Death penalty is damn right

[germanos]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Is there a difference between dieing of old age behind bars and being fried? The state has taken a life in both instances.

It's the difference of taking a life away from society and taking away a life from a person.

The State has a role with regard to society, it has not a role with regard to a person.

[ajbera]

Originally posted by Wycoff

Maybe some prisoners can still contribute to this world, but I don't believe that they deserve to contribute. If they wanted to contribute, then they shouldn't have murdered people. They've forfeited their right to contribute. We're never going to agree on this, because we have different foundational philosophies. What you see as unjustifiable "vengeance," I see as consequences reaped by a person who consciously and intentionally decided to murder someone without provocation.

This doesn't even take into account that a condemned prisoner can still make a contribution with the time they have left. Tookie Williams wrote his anti-gang propaganda while on Death Row, if I'm not mistaken. Capital punishment is not administered instantaneously - there are many, many years of appeals, etc. The prisoner usually has at leat a decade, sometimes two decades, of life left before him (or her.) Granted, some of that time will be spent on legalities, but there are many opportunities within that timespan to try to do something to make up for the lives that have been wasted.

Most don't. They spend their remaining days bemoaning their fate. Some find God, which I suppose is nice for them, but does nothing to amend for their crimes.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Wycoff


Why? Their victims get no second chance.

Like Cyclo said. The victim's 'second chance' is irrelevant.

=> Because most people can be rehabilitated in some way. You've explained your theoretical view. It's plausible enough, but you're forgetting the context in which crimes were comitted. First of all this case seems to me like a prime example of panic: An accident, then a screaming kid and the perpetrators not knowing what exactly to do decide their best option is to get rid of the kid somehow. They first tried to strangle the kid, and then killed with a shovel. A crude chaîne opératoire if you ask me. If I were a cold killer I would've done it in a more subtle manner.

But more importantly is the context of the perpetrators themselves. How did they become like this, what are the reasons for it. Many youths in poorer districts with little chances of having a good life happen to end up criminals for example. They are educated in an athmosphere that doesn't quite promote the 4 cardinal virtues, right? Well, except for very severe cases murderers still be human yknow, and can be turned into reasonably regular people again.

Education is the key part here. Psychopaths and people with other manic and mental disorders are evidently a different matter, but regular people are impressionable and certainly are the product of agents in their neighbourhood influencing them. I can think of quite a few examples myself how my thoughts were changed, and what influences changed my views forth and back again.

Killing people is a coward's solution in my eyes. It's like a parent beating his kid... That's openly admitting ones weakness. Ya owe it to yourself trying to do better than that damnit!
That's perhaps a bit too idealistic, but you get the point I suppose.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Traianvs
Like Cyclo said. The victim's 'second chance' is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant. Far from it. The permanence of the crime is what makes us consider the crime to be so serious, and it is what justifies the harsher punishment. That's why murder is punished much more severely than simple assault.

They first tried to strangle the kid, and then killed with a shovel

Maybe you can argue that they just reacted to the situation as they were strangling the child. However, they had time to think about killing the child as they were strangling it, thinking about it enough to come up with an alternate murder plan (i.e. smashing its head with a shovel). That change in tactics would almost certainly be enough to get Murder 1. Premeditated doesn't mean that it has to be a pefectly hatched scheme; it only means that the killer had time to think about what he was doing and chose to continue with the killing.

How did they become like this, what are the reasons for it. Many youths in poorer districts with little chances of having a good life happen to end up criminals for example. They are educated in an athmosphere that doesn't quite promote the 4 cardinal virtues, right?

So what? They were raised in a poor area, so they shouldn't be expected to know that murdering people is illegal and wrong? I don't buy that argument. This isn't some complex crime like fraud. It's not a survival crime like shoplifting can be. It's murder. Growing up in a poor environment doesn't make that any more excusable.

Ya owe it to yourself trying to do better than that damnit!

This is where we'll never agree. I can at least understand where the people who support life w/o parole are coming from. I cannot understand the "everyone deserves a chance (or chances) to become 'rehabilitated', no matter the crime" argument.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Wycoff


Why? Their victims get no second chance.

Who cares?

Justice is about the living, not the dead. The dead, by definition, are no longer part of society. They are no longer an issue in this respect.

[GePap]

Originally posted by ajbera
Society kills people who kill other people. Not arbitrary at all.

We don;t kill our soldiers. We give them medals if they kill lots. Maybe name a building after them.

Killing is not the issue.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Traianvs
=> Because most people can be rehabilitated in some way.

I'm not the least bit interested in the rehabilitaion of someone who murders children or engages in the torture and murder of adults for jollies.

[GePap]

Originally posted by ajbera

This, however, is a specious argument. It's coming from an emotional perspective, like the accusation that we're crying for the DP just because it's an epileptic toddler. We're not. The penalty should be the same whether the victim was a child, adult, or elderly person.

Except that the arguement that this crime is special is the basis for the whole thread.

The question is whether or not kidnapping someone, beating their skull in with a shovel, then tossing them in the river is a crime heinous enough to warrant State-sponsored extinction. I think it is; you think it isn't. It doesn't matter who the victim is.

The DP is America is completely based on the "worth" of the victim. You could never get a DP in the case of some 1st degree murder in which the victim was sleazier than the murderer, meaing the DP in the US is ALL about the relative worth of mmurder vs. victim. Which is why Black males who kill whites get the DP far more often than say a Black male who kills another Black male. Its all in the numbers.

[notyoueither]

My problems with the DP would be several. They are named Guy-Paul Morin, David Milgaard...

Men convicted of capital murder on flimsy or faked evidence.

My reasons for the DP are several. Clifford Olsen, Bernardo...

Men convicted of the murder of children and adults for personal enjoyment, and where there is not a shade of doubt about guilt.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I'm not the least bit interested in the rehabilitaion of someone who murders children or engages in the torture and murder of adults for jollies.

Agreed.

However I do think we could make improvements in the system that determines the implimentation of the Death Penalty.

(Everytime I see DP I think Dr Pepper.)

[Tiamat]

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski He like the others in that bar had choices. He choose to be there, he chose to get into a fight, so did the guy that died, and the results were that two families were now with out fathers.
Bottom line if you are conscious enough to choose this crime then you must also be willing to accept what penalties come with it.

Nail hit on the head

Life is about choices. Those people chose to kidnap that child, they chose to bash his skull in with a shovel. They live in a world with consequences, rules, judges, legal system. They made the choice to commit those crimes then by making that choice they also chose to accept the punishment that we as a society have chosen to dish out.

It's simple, don't do the crime if your not willing to do the time or give your life.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Tiamat



Nail hit on the head

Life is about choices. Those people chose to kidnap that child, they chose to bash his skull in with a shovel. They live in a world with consequences, rules, judges, legal system. They made the choice to commit those crimes then by making that choice they also chose to accept the punishment that we as a society have chosen to dish out.

The arguement here is whether death is a valid consequence, not whether people should accept the punishment for their actions.

Soceity has been steadily moving away from the DP. The US ia an anachronism right now in this regard. Hopefully we won;t remain backwards for too long.

[notyoueither]

I don't think the DP should apply to a bar fight that ended up fatal.

If it is to be used at all, it should be reserved for the people among us who have demonstrated without a doubt that they are worse than animals.

A fight doesn't qualify.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Today they imprison criminals, tomorrow they grab random people off the street and send them to camps.

That in fact happened in the US during WWII. Except they weren't random people, they were of Japanese heritage.

Originally posted by notyoueither
Come on, UR.

Thanks for your example, nye.

[notyoueither]

For those against the DP, do you think it was wrong to execute war criminals in the late '40s?