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

[Velociryx]

You're lying in a hospital. It's the middle of the night. A nurse comes in, and without your permission, gives you an injection of meds prescribed by some doctor you don't know, can't remember, and who has probably not done more than take a passing glance at your chart.

This phenomenon has caused LOTS of innocent folks to die. By Shawnmc's logic then, I must conclude that he would be against the practice of medicine....and multi-passenger vehicular transit too, for that matter.

Nope, it's not a perfect world, and as fallable humans, we make mistakes.

Now, before you start harping on about how my other two examples (above) are "different" because people enter hospitals of their own accord (for the most part), please keep in mind that this clown had a choice too.....he didn't have to kill his family.

-=Vel=-

[orange]

Confusing Poll. I think I voted right, but I'm not sure.

This should not warrant the DP, nor should any other case, and I always felt that way, so I voted the second option...was that right?

[Gibsie]

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

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Velociryx
You're lying in a hospital. It's the middle of the night. A nurse comes in, and without your permission, gives you an injection of meds prescribed by some doctor you don't know, can't remember, and who has probably not done more than take a passing glance at your chart.

This phenomenon has caused LOTS of innocent folks to die. By Shawnmc's logic then, I must conclude that he would be against the practice of medicine....and multi-passenger vehicular transit too, for that matter.

There's no parallel here, Vel. None of your two examples are designed to kill people. Thus, you can't compare medicine and other things with capital punishment.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Orange: no, you should have voted for the fourth...I think

[Aeson]

Numerous false assumptions here. First, the death penalty is cheaper than life imprisonment. It is in the People's Republic of China. In the US we have this funny thing called due process, and becuase of the extremely final nature of the Death Penalty, we typically err on the side of caution, though the current Supreme Court has been altering that. Thus, a Death Penalty case is expensive, and the economic argument is largely false.

"Cost" is not only monetary, and wasn't meant in a monetary sense in the second part of my sentence.

If you look at your example, there is a definition of the cost of executing those we shouldn't. That cost is falling to the level of the PRC in out humanitarian efforts.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Gibsie
I agree with Vel. Being insane is no excuse to not execute someone.

Yes, but being sane is no reason to execute someone.

[Aeson]

Once we solve all our other societal ills, sure, let's spend some coin keeping our nation's murderous nutballs comfortably tucked away someplace, but as long as there are other, better uses for the money, let's get this guy out of our collective hair once and for all.

My opinion is that the desire for retribution and incapability to understand the actual cause of these horrific actions are the greatest of our societal ills.

In most cases the perceived lack of resources and (conscious) violence are due to these two things. People who hoard value because they feel they are more valuable than anyone else, and thus more deserving of value. People who feel violence is their right, because violence has been committed against themselves.

Sure there are limited resources on this planet. We haven't come close to pushing those limits yet as would apply to just being able to live a happy, healthy life. Maybe not everyone in the world can have 3 cars and a TV in every room all sucking down energy (our biggest resource concern), but there is enough that you can live comfortably even if this guy has a lightbulb in his cell.

We burn crops and pay farmers not to farm while people starve. Why do they starve? Because someone somewhere thinks they don't deserve the food enough to allow them to have it. It's not because #238-634298 is eating breakfast.

On the retribution side, look at the Middle East. "You killed us, so we can kill you". An eye for an eye. How many millenia has that retribution gone back and forth? Here in the US we aren't much better in this account. In some ways we are worse, striking out at targets which haven't even hurt us yet, because we feel they are likely to later.

So why do I think it's important that we not kill people when it can be avoided?

Is this guy going to be better off dead than in prison? Probably. I know that I would much rather be dead than spending my life in prison, but it's not my right to choose for him. All I know is that by killing him to save money, all we are doing is implying money is more important than life.

Will killing this guy keep him from hurting anyone else? Directly, yes. There may be someone somewhere who finds it an action worthy of retribution though. Very unlikely, but it's in line with him escaping and killing others, which is also very unlikely to happen.

And the real cost, we won't ever understand why he did what he did, what lead to him being capable of such a crime. Is it something genetic? Is it something to do with his upbringing? Or a combination of these things. How can you prevent it from happening with someone else with a similar pressure on their actions if you don't know what to look for? How will we know how to help those in similar states avoid committing a horrific crime if we can't figure out how to rehabilitate those who have already done so?

Can he be rehabilitated? Yes, given the proper knowlege. He's different for a reason, what is it? It may be beyond our technological capabilities to answer that question now, but the only way to improve those capabilities is by continuing the advancement in those areas. Study him, figure out where the glitch in the system is, and figure out how to fix it. We have a subject to test on, why kill him? To save some money?

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Giancarlo, that's the problem. Why I reference the PRC, and Texas, the two worse death penalty spots in the world. It's not this individual case, it's the process. The man is evidently guilty.

Then why oppose the death penalty applied in this case? He killed nine people.

But the process must be reliable, with as close to zero error as humanly possible, to prevent the execution of an innocent, or incompetent, person.

Look I am not for a bad system that executes the wrong people... I am for a transparent working system..

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Articles/Pataki.htm

[Kuciwalker]

The solution to the cost of the death penalty is simply not to pursue it in normal cases - only go for it in obvious cases like this.

[Velociryx]

Hmmm...human experimentation as opposed to death...Aeson, you're devious!

-=Vel=-

[Jaguar]

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

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kucinich
The solution to the cost of the death penalty is simply not to pursue it in normal cases - only go for it in obvious cases like this.

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.

[Jaguar]

The fault is really with trigger-happy voters who want to shoot every person ever convicted of anything. If DP were used for John Allen Mohammed, Timothy McVeigh and the like only, there wouldn't be such a big debate over it.

If voters stopped rewarding the abuse of the DP, politicians would stop using it to look "tough on crime"

[chequita guevara]

Oh sure, blame democracy! You conservatives abuse democracy then blame it for the evil you do. You people suck!