What is a mitigating circumstance?

    Is youth?

    If so, why?

    Simply because the child has not the judgement of life that a grown person has. A mental condition, nothing else.

    Is youth a mitigating circumstance?

    Well we have all been young, and we know that phantasies and vagaries and haunt the daily life of a child; e knw the dream world we live in; we know that nothing is real; we know the lack of appreciation ; we know the conition of the mind of a child. And has the court a right to consider age a mitigating circumstance, and if so, why?

    Here are two boys who are minors. The law would forbid them making contracts, forbid them marrying without the consent of their parents, wouldn't permit them to vote. Why? Because they haven't that judgement which only comes with years; because they are not fully responsible.

    I am not proposong now to argue to this court whether that would be enough. The court must settle that. I am still saying that it would be a mitigating circumstance which any court would consider for what it is worth. Sometime I amy say more upon that subject to this court.

    The reason that youth would be a mitigating circumstance is on account of the mind, nothing else, the lack of judgement, the lack of discrimination, nothing else. And with the young that is so strong that they are all wards of the court until they become of age when there is any proceedng necessary to bring them into the court, no matter what it is.

    I don;t know, I cannot understand the glib, light hearted, carelessness of lawyers who talk of hanging two young boys as if they were talking of a holiday or visiting the races. It seems to me that if I could ever bring my mind to ask for it, I would do it not boastfully or exultingly, or in anger or hate, but do it with the deepest regret that it must be done and with sympathy, even for the ones whose lives they wish to take. That has not been done in this case.

    I have never seen a more deliborate effort to turn the human beings of a community into ravening wolves as has been made in this case, and to take advantage of anything that they might get every mind that has to do with it into a state of hatred against these boys.

    Now if it be a mitigating circumstance that a boy was young because of his mind, we may say at ten or eleven, or because of his lack of judgement, would it be a mitigating circumstance if, because of mental disease, he had not the ful capacity to act, the full judgement that is needed in the manifold situations of life, o who was only partly responsible, but not fully responsible? The Court would have to say that.

    And I don;t know what there is in Alabama or Pennsylvania or any other state, but I know there is not any court in Illinois that does not consider it, and I know that under our statute they are bound to consider it for what it is worth.

    Now let me go a little further with that.

    Do they?

    Let us see abou the Chicago we live in.

    We are rough, of course. There are people who love hangings, but still we have some sort of fair play and some idea of progress. In the last few years we have established a Juvenile Court in the City of Chicago, and they are spreading out all over, all over theWest and the East. We are taking boys who once would have gone to prison or been hanged, and we are giving them a chance and saving their lives. We are sending defendants, over and over again, to the Psychopathic Hospital to find out the condition of their minds.

    This case has been talked of here before your honor as if we had done something unusual, as if never before did any human being ever call upon a Court to exercise mercy and judgement on account of an inferior mind.

    I want to say this, your Honor. You have been a Judge here for a lng time. You were a Judge in the Municipal Court before you came here. I undertake to say that there is scarcely a case where any court thinks that this ought to be considered that it has not been considered.

    Is it new here?

    Why, some years ago, about seven or eight years ago, a poor boy named Pettit, whom I was asked by some charitable organization to defend, was charged with murder in this court. He was running a delivery wagon; he delivered some goods at a house where there was a baby and a mother, and he found a Bread knife on a table and he carved up the baby and the mother, he killed them both, and I was asked to defend him, and I did; and I did there what I did here; I entered a plea of guilty, trusting myself to the mecy of the court who could see and determine and weigh and understand, and the Judge in that case was judge Barrett, who was once a partner of Mr Crowe, and I called in that case his teacher to show his mental condition on a plea of guilty, and I brought in his marks at school to show that he was backward, and I called alienists who, for th sake of mercy, gave me their time as I did mine, to prove the condition of that poor boy's mind, and Judge Barrett said he wouldn't hang him, he said he was sorry to send him to the penitentiary, but there was no ther place to send him; that was eight or nine years ago. We had a full hearing in court where the boy's mind was looked into.And yet Mr Marshall would have this court to believe ther that was no business of the court, and not even a mitigating circumstance that he was a half-wit, that he had lived in darkness, surrounded by visions and dreams and knew nothing of life, the court couldn't consider it, but we would have a holiday for the benefit of the State's Attorney and hang him. He should have made his argument in Central Africa somewhere, and not in Chicago.

    Now that is not the only case. There was the case of Lloyd who killed a nurse named Clark, and he entered a plea of guilty before Judge Cavanagh. I am not absolutely certain of it, and both sides called alienists, both sides called them. He was a full-grown man. Julius Grinkle testified for the state, a fullhearing, as to his mental capacity, and the court saved his life, as he should. Isn't it a mitigating circumstance?

    Why, your Honor, I am surprised that counsel would tell this court that in this case, if your Honor should listen to this evidence, that the judgement would be a nullity.

    Where do they get it?

    Not even out of Blackstone, which is 200 years old and still good in spots, but only in spots. It is too bad that we have moved in 200 years, and every step we have taken has been at the protest of lawyers and sometimes the courts.

    This man, a full-grown man, killed this nurse and pled guilty to it and was sent to the penitentiary. Wouldn't your honor listen to it? A Judge would have a heart of stone who would not listen to it. And yet they tell us it would vitiate this judgement.

    Well now, I never liked that kind of an argument. I donlt like to make it, either. I have too much respect for your Honor.

    To my mind, if the court should refuse it abd vitiate a judgement, I fancy, if I were a Judge, I would do what I think your Honor will do, I would take the responsibility which we reluctantly placed upon you, and I would carry it, and I would decide it as I thought I shoud, and I know your honor will, and if any other court things differently, let them take their responsibility when it comes to them. I am ashamed even to refer to it, but it has been said so many times here, for what purpose I don't know, but it has been said repeatedly , and it is absolutely futile.

    Why, my friend, Judge Crowe, said that he would, if we appealed it, he said he would go in and confess error. Well now,that wouldn't settle it.

    I remember a case where he went in and confessed error in the Appellate Court where some members of the School Board were sentenced by the Court, and the Appellate Court wouldn't take his confession. I suppose they thought it was given under duress, anyway, and they threw it out of the window and they held them, anyhow.

    So his confessing error does not bother me any. It will be up to the Court whether it will take the confession after it is made. He will never have a chance to make it, I don't think.

    I won't call your Honor's attention to all the cases, I haven't had a chance to look them up; but I know there are many of them.

    I think your Honor has had cases, of that I am not quire sure, but I think you have had cases where you have looked into the mental condition of men who have plead guilty before sentencing them; and what I say is, your Honor, I know most of the Judges in this County, in a general way they have been my friends, and have been theirs, I know I have not sought to mislead them, but I don't believe there is a Judge in Cook County that would not take into consideration the mental status if any man before they sentenced him to death. If there is one anywhere in the world they ought to get rid of him.

    Now I am not speaking of this as a matter of law. I am speaking of this as a matter of humanity, as a matter of common justice.

    I know of no Judges in this county who would be responsible for tyhe death of a fellow man;it is hard enough to sentence a man to die; and every humane judge seeks to find a reason by which he can save life, instead of a reason for taking it; they look for them; they should look for them, as a doctor would look for them and as a lawyer would look for them, because after all life is the greatest and the highest concern, even though that life must be spent behind stone walls.

    If they are reasons that commend themselves to the court, I fancy anyJudge in this state and generation would listen to those reasons. And if this isn't a reason, then what it?

    Now I want to call your attention to one more case, one of three cases in thirty years. I am not exactly positive, but practically positive, in my statement, one of three cases in thirty years, where a man was hanged, in the city of Chicago, upon a plea of guilty, and that was the case of a man named Fitzgerald that was brought before Judge Crowe before he was promoted from being a Judge to State's Attorney; and he listened to evidence concerning the mental condition of the man before he sentenced gim to death.

    Your honor may do it in this case what he did in that, if you listen to it. And you may still find that these boys shall be hanged by the neck until dead, I don't know; but I fancy that no humane judge, no man who is fit to me a judge, would send a boy out to be killed, until he listened to it.

    Over and over in this court and in the juvenile Court, as your Honor knows better than I because you were one of the committee who chose, as I recall it, the first alienist for the Juvenile court a psychiatrist, and he is still in that position, and he has helped thousands of boys who should be helped and hundreds of men who should be helped.

    And over and over again all the courts send people for examination and observation there to find out, and I suggest to your honor that I am sure that this court, and no other court in Cook County, would ever sentence a man ro death by any technicality of the law, until he knew, when they are sent by the Courts of Cook County to the Psychopathic Hospital they are sent there for one thing, and that is that they may be examined closeley as to the workings of the mind so that the court may mete out justice, and justice with mercy.

    I have heard counsel say a good deal about justice in ths court. I wonder if he knows what it is. I wonder if anybody kows.

    Our legislature has done something to help us. It is easy for the person who doesn't think to say that one who commits murder must hang. But that is not the law of this State. It is just as legal that he have fourteen years in the penitentiary that it is that he hang. It is just as easy that he be given a life sentence as it is that he hang.

    And upon what principle, tell me, is the Court to base his opniion, excepting upon the boy himself and upon the circumstances that surround the case.

    I asked my friend, Mr. Crowe. what we were to base it on. He says, "Oh well, something connected with the case."

    Well, I have known them to base it on the fact that a boy had served in France; I have known them to base it on the fact that he had been good to his mother; I have known them to base it on the fac that he had a good reputation; and I have known them to base it on the fact that he was young and immature. In fact, it is almost enoughif they base it on that alone, and nothing else.

    But, your Honor, Judge Crowe says, after I asked him to give me an illustration, a man who shoots another because he had invaded his home.

    Well now, that won't do. The laws of Illinois give no man a license to kill a person under those circumstances, not in the least. It is just as much murder as anything else. But they do give a jury, and they give the court, the right to consider whether, under those circumstances, his mind was functioning as a normal man's mind, and that is in relation to the facts in the case, nothing else.

    Do you suppose any man could get away with a plea as a defense that he had killed somebody on account of some relation with his wife? On no. Nobody would try it. They would say that that condition affected his mind so that he was not responsible, and on a plea of guilty the Court would consider it. On a trial the jury would doubtless consider it, as they should.

    It is idle to talk about all the things that one should consider. If I were a court I might consider something that you wouldn't, both of us might consider some things that the prosecutoy would throw in the waste basket. We can't tell. It is for the Judge, who in a case like this, has the most responsible position that it is given to a man to hold, who has in his hands human lives and the lives of those who are so young that they are wards of the Court, it is for him to say what a mitigating circumstance is, and he cannot say it until he hears it.

    Now let us go a step further with that. I cannot understand what these gentlemen are thinking of. Tell me, or tell you, that this is a new procedure in this court? Any other procedure would be revolutionatry and done simply because someone, somewhere, was anxious to get blood. It would be revolutionary, against all the modern tendancies of this court, and all the modern tendancies of most of the courts in the west and many of them in the east.We haven't the only statute. Colorado has the same. The decisions of the Supreme Court citd here show how they exercised it, by holding the court had a right to consider everything that they did consider, which was all they could hold.

    Now, let me see how this would lead in this case. There are some things that do not need law. Human emotions, human sympathy, common human kindness, ought to count for something in a court of justice. I know that courts are supposed to be blind, in a sense, and they are supposed to have no hearts. When one goes on the bench he muist forget all of his human experience. He must forget that he was a boy, and how the world and its responsibilities asppealed to him as a boy, and how he fell down in a thousand cases that were thrust upon him to meet the needs of life day by day. He must forget all that, and with his eyes bandaged tight and his heart taken out of him he must decide upon the dead letter of the statute; and it is a game which the State has the same right to play that we have, to appeal to anything to win their point. Few of our judges do that, and I am confidant this court is not one of those.

    Now, let us see how this case stands.

    Here is a case where, at this time, it is presented to your honor, and will be presented through this hearing, that these youngmen are not insane within the meaning of the law, That is the only way you can define insanity, is what the law says it is in court. Decisions may define it much better than lawyers, and I think they do., But when a case is submitted to the court it must be governed by the rule of the court, of course.

    For the purpose of this proceeding, if these boys, under some circumstances, knew the difference between right and wrong, as applied to the facts, and had the power of resisting the wrong and chosing the right, then in the meaning of the law they were sane, and they were sane even though they had, in the language of the Alabama Supreme court, only a glimmer of intelligence, they were sane

    Now your honor, we couldn't possibly avail ourselves of the fact that they had only a glimmer of intelligence, or that they were haunted with phantasies and dreams, or that they lived in an unreal world. We couldn;t use that unless it went to the extent that they didn't know the difference between right and wrong or had no power to control their actions. We couldn't use that in defense, because as my friend, Marshall, fairly well demonstrated by a thousand ancient cases, it cannot be a defense. So there you are.

    And yet because they say so, without a line in the world to sustain it, they say that it must be submitted to a jury because insanity is a defense. And therefore we couldn't submit it anywhere, could we? We couldn't prove it to a jury, and we couldn't prove it to a court. But your honor would be asked to pronounce sentence of death on a boy of eighteen and a boy of nineteen , although they might have only a "glimmer of responsibility", although they might be on the border of idiocy, although they may be like this poor boy that I spoke of, Pettit. You cannot use it in defense to a jury, and you cannot hear it in mitigation, because it suggests insanity.

    Well, if that is the law, I trust that courts would ignore, as they have constantly in Cook County; but it isn't the law. We are not that blood thirsty in Illinois yet.

    Now your Honor, it seems to me we have nothing to argue about here. Your Honor cannot ignore the plain statute of this state, that you are bound-- and of course I don't need to bind your honor, I know you would do it anyhow--that you are bound to hear anything in mitigation od punishment in this case. Isn't that statute as sacred as Blackstone or the Suplreme Court of Alabama?

    You are bound to hear anything in mitigation, and has mental condition anything to do with mitigation?

    Why there isn;t any human being but what knows it.

    What is the theory of punishment, anyhow?

    Well, I could talk about that a long while; but the punishments that Courts mete out to human beings tahe account of several things, the character of the act, the age of the defendant, the degree of responsibility. There cannot be any question about that. One degree of responsibility means a certain punishment, and another degree means some other punishment. If not, there is no justice in courts. If men are to be lumped together, the wise and the foolish, the hot blooded and the cold blooded, those who are seriously provoked and those who are not, those who act from motives and those who act without motive, are thrown into one indiscriminate mass, and say the law is equal because it treats all people alike, whatever their capacity, then there is no justice in the administration of the law.

    The first thing considered n punishment is the degree of responsibility of the defenfant, or one of the first things at least, and there can be no justice without that, your honor, and that is why human judgements are so fallible.

    Your honor is the judge. You have to take the responsibility. You can kill these boys or imprison them. You have to take it the best way you can and find out. But are you able to say that your judgements are as correct as an infinite being who might see into their minds and hearts and read their lives? No, you are not.

    Human judgements are uncertain at best. Every human being carries with him any amount of accuulated emotions, lack of emotions and feelings, and all of these things enter into a correct judgement of anybody. Then he needs mercy.

    On top of all that, but no human judge can tell exactly. The least the court can do with that terrible responsibility on his hands is to find out the best he can, and then he should incline to mercy as he finds it out, because justice without mercy is not justice.

    You honor, there is no fact in this case and no fact that could be imagined that arises under the statute that could appeal to a court as much as the mental condition of the one you re about to pronounce sentence upon. Your Honor knows it and i know your Honor will take that responsibility.

    We claim here your Honor, that these boys are mentally disordered or diseased; use whatever term you wish, It makes no difference, at least mental disorder. But, they are not legally insane. That is the position of this record and it is the position on this record before this court and will be

    Counsel on the other side claimes they are absolutely rational. It is not every mental disorder that constitutes insanity under the law. Large numbers of these numerous cases which were read

    by Mr Marchall have no purpose-- were cases where the judges conceded that they were mentally disordered, but still they knew the difference between right and wrong and therefore fit subjects for a hanging.

    Of course, they are all degrees between one who is so far diseased that he can not tell the difference between right and wrong, or is unable to exercise any power of the will, all the way from that to the brightest and most responsible man who ever lived; all degrees. It is an infinate number of steps, from one to the other, short steps, small, steps, all bearing upon responsibility, all appealing to the judgement and the mercy of the judgfe who must decide.

    All this we could raise in no ther way then the way we have raised it. No other way. All this comes directly under that statute, and how often have the state repeated over and over again, parrot like, that if there is a suggestion of insanity the judge must call a jury. There is no law for it, and no reason for it.If it was it would always be easy to get a jury by one side or the other, whether a plea was enterred or not.

    We believe that in this case there will be no evience offered to prove that these two boys are insande in the meaning og the law, and doubltess the evidence will be overwhelming that they are sane within the meaning of the law. One of their alienists has given a prolific interview to that effect, and Judge Crowe has taken great pains since they started to say it, so where is the basis for anything else at this time, and where will it ever be?

    Mental disease does not constitute insanity. Under the law of Illinois it must arise to that dignity or to that degree that the courts have so often stated in this state.

    Just one or two matters I want to speak about, not over five minutes. There has been a good deal said that mental disease isnot an extenuating circumstance.That, as I say, is a question the court will have to decide when he listens to extenuating circumstances.We hope it will appeal to the court. It may not. All we can do is the best we can to put our clients case in as good a light as possible, as we see it, and of course the court must render a final decision.

    What is an ectenuating circumstance? I hold in my hand a bill called the 'segrgation' bill which was passed by the last legislature bu unanimous vote, excepting one, and was vetoes by the Governor for lack of money. This bill provides for the taking care of in institutions, keeping away from society, these persons; (a) a defective intelligence; (b)a defective affectivity or emotion, (c) a defective will. All these people before commiting any crime are to be isolated. Why? Because of lack of control or imperfect responsed in the nervous system or from any other reason in an emergency they are not safe.

    And this bill was passed by every vote but one in the last legislature, calling for the expenditure of seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars to take care of people before a crime was commited; people who are not legally insane and are not claimed to be insane, but people who are so unfitted to life from any of these three reasons that they might be a menace to society.

    The interesting part of that is this, that thechairman of that committee is Mr Robert Crowe, the State's Attorney of Cook County. And it is printed as the Crowe conference on Crime Prevention. I understand it is doing good work in his campaign, which it ought to do, and I notice another name on here that is illuminating as another member of this committee, Mr. Samuel A Ettelson.

    If this had been a law and my clients had been examined, although not insane, before this homicide had taken place, they would have been residents of this institution. Of course--First, by the State's Attorney of this county, by the alienists of this county, by judges of this county, by State Senatoe Ettelsn, why? because they know that the mental and emotional condition of certain people, although not insane is such as to contribute to crime. Yes, they say it can not even be considered by this court. As well holda man responsible for the same strength if he has one hand tied as he had both. It won't be long in the state of Illinois until this kjind of institution will be an established fact and that people who are suffering from mental diseases of such a nature that they cannot under certain circumstances control themselves, are haunted by certain ideas, that they will not be subject to such temptation, and society will be protected from them and they will be protected from themselves.

    Now, your honor, just a word in closing. We lawyers had put up to us a very serious responsibilioty. This matter has been heralded in the newspapers as nothing in my experience has been heralded in the City of Chicago, as a weird, uncanny and most deplorable homicide. The condition of these boys was such that we did not wish to go befor a Jury with the full defense of insanity which is required by the law of this state, but it was such as we believed would appeal to any court as a ground for clemency and mercy in the case of these two unfortunate lads. We had no alternative. We chose what we thought was best, and as much as we regretted we had to leave it where it is today, and we believe inder the consideration of the law and humanity and under the trend of things in this city and this state is belongs here, for this court to take this responsibility, for him to mete out justice, and we believejustice with mercy in this case.

    There is one thing which has made it embarrassing too and which has caused most of the comment of the newspapers. Unfortunately, the family of my clients are reputedto be people of great wealth and great social position. This has added to the notoriety that this case has received. It has appealer to many people with special glamor, That people in this rank and station should be hanged. It has made it embarrassing for State'sAttorneys and for courts; it has been heralded in court and it has been heralded in the newspapers, and it has been a terrible handicap in this case, and would have been a handicap before any jury. For all these reasons we submitted it to your Honor, believing that your Honor will carefully, patiently and humanely listen to the evidence in this case, and trusting on account of our case, on account of the youth, on account of the mental condition, that we may save their lives and we have never asked for more.

  6. #26
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, September 30th, 2005 @ 11:10 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Gender
    Politics
    undecided
    Posts
    90
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post

    Don't let liberals fool you, "An eye for an eye" has existed inexorably throughout history and it is in the evolutionary interest of mankind for it to subsist in the future.

  7. #27

  8. #28

  9. #29
    Member
    Triglav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, April 25th, 2006 @ 12:24 PM
    Subrace
    Arya/Paleoeuropeidal (norda) :D
    Country
    European Union European Union
    Location
    European Union
    Gender
    Politics
    Fairness
    Posts
    2,398
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilist
    Don't let liberals fool you, "An eye for an eye" has existed inexorably throughout history and it is in the evolutionary interest of mankind for it to subsist in the future.
    I agree. However, it's the government who executes these decisions nowadays not those affected by the crime. Under current circumstances I am opposed to it.

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Braveheart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    Friday, October 27th, 2006 @ 03:47 AM
    Subrace
    Don't know
    Location
    New Jersey
    Gender
    Politics
    White nationalist
    Posts
    29
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post

    Criminals of the following crime should be swiftly executed:

    1) Murder (not manslaughter)

    2) Dealing drugs such as cocaine, heroin, crack, etc.

    3) Rape (after the second or third conviction)

    4) Harsh child abuse

    5) Treason

Page 3 of 57 FirstFirst 123456781353 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Nordics and the Death Penalty
    By Hoarsewhisper in forum Cultural & Linguistic Anthropology
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Tuesday, March 7th, 2006, 11:31 AM
  2. Death Penalty-The Lighthouse of Humanism
    By Hoarsewhisper in forum Law, Ethics, & Morals
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Thursday, January 19th, 2006, 02:53 AM
  3. American Religiosity and the Death Penalty
    By Schutzstaffelor in forum The United States
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Wednesday, August 10th, 2005, 06:57 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •