"If this does not qualify for the death sentence, then there is no case that would''

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
There's no point to capital punishment other than vengence.

Vengeance, shmengeance.

Fry 'im!

[Velociryx]

I love the people who say: "I'm normally against the death penalty under any circumstances, but in this case it is justifiable."

Not to worry, you'll never hear that from me. I am FOR the death penalty.

Now, some folks who are against it might think that makes me a horrible barbarian, but I say again....society has a right to defend itself from the things that go bump in the night.

Studying those things from an academic perspective has some value, yes. Long term, it may even make it possible to figure out what makes them tick and prevent it.

Given that there are a lot of other things we need to figure out first (including such things as a cure for cancer and the common cold, and analyzing deadly strains of viruses that have come close on numerous occassions to getting onto America's shores, and lots of other stuff besides), and given that these killers represent a miniscule portion of the total population of this country....all these things converge to make their in-depth study somewhat of a backburner item. Let's tackle the societal problems that effect the largest NUMBER of people first, and then get down to the nitty gritty.

In the meantime....one dead serial killer is one less to worry about getting loose some way or another to do it again. Justice served.

-=Vel=-

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Top off the generator boyz, there's gonna be a BBQ tonight.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The problem is "tough on crime" politicians will keep trying to expand the use of the DP. When SCOTUS relegalized it, at first it was only to be used in the most heinous of cases.

In California, less than 2% of murders end up being tried as DP cases, and many other states, if not a majority, are similarly low.

The proiblem, IMO, isn't selecting the cases that qualify for DP treatment, it's the procedural laxity and poor safeguards that allow questionable verdicts to be rendered in capital cases.

If someone is on trial for his life, he deserves to have excellent, experience legal counsel, and strict requirements for prosecution conduct, evidence handling, police investigation, etc.

[Aeson]

Given that there are a lot of other things we need to figure out first (including such things as a cure for cancer and the common cold, and analyzing deadly strains of viruses that have come close on numerous occassions to getting onto America's shores, and lots of other stuff besides), and given that these killers represent a miniscule portion of the total population of this country....all these things converge to make their in-depth study somewhat of a backburner item. Let's tackle the societal problems that effect the largest NUMBER of people first, and then get down to the nitty gritty.

I disagree with you on two counts. First, that the resources being devoted to keep a criminal alive and in prison would instead be used to cure cancer or whatever. Most of the resources required are human time/effort, guards and construction workers. The money they are paid not only provides for them and their families, it finds it's way back into the economy as they spend it. It doesn't stuff the mattress of the prisoner. There is value attrophy in the situation, but I still don't think the costs are prohibitive.

Second I disagree that the problem at work here doesn't affect the most people. The mindset reinforced by "Fry him" is the mindset that keeps us mired in ignorance. Advancement requires the acceptance that there are things we don't know. Executing someone is the ultimate "I know" statement. Not only of the guilt of the prisoner, but of the moral superiority of the executioner(s).

This is a social issue regarding the 'damnation' of a person, without a proper knowlege of how the person came to such a state, or even what that state is. It is no different than any other such conviction that killing is a moral right. The same mindset is likely the cause of the crime committed in the first place (God complex = absolute moral justification). It's the mindset that allows war and terrorism. It affects us all.

[Velociryx]

Aeson....Oh I see what you're saying and where you're going, it's just that, for me, this is one of those social perogatives that's far behind those that affect people directly. What you say is true, it's a mindset that affects us all, but not in a tangible, direct way (ie, the way that cancer does....almost everybody knows someone who has died by way of that disease, but few know of someone who has died at the hands of a serial killer).

And, while understanding this particular mindset IS important in its way, it's not a big social priority, nor is keeping them under lock and key, and we know this by virtue of the fact that guards paid to guard those on death row aren't making six figure salaries....society just doesn't care enough about it to make it a big draw, and so it is not.

Thus, the death penalty....not handed down by any singular individual, but a group of jurors, and then another group of jurors, and then a group of leagal minds and judges as the case moves through appeals. These folks are in effect, a microcosm of the society they serve, and to that end, the will of the society is carried out.

The day will (hopefully) come when we can come to grips with the problem some other way....when enough of our other social ills that affect larger numbers of the folk IN the society in question have been sufficiently addressed, and we can turn our attention to others that, while equally deserving of attention, are just not seen as societal priorities. Until then, "fry 'em" is both expedient and rather permanant, as solutions go.

-=Vel=-

[Aeson]

It's not an either or though Vel. You don't have to kill this guy to find a cure for cancer. Accept we don't know if it would help the cause, not affect it at all, or even hurt it.

Psychiatrists can study their field while other medical researchers study their own. It's the same thing. Both are trying to further the knowlege we have of how we physically work. Who's to say the breakthrough that leads to a cure for cancer doesn't come from someone studying the brain, or a technique/apparatus developed to study or treat it?

Medical breakthroughs in one field often find applicability in others.

Thus, the death penalty....not handed down by any singular individual, but a group of jurors, and then another group of jurors, and then a group of leagal minds and judges as the case moves through appeals. These folks are in effect, a microcosm of the society they serve, and to that end, the will of the society is carried out.

This is exactly my point. As long as the DP is in place, that is indicative that the mindset (ie. absolute moral justification) is also in place. Disolving that mindset is what will lead to the most advancement in any field, and the most safety for society as a whole.

[Giancarlo]

Okay onto another point people made in this thread.. what the hell is wrong with vengence?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Okay onto another point people made in this thread.. what the hell is wrong with vengence?

It is useless as in it doesn't help prevent crime, nor does it help establishing a rule of law, where the Law is applied, instead of emotional bloodlust.

[Aeson]

Not to mention that most vengence is a result of a desire for retaliation for vengence enacted upon. It's violence that begets violence in perpetuity, at least until everyone who could take offense at your vengeful action is dead.

[Velociryx]

At the macro level, no, it's not an either or proposition, and while the macro level is well and good for looking for trends in any system (societal or otherwise) we all live in the here and now, and at the micro level, and AT the micro level, tradeoffs and choices have to be made.

If a prison has X dollars in their budget, then that's what they have to work with. No more, no less. Decisions have to be made about what to do with that money. Do we upgrade the computers this year, or the security system? Do we expand the prison to make room for this year's crop of nutballs, hire more guards, or do we bring on a staff physician?

Those kinds of choices are our reality, not the macro-level trend-spotting, and IN those kinds of choices where tradeoffs are made, there is, and has been in our society, little interest in paying extravagant sums of cash to fund the researchers who wish to delve that deeply into the minds of these kinds of folks.

Is there work being done? Certainly, and that work will continue, with or without this, the latest killer with bad hair and a god-complex as experimental fodder.

Given that, and given society's right to protect itself from these creatures, I'll not lose one wink of sleep if the generator gets fired up to cook this guy.

-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

I agree with Vel. Being insane is no excuse to not execute someone.

Killing the insane turns the claim that the execution deters other crime from absurd to completely ludicrous.

[Velociryx]

True, Ramo...quite true. However, you must concede that it does make it rather unlikely that that particular mass-murderer will ever do it again, non?

-=Vel=-
(I'm happy to report that NONE of our mass murderers who have been executed have EVER killed again!)

[Ramo]

If a prison has X dollars in their budget, then that's what they have to work with. No more, no less. Decisions have to be made about what to do with that money. Do we upgrade the computers this year, or the security system? Do we expand the prison to make room for this year's crop of nutballs, hire more guards, or do we bring on a staff physician?

If we empty out the half-million non-violent drug offenders from our prisons, the prison system would easily have far more than enough money to lock up people who would be executed (which is certainly not an inexpensive proposotion either). If we ended three strikes laws, even more money would be freed up. The bottle neck isn't money, it's compassion.

As I asked earlier, if it's so immoral for a person to kill out of revenge to justify having the state kill him, how is it moral for state to kill out of revenge?

True, Ramo...quite true. However, you must concede that it does make it rather unlikely that that particular mass-murderer will ever do it again, non?

That may be so, but it's 100% probable that a person is killed if the murderer is executed, while it's extremely improbable that a person is killed if the murderer isn't executed. I'll take the former over the latter any day.

[Velociryx]

Forgive me for not feeling floods and hordes of compassion for a guy who comes out of his house with the blood of NINE FAMILY MEMBERS all over his clothes, including two of the kids he fathered with...his kids.

Sorry, I'll spend my compassion elsewhere, thankyouverymuch.

As to unlocking the doors for half a million people behind bars, something very similar to that was tried with our nation's mental institutions in the 70's....didn't work so well then, but if you're up for a replay of that song and dance....

-=Vel=-