Death penalty is damn right

[Velociryx]

Glad to see this discussion continuing.

I agree. The deterrant argument (both for and against) as it related to the DP is nigh on useless.

About all that can be said regarding general deterrance is that there's not enough information either way, but I can promise you one thing:

I am absolutely, 100% certain that Pee Wee Gaskins (mentioned in my posting above) will NEVER kill again.

How do I know that?

Cos he went and had a little private conversation with old sparky.

Given his track record of murder and mayhem, would YOU want the "reformed" Mr. Gaskins living next door to you? Would you want to risk that he might escape, or be let out for good behavior?

Honest answer, please.

And yes...there is a risk (a slight risk, but a risk nonetheless) that an individual could be wrongly or falsely accused of one or more of these brutal crimes, and then combined with having a complete buffoon for a trial lawyer, and a total lack of an alibi, coupled with a series of strange coincidences that weight a body of physical or circumstantial evidence against him, and thus, we might put an innocent man to death.

If the requirement of proof is sufficiently high, however, this percentage drops mighty close to zero. NOT zero, to be sure, which is its one failing.

Nonetheless, it's the right approach, because damage WILL occur no matter which course you choose. No DP, and you run the risk of letting psychos break free to do it again. Or to get off on a technicality, or for good behavior, or for prison overcrowding, or because a politician is pressured to work a pardon, or for a million other hard to control reasons. He gets out, he kills again, and you get damage.

Or, you go the other way. Do your best to set the burden of proof extremely high, and only break out the DP for the worst of the worst. The monsters. And every once in a while, an innocent man dies. It's not pleasant, but the possibility is there, and if and when such a thing occurs, which scenario is easier to mitigate and control the damage? A killer on the loose, or the state, in position to at least make some form of restitution for their own wrongdoing? How much restitution do you suppose the penniless killer can provide to the victims of the families of the folks they killed? Not that money fixes it, but at least when the state makes a mistake, they can offer SOME FORM of restitution, and thus, it's at least containable damage, as opposed to risking letting the genie out of the bottle (or several of them at once)

The only alternative proposed so far would be a life of imprisonment without the possibility of parole, and this carries grave risks (many of which were mentioned above).

To minimize a good chunk of the risks posted above, the next logical step would be a lifetime of solitary confinement. Still not 100% secure, but better, except that smells a lot like torture. If this is the position "lock them up forever, never let them out, make the jails as secure as you can (solitary confinement), NOW we arrive at the crux of the counter argument.

It seems to me that this counter argument can be summed up by saying:

several decades worth of continual torture is morally superior to a quick, clean death.

I'll await further word from the anti-dp crowd for clarification on this point.

-=Vel=-

[Sava]

DP THREAD

[xvdravarvx]

Governments sole purpose is to ensure the safety of its citizens from force, or threat of force from other individuals.

In this case it is sad and it raises the emotions of all involved. "The guilty must be punished" some would say. "We all deserve a second chance, why shouldn't they?" others would reply.

This has nothing to do with the severity of the crime, the youth of the lost life, but the fact that an individual, in this case two individuals make a conscious decision to end the life of another individual.

It is in societies interest that this type of thing not happen again. Reformation should not be societies goal. Revenge should not be societies goal. Showing resolve and the consequences of actions of individuals needs to be societies responsibility.

Without emotion, without prejudice these people must be made an example of. Without pain, without grief, they must be put to death.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Velociryx

Given his track record of murder and mayhem, would YOU want the "reformed" Mr. Gaskins living next door to you? Would you want to risk that he might escape, or be let out for good behavior?

Honest answer, please.

Have you ever heard of life in prison without parole? You have this narrow-minded presumption that those who oppose the death penalty want murderers to be completely free as long as they are "rehabilitated."

[notyoueither]

I think it's been brought up more than once that people do get out, despite being given 'life' by the trial judge.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Or even God forbid kill another inmate, you know those forgotten people worthy of corrective style incarceration ready to make a new start of their lives and become model citizens.

Or don't those people count when it comes to providing a secure environment.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe
Or even God forbid kill another inmate, you know those forgotten people worthy of corrective style incarceration ready to make a new start of their lives and become model citizens.

Or don't those people count when it comes to providing a secure environment.

Not to mention other acts of prison violence... rape... and participation in gangs. It's not as if a violent criminal ceases to victimize people once he's in prison. And it's not as if he is unable to still victimize people outside of prison as well, through contacting others. Specifically, people who are involved with gangs and organized crime.

But no... locking them in prison for life solves all the problems.

I'm going to regret this post... I hate getting sucked into DP discussions because they aren't productive and the other side just has no logical arguments whatsoever... but I'd be remiss if I didn't post.

The DP is an option that should be at the state's disposal. There are violent criminals out there who simply, for their crimes, deserve to be put to death. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

I challenge any DP opponent to take a tour of America's prisons and visit the worst of the worst... rapists, murderers, serial pedophiles... these sociopaths cannot be rehabilitated. There's no hope whatsoever to change them.

It's not about bringing the victim back, or "the DP is racist" or any of these bull**** arguments that DP opponents keep harping on. It's about punishment. Plain and simple.

There's only so much room in a prison. Why keep a room reserved for someone for the next 3 or 4 or 5 decades (in some cases)? Just get it over with. There's no need for suffering. There's no need to be cruel... another thing I've found ironic, BTW, is DP opponents also claim to have the moral high ground, but then say things like "they will suffer more" if they spend life in prison. And then at the same time, DP opponents will accuse people who support the DP of only supporting it out of "bloodlust". But then why should I be surprised at the hypocrisy?

If there are concerns about miscarriages of justice... then let's sit down and come up with proper procedures, checks and balances to ensure that mistakes don't happen. In America, very few people get put to death. The death penalty is mainly used as a threat to get people to take deals. And even those who do get sentenced to death, they end up sitting on death row for years... in many cases, longer than the average murder sentence... and they have many opportunities for appeals and such. Not to mention, they were already convicted for their crimes. My complaint about this whole situation is that we probably don't put enough of these evil people to death.

It seems to me, the opposition to the DP on these forums is mainly ideological... in the sense that people just don't like the idea of the state being able to take someone's life. But I don't understand this objection. Are you guys opposed to police being able to use deadly force to save lives? I think the vast majority, if not all, would say you think the police should be able to use deadly force. What is the difference between the death penalty and using deadly force to prevent a murder, or worse, a terrorist act? If anything, the act of deadly force would be a greater display of the state's power, because it's a pre-emptive use of force. No crime has been committed.

And what about war? If your country is attacked by another, and the intent is hostile, surely, most here would agree it would be proper to respond with a declaration of war? How is that any different than the death penalty for an individual who commits murder? At least with the death penalty, a criminal who committed an evil act is being put to death. In a war, even a justified one, innocent people will die. Surely that is worse than the death penalty?

Oh... but those are different situations right? That's an extreme example, right? An extreme situation that would require an extreme response? Bull****. It's only "extreme" because your life, and potentially, the lives of your country's citizens are at risk... rather than the potential future victims of the murderer who would be put to death.

It's easy to sit back and say that a murderer who just killed one person, or a few people shouldn't be put to death because it's an abuse of state power when the crime didn't affect you. When it's only one person. But when it's a war, it's okay for the state, for your country, to kill people. Then it's okay for a nation to commit murder. Because in war, people are murdered... even in wars that are justified. Even when you are "the good guys" in a war... you commit murder. But we don't call it that.

But all of a sudden, when some evil piece of **** commits a heinous act, and a jury or judge sentences that person to death... it's murder?

Sorry... but no...

You can put wings on my grandmother, but she ain't gonna fly.

That's all I gotta say.

[Flip McWho]

Thats A Huge Self Evident

Good point. I wasn't considering the otherwise sane law abiding folk when I made that comment. Actually I don't think I was thinking at the time either.

[fed1943]

Sava is right.
Best regards,

[Flip McWho]

Yeah I agree with that sentiment.

[Patroklos]

Sava, that is easily the best post you ever made on on this board, at least the best non comedic post anyways.

[Straybow]

Sava musta kicked the weed...

[MOBIUS]

The fact that Moussaoui is changing his story and squirming like a ***** is ample proof that the DP is useless as a deterrant. I mean why if you intend to punish someone for a heinous crime would you let them get away with it by quite literally putting them out of their misery!!?

[Datajack Franit]

Sava rules

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Sava, that is easily the best post you ever made on on this board, at least the best non comedic post anyways.

See, other people remember Sava being funny at times other than I.

JM