Death penalty is damn right

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Tiamat
What I think he's trying to say and I could be wrong, is that scum like this deserve no rehabilitation.

I think you're mistaken -- the only reason I can think of why he brought up the point that I would be in the minority, is to imply that a majoritarian opinion automatically validates that opinion as legitimate.

History shows in many different societies, where majorities have legally sanctioned opinions that were much more horrible and bigoted than the death penalty.

[SlowwHand]

Bigoted?

As far as the majority making decisions, how would feel if it was minority of opinion making the decisions? Think about it.

[Richelieu]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
And I can't help but wonder, by us devaluing life enough to execute prisoners, that we might be inducing even more violence in society.

Aren't we devaluating the life of the victims by refusing to consider that the punishment should fit the crime?

These barbarians kidnapped a baby and killed it. As i've already cited in another thread, they forfeited their right to live.

[Tiamat]

Originally posted by Richelieu


Aren't we devaluating the life of the victims by refusing to consider that the punishment should fit the crime?

These barbarians kidnapped a baby and killed it. As i've already cited in another thread, they forfeited their right to live.

Once again, Point, Set, Match

[ajbera]

As far as I can tell, each side (DP opponents and advocates) really have only one all-important argument.

DP opponents: there is almost always the possibility of reasonable doubt. Few murders occur in situations where the guilt of the accused is absolutely indisputable. DNA evidence has already exhonerated several folks on Death Row. In all likelihood, people have been executed for crimes of which they are completely innocent.

The argument: death is irreversible, and there's always the possibility the Justice system mad a mistake.

DP advocates: again, almost nothing is guaranteed. Prisoners escape, sometimes to kill again. Rules change, which can affect sentences (recall, CP was deemed unconstitutional at one point, and every death sentence was changed to life imprisonment w/o parole.) It's not impossible that the life w/o parole can be deemed improper at some point. And even if they do spend their lives in prison, they can still victimize from the inside. There have been numerous cases of prisoners taunting the families of their victims while serving their sentence.

The argument: death ensures the criminal can never victimize anyone ever again.

So it all boils down to erring on the side of caution, one way or the other.

[Tiamat]

Case in point here in Texas a convicted killer Kenneth McDuff who was convicted of killing some University of Texas Students.

Marcus Dunnam

Marcus Dunnam was visiting his cousin, Robert Brand, at the Brand home in Alvarado, Texas, during the day and night of August 6, 1966. He had been visiting his grandmother in Fort Worth. Marcus liked to play the drums.

Robert Brand

Robert Brand lived with his parents in Alvarado, Texas and was a high school student. During the early evening of August 6, 1966, he and Marcus Dunnam got into a 1957 Ford and drove to Everman to visit Robert's girlfriend, Louise Sullivan. Robert loved to play the guitar.

Louise Sullivan

Louise Sullivan was a beautiful and popular student at Everman High School. She volunteered to work on Sundays in the daycare center of her church. She was murdered by Kenneth Allen McDuff on August 6, 1966 while on an outing with her boyfriend, Robert Brand, and his cousin, Marcus Dunnam.

He gets sentenced to death row for these murders, then a funny thing happened. The United States Supreme Court overturned all death penalties in the case of Furman v Georgia. Only 11 years later McDuff would be paroled from a prison where he was once on Death Row. He is believed to be the only person in American History to have ever had two different death row numbers. The most serious of McDuff's parole violations took place in his hometown of Rosebud, Texas, where he made "terroristic threats" to several African-American teenagers. McDuff was sent back to prison exactly one year after he had been set free, but only for a few weeks. His parole was reinstated by an administrator of the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

And with that release he was able to do this...


Brenda Thompson

Brenda Thompson was abducted and murdered during the evening of October 10, 1991. She was last seen screaming and trying to kick out the windshield of Kenneth McDuff's pickup truck. Her body was not recovered until October 3, 1998, in a heavily wooded area approximately 9 miles north of Waco.


Regenia DeAnn Moore

Regenia DeAnn Moore was abducted and murdered during the evening of October 15, 1991. She was last seen in McDuff's pickup truck in an area of Waco called "The Cut." Her body was recovered on September 30, 1998 near a creek north and east of Waco.

Colleen Reed

Colleen Reed was a native of Ville Platte, Louisiana, and a resident of Austin, Texas, on the night of December 29, 1991 when she was kidnapped from a carwash in Austin. She was a very popular accountant for the Lower Colorado River Authority. Her body was recovered on the banks of the Brazos River, just outside of Marlin, Texas, the county seat of McDuff's native Falls County, Texas.

Valencia Kay Joshua

Valencia Kay Joshua was a native of Arlington, Texas. She was last seen alive on the campus of the Texas State Technical Institute knocking on the window of Kenneth McDuff's dorm room. Her body was recovered a few months later in a heavily wooded area near the campus.

Melissa Ann Northrup

Melissa Ann Northrup worked at a convenience store at the corner of New Road and Interstate Highway 35 just south of Waco. On the night of February 29, 1992, Kenneth McDuff kidnapped her from the store. She was the dutiful mother of two small children and was pregnant for her third. Her body was located 51 days later in southeast Dallas County in Texas.

When you release murders, they kill again. Look how many lives this one man ended, and many more that he never admitted to but they thought he committed. Animals like this can not be rehabilitated. He was on death row for years if he was going to change he would have instead of killing 5 other people that we know of.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Bigoted?

As far as the majority making decisions, how would feel if it was minority of opinion making the decisions? Think about it.

I am not arguing in favor of minority rule at the expense of the majority. I'm pointing out, however, that majoritarian rule does not always equate with justice -- majoritarian rule, in my opinion, is a miuch better imperfect option than minority rule.

My point to you, was that it's fallacious to always presume that majoritarian rule always results in good -- which I thought was what you were claiming with your post.

[SlowwHand]

No. Sometimes the majority are short-sighted. Mostly it's right, but nothing is 100%.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And since we do happen to live in a democratic republic, the majority makes the rules.

[fed1943]

I know several caes as the one told by Tiamat.
And I agree with her.She only missed a question:
Why that administrator released the criminal?
Best regards,

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Richelieu
These barbarians kidnapped a baby and killed it. As i've already cited in another thread, they forfeited their right to live.

You know for a fact who kidnapped the kid and killed him?

[Flip McWho]

As far as the majority making decisions, how would feel if it was minority of opinion making the decisions? Think about it.

It shouldn't be based on either. Majorities make **** decisions and so do minorities. Gotta be something more objective involved in the decision making process.

[Flip McWho]

And since we do happen to live in a democratic republic, the majority makes the rules.

Thats why you should really switch to MMP.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by ajbera
As far as I can tell, each side (DP opponents and advocates) really have only one all-important argument.

DP opponents: there is almost always the possibility of reasonable doubt. Few murders occur in situations where the guilt of the accused is absolutely indisputable. DNA evidence has already exhonerated several folks on Death Row. In all likelihood, people have been executed for crimes of which they are completely innocent.

The argument: death is irreversible, and there's always the possibility the Justice system mad a mistake.

The argument is a little problematic, though.

1. Execution of the innocent is wrong. 2. Capital punishment can result in execution of the innocent. 3. Therefore, capital punishment is wrong.

Nobody can dispute 1, and 3 logically follows from the first two. The problem with the syllogism is part 2. It is the combination of an incorrect guilty verdict and capital punishment that result in executions of the innocent.

If either were eliminated, there would be no executions of innocents. Which one is actually the problem? Obviously the incorrect guilty verdict.

It's equivalent to this syllogism:

1. Death by drunk driving is wrong. 2. Car ownership can result in death by drunk driving. 3. Therefore, car ownership is to blame for drunk driving.

Death by drunk driving is caused by both car ownership and poor decision-making, and obviously it is the poor decision-making that is to blame.

The favorite death penalty argument does not prove the death penalty intrinsically bad. It proves that the death penalty can combine with other factors in a dangerous and irreversible way. But that's true of a lot of things in society. Perscription drugs, cell phones, and dogs can all cause harm to people in combination with other things, but none of the three are intrinsically bad, and all three are legal.

All that considered, it does sound stupid to have a law on the books saying "Felonies may be punishable by death provided that the jury is really careful."

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
No. Sometimes the majority are short-sighted. Mostly it's right, but nothing is 100%.

What a gross understatement.

At one time, the majority of Americans saw slavery as morally acceptable and thus, legally sanctioned the system.

At one time, the majority of Americans saw women as undeserving of basic human rights and political rights, so they legally sanctioned discrimination and oppression of women.



"Sometimes the majority are short-sighted."

And not to mention that you have forgotten that the minority need to be protected from unconstitutional attacks by the majority.