Considering the disease and abuse that are at epidemic levels, and the general welfare of the inmates, a 30 years sentence is a life term. For some, months in jail put them in a coffin.

And that is a bad thing? These are criminals, remember, not Club Med guests.

And that is a bad thing? These are criminals, remember, not Club Med guests.


The Penal Code according to Baboon's rules...

Murder - Death in Fox Hill
Manslaughter - Death in Fox Hill
Rape - Death in Fox Hill
Theft - Death in Fox Hill
Contempt of Court - Death in Fox Hill
Speeding ticket?
Not paying the PI Bridge toll?

I'm not putting words in Baboon's mouth, but everyone, criminal or not, is entitled to a humane existance. If we are to put our criminals to death, make it humane. AIDS, thrashing, squalor are not humane means of execution, though no less effective.
I'm a firm believer in a strong penalty for the most serious of crimes, but imprisonment in the Bahamas is a fate worse than death. Amnesty International slams the Bahamas for these human rights violations frequently.

Are those that do make it out of Fox Hill alive reformed and productive members of society, or are they so mentally scarred by the experience that they can no longer function? It would be interesting to know what percentage of criminals actually commit a crime again and go back to prison, knowing the life they would be subjected to. Talk about a deterrant! :rip:

Murder - Death in Fox Hill - YES
Manslaughter - Death in Fox Hill - DEPENDS
Rape - Death in Fox Hill - DEPENDS - lots of false charges occur
Theft - Death in Fox Hill - DEPENDS - IF IT IS VIOLENT THEFT - YES

THESE ARE NOT CRIMES AGAINST OTHER HUMANS:
Contempt of Court - NO
Speeding ticket? - NO especially in this country with prehistoric speed limits.
Not paying the PI Bridge toll? - Same as Theft


Are those that do make it out of Fox Hill alive reformed and productive members of society, or are they so mentally scarred by the experience that they can no longer function? It would be interesting to know what percentage of criminals actually commit a crime again and go back to prison, knowing the life they would be subjected to. Talk about a deterrant! :rip:


Actually a large percentage end right back in Fox Hill, when they come out they simply dont care, the majority are repeat offenders.

If it were a family member of mine, I just wouldnt sit still knowing the person that murdered them would get out in 25 years to live a normal life, while my family member no longer lives because of that person.

There is NO rehabilitation for a murderer, they are just that, a murderer, and always will be, they took a life (on purpose) and there is no bringing that life back. Question is, what to do with them? as it appears in the Bahamas some of them are getting off on 1 year sentences even, such as was a case where the murderer had aids and another where they were on drugs. Thats like saying its ok to kill someone if you are high or have a deadly illness, which is wrong.

But im sure Public hanging of them in Rawson Court will change some of their minds ...

just my 2 cents ..


Rory, I would agree with you, provided the murder was cold-blooded.

When I speak of giving murderers a prison term and rehabilation, etc, I am mainly refering to those murders that happen in a heat of passion. Say, for example, two fellas in a fight. Now after the fight starts you don't know how it would end. One could be getting beaten badly and decide to run, etc. That would be Ok in a way, provided he doesn't return with a weapon.

But if the fight heats up one could get killed, and the other fella definitely might not meant to have killed him! He is really sorry! And I believe many murders happen in a similar way. I don't think that fella should be hanged, but he just might be if he does not secure a good lawyer!

Some years ago a friend told me that if a thief tries to lock him up in his car's back trunk, he definitely would resist it and fight the attacking thief at gun point (ie, with the thief holding a gun on him). His argument went like this: If the fella steals his car and locks him (the car owner) in the back trunk and eventually drives the car overboard, he would be just as dead as if he tried to jump the thief and the thief shoots him. But then it could go the other way and he could wrestle the gun from the thief and shoot the thief!

But even then the court may charge the car's owner for murder for shooting the thief! Something for which I think he should be commended and set scot free!

And yes, if strong evidence can be shown that the killing was intentional or cold-blooded, definitely, the killer's life should be taken or he should spend the rest of it in prison at least!

Rory, I would agree with you, provided the murder was cold-blooded.

When I speak of giving murderers a prison term and rehabilation, etc, I am mainly refering to those murders that happen in a heat of passion. Say, for example, two fellas in a fight. Now after the fight starts you don't know how it would end. One could be getting beaten badly and decide to run, etc. That would be Ok in a way, provided he doesn't return with a weapon.

But if the fight heats up one could get killed, and the other fella definitely might not meant to have killed him! He is really sorry! And I believe many murders happen in a similar way. I don't think that fella should be hanged, but he just might be if he does not secure a good lawyer!

Some years ago a friend told me that if a thief tries to lock him up in his car's back trunk, he definitely would resist it and fight the attacking thief at gun point (ie, with the thief holding a gun on him). His argument went like this: If the fella steals his car and locks him (the car owner) in the back trunk and eventually drives the car overboard, he would be just as dead as if he tried to jump the thief and the thief shoots him. But then it could go the other way and he could wrestle the gun from the thief and shoot the thief!

But even then the court may charge the car's owner for murder for shooting the thief! Something for which I think he should be commended and set scot free!

And yes, if strong evidence can be shown that the killing was intentional or cold-blooded, definitely, the killer's life should be taken or he should spend the rest of it in prison at least!


They term the accidental murders Manslaughter, anything more than that is murder. If the person kills some one in self defence, and there was nothing else he could do, then thats up to the courts etc, but that could be either dismissed or manslaughter. Depends on evidence. A murder that happens in the heat of passion is still murder, whether it was planned or not.

I could use one that happened here for example at a nigh club, security was ganged by 2 customers, fight lasted maybe 2 minutes, in that time as he was being fought by 2 people, he felt the urge to pull out a knife and stab one of them, supposedly in self defence, and twice at that, second time the person died instantly. Though due to the location and the other security guards that were just seconds/feet away and to the rescue, it was murder, not self defence. Why carry a knife at all? A knife is not used for self defence, it is used to cut things. There are many other devices used for self defence, including your hands and feet.

There is a certain amount of force that can be used depending on the threat. If you are kidnapped and taken out to a remote area, for example, and have the chance to do what it takes to get free, then any amount of force can be used as in this case it is a life or death situation.

Grown men do not fight, that is for immature morons, If I am attacked by someone that is NOT a fight, that is self defence once i defend myself, the offensive of the two is the attacker, the one that throws the first blow, is the criminal. Under certain circumstances such as the other one having a gun etc, changes the situation though.

I say anyone that does physical harm to another, or steals from another, should be dealt with extremely and get the ultimate penalty that the country/state gives.

;)

Actually a large percentage end right back in Fox Hill, when they come out they simply dont care, the majority are repeat offenders.


So the system is failing the convicts. Sounds like they emerge from prison without a direction, skills, or further support in the form of a probatation officer. Can you imagine how bad off your life must be to consider a return to prison as an acceptable risk for the crime you are about to commit? Rather demoralizing, but not confined to The Bahamas, that's for sure. They see it in the US, Europe, and the rest of the world as well. I wonder if the saying 'a product of one's environment' stands true in this case?

They term the accidental murders Manslaughter, anything more than that is murder. If the person kills some one in self defence, and there was nothing else he could do, then thats up to the courts etc, but that could be either dismissed or manslaughter. Depends on evidence. A murder that happens in the heat of passion is still murder, whether it was planned or not.

I could use one that happened here for example at a nigh club, security was ganged by 2 customers, fight lasted maybe 2 minutes, in that time as he was being fought by 2 people, he felt the urge to pull out a knife and stab one of them, supposedly in self defence, and twice at that, second time the person died instantly. Though due to the location and the other security guards that were just seconds/feet away and to the rescue, it was murder, not self defence. Why carry a knife at all? A knife is not used for self defence, it is used to cut things. There are many other devices used for self defence, including your hands and feet.

There is a certain amount of force that can be used depending on the threat. If you are kidnapped and taken out to a remote area, for example, and have the chance to do what it takes to get free, then any amount of force can be used as in this case it is a life or death situation.

Grown men do not fight, that is for immature morons, If I am attacked by someone that is NOT a fight, that is self defence once i defend myself, the offensive of the two is the attacker, the one that throws the first blow, is the criminal. Under certain circumstances such as the other one having a gun etc, changes the situation though.

I say anyone that does physical harm to another, or steals from another, should be dealt with extremely and get the ultimate penalty that the country/state gives.

;)


Thanks Rory, seems like you can make a good lawyer!

My dad was a policeman much of his life and he always taught us to respect the law, uphold the law and all those good things, which I believe myself and most of my brothers and sisters followed.

But I have always had a strange feeling about courts, like you can be innocent and the judge might just be in a bad mood and sentence you anyway!

Maybe my fears are unfounded, I don't know. But if I ever get into any "trouble", I think I will secure a lawyer to represent me even if I were innocent!

Thanks Rory, seems like you can make a good lawyer!

My dad was a policeman much of his life and he always taught us to respect the law, uphold the law and all those good things, which I believe myself and most of my brothers and sisters followed.

But I have always had a strange feeling about courts, like you can be innocent and the judge might just be in a bad mood and sentence you anyway!

Maybe my fears are unfounded, I don't know. But if I ever get into any "trouble", I think I will secure a lawyer to represent me even if I were innocent!


Yep, always get a lawyer, it is your life you are dealing with. I dont think your fears are unfounded, as it happens all the time where innocent people get charged for something they didnt do, in every country. Thanks to DNA and other advances those help to fix these problems, though question is, do they have DNA testing in the Bahamas, and will they ever use it if they had it? I have met a couple judges and wont put my life in their hands any day of the week! I definately think Judges have too much power on their plate, and though the police officer's job is to detain, It definatelty starts with the police detectives. If they are hunting for a suspect, or have a bad day/hangover, etc, they may make mistakes in gathering and indetifying evidence. The prosecutors go with what info the police give them, then the judge takes what they are given, look at how many hands that info just passed through ....

Yep, always get a lawyer, it is your life you are dealing with. I dont think your fears are unfounded, as it happens all the time where innocent people get charged for something they didnt do, in every country. Thanks to DNA and other advances those help to fix these problems, though question is, do they have DNA testing in the Bahamas, and will they ever use it if they had it? I have met a couple judges and wont put my life in their hands any day of the week! I definately think Judges have too much power on their plate, and though the police officer's job is to detain, It definatelty starts with the police detectives. If they are hunting for a suspect, or have a bad day/hangover, etc, they may make mistakes in gathering and indetifying evidence. The prosecutors go with what info the police give them, then the judge takes what they are given, look at how many hands that info just passed through ....


Yes Rory, I think you are making some pretty good points here.

I heard that regarding DNA, the public hardly knows anything about it and we pick our juries from the public (I understand its mainly from the voters list).

I also heard that some years ago someone was charged with a serious crime (right in Nassau), and all the DNA evidence showed that he was guilty, but the jury declared him innocent, apparently because they knew nothing about this thing called DNA. Don't know if they still use it in our courts, but it seems that something really needs to be done to update the public's knowledge about DNA.

[In fact, the jury system itself needs some changes here. I don't know how it is now, but about 15 years ago, I sat on a couple juries, and I sure would not like to do it again. It was one of the most miserable experience in my life. Didn't even try to collect the couple dollars they pay you for serving!].

It is a terrible thing for an innocent person to be charged with a crime. I believe it can cause all hell to break loose in his/her life!

as long as it can be proven to be self defense and the murderer was unable to escape without killing the victim they should should be given a reduced sentence.

as long as overkill is involved or pre-meditation it should be considered murder.

violent crimes where persons are shot or stabbed repeatedly, while detaining the victim is definitely murder.

The death penalty certainly stops further crime by the person being put to death, whether it deters or not.

I still don't favor the death penalty, and would only agree to it in cases where the victim was tortured to death or purposely prolonged the process.
If it was a fight and the other person was stabbed or shot a few times that could be from the heat of passion and/or pure fear, they may *really* not have intended to kill the person.

I think society should focus on rehabilitation and support for every criminal that is released, and hold whoever begged for their release responsible for their subsequent criminal activities.

persons that kill and are released and kill again, should definitly be snuffed out.

Some crimes are so heinous that they cry out for the death penalty. Some do not. Yet, whom is to say which is which?

I would be for the death penalty if you could give me a 100% guarantee that the accused was guilty. We know that mistakes are made in court all the time. In the U.S the DNA tests are showing that some "guilty" men are innocent. Some men have spent years on Death Row only to discover (with DNA) they were not guilty.

I shudder to think of someone being murdered. I shudder even more to think that an innocent man has been sent to the gallows.

What do you mean you need a 100% guarantee that the accused is guilty? If they are proven guilty it is done so beyond a reasonable doubt! What you have to understand that not everyone is perfect, especially when the life of another man is in their hands. Yes I will admit that when the life of someone is on the line we must make it our soul responsibility to give a 100% in attempting to prove whether or not someone is guilty or innocent. Just think about this, people who were guilty have also gotten off with a clean slate. OJ Simpson is still a debatable topic!!!! So this street goes both ways.

What do you mean you need a 100% guarantee that the accused is guilty? If they are proven guilty it is done so beyond a reasonable doubt! What you have to understand that not everyone is perfect, especially when the life of another man is in their hands. Yes I will admit that when the life of someone is on the line we must make it our soul responsibility to give a 100% in attempting to prove whether or not someone is guilty or innocent. Just think about this, people who were guilty have also gotten off with a clean slate. OJ Simpson is still a debatable topic!!!! So this street goes both ways.



It is important to realize that jurors are flesh and blood human beings, who are prone to bias, subjectivity, opinion, and the most important in this case mistakes. Beyond a reasonable doubt does not necessarily mean that the jury was correct in their verdict, it just means that the evidence does or does not lend itself to either an innocent or guilty verdict, the peron could very well be either innocent or guilty, but without sufficient evidence one must either acquit or convict, simple. In other words the person could not be proven guilty or innocent even though they in actuality were. But when dealing with the death penalty there has to be absolute proof in a person's guilt, because once someone's life is taken, there is no reversing the process, and God help the unfortunate soul who was actually innocent, but found guilty and executed. It is nothing to take lightly, and I am sure before the era of DNA, many individuals were wrongly executed because there was not sufficient evidence to prove their innocence. I personally think it is worse to execute an innocent man than to acquit a guilty person, because there is always a chance that sufficient evidence can arise to rightfully convict that person in th elong run, but a dead man stays dead. So really the 2-way street is more like a one way street from that standpoint.

exactly so cg....
i did a paper not too long ago on the effects of the death penalty on crime deterence...and it wasnt even a factor...i mean it was a non issue to the nth degree!!
but what was found, that the people who beleived in it the most, we die hard religious conservatives, who beleived in the rhetoric of eye for and eye and that sort of thing!
i wish i had my stuff with me here, so i can share some facts!
This is very off topic and I don't want to changes this one. But this is an open question for Yk2bad.
When you do research and come to conclusions they are facts. But when other people do research and come to conclusions and call them facts. You don't accepts these other peoples facts as facts. Then you oppose them with a belief not fact. I don't understand how you can do this please explain :confused:
we are doing another in depth research analysis on the death penalty again...
i would be on it...but politics of the entire shema has me thinking twice about it..
it ought to be good research though...
:friday:

What do you mean you need a 100% guarantee that the accused is guilty? If they are proven guilty it is done so beyond a reasonable doubt! What you have to understand that not everyone is perfect, especially when the life of another man is in their hands. Yes I will admit that when the life of someone is on the line we must make it our soul responsibility to give a 100% in attempting to prove whether or not someone is guilty or innocent. Just think about this, people who were guilty have also gotten off with a clean slate. OJ Simpson is still a debatable topic!!!! So this street goes both ways.

Let it be your life on the line and see what you say then

I do not believe in the death penalty. I would not want to be executed so I would not want others to be executed.
However to protect my family I will kill with out second thought..
But this is not after the fact this would be during the fact.
After the fact we have no business taking someone’s life even if they admit to the crime.

I do believe that punishment should be used as a deterrent.
You get caught with an illegal firearm life no parole none. The door should be welded shut you go in to dye. The public should be able to see you. There is only 1 reason to have an illegal firearm. You have it to do harm with it.

Unless some one can provide another reason to be in possession of an illegal firearm.