Would You Support The Death Penalty for White Collar Crimes?

[AquaAthena]

For certain white collar crimes that would throw a whole nation's economy into crisis, would you support the death penalty? Would you support handing out the death penalty to those responsible if it could be proven that those responsible knew and didn't care---that greed overrode civic duty and fiscal responsibilities?

Nada.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I believe in CORPORACIDE.

Goldman, for example, ought to be put down, its leaders stipped of their wealth and they ought to be put in prison IF, for example, this latest scandal turns out to be true.

If this latest scandal turns out to be true? Intent? Did they intend to defraud? If so fuck 'em.

Well said.

Fraud on such a grand scale should dictate a punishment that is commensurate with the harm caused.

 

[logical4u]

For certain white collar crimes that would throw a whole nation's economy into crisis, would you support the death penalty? Would you support handing out the death penalty to those responsible if it could be proven that those responsible knew and didn't care---that greed overrode civic duty and fiscal responsibilities?

Are we starting with congressmen?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

For certain white collar crimes that would throw a whole nation's economy into crisis, would you support the death penalty? Would you support handing out the death penalty to those responsible if it could be proven that those responsible knew and didn't care---that greed overrode civic duty and fiscal responsibilities?

Are we starting with congressmen?

r u a clown or a fuckin' moron?

because either way you're a friggin' dope.

If a congressman commits a white collar crime they would be included, but not because they were a congressman.

now STFU or learn to speak and understand English

 

[logical4u]

For certain white collar crimes that would throw a whole nation's economy into crisis, would you support the death penalty? Would you support handing out the death penalty to those responsible if it could be proven that those responsible knew and didn't care---that greed overrode civic duty and fiscal responsibilities?

Are we starting with congressmen?

r u a clown or a fuckin' moron?

because either way you're a friggin' dope.

If a congressman commits a white collar crime they would be included, but not because they were a congressman.

now STFU or learn to speak and understand English

For certain white collar crimes that would throw a whole nation's economy into crisis, would you support the death penalty? Would you support handing out the death penalty to those responsible if it could be proven that those responsible knew and didn't care---that greed overrode civic duty and fiscal responsibilities?

Doesn't that fit what congress did with the housing industry, the healthcare industry, the financial industry, and soon to be: the energy industry? Bernie Madoff must be kicking himself, he could have stolen "trillions" (like congress) and gotten a lighter sentence. Their "greed overrode civic duty and fiscal responsibilities" to buy votes and remove freedoms from citizens. How can you even begin to discuss 'white collar crimes' without mentioning the worst of the worst: congress?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Doesn't that fit what congress did with the housing industry, the healthcare industry, the financial industry, and soon to be: the energy industry? Bernie Madoff must be kicking himself, he could have stolen "trillions" (like congress) and gotten a lighter sentence. Their "greed overrode civic duty and fiscal responsibilities" to buy votes and remove freedoms from citizens. How can you even begin to discuss 'white collar crimes' without mentioning the worst of the worst: congress?

nope. Congress is not on trial for fraud. Maybe you should be.

 

[FA_Q2]

For certain white collar crimes that would throw a whole nation's economy into crisis, would you support the death penalty? Would you support handing out the death penalty to those responsible if it could be proven that those responsible knew and didn't care---that greed overrode civic duty and fiscal responsibilities?

Are we starting with congressmen?

hmmm, maybe I should reconsider my stance
If anyone has ever heard George Carlin's rant on public execution pay per view style then you know what I see as the perfect pilot program starting with congress ;p

And just for the idiots on the board - Yes, this post is SATIRICAL!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

For certain white collar crimes that would throw a whole nation's economy into crisis, would you support the death penalty? Would you support handing out the death penalty to those responsible if it could be proven that those responsible knew and didn't care---that greed overrode civic duty and fiscal responsibilities?

Nada.

why not?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

For certain white collar crimes that would throw a whole nation's economy into crisis, would you support the death penalty? Would you support handing out the death penalty to those responsible if it could be proven that those responsible knew and didn't care---that greed overrode civic duty and fiscal responsibilities?

Are we starting with congressmen?

hmmm, maybe I should reconsider my stance
If anyone has ever heard George Carlin's rant on public execution pay per view style then you know what I see as the perfect pilot program starting with congress ;p

And just for the idiots on the board - Yes, this post is SATIRICAL!

how does posting satire while admitting you admire a dope head make you not an idiot?

 

[Father Time]

So as to not end the discussion completely.

How do the motives for the death penalty differ from those of people we convict of murder?
Revenge
Money
We don't accept those as excuses to murder someone so why should we execute over them?

And I should probably mention that I don't think capital punishment is necessary to protect society from criminals.

I do not support the death penalty for revenges sake so let's strike that one off the list. Though closure for the victims is a plus it does not factor in my support. What it comes down to for me is efficiency. Granted, in its current form, the death penalty is far from efficient but I want to see the system fix the problems not get rid of the penalty altogether. Most of those inefficiencies arise out of opposition to the death penalty anyway.

I think most of those are in place (or at least the many appeals) to ensure an innocent person doesn't get killed or that they aren't handed out haphazardly.

The fact is I have a great many things in this life that concern me and absorb my attention/efforts. The lives of those that commit such depravities are not one of those things. I have no qualms with the ending of their existence and no problem when the government does it as long as there is due process and the criminal is given the chance to defend themselves. These people have seen fit to inflict FAR worse on their victims then we give to them. Executions are incredibly careful to be 'humane' in their methods and most of these people went out of their way to torture their victims.

I see where you're coming from and there's an argument that can be made that most of our methods of execution aren't humane, but frankly as you said it's no reason to throw the death penalty out completely, just change the system.

It seems to me that the punishment fits the crime.

I think a lifetime's worth of jail qualifies but that's just me. If you want to go that route there should be a limit to how low (for lack of a better word) society goes. What should we do for someone that tortures people like the guy from Saw? Should we resurrect drawing and quartering or the iron maiden (I know it was never an execution device but it can be modified to become one I'd imagine) to make sure he gets it just as badly? I know you never suggested it but I thought I'd mention it.

I personally think a long time in jail is more fitting anyway. Odds are their victim had family that is going to be through grief for a long time. Let's say a couple years each (and I'm just guessing), the murderer meanwhile sits in jail for a year or so then gets executed which takes probably less than an hour. Doesn't seem fitting IMO.

What it will indefinitely come back to with me is why? Why keep them alive, feed them, house them and otherwise ensure their wellbeing. Good food and medicine is wasted on these individuals that could be better served a thousand other ways not the least of these given to homeless. These criminals do not warrant our time and attention.

Like I said I don't see any better options, I think of it as a necessary evil.

And as a side not we DO condone killing for money though I predict you will not agree with the parallel. It is legal in many states to kill an intruder that breaks into your house and is attempting to rob you because it is your right to protest your property. Now that is different than the state as they have the individual subdued (that would make it illegal for you to kill no matter the circumstance) but were just making the connection to money here.

I meant killing people for monetary gain, not to protect what's yours.

 

[Father Time]

Are we starting with congressmen?

hmmm, maybe I should reconsider my stance
If anyone has ever heard George Carlin's rant on public execution pay per view style then you know what I see as the perfect pilot program starting with congress ;p

And just for the idiots on the board - Yes, this post is SATIRICAL!

how does posting satire while admitting you admire a dope head make you not an idiot?

Don't trash Carlin, seriously that man was great.

 

[FA_Q2]

So as to not end the discussion completely.

How do the motives for the death penalty differ from those of people we convict of murder?
Revenge
Money
We don't accept those as excuses to murder someone so why should we execute over them?

And I should probably mention that I don't think capital punishment is necessary to protect society from criminals.

I do not support the death penalty for revenges sake so let's strike that one off the list. Though closure for the victims is a plus it does not factor in my support. What it comes down to for me is efficiency. Granted, in its current form, the death penalty is far from efficient but I want to see the system fix the problems not get rid of the penalty altogether. Most of those inefficiencies arise out of opposition to the death penalty anyway.

I think most of those are in place (or at least the many appeals) to ensure an innocent person doesn't get killed or that they aren't handed out haphazardly.

That was their intent, yes. What actually happens are an infinite number of extensions and stays with all manner of claims looked at before anything is ever don and that results in the messed up system we have now. 5 years, that was the buffer that you were given at the start and that is all you should be given. I believe that is sufficient time to prove your innocence. Granted, there are always cases that are overturned from some new technology or another but it is very rare and will get far less likely as forensic science develops. With DNA testing and many of the technologies in place today there is less of a chance of hurting the innocence. I am not naive, it will happen but I do not believe that all the extensions actually mitigate that chance.

I see where you're coming from and there's an argument that can be made that most of our methods of execution aren't humane, but frankly as you said it's no reason to throw the death penalty out completely, just change the system.

I think a lifetime's worth of jail qualifies but that's just me. If you want to go that route there should be a limit to how low (for lack of a better word) society goes. What should we do for someone that tortures people like the guy from Saw? Should we resurrect drawing and quartering or the iron maiden (I know it was never an execution device but it can be modified to become one I'd imagine) to make sure he gets it just as badly? I know you never suggested it but I thought I'd mention it.

I personally think a long time in jail is more fitting anyway. Odds are their victim had family that is going to be through grief for a long time. Let's say a couple years each (and I'm just guessing), the murderer meanwhile sits in jail for a year or so then gets executed which takes probably less than an hour. Doesn't seem fitting IMO.

No, low was a good word to use. Execution is not pretty but I believe that it is the best way to go.

No, I do not want to see things like the iron maiden resurrected. Lethal injection is the method of choice for me followed by the gas chamber. I would redirect you to my last post here. I am not in this because I believe in revenge and I do not care about these peoples (for lack of a better term ) well being. Using something as complicated and intricately designed to cause harm would indicate that I cared. That all involves far too much effort and showcasing. A simple injection as is done today with a select few in attendance (family and/or victims family) is all there needs to be. If I were to get worked up and go for the bloodlust then that puts me on par with the slime that is being executed. I will not sink there.

The same goes to the 'long time in jail' sentiment. Correct me if I am wrong but it seems you are putting fourth that the family goes through much pain for a longer period and the criminal is getting out of that when he is executed, making the punishment not fit the crime. First, I do not believe there is anything worse than death and the fear that is staring it in the eye when it is not your time. Second, I still don't care . Having you life taken after you have taken another's can be very fitting if there is no purpose to keep you around.

What it will indefinitely come back to with me is why? Why keep them alive, feed them, house them and otherwise ensure their wellbeing. Good food and medicine is wasted on these individuals that could be better served a thousand other ways not the least of these given to homeless. These criminals do not warrant our time and attention.

Like I said I don't see any better options, I think of it as a necessary evil.

And that is a place we will likely never agree on. You believe that sacrificing the resources to care for these people is a necessary evil to keep our society civil and just whereas I believe that elimination of them is a necessary evil to keep our society civil and just. It is a matter of perspective.

I would ask, are you religious and if so, how deeply does that affect your belief in this aria? Is there an 'all life is sacred' mantra that figures into your belief in the death penalty? Or are your beliefs on this topic purely secular?

And as a side not we DO condone killing for money though I predict you will not agree with the parallel. It is legal in many states to kill an intruder that breaks into your house and is attempting to rob you because it is your right to protest your property. Now that is different than the state as they have the individual subdued (that would make it illegal for you to kill no matter the circumstance) but were just making the connection to money here.

I meant killing people for monetary gain, not to protect what's yours.

And the state is guarding that which is ours, our resources. That is why I do not condone the death penalty for white collar criminals even though Carlin was most likely correct when he said there would be a halt to organized crime if we threatened to put all those damn bankers that were laundering the money to death

 

[Father Time]

Secular, I have my doubts about the afterlife which is one of the reasons I'd like them to stay around.

If there is no afterlife then IMO death would be a lesser punishment then keeping them around in prison.

5 years of prison and an execution that may or may not be painful vs. at least 25 years in the same prison.

Oh and if you think there's nothing worse than death ... go watch Se7en. Particularly the Sloth scene.

 

[Stainmaster]

Secular, I have my doubts about the afterlife which is one of the reasons I'd like them to stay around.

If there is no afterlife then IMO death would be a lesser punishment then keeping them around in prison.

5 years of prison and an execution that may or may not be painful vs. at least 25 years in the same prison.

Oh and if you think there's nothing worse than death ... go watch Se7en. Particularly the Sloth scene.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cHB3Rbz1OI]YouTube - The Coasters - Yakety Yak[/ame]

 

[manu1959]

For certain white collar crimes that would throw a whole nation's economy into crisis, would you support the death penalty? Would you support handing out the death penalty to those responsible if it could be proven that those responsible knew and didn't care---that greed overrode civic duty and fiscal responsibilities?

what crime ... no one was charged with a crime ....

 

[logical4u]

Doesn't that fit what congress did with the housing industry, the healthcare industry, the financial industry, and soon to be: the energy industry? Bernie Madoff must be kicking himself, he could have stolen "trillions" (like congress) and gotten a lighter sentence. Their "greed overrode civic duty and fiscal responsibilities" to buy votes and remove freedoms from citizens. How can you even begin to discuss 'white collar crimes' without mentioning the worst of the worst: congress?

nope. Congress is not on trial for fraud. Maybe you should be.

So, do you believe that the congress should not have to obey the same laws (legal, moral, and ethical) that we do? Seriously, many times the congress has someone 'testify' before them, it is more about making a scapegoat, than congress taking responsibility for creating the problem in the first place with laws designed to help friends, and not be applied equally. 'You' brought up the subject. The only reason congress isn't on trial is because they have made themselves 'immune' to the same laws that would call for 'harsh' punishment if done by a 'citizen'.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

1) For certain white collar crimes that would throw a whole nation's economy into crisis, would you support the death penalty?

2) Would you support handing out the death penalty to those responsible if it could be proven that those responsible knew and didn't care---that greed overrode civic duty and fiscal responsibilities?

what crime ... no one was charged with a crime ....

I know that. Just because no person has been charged with a crime does not mean a crime was not committed. Read the above carefully. The second part of the statement is dependent upon the first part. "For certain white collar crimes that would throw a whole nation's economy into crisis..." Nowhere do I say what the crimes, if any, were.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

1) So, do you believe that the congress should not have to obey the same laws (legal, moral, and ethical) that we do?

2) Seriously, many times the congress has someone 'testify' before them, it is more about making a scapegoat, than congress taking responsibility for creating the problem in the first place with laws designed to help friends, and not be applied equally.

3) 'You' brought up the subject. The only reason congress isn't on trial is because they have made themselves 'immune' to the same laws that would call for 'harsh' punishment if done by a 'citizen'.

1) Congress as an institution or individuals within the congress? and as citizens or as congressmen/women?

2) You are using the term congress collectively. It is difficult to argue collective responsibilities and collective accountability. You would have to be more specific to have a reasonable and rational discussion on this topic---which I would love to have. Never seems to happen on the internet(s).

3) Did I actually bring up Congress? I don't think so and am too lazy right now to go back...but I will say your reasoning here is irrational.

 

[logical4u]

1) So, do you believe that the congress should not have to obey the same laws (legal, moral, and ethical) that we do?

2) Seriously, many times the congress has someone 'testify' before them, it is more about making a scapegoat, than congress taking responsibility for creating the problem in the first place with laws designed to help friends, and not be applied equally.

3) 'You' brought up the subject. The only reason congress isn't on trial is because they have made themselves 'immune' to the same laws that would call for 'harsh' punishment if done by a 'citizen'.

1) Congress as an institution or individuals within the congress? and as citizens or as congressmen/women?

2) You are using the term congress collectively. It is difficult to argue collective responsibilities and collective accountability. You would have to be more specific to have a reasonable and rational discussion on this topic---which I would love to have. Never seems to happen on the internet(s).

3) Did I actually bring up Congress? I don't think so and am too lazy right now to go back...but I will say your reasoning here is irrational.

You brought up 'white collar crime'. The ponzi schemes that congress has implemented in the last one hundred years could be considered 'white collar crimes'. The individuals that voted the schemes into place have done so out of 'greed' (over the well-being and liberties of citizens).

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I know that. Just because no person has been charged with a crime does not mean a crime was not committed. Read the above carefully.

Well, it counts as a so-called "unsolved" crime. However, that is a moot point, because there is no rational reason why committing a crime should allow society to subject its created torture victims to any form of punitive punishment.

Rational reasoning may be there at the start of efforts to deal with crime, but it often falls by the wayside as passions enter. Society allows society. What should not be allowed is often mooter than moot.

Society today calls for punishments to be commensurate with harm caused...the severity of crimes. That idea had me post the OP.