Death penalty is damn right

[Datajack Franit]

Actually, this case appears to have great prospects for 'reform'. I'm not aware of the motives for the kidnap (infertility by the kidnappers is my guess)

They already have a 6 yo boy. The reason for the kidnap was to ask 1 million euros . Police checked their home and found a 2-months storage of the anti-epilectic medicine the toddler needed. All of Italy knew the name of the medicine (Tegretol) so it means they started buying it a long time ago, in small quantities from different pharmacies all over the region.







This bastard has been a suspect since the last 10 days, but managed to get rid of the attention from him by giving interviews asking the kidnappers to release the boy (20 days after he killed him)



He's also famous for beating his own brother Salvatore until his spinal cord was broken (he's now on a wheelchair) and raping a teenager 6 years ago.




His wife

[Wycoff]

[sarcasm]But come on, Datajack... this man is a good man at heart, and he deserves a second chance[/sarcasm]

[Datajack Franit]

Every life is important you know

[Tiamat]

Truly a pillar of society And if the justice system had worked he would have been in jail on the other crimes and not out in the free to harm the child. Does this person really deserve rehabilitation? More to the point do you think they really could be rehabilitated?

I'm just saying....

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Wycoff
Why? Their victims get no second chance.

This might be a good point if the victims had committed a crime. Because that's not the case, however, it's just idiocy.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
This might be a good point if the victims had committed a crime. Because that's not the case, however, it's just idiocy.

So the crime the criminal commited shouldn't be considered a factor in his punishment? The fact that the criminal ended an innocent life shouldn't have a bearing on his sentencing?
Am I missing something, or are you really more sympathetic to the criminal than to the victim?

[ajbera]

Well, they're dead, y'see, so they don't really matter anymore. No point crying over spilled milk. Or in this case, no point crying over a dead 18-month old epileptic child. Not when we can give his murderer another chance.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Remember the purpose of a penal system is to reform, not to avenge. I know emotions speak loudly in cases like this, and it is truly sickening, but the right thing has to be done.

Pretty much my stance on this issue.

Just make sure the prisons are all right, so people coming out won't become worse than before...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
They paniced and took a shovel to an infant's head? That indicates an incredibly messed up mind to me.

You're a lawyer. Go find out what a panicked person is capable of.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Wycoff
So the crime the criminal commited shouldn't be considered a factor in his punishment? The fact that the criminal ended an innocent life shouldn't have a bearing on his sentencing?
Am I missing something, or are you really more sympathetic to the criminal than to the victim?

I bow before your strawman mastery.

The argument:

Why? Their victims get no second chance.

Basically means, as far as I can tell: "Because the victims of a crime do not get a second chance to live, the perpetrator should not get a second chance at life."

It is stupid for several reasons:

First, there is no "first chance at life." Life is a right of people, not a "privilege" granted to you by a government, or even society.

Secondly, there is no equivalency between living and comitting crimes. It is a shame when someone dies, because that cannot be undone - sure thing. But that is not itself an argument to make any punishment done to the perpetrator "un-undoable" in a similar way.

As for the rest of your "argument," obviously murdering somebody is a severe form of crime, and that fact should have an impact on the sentence. That's a fairly obvious strawman. Furthermore, I resent your "Reader's Digest" style of argumentation, particularly the overuse of the word "innocent" as if it actually had any meaning in this context. Is not every murder victim equally "innocent," or are you just viscerally reacting to the fact that a child was the victim? If so, I would propose that you not comment on issues of justice, which ideally should rely on more intelligent reasoning then "OMG cute children let's kill the bastard."

Of course, all this makes me more sympathetic to the criminal, right? The fact that I proposed the perpetrator be locked away indefinitely - yes, that's a lot of sympathy, right there. I sure am buddies with that criminal. Of course, everyone who doesn't share your ideas of draconian, vengeful "justice" is obviously a panderer to criminals and a victim-hater. If that is what you think, I'm uncertain of any further point in trying to convince you of anything.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by GePap
The problem is who decides who those people are, and WHY they don't deserve to live.

Another problem is who gets to make these decisions.

Originally posted by GePap
Maybe there are some people whose mere existance is a horrible crime against society, and they must be exterminated to save us all.... you know, religious, ethnic, racial minorities, foreigners, whatever....

Indeed. Once a society decides that it can put people to death, it is then possible to determine arbitrary groups of people are to be "executed" for one reason or another.

[ajbera]

Society kills people who kill other people. Not arbitrary at all.

[SlowwHand]

Not at all; and never forget, it's an option. Not required.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
I bow before your strawman mastery.

When you make stupid, two sentence posts, then you shouldn't be surprised when the one responding has to draw conclusions as to what you are trying to argue.

The argument:

Basically means, as far as I can tell: "Because the victims of a crime do not get a second chance to live, the perpetrator should not get a second chance at life."

It is stupid for several reasons:

First, there is no "first chance at life." Life is a right of people, not a "privilege" granted to you by a government, or even society.

The government doesn't grant you life, but it certainly has the power to take it away from you. You agree to that yourself to a large degree when supporting life imprisonment, as a true life sentence blurs the line between taking away liberty and taking away life. Unfortunately, your two sentence post (or any of your previous posts in this thread)was far from clear in establishing that you support life imprisonment (what's the point in rehabilitation if you're never going to be released?)

Besides, people do things all the time to get their rights taken away. Imprisonment is a perfect example. Commit armed robbery and your liberty right is taken away for however long you're imprisoned. Life is the same way; do something heinous enough and you revoke your right to life.

Secondly, there is no equivalency between living and comitting crimes. It is a shame when someone dies, because that cannot be undone - sure thing. But that is not itself an argument to make any punishment done to the perpetrator "un-undoable" in a similar way.

The argument is that the punishment should fit the crime. That's a fundamental principle of the rule of law. The magnitude of your crime is probably the most important factor in punisment and sentencing. Let's take for granted that a hypothetical criminal is guilty, and faces either life without parole in a situation from which he cannot escape and from which he will never be released or death. Life without parole in this hypo is as undoable as execution. The debate between the sufficiency of life without parole vs. death in this sitution is a different debate that the one that I thought you were starting (permanently taking a murderer out of society vs. allowing them to return at some point) In the sufficiency debate, death penatly and life without parole are opposites. In the debate I thought you were starting, life imprisonment and death are both on the same side, pitted against rehabilitation and release.

If you do something truly terrible, like rob some innocent person of their life, then your punishment should be severe enough to fit the crime. Why should people who commit the ultimate crime receive the chance to rehabilitate? In all your frothing anger, you fail to even give one reason for that. In fact, your support of life imprisonment contradicts your apparent position in this area, because a true life sentence negates the reasons for rehabilitation in the first place. You indicate an inconsistent position, you fail to explain yourself, and then you get angry when you're misunderstood. Why bother posting?

As for the rest of your "argument," obviously murdering somebody is a severe form of crime, and that fact should have an impact on the sentence. That's a fairly obvious strawman. Furthermore, I resent your "Reader's Digest" style of argumentation, particularly the overuse of the word "innocent" as if it actually had any meaning in this context. Is not every murder victim equally "innocent," or are you just viscerally reacting to the fact that a child was the victim? If so, I would propose that you not comment on issues of justice, which ideally should rely on more intelligent reasoning then "OMG cute children let's kill the bastard."

Ad hominem fluff. Any strawman argumentation is your fault, because your initial response to me was insubstantial. Don't want to be misconstrued? Then take the time to write what you mean. As for who is innocent and who isn't, the law recognizes that there are mitigating factors. That's why there are varying degrees of homicide crimes. We're not debating whether Manslaughter or murder 2 convictions should result in executions. This is murder 1, and this particular victim was certainly innocent. However, if our hypothetical criminal plotted a scheme and murdered some burgler, the burgler would also be an innocent victim of the murderer.

Of course, all this makes me more sympathetic to the criminal, right? The fact that I proposed the perpetrator be locked away indefinitely - yes, that's a lot of sympathy, right there. I sure am buddies with that criminal.

Again, your worthless initial response was far from clear in establishing that you even considered life imprisonment as a reasonable alternative. When you make a two sentence statement categorically dismissing the notion that someone who murders people shouldn't get the opportunity to be reformed, that doesn't exactly show that you think that the murderer should be locked away for life. It indicates that you strongly believe that the murderer should get the chance for rehabilitation, which logically suggests that ultimately the "reformed" murderer should be released back into society.

Edited for clarity.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Wycoff
When you make stupid, two sentence posts, then you shouldn't be surprised when the one responding has to draw conclusions as to what you are trying to argue.

Brevity is hardly an excuse for your flights of fancy.

The government doesn't grant you life, but it certainly has the power to take it away from you. You agree to that yourself to a large degree when supporting life imprisonment, as a true life sentence blurs the line between taking away liberty and taking away life.

The government has a prerogative to defend society. The death penalty does not defend society in any way that imprisonment does not; reviewing this thread is all one needs to do to establish that the primary reasons people give for the death penalty are essentially ones of "vengeance" or "just desserts," and while a state has the right to act to keep its people safe, the state does not have the right to act out of vengeance.

And as for this (emphasis added),

Unfortunately, your two sentence post (or any of your previous posts in this thread)was far from clear in establishing that you support life imprisonment (what's the point in rehabilitation if you're never going to be released?)

I think I actually did already explicitly cover this:

When convicted, those responsible should be put in prison for the rest of their lives where they will be unable to ever harm society again. Anything less would be unjust, and anything more would be simply the blood lust of knuckle-draggers.

Moving right along...

Besides, people do things all the time to get their rights taken away. Imprisonment is a perfect example. Commit armed robbery and your liberty right is taken away for however long you're imprisoned. Life is the same way; do something heinous enough and you revoke your right to life.

Rights should be abridged only when to not abridge them would endanger the equivalent rights of others. You have yet to demonstrate how "doing something heinous" requires death, making this just another platitude. Rights are never revoked, only superceded.

The argument is that the punishment should fit the crime. That's a fundamental principle of the rule of law. The magnitude of your crime is probably the most important factor in punisment and sentencing. Let's take for granted that a hypothetical criminal is guilty, and faces either life without parole in a situation from which he cannot escape and from which he will never be released or death. Life without parole in this hypo is as undoable as execution. The debate between the sufficiency of life without parole vs. death in this sitution is a different debate that the one that I thought you were starting (permanently taking a murderer out of society vs. allowing them to return at some point) In the sufficiency debate, death penatly and life without parole are opposites. In the debate I thought you were starting, life imprisonment and death are both on the same side, pitted against rehabilitation and release.

I'm no legal expert, and certainly not privy to the details of this case, so I won't say whether rehabilitation is or is not an issue in this particular case. For a hypothetical in which the hypothetical criminal is deemed unredeemable by the state (a serial killer, for instance), there is still the remote yet ever present possibility that evidence may arise later that exonerates the accused, something that a dead inmate would clearly be unable to benefit from.

Thus, I don't accept the applicability of your hypothetical situation to real life, because there is rarely any sure way to know that the courts have discovered exactly what happened. However, for the sake of argument, if I do take your hypothetical, I can see the attraction in killing them - after all, as you say, they would both be equally "permanent" solutions - but I see a certain heirarchy of punishment: execution is more serious than imprisonment. A prisoner can still contribute to the world; this we saw during the Stanley Williams incident. If life imprisonment is sufficient to fulfill the prerogatives of the state, why execute?

The argument I usually hear then is something along the lines of "why should we have to pay to keep that SOB alive?" My answer to this is that, unfortunately, what is the duty of a civilized society is not always either expedient or monetarily efficient. Feeding prisoners is simply one of the costs of an advanced system of justice.

Currently, if the statistics I've seen are correct, it costs more (in California, at least) to execute than to imprison. This is largely because of the tedious process of trials and appeals, but again this is largely unavoidable; there is only so much "streamlining" you can do before you start to cut the criminal's right to a fair trial, on which the rule of law is based. This, again, is another one of those unavoidable costs (though certainly there is much in our system that could use improvement).

If you do something truly terrible, like rob some innocent person of their life, then your punishment should be severe enough to fit the crime. Why should people who commit the ultimate crime receive the chance to rehabilitate? In all your frothing anger, you fail to even give one reason for that. In fact, your support of life imprisonment contradicts your apparent position in this area, because a true life sentence negates the reasons for rehabilitation in the first place. You indicate an inconsistent position, you fail to explain yourself, and then you get angry when you're misunderstood. Why bother posting?

There's that "innocent" word again. I wonder what the point you are trying to make with that is?

People should recieve the chance to rehabilitate, quite simply, because people are not perfect. I'm not saying that this applies specifically to this case; it may be that the state deems them unredeemable. Generally speaking, however, people deserve a second chance because the society owes them one. We must not turn our back on any that can be returned to civil society.

Ad hominem fluff. Any strawman argumentation is your fault, because your initial response to me was insubstantial. Don't want to be misconstrued? Then take the time to write what you mean. As for who is innocent and who isn't, the law recognizes that there are mitigating factors. That's why there are varying degrees of homicide crimes. We're not debating whether Manslaughter or murder 2 convictions should result in executions. This is murder 1, and this particular victim was certainly innocent. However, if our hypothetical criminal plotted a scheme and murdered some burgler, the burgler would also be an innocent victim of the murderer.

Your posts demonstrate a consistent appeal to people's sympathy for "innocent children," which is a meaningless phrase, and you've done nothing to say otherwise. Degrees of murder are based on the intent of the killer, not on the degree of "innocentness" of the victim. All victims of murder are innocent. If you want your arguments to be taken seriously, drop the pithy emotional appeals and start making some sense.