(CNN) -- One execution stopped midcourse, another postponed.
Oklahoma corrections officials looked for answers Tuesday following the death of inmate Clayton Lockett, who convulsed and writhed on the gurney after drugs to carry out his death sentence were administered.
"His body started to twitch, he mumbled something I couldn't understand," said Dean Sanderford, his attorney. "The convulsing got worse, it looked like his whole upper body was trying to lift off the gurney. For a minute, there was chaos."
He said guards ordered him out of the witness area, and he was never told what had happened to his client.
The execution was halted, but the result was still death.
Lockett died 43 minutes after the first injection was administered, according to reporter Courtney Francisco of CNN affiliate KFOR, who witnessed the ordeal.
Later, Oklahoma Department of Corrections Director Robert Patton said Lockett died of an apparent heart attack.
The execution was the first time Oklahoma had used midazolam as the first element in its three-drug cocktail to end a life.
Midazolam is supposed to render a person unconscious. Seven minutes later, Lockett was still conscious. About 16 minutes in, after his mouth and then his head moved, he seemingly tried to get up and tried to talk, saying "man" aloud, according to the KFOR account.
Other reporters -- including Cary Aspinwall of the Tulsa World newspaper -- similarly claimed that Lockett was "still alive," having lifted his head while prison officials lowered the blinds at that time so that onlookers couldn't see what was going on.
Yet the office of Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin issued a statement indicating "execution officials said Lockett remained unconscious after the lethal injection drugs were administered."
After the ordeal, Patton told reporters that Lockett, a convicted murderer, had been sedated and then was given the second and third drugs in protocol.
"There was some concern at that time that the drugs were not having the effect, so the doctor observed the line and determined that the line had blown," he said, before elaborating that Lockett's vein had "exploded."
"I notified the attorney general's office, the governor's office of my intent to stop the execution and requested a stay for 14 days for the second execution scheduled this afternoon," said Patton, referring to the execution of Charles Warner.
Dianne Clay, a spokeswoman for the state attorney general's office, said Tuesday night that her office was "gathering information on what happened in order to evaluate."
The state's governor ordered an investigation and issued an executive order granting a 2-week delay in executions.
"I have asked the Department of Corrections to conduct a full review of Oklahoma's execution procedures to determine what happened and why during this evening's execution of Clayton Derrell Lockett," Fallin said in a statement.
The constitutionality of lethal injection drugs and drug cocktails has made headlines since last year, when European manufacturers -- including Denmark-based Lundbeck, which manufactures pentobarbital -- banned U.S. prisons from using their drugs in executions. Thirty-two states were left to find new drug protocols.
According to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections, its protocol includes midazolam, which causes unconsciousness, vecuronium bromide, which stops respiration, and potassium chloride, which is meant to stop the heart.
Lockett was convicted in 2000 of a bevy of crimes, including first-degree murder, first-degree rape, kidnapping and robbery in a 1999 home invasion and crime spree that left Stephanie Nieman dead and two people injured.
His final moments gave new life, at least temporarily, to Charles Warner.
Warner was convicted in 2003 for the first-degree rape and murder six years earlier of his then-girlfriend's 11-month-old daughter, Adrianna Waller.
The state decided to put off his execution set for Tuesday. But it has given no indication this delay will be indefinite despite calls from the likes of Adam Leathers, co-chair of the Oklahoma Coalition to
Abolish the Death Penalty, who accused the state of having "tortured a human being in an unconstitutional experimental act of evil."
"Tonight, our state government has acted in sin and violated God's law," Leathers said. "We will pray for their souls."
Notably, Lockett and Warner -- who were both held at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester -- had been at the center of a court fight over the drugs used in their execution.
They'd initially challenged the state Department of Corrections' unwillingness to divulge which drugs would be used, only for the department to budge and disclosed the substances.
But Lockett and Warner didn't stop there, taking issue with the state's so-called secrecy provision forbidding it from disclosing the identities of anyone involved in the execution process or suppliers of any drugs or medical equipment.
Oklahoma's high court initially issued stays on their executions, only to lift those stays last week in ruling the two men had no right to know the source of the drugs intended to kill them.
Warner's attorney, Madeline Cohen, said that further legal action can be expected given how "something went horribly awry" Tuesday.
"Oklahoma cannot carry out further executions until there's transparency in this process," Cohen said. "... I think they should all be looking at themselves hard. Oklahoma needs to take a step back."
The governor's office has ordered an investigation.
Well, one component is death, sure, but the other component is that it's lawful, and torturing people to death is probably cruel and unusual.
For the life of me, I don't understand why we don't just shoot people if we've got to execute them. I've got mixed feelings on capital punishment - I can neither endorse it nor condemn it - but if I had to get it, getting shot in the head point blank with a decent caliber seems more pleasant than either the chair, the gas, or the needle. Messier, I guess.
d-usa wrote: I'm very strongly against the death penalty to begin with.
But if you gotta kill people, then at least don't feth it up.
If you can't do it without fething up, then it's time to stop.
I will be honest, I do go back and forth on the death penalty (but more often than not I end up supporting it). I just cannot argue in favour of someone who "was convicted in 2000 of a bevy of crimes, including first-degree murder, first-degree rape, kidnapping and robbery in a 1999 home invasion and crime spree that left Stephanie Nieman dead and two people injured. ". Ms. Nieman was in fact shot and buried alive. So no sympathy here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: That this happened in Oklahoma is utterly unsurprising to me.
Oklahoma where the wind blows.... and so does the person carrying out the death penalty
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I will be honest, I do go back and forth on the death penalty (but more often than not I end up supporting it). I just cannot argue in favour of someone who "was convicted in 2000 of a bevy of crimes, including first-degree murder, first-degree rape, kidnapping and robbery in a 1999 home invasion and crime spree that left Stephanie Nieman dead and two people injured. ". Ms. Nieman was in fact shot and buried alive. So no sympathy here.
Yeah, this is pretty much spot on how I feel. I think we do it too much, I think we do it too disproportionately, and I think we do it too sloppily. However, I can't quite bring myself to say I don't think we should do it anymore. I mean, look at this guy above. I want to say that the state should not be in the murder business, but on the other hand, what right to we have to let someone like that live?
Well that sucks. Just cause he's a dirt bag doesn't mean we can't kill him as quickly and painlessly as possible. We peacefully euthenize animals all the time.
I'm no doctor, but aren't there easier ways to chemically kil someone than a crazy drug cocktail? Arn't morphine overdozes generally painless?
But if you gotta kill people, then at least don't feth it up.
I agree with this. I am pro-death penalty, but against torture. OK should send their death row inmates to Texas, where they fething know how to do it without fething up.
But if you gotta kill people, then at least don't feth it up.
I agree with this. I am pro-death penalty, but against torture. OK should send their death row inmates to Texas, where they fething know how to do it without fething up.
Yeah,Texas is really good executing people because they get so much practice. I mean like sometimes they don't even have any evidence against a guy, so the cops give homeless addicts drugs in exchange for reading off scripted "eyewitness testimony". That way they get to execute people any time they want.
The law protects the people we execute. If we don't feel like we have to follow the law when we execute lawbreakers, then why should anybody have to follow the law. To me that attitude is where we cross the line from "killing in the name of justice" and enter "killing for revenge".
d-usa wrote: The law protects the people we execute. If we don't feel like we have to follow the law when we execute lawbreakers, then why should anybody have to follow the law. To me that attitude is where we cross the line from "killing in the name of justice" and enter "killing for revenge".
There isn't any inherent line of mutual exclusivity between those two.
d-usa wrote: The law protects the people we execute. If we don't feel like we have to follow the law when we execute lawbreakers, then why should anybody have to follow the law. To me that attitude is where we cross the line from "killing in the name of justice" and enter "killing for revenge".
There isn't any inherent line of mutual exclusivity between those two.
There really is.
Just look at the argument for the death penalty against child molesters out there.
I would agree with Chongara. IMO, the reason to jump to executing someone is because rehabilitation is hopeless. Serial Killers can't be changed. We know of no treatment or procedure that can change what makes them them. And not just them, but a lot of very violent criminals.
If someone can't be rehabilitated, then keeping them locked up for life is a waste of taxpayer dollars and only gives them more chances to kill people (prisoners may be prisoners but they're still human).
Killing them protects not just society, but saves its resources and protects other prisoners which I'd like to think in the long run helps improve our violent prison culture in the long run.
A lot of punishments serve a function of revenge. What makes it justice is that it benefits society as well.
Torturing people also serves as revenge. Killing them slowly and painfully also serves as revenge. There are lots of ways to kill people that can satisfy revenge.
What makes it justice is that it benefits society as well.
What makes it justice is when we execute somebody humanely and without pain, in accordance with the constitution and our laws.
LordofHats wrote: If someone can't be rehabilitated, then keeping them locked up for life is a waste of taxpayer dollars and only gives them more chances to kill people (prisoners may be prisoners but they're still human).
Killing them protects not just society, but saves its resources (snip)
It costs significantly more to execute someone in this country then it does to imprison then for life. That being said, I think it's more than a little immoral to execute people as a cost-saving measure and the fiscal considerations really should not play a role in it, in my opinion.
Torturing people also serves as revenge. Killing them slowly and painfully also serves as revenge. There are lots of ways to kill people that can satisfy revenge.
What makes it justice is that it benefits society as well.
What makes it justice is when we execute somebody humanely and without pain, in accordance with the constitution and our laws.
Oklahoma still has the chair on the books, if lethal injections becomes outlawed, with the firing squad as the second option.
Since I know I'm not going to convince you there is an inherent and irreducible value to human life, and any killing that is reasonably avoidable is by definition evil I'll just ask some questions instead.
How many guilty lives is the acceptable exchange rate for non-guilty ones? That is, if we accept that our criminal justice system is fallible and that by some amount of bad luck, neglect, corruption, or ignorance some percentage of executions take place are faulty: There is some non-zero amount of executions of people who did not do they crime they were convicted (and lost appeals) for.
What is the acceptable ratio here?
1 in 10
1 in 100
1 in 1000
Is any amount acceptable, so long as an earnest attempt at getting it right is made? Does the finality of the death penalty make any difference when used as a tool by the corrupt? What factors, if any justify the deaths of the innocent for the sake of being able to execute the guilty? What factors would if any, would make it unjustifiable?
Alternatively do you assert that our justice system is infallible, an therefore no non-guilty parties are ever executed. If so, why do you believe this?
I'm anti-death penalty, you don't have to make an argument against the death penalty to me. We might be against the death penalty for different reasons, but we are on the same side there. I can see a pro-justice argument for the death penalty that is separate from the "who cares if anyone suffers, he deserves death" revenge argument. My defining factor in favor of opposition to the death penalty is the risk of executing an innocent man.
If you do a search on the death penalty in the OT you will find a thread where me and relapse had a very good discussion about it.
My argument in this thread is that if we insist on keeping the death penalty around then we must find a way of killing people in the absolute most humane way possible, especially considering the reality that we may well be killing innocent people.
I would have thought the bigger sticking point for people was how to determine who can't be rehabilitated. There's a whole kettle of fish.
It costs significantly more to execute someone in this country then it does to imprison then for life
Isn't that because of the cost we incure through their appeals process while on death row?
Personally, I would like to see a much higher burden for justifying the death penalty. Some people we execute are people who I disagree should have been executed.
What makes it justice is when we execute somebody humanely and without pain, in accordance with the constitution and our laws.
Honestly at times I wonder if we can call the punishment end of our justice system justice at all. We throw people away, forget about them, and as a society we just stop caring what happens to them. We ostracize them from ourselves and to an extent pretend their not human at all. I mean, we can already see in this thread that some Americans don't care if death is a torturous experience for those men and women. And then, even when they make it out of prison, we continue finding ways to punish them.
I think you and I agree we need to fix serious problems with how we handle imprisonment and rehabilitation in the US, but I guess I see the current situation in more dire terms XD
If you're gonna torture someone to kill them, at least have them drawn and quartered. But this...yeah, state fethed up. I actually support beheadings for execution. Gets the point across () and its quick. And if you grab the head fast enough, they can watch the life drain from their own body!!
d-usa wrote: I'm anti-death penalty, you don't have to make an argument against the death penalty to me. We might be against the death penalty for different reasons, but we are on the same side there. I can see a pro-justice argument for the death penalty that is separate from the "who cares if anyone suffers, he deserves death" revenge argument. My defining factor in favor of opposition to the death penalty is the risk of executing an innocent man.
If you do a search on the death penalty in the OT you will find a thread where me and relapse had a very good discussion about it.
My argument in this thread is that if we insist on keeping the death penalty around then we must find a way of killing people in the absolute most humane way possible, especially considering the reality that we may well be killing innocent people.
Fair enough. We can just consider this post to be redirecting my previous post at somebody else then. Frazzled? Maybe. No, No. I'm pretty sure too much of him is an act. Lets go with Dreadclaw. That post is now directed at Dreadclaw.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I will be honest, I do go back and forth on the death penalty (but more often than not I end up supporting it). I just cannot argue in favour of someone who "was convicted in 2000 of a bevy of crimes, including first-degree murder, first-degree rape, kidnapping and robbery in a 1999 home invasion and crime spree that left Stephanie Nieman dead and two people injured. ". Ms. Nieman was in fact shot and buried alive. So no sympathy here.
Yeah, this is pretty much spot on how I feel. I think we do it too much, I think we do it too disproportionately, and I think we do it too sloppily. However, I can't quite bring myself to say I don't think we should do it anymore. I mean, look at this guy above. I want to say that the state should not be in the murder business, but on the other hand, what right to we have to let someone like that live?
What right do you have to condemn him for killing a person before killing a person yourselves? You can't use even the most tortured and stretched "self-defence" argument, this idea that the state executing a person is equivalent to the victim of an attack ending the life of their attacker, because that argument only has validity if the victim has no other options and is in genuine fear of their life, and neither applies. You can't argue that it's a necessary deterrent, firstly because "the greater good" is a terrible justification for letting the state kill people, and second because even if we ignore the paucity of the position for the sake of argument, there's no credible evidence that execution actually does deter crime on any meaningful scale.
But even setting all of that aside, it is monstrously irresponsible to advocate for the death penalty being part of a system which suffers from frequent miscarriages of justice, in which a not insignificant number of convictions are overturned months or years after the initial case, and which has certainly executed innocent people several times in the past.
And further, even setting all of that aside, even if we ignore the evidence that execution doesn't deter, that it's completely inconsistent to make killing a crime and then kill people for committing crimes, even if we ignore the fact that every person you execute, no matter how airtight the conviction seems at the time, is potentially innocent; none of that makes it OK for the state to conduct executions with less care and compassion that would be given to a bloody animal by a vet. No matter how atrocious someone's purported crimes, if you(general, nonspecific "you") are the sort of person who can take delight at the idea of another sentient individual being deliberately tortured to death, you're(general, nonspecific) a sociopath, and every bit as repugnant as the murderers and rapists you have your revenge fantasies about.
Ouze wrote:
Well, one component is death, sure, but the other component is that it's lawful, and torturing people to death is probably cruel and unusual.
It's only unusual if we don't do it enough.
The key here is that it's only unlawful if it is both cruel AND unusual.
I was going to be amazed at how many people were fine with someone dying in tortured agony here, but then I remembered it was the internet. I used to be strongly in favor of the death penalty, but as time has gone on, I have seen less and less value in it other than for people to get great big revenge and violence boners in a slightly more socially acceptable light. With how screwed up the US penal system is, the only purpose I see to the death penalty now is the most brutal and barbaric satisfaction of the public, not even the victims.
Is there any reason why the US seem so intent to use methods of execution that regularly go wrong, possibly causing excruciating pain in the process, instead of the many tried alternatives that always work?
I'd rather be shot in China, hanged in Thailand or beheaded in Saudi Arabia than killed in a "civilized manner" in the US.
Look at his victims and read what he did then get off your high horse.
Just put chains on and throw him in a river. Plus its Green.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Allod wrote: Is there any reason why the US seem so intent to use methods of execution that regularly go wrong, possibly causing excruciating pain in the process, instead of the many tried alternatives that always work?
I'd rather be shot in China, hanged in Thailand or beheaded in Saudi Arabia than killed in a "civilized manner" in the US.
And just to clarify, I am not so 100% against the death penalty now. At the moment, I see very little value in it because of how messed up the justice system is and because right now some methods are more akin to torture. If those could be ironed out, then I'd return to favoring it more, but right now it isn't a good thing.
Allod wrote: Is there any reason why the US seem so intent to use methods of execution that regularly go wrong, possibly causing excruciating pain in the process, instead of the many tried alternatives that always work?
I'd rather be shot in China, hanged in Thailand or beheaded in Saudi Arabia than killed in a "civilized manner" in the US.
curran12 wrote:... I have seen less and less value in it other than for people to get great big revenge and violence boners in a slightly more socially acceptable light....
Interesting. I advocate the death penalty as a matter of pragmatism, not revenge. I don't believe revenge has any purpose in a penal system. The US implementation, with countless appeals, is the only thing wrong with having a death penalty, in my opinion.
I guess you first have to split those convicted of crimes into different categories. 1) Does their crime impact others, or only themselves. Someone shooting up with heroin may be guilty of something, but they're not harming anyone else. 2) Do they show the potential for rehabilitation and reintroduction into society.
Someone who harms others, and has no potential for rehabilitation should be executed. If they're not going to be allowed back into society, why keep them penned up like animals. I think that's far crueler. It's also a large burden on the taxpayers. I'm sure someone will come along and say it costs more to execute someone, but that's only because we do it wrong. I'm sure someone else will raise the possibility that we accidentally kill an innocent person. Well, that's not ideal, but if you give people the opportunity to be rehabilitated, and they find themselves back in the system, you've already got two innocent victims (the innocent victim of their first crime, and the innocent victim that proves that they were not actually rehabilitated). You get mathematically fewer innocent victims by executing repeat offenders.
the drug cocktail is just stupid... do em in like we do in cows and such with the ol "bolt gun" its painless, they are dead before they hit the ground.
It it works on 500ilb animals it will work on peoples.
curran12 wrote:... I have seen less and less value in it other than for people to get great big revenge and violence boners in a slightly more socially acceptable light....
Interesting. I advocate the death penalty as a matter of pragmatism, not revenge.
"The science is settled" ® on this one. There are few if any practical benefits to executions, particularly when a system is taking all reasonable measures for minimum margin of error on convictions. It's pretty conclusive.
Arguing executions from a pragmatism standpoint is a losing proposition. You've really got to stick to moral stances to have any chance at internal consistency to your argument.
easysauce wrote: the drug cocktail is just stupid... do em in like we do in cows and such with the ol "bolt gun" its painless, they are dead before they hit the ground.
It it works on 500ilb animals it will work on peoples.
Traditionally, its been argued its hard to find executioners. In today's society, I'd bet thats less an issue.
Interesting. I advocate the death penalty as a matter of pragmatism, not revenge. I don't believe revenge has any purpose in a penal system. The US implementation, with countless appeals, is the only thing wrong with having a death penalty, in my opinion.
I guess you first have to split those convicted of crimes into different categories. 1) Does their crime impact others, or only themselves. Someone shooting up with heroin may be guilty of something, but they're not harming anyone else. 2) Do they show the potential for rehabilitation and reintroduction into society.
Someone who harms others, and has no potential for rehabilitation should be executed. If they're not going to be allowed back into society, why keep them penned up like animals. I think that's far crueler. It's also a large burden on the taxpayers. I'm sure someone will come along and say it costs more to execute someone, but that's only because we do it wrong. I'm sure someone else will raise the possibility that we accidentally kill an innocent person. Well, that's not ideal, but if you give people the opportunity to be rehabilitated, and they find themselves back in the system, you've already got two innocent victims (the innocent victim of their first crime, and the innocent victim that proves that they were not actually rehabilitated). You get mathematically fewer innocent victims by executing repeat offenders.
You have a valid point about the penning up of criminals in a system of rehabilitation that is not very good at what it does. There's no way I would argue that what we have now is good, because it isn't; the entire system needs an overhaul not just the death penalty.
As far as pragmatism, I think when it comes to execution, pragmatism should not be as strong of a driving force. After all, you can't un-execute someone, so what do you do when your pragmatic quick execution is that of an innocent person? Obviously, this is also a flaw of the system as a whole, and not just the death penalty. Pragmatism should take a back seat to rehabilitation, imo, but I believe that is mostly just differences in view.
However, I will stand by that capital punishment in the US today is way more of a revenge thing than a justice or pragmatic thing. After all, if it was pragmatic, why do we have a little room to watch a person die? Why is a microphone shoved in their faces before they die? None of those serve a pragmatic function, they are purely there for revenge.
easysauce wrote: the drug cocktail is just stupid... do em in like we do in cows and such with the ol "bolt gun" its painless, they are dead before they hit the ground.
It it works on 500ilb animals it will work on peoples.
Traditionally, its been argued its hard to find executioners. In today's society, I'd bet thats less an issue.
Get that guy who owns the clippers. He'd probably love the job.
Chongara wrote:
"The science is settled" ® on this one. There are few if any practical benefits to executions, particularly when a system is taking all reasonable measures for minimum margin of error on convictions. It's pretty conclusive.
Arguing executions from a pragmatism standpoint is a losing proposition. You've really got to stick to moral stances to have any chance at internal consistency to your argument.
The science is settled? Really, that's your response? Not convinced. There are plenty of benefits to executions - you remove the threat to society permanently at the lowest cost. The moral argument is the one that says the state shouldn't execute people, or "oh no, what if we get it wrong".
The science is settled? Really, that's your response? Not convinced. Ther are plenty of benefits to executions - you remove the threat to society permanently at the lowest cost.
Sweet black baby Jesus. It's like you've spent all of -1 seconds actually looking into this. The only way you could even put forward this argument is if not only if you haven't spent any time looking into the issue, but you've actively gone out of your way to ignore commonly talked about realities of the procedure - ones discussed earlier in this very thread even.
easysauce wrote: the drug cocktail is just stupid... do em in like we do in cows and such with the ol "bolt gun" its painless, they are dead before they hit the ground.
It it works on 500ilb animals it will work on peoples.
Traditionally, its been argued its hard to find executioners. In today's society, I'd bet thats less an issue.
just put of a post on dakka
"bolt gun operator needed"
bam, all the SM players will jump in.
also, they can just have a blind hook up to multiple buttons if they want too, just like they used to have with hangings so that none of the "executioners" actually knows who hit the button.
You could also have a computer do it, heck, im pretty sure you could hire someone to "press a button" and not tell them what it is.. though I suppose that solves the guilt problem only to replace it with some wax philisophical problem.
Easy E wrote: How about because recent studies from the National Academy of Sciences find that 1 in 25 people on Detah Row are actually innocent.
Oh wait, I think I know the response. Something along the lines of making omelettes and breaking eggs.
Looking at the time stamps, it took about 19 seconds for your prediction to come true. That's excellent, but I think next time you can get it under 15.
Sweet black baby Jesus. It's like you've spent all of -1 seconds actually looking into this. The only way you could even put forward this argument is if not only if you haven't spent any time looking into the issue, but you've actively gone out of your way to ignore commonly talked about realities of the procedure - ones discussed earlier in this very thread even.
Not at all. I believe that the current system in the US is applied poorly, and removes most of the benefits of having capital punishment. I believe we allow too many appeals, and take too long in executing the sentences. You're saying that the death penalty, as a whole, is wrong based on how the US currently implements it. I'm saying that the death penalty, if applied appropriately, is a good system. You've yet to address any of my points, and simply refer back to the current, flawed system as the basis of your argument. That's not productive.
so what do you do when your pragmatic quick execution is that of an innocent person?
You feel bad about it and move on. What do you do when you accidentally imprison someone for 30 years?
Perhaps, more importantly, what do you do when you release someone who is not rehabilitated, and they kill someone else?
Like I said already, you have a better system in place. And that whole "oh well move on" mindset is not a healthy one. These are not eggs to make an omlette.
Well, one component is death, sure, but the other component is that it's lawful, and torturing people to death is probably cruel and unusual.
For the life of me, I don't understand why we don't just shoot people if we've got to execute them. I've got mixed feelings on capital punishment - I can neither endorse it nor condemn it - but if I had to get it, getting shot in the head point blank with a decent caliber seems more pleasant than either the chair, the gas, or the needle. Messier, I guess.
Reason you don't get shot is that it requires someone to pull the trigger. Don't you currently have a system where two people push buttons but only one of the buttons actually administers the drugs? So the people don't know who actually killed them? Some attempt to limit the conscience and feelings of guilt.
Like I said already, you have a better system in place. And that whole "oh well move on" mindset is not a healthy one. These are not eggs to make an omlette.
I never said they were eggs. You guys keep making that analogy. Consider them collateral damage in the war on crime. The goal isn't breakfast, it's to keep society safe from criminals at a low price.
You know who doesn't like the death penalty? It's the for-profit prison system, the so-called "better" system we currently have, that wants to keep as many people as possible locked up for as long as possible, because that's how they make their money. Who foots that bill? We do, the population. You know who lobbies the hardest for repeals to death penalties? It's not the ACLU, it's the prison industry. Follow the money.
We spend far too much on the prison system, because we have too many prisoners. We should focus our attention on rehabilitating those who can be, and get rid of the ones that are hopeless. A system that enforces a death penalty for repeat offenders means you have to be innocent and found guilty at least twice. I'm comfortable with those odds. I'm not comfortable with locking people away for 20+ years on the public dime. Either rehab them, or get rid of them.
Like I said already, you have a better system in place. And that whole "oh well move on" mindset is not a healthy one. These are not eggs to make an omlette.
I never said they were eggs. You guys keep making that analogy. Consider them collateral damage in the war on crime. The goal isn't breakfast, it's to keep society safe from criminals at a low price.
You know who doesn't like the death penalty? It's the for-profit prison system, the so-called "better" system we currently have, that wants to keep as many people as possible locked up for as long as possible, because that's how they make their money. Who foots that bill? We do, the population. You know who lobbies the hardest for repeals to death penalties? It's not the ACLU, it's the prison industry. Follow the money.
We spend far too much on the prison system, because we have too many prisoners. We should focus our attention on rehabilitating those who can be, and get rid of the ones that are hopeless. A system that enforces a death penalty for repeat offenders means you have to be innocent and found guilty at least twice. I'm comfortable with those odds. I'm not comfortable with locking people away for 20+ years on the public dime. Either rehab them, or get rid of them.
Who has the right to determine a human life is useless?
LordofHats wrote: I imagine we don't do that cause who wants to be the executioner blowing some guys head open XD
Woah.. THAT could be the punishment for being an ITG.
"Okay, little man, think you're so bad? Here's your stunner, there's your dangerous criminal, helpless and waiting for you to cave his skull before you slit him open and bleed him. C'mon, you said you could do that all day long on that forum you visit. What's wrong?"
It seems like a clean shot to the back of the head at close range would solve all of the problems with errors in the death penalty. The victim doesn't even know they're dead. Completely painless and if you use a .22, not much mess.
I support the death penalty. I feel that if you commit a violent crime in America, especially crimes that would make national news (that takes a lot) the death penalty becomes the most appropriate response to that crime.
Now, I feel that the actual issue for most people is the fact that our justice system sucks so bad, and I agree there. It makes me considerably more hesitant to apply the death penalty to a perpetrator.
Isn't the wording in a guilty verdict basically "proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt"? I would say that to apply the death penalty it should be 100% certain that the person did something that warranted the death penalty. No doubt whatsoever. We have video of you doing it, a confession on Facebook and your DNA and fingerprints on the murder weapon.
I also support at the very least jail time if you convict an innocent person. That make prosecutors think twice about how they go about their jobs.
But all of the above is just my opinion. I'll admit I'm woefully uninformed on any actual numbers of convictions or any of the sort. That's why I stay out of real debates!
Well, one component is death, sure, but the other component is that it's lawful, and torturing people to death is probably cruel and unusual.
For the life of me, I don't understand why we don't just shoot people if we've got to execute them. I've got mixed feelings on capital punishment - I can neither endorse it nor condemn it - but if I had to get it, getting shot in the head point blank with a decent caliber seems more pleasant than either the chair, the gas, or the needle. Messier, I guess.
Reason you don't get shot is that it requires someone to pull the trigger. Don't you currently have a system where two people push buttons but only one of the buttons actually administers the drugs? So the people don't know who actually killed them? Some attempt to limit the conscience and feelings of guilt.
They did something similar for firing squads. 6 guns (or whatever the number is) are pre-loaded and distributed to the executioners. 1 of the guns has a blank loaded, but no one is told which one. That way, they all can think that they had the blank.
Who has the right to determine a human life is useless?
I'm not sure anyone said useless. I believe that any society has a right to determine that an individual's actions are so heinous as to no longer warrant their further inclusion in that society.
Who has the right to determine a human life is useless?
I'm not sure anyone said useless. I believe that any society has a right to determine that an individual's actions are so heinous as to no longer warrant their further inclusion in that society.
You do know that the death penalty is not more cost effective than life imprisonment though, right? It costs more to execute someone than it would to keep them in prison until they die of natural causes.
What right do you have to condemn him for killing a person before killing a person yourselves?
Killing =/= murder
its legal to kill people in combat, self defence, ect... basically the government and society sanction killing in specific circumstances.
Comparing legal execution of someone who has had full due process is not even close to the same thing as murdering someone because you are a slimeball.
Also, the right to kill someone, is gained when they choose to commit an action so heinous that it deserves death. Thats how it is gained, by their actions, they give it away.
That being said, seriously, we have much much MUCH better ways to painlessly kill people then these stupid, and expensive drug cocktails....
As I said before, the "bolt gun" is perfect for this use, and anyone can do the "buttone pushing" job, from anywhere on the planet with an internet connection... if they can find people willing to inject the inmates, they can find people willing to click a mouse.
And again, who has the right to determine what act is so heinous as to warrant the death penalty?
And what about innocent people being executed? How many innocent lives lost to "justice" is too many? I'd argue that a single life is too many as by taking that one life you ruin the lives of their friends, their families, the executioner who flicked the switch, the jury that convicted them.
William Blackstone wrote:It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer
d-usa wrote:
The recidivism rate of a murderer released from prison lower than the wrongful execution rate in this country.
Is this true for all violent crimes?
Pragmatically speaking less innocent people would die if we let convicted murders out of prison and more innocent people have died from executions.
Well, that's not quite true. It ignores the idea that we only allow select convicted murderers out of prison. We don't parole those who appear like they'd do it again, for example.
And, this is also why I have, repeatedly, said that the death penalty should be applied to repeat offenders. If we're doing such a good job at rehabbing our murderers, that's great, and this won't be necessary very often (2% you say).
A Town Called Malus wrote:
You do know that the death penalty is not more cost effective than life imprisonment though, right? It costs more to execute someone than it would to keep them in prison until they die of natural causes.
That's not true. It costs more to execute someone under the current system of infinite appeals and lawyer fees. At the base level, it costs a lot less to execute someone than to feed them for a week.
That's not true. It costs more to execute someone under the current system of infinite appeals and lawyer fees. At the base level, it costs a lot less to execute someone than to feed them for a week.
So the only way to lower the costs of executions is to limit the appeals of those condemned either by a hard limit or by pricing them out via lawyer fees. Doesn't sound like justice to me.
That's not true. It costs more to execute someone under the current system of infinite appeals and lawyer fees. At the base level, it costs a lot less to execute someone than to feed them for a week.
So the only way to lower the costs of executions is to limit the appeals of those condemned. Doesn't sound like justice to me.
Cost should never be a factor in capital crimes.
We do need to address the whole for-profit model... but, that's a different topic.
To OP: I have no sympathy whatsoever... but, I'd reinstitute either firing squads or if death penalty isn't an option, chain gangs/forced labor.
So the only way to lower the costs of executions is to limit the appeals of those condemned. Doesn't sound like justice to me.
It does if the one party is appealing for appeals sake. In some of these cases, how is it that ANYONE could come up with "new" evidence after 15, 20 or 30+ years? I think that the instances of newer technology (like DNA) being used to solve or reverse convictions is extremely rare and that most police agencies will have done their jobs properly the first time.
That's not true. It costs more to execute someone under the current system of infinite appeals and lawyer fees. At the base level, it costs a lot less to execute someone than to feed them for a week.
So the only way to lower the costs of executions is to limit the appeals of those condemned. Doesn't sound like justice to me.
You know, it worked for 100 years. There's little reason to believe that more appeals leads to different results. Again, follow the money. Who benefits from requiring a lot of drawn-out appeals? Defense attorneys and the prison industry. Do you really believe these requirements were put in place out of some sense of honor or justice? Throughout history, very little has ever been accomplished solely for just causes. It's economics that drive change. The guy running the prison says that it's unjust to execute someone without hearing their case a dozen times, but he's saying it because he has beds that need filling if he's going to turn a profit.
So the only way to lower the costs of executions is to limit the appeals of those condemned. Doesn't sound like justice to me.
It does if the one party is appealing for appeals sake. In some of these cases, how is it that ANYONE could come up with "new" evidence after 15, 20 or 30+ years? I think that the instances of newer technology (like DNA) being used to solve or reverse convictions is extremely rare and that most police agencies will have done their jobs properly the first time.
There have been a lot of cases over here solved by new methods of finding DNA evidence. Several cold cases have been solved after many years (even up to 30, I think).
It's not about police agencies not doing their jobs, it's about them not having the tools to do the job at the time so they, after being pressured to come up with results, charge whoever seems to have the most circumstantial evidence against them. Then it's up to the defendant to have a decent lawyer to show that the evidence is circumstantial.
There's a selection of cold cases solved many years after they were committed thanks to DNA evidence. There were a lot more from a simple google search but you get the drift.
There have been a lot of cases over here solved by new methods of finding DNA evidence. Several cold cases have been solved after many years (even up to 30, I think).
So what do you do in these cases? Say, sorry we kept you in a tiny box for 30 years? Oh, but we didn't kill him, so it's all good. Pat on the back and move on with your life, such as it may be after 30 years of imprisonment? Does anyone ask the convicted what they want? Probably not, because as others have noted, there's that whole revenge aspect. I know that, were I to ever be convicted of murder, I'd rather be executed than spend 30 years in a cell.
But the guy who owns the prison has his profit to think about...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Are any death-row prisons privately run?
If there is no death penalty, there is no call for a death row prison...
Let's see; in this instant case a four time felon with a litany of crimes including robbery, kidnapping, rape, and murder. One victim was shot and then buried alive. By any objective definition this was not a productive member of society, and was pretty useless
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I imagine we don't do that cause who wants to be the executioner blowing some guys head open XD
Simple solution. Five people with rifles. Only a random number have live ammo. That way no one knows who took the fatal shot.
Nah... simplest way is Helium Poisoning.
You go to sleep... and you don't test/feel it as it's chemically simpler to oxygen. Your body doesn't register the difference at that point. Then unknowningly die due to lack of oxygen.
d-usa wrote: Are any death-row prisons privately run?
If there is no death penalty, there is no call for a death row prison...
The argument was that the appeals are there in order to profit the prison owners.
No. The argument was put forth that the appeal system is there to profit the lawyers. The prison owners are lobbying to repeal death penalties altogether. Of course, prolonged appeal process do indirectly benefit prison owners as well, as while the death row inmates may be sent to state or federal penitentiaries, the known cost of a death sentence may result in more convicts receiving lengthy, or permanent, prison terms instead of death.
kronk wrote: Taking the easy way out isn't always the best way out.
How is this the easy way out? The death penalty does not stop crime any more than life without parole. And the death penalty has no take-backs, if an innocent person is executed there is no way to go back, if they are sentenced to life without parole and are proven innocent, they they are freed.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Yes, but not feasible. I'm not sure how that is an argument. Just putting people on life without parole can be substituted for the death penalty.
Do you know how much it costs to imprison someone for a year? For life? (Or, in the current system, to execute them).
You have to realize that almost everything about our (US) correctional system is done with a profit motive. Prisons are run as profit centers for their owners, while we, the public, pay for it. It costs 1-2 million for a life imprisonment sentence. It costs as much to execute someone, with the money going to the attorneys. The public loses in both cases.
Frank Zimring, JD, William G. Simon Professor of Law and Wolfen Distinguished Scholar at the University of California at Berkeley, as quoted in a Mar. 6, 2005 Los Angeles Times article titled "Death Row Often Means a Long Life; California Condemns Many Murderers, But Few Are Ever Executed," stated:
"What we are paying for at such great cost is essentially our own ambivalence about capital punishment. We try to maintain the apparatus of state killing and another apparatus that almost guarantees that it won't happen. The public pays for both sides."
The only way to reduce the costs is to have a capital punishment system that doesn't reward lawyers. One that accepts that the occasional mistake may happen, but that the public good of such a system is preferable to the public costs borne by either life in prison or limitless appeals. As I stated before, I also believe that a timely execution is far more humane than a lengthy incarceration with no hope of life outside of a cell. We seem so preoccupied with the question of life or death, and never consider the question of quality of life.
kronk wrote: Taking the easy way out isn't always the best way out.
The death penalty is the easy way out. It gives up on any attempt at reformation or rehabilitation.
Nah. With the appeals and entire process, it's pretty tough for the Feds to actually kill someone. It's much easier to get 12 strangers to say "Life" than "Death".
kronk wrote: Taking the easy way out isn't always the best way out.
The death penalty is the easy way out. It gives up on any attempt at reformation or rehabilitation.
Nah. With the appeals and entire process, it's pretty tough for the Feds to actually kill someone. It's much easier to get 12 strangers to say "Life" than "Death".
Unless you have Henry Fonda, 12 Angry Men says otherwise
Co'tor Shas wrote: Yes, but not feasible. I'm not sure how that is an argument. Just putting people on life without parole can be substituted for the death penalty.
Do you know how much it costs to imprison someone for a year? For life? (Or, in the current system, to execute them).
You have to realize that almost everything about our (US) correctional system is done with a profit motive. Prisons are run as profit centers for their owners, while we, the public, pay for it. It costs 1-2 million for a life imprisonment sentence. It costs as much to execute someone, with the money going to the attorneys. The public loses in both cases.
Frank Zimring, JD, William G. Simon Professor of Law and Wolfen Distinguished Scholar at the University of California at Berkeley, as quoted in a Mar. 6, 2005 Los Angeles Times article titled "Death Row Often Means a Long Life; California Condemns Many Murderers, But Few Are Ever Executed," stated:
"What we are paying for at such great cost is essentially our own ambivalence about capital punishment. We try to maintain the apparatus of state killing and another apparatus that almost guarantees that it won't happen. The public pays for both sides."
The only way to reduce the costs is to have a capital punishment system that doesn't reward lawyers. One that accepts that the occasional mistake may happen, but that the public good of such a system is preferable to the public costs borne by either life in prison or limitless appeals. As I stated before, I also believe that a timely execution is far more humane than a lengthy incarceration with no hope of life outside of a cell. We seem so preoccupied with the question of life or death, and never consider the question of quality of life.
I'm not concerned about cost. I'm concerned about human life.
It's also cheaper to kill the homeless, physically and mentally handicapped, orphans, kids in DHS custody, etc etc etc.
"Kill them because it's cheaper" is the one argument that should have absolutely nothing to do with any discussion about anything in the justice system.
Bring back Aktion T4 for the savings while we are at it...
d-usa wrote: It's also cheaper to kill the homeless, physically and mentally handicapped, orphans, kids in DHS custody, etc etc etc.
"Kill them because it's cheaper" is the one argument that should have absolutely nothing to do with any discussion about anything in the justice system.
Bring back Aktion T4 for the savings while we are at it...
Mmm, I thought this thread wasn't about the ACA. Thanks Obama!
None of the people you noted did anything wrong. A capital murder level murderer did, in spades.
And yet innocent people are convicted constantly, that's my point. Yes, this person was horrible and the death penalty was acceptable, but I would rather it not be used just in case.
d-usa wrote: It's also cheaper to kill the homeless, physically and mentally handicapped, orphans, kids in DHS custody, etc etc etc.
"Kill them because it's cheaper" is the one argument that should have absolutely nothing to do with any discussion about anything in the justice system.
Bring back Aktion T4 for the savings while we are at it...
Mmm, I thought this thread wasn't about the ACA. Thanks Obama!
None of the people you noted did anything wrong. A capital murder level murderer did, in spades.
And why should they follow the law when you are arguing against the law yourself?
kronk wrote: Taking the easy way out isn't always the best way out.
The death penalty is the easy way out. It gives up on any attempt at reformation or rehabilitation.
If they received the death penalty there is no reformation or rehabilitation. tahts the worst of the worst and you never ever want them out again.
Are you going to rehabiitate Ted Bundy? The Aurora shooter? The murderer in the OP?
There's always the possibility. Serial killers (such as Ted Bundy) can dodge the death penalty anyway as many of them can be proven clinically insane (or even fake it), so it often doesn't help against them.
d-usa wrote: It's also cheaper to kill the homeless, physically and mentally handicapped, orphans, kids in DHS custody, etc etc etc.
"Kill them because it's cheaper" is the one argument that should have absolutely nothing to do with any discussion about anything in the justice system.
Bring back Aktion T4 for the savings while we are at it...
Mmm, I thought this thread wasn't about the ACA. Thanks Obama!
None of the people you noted did anything wrong. A capital murder level murderer did, in spades.
And why should they follow the law when you are arguing against the law yourself?
No where in this thread have I argued against the law. I'm not sure what posts you're reading, but they aren't mine.
Remember. IN SOVIET RUSSIA STALINGRAD ENCIRCLES YOU!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
There's always the possibility. Serial killers (such as Ted Bundy) can dodge the death penalty anyway as many of them can be proven clinically insane (or even fake it), so it often doesn't help against them.
So in your world its ok to let serial killers free. Wow, can they flop at your place?
Co'tor Shas wrote: What do you mean by that? Abolishing the death penalty will not cause crime to go up and is much less likely to permanently harm an innocent person.
It was very simple. Don't commit crimes that can result in the death penalty and we won't have to execute people
Co'tor Shas wrote: What do you mean by that? Abolishing the death penalty will not cause crime to go up and is much less likely to permanently harm an innocent person.
It was very simple. Don't commit crimes that can result in the death penalty and we won't have to execute people
Did you just use the 'don't got nothing to worry about if you don't commit a crime' argument?
Co'tor Shas wrote: What do you mean by that? Abolishing the death penalty will not cause crime to go up and is much less likely to permanently harm an innocent person.
It was very simple. Don't commit crimes that can result in the death penalty and we won't have to execute people
Or we could just put them in jail.
For anyone else commenting on my statements, try to not use the same exact response as everybody else. It's an argument that is meaningless and silly. It does not have any use.
There's always the possibility. Serial killers (such as Ted Bundy) can dodge the death penalty anyway as many of them can be proven clinically insane (or even fake it), so it often doesn't help against them.
So in your world its ok to let serial killers free. Wow, can they flop at your place?
That is not what I said. I said that many serial killers can be diagnosed with pathologies which render them immune to the death penalty due to reduced culpability (not the right word but I can't remember what the correct term is).
Serial killers fall into the Life without Parole group due to their pathology which makes them extremely difficult to impossible to rehabilitate. We do this in the UK with serial killers such as Harold Shipman. They go into prison and they don't come out.
Killers without a psychotic pathology, say the man who kills his wife in a moment of passion after finding her with another man, can possibly be rehabilitated and become productive members of society. Their crime is terrible, yes, but everybody can make mistakes with their lives.
Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm not concerned about cost. I'm concerned about human life.
Apparently not about the quality of it. You know there are over seven billion human lives on the planet. That every day, we drive other species extinct as we consume their habitats to drive our never ending quest for more human life. But how much of a life is it, sitting in a 9x9 cell for 23 hours a day?
d-usa wrote:It's also cheaper to kill the homeless, physically and mentally handicapped, orphans, kids in DHS custody, etc etc etc.
"Kill them because it's cheaper" is the one argument that should have absolutely nothing to do with any discussion about anything in the justice system.
That's naive. Of course cost should enter discussions. And, sorry, but your analogies are inappropriate here. There's nothing that equates someone convicted of violent crimes with orphans or homeless people. Those convict of violent crimes against society have already surrendered their right to be a part of society, and the discussion about what to do with them, how to remove them from society, absolutely should consider the cost to society. On the other hand, everyone else that you mention have done nothing wrong that requires their removal for our safety.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Their crime is terrible, yes, but everybody can make mistakes with their lives.
Some mistakes have consequences that are a little more permanent than others
Substantial volumes of irony on an irony detector that had an analog needle like that wouldn't cause the needle to wrap around the post in that manner.
Simple solution. Five people with rifles. Only a random number have live ammo. That way no one knows who took the fatal shot.
Nah... ship all the death row guys to army and marine bases. Tie them up to the 300m target on qualification day. This way, they are generally far enough away the many people will think he's the standard green pop-up target, but close enough that a few people will take care of the problem.
Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm not concerned about cost. I'm concerned about human life.
Apparently not about the quality of it. You know there are over seven billion human lives on the planet. That every day, we drive other species extinct as we consume their habitats to drive our never ending quest for more human life. But how much of a life is it, sitting in a 9x9 cell for 23 hours a day?
If your innocent, then you have a chance of getting out of that. If it's the death penalty, there is no going back. Some people deserve to die, but to many innocent people get convicted for me to take that chance.
Here's my question. If a person's execution is botched and he/she dies later from injury caused by said execution attempt, can the State be sued for wrongful death?
That's naive. Of course cost should enter discussions. And, sorry, but your analogies are inappropriate here. There's nothing that equates someone convicted of violent crimes with orphans or homeless people. Those convict of violent crimes against society have already surrendered their right to be a part of society, and the discussion about what to do with them, how to remove them from society, absolutely should consider the cost to society. On the other hand, everyone else that you mention have done nothing wrong that requires their removal for our safety.
Wants to execute people because it's cheaper.
Wants to remove the system put in place to protect innocent people from getting executed.
Claims that no innocent people will ever be executed so it's stupid to compare it to the execution of innocent people.
A Town Called Malus wrote: Their crime is terrible, yes, but everybody can make mistakes with their lives.
Some mistakes have consequences that are a little more permanent than others
Such as executing an innocent person?
Funny and what I'm getting at, have an exalt.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: Here's my question. If a person's execution is botched and he/she dies later from injury caused by said execution attempt, can the State be sued for wrongful death?
That is an interesting question. I guess it depends on the case. If it's hours of horrible agony that is preventable, than yes. If it's just a regular death, than not really.
Co'tor Shas wrote:... Some people deserve to die, but to many innocent people get convicted for me to take that chance.
I think you vastly over-estimate this.
d-usa wrote:
Wants to execute people because it's cheaper.
Wants to remove the system put in place to protect innocent people from getting executed.
Claims that no innocent people will ever be executed so it's stupid to compare it to the execution of innocent people.
Hey there, "Genius", I think if you go back and re-read everything I've written, I've never once claimed that no innocent people will be executed. What I have said, repeatedly, is that I believe the death penalty should be applied to repeat offenders. Now, it's entirely possible that an innocent person is convicted once, spend some time in jail, be believed rehabilitated, be released, and then arrested again, before their actual innocence in the first crime is revealed. And, if they are also innocent of that second crime, then it's entirely possible that they get executed. But, the likelihood of this all happening is very slim, and certainly within what I consider an acceptable margin.
That's unfortunate, but it is better than the alternative. Remember, if they were actually guilty of either crime that they were convicted of, they're not innocent. Remember, also, that the vast majority of VICTIMS of violent crime are innocent. If there's enough evidence to wrongly convict someone twice, then perhaps some other part of the system needs to be evaluated. Because locking an innocent person up for 30 years IS NOT BETTER.
Whoever said "better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent be executed" was a moron. With a recidivism rate of even only 4%, letting 1000 guilty people go free would result in 40 additional innocent victims. Last time I checked, 40 innocent victims was more than one innocent victim.
Then turn all death penalty sentences into life without parole.
They have a lifelong opportunity to prove that they are innocent and no innocent people get killed, neither by the state nor by people that were released.
We spend more money locking up drug offenders than murders, so the money argument is nonsense.
d-usa wrote: Then turn all death penalty sentences into life without parole.
They have a lifelong opportunity to prove that they are innocent and no innocent people get killed, neither by the state nor by people that were released.
We spend more money locking up drug offenders than murders, so the money argument is nonsense.
We obviously just disagree.
1) I believe that life imprisonment is a fate worse than death. I would not want to spend the rest of my life in a prison, and would rather face a lethal injection, a hanging, or a bullet, than the prospect of the loss of my freedom for 30 years. Now, I also don't plan to kill anyone, and doubt that I'm going to be wrongly convicted of such, so I probably won't have to face that choice. Still, presenting life imprisonment as somehow 'better' for the prisoner is an idea I simply cannot fathom. The only person that life imprisonment is better for is the owner of the jail. This is true whether the prisoner in question is actually guilty or falsely convicted. Loss of freedom with no expectation of release is a fate worse than death.
2) What we do with drug offenses should have no impact on this discussion. I mean, it's wrong and all, but two wrongs don't make a right. If your argument is that we waste too much on drug offenders, therefore we should also waste too much on violent offenders, then you've lost any respect I may have had for you.
Whoever said "better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent be executed" was a moron. With a recidivism rate of even only 4%, letting 1000 guilty people go free would result in 40 additional innocent victims. Last time I checked, 40 innocent victims was more than one innocent victim.
That "moron" was the man who made it possible for people other than highly trained lawyers to understand English Common Law. He's a big reason you have the laws that you do have.
Also, he originally said 10 guilty people to one innocent. but the ratio is unimportant. The principle is not.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
By imprisoning and executing innocent people you are infringing on all three of the rights which are held as absolute in the very document that led to the founding of your country.
1) I believe that life imprisonment is a fate worse than death. I would not want to spend the rest of my life in a prison, and would rather face a lethal injection, a hanging, or a bullet, than the prospect of the loss of my freedom for 30 years. Now, I also don't plan to kill anyone, and doubt that I'm going to be wrongly convicted of such, so I probably won't have to face that choice. Still, presenting life imprisonment as somehow 'better' for the prisoner is an idea I simply cannot fathom. The only person that life imprisonment is better for is the owner of the jail. This is true whether the prisoner in question is actually guilty or falsely convicted. Loss of freedom with no expectation of release is a fate worse than death.
What about the convicted persons family? Is it better that their children grow up without a father or mother because they were executed? How will those children feel when their parent is later proven innocent? At least with life imprisonment they would then get to spend some more time with their father/mother after their release when they are found innocent.
Saying that loss of freedom with no expectation of release is worse than death is only true if you accept that innocent people in jail will not be able to get out. In which case you need to really look at your current justice system and possibly tear it down and build something better in it's place because it is obviously not fit for purpose.
2) What we do with drug offenses should have no impact on this discussion. I mean, it's wrong and all, but two wrongs don't make a right. If your argument is that we waste too much on drug offenders, therefore we should also waste too much on violent offenders, then you've lost any respect I may have had for you.
It shows how stupid the argument is that we should execute people because it's cheaper.
There are currently ~3,100 people on death row.
There are currently 500,000 people in jail for drug crimes.
Arguing that we should just kill them to save the money we would spend on housing them is nonsense, it is even more nonsense when we look at just how little money we would actually save because they are such a tiny percentage of the people we actually have in prison.
Also, he originally said 10 guilty people to one innocent. but the ratio is unimportant. The principle is not.
Actually, the ratio is extremely important. When dealing with the concept of repeat offenders, understanding the recidivism rate is how you make an educated decision that minimizes harm to innocents. You have to compare the rate of false conviction to the rate of recidivism to know how to minimize harm to innocents. If your ratio of false convictions is 4% and your recidivism rate is 10%, then for each 100 convictions, you have 4 innocents up-front, and another 10 who will harm innocents once released. With that ratio, you're better off executing first-time offenders, as for each 100 convictions, you'll see only 4 innocents harmed, rather than 10 if you let them all go. Once your recidivism rate drops below your false conviction rate, you're better off waiting for them to prove that they're not rehabilitated before executing them.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
By imprisoning and executing innocent people you are infringing on all three of the rights which are held as absolute in the very document that led to the founding of your country.
Oh, which is somehow better than infringing on only two of them by imprisoning them for life? It's well-established that convicted felons have surrendered these rights, otherwise we'd have no moral ground for imprisonment at all.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
By imprisoning and executing innocent people you are infringing on all three of the rights which are held as absolute in the very document that led to the founding of your country.
Oh, which is somehow better than infringing on only two of them by imprisoning them for life? It's well-established that convicted felons have surrendered these rights, otherwise we'd have no moral ground for imprisonment at all.
Those two rights (Liberty, pursuit of happiness) can be regained upon release. If you take the third (life) then you take away all three forever, regardless of whether the person is later proven innocent. So yes, I do think it is better to (potentially temporarily) take the two which can be regained rather than the third which also takes the other two and cannot be reversed.
In my personal experience, people who support the death penalty are people who are not used thinking things all the way through.
Some things to consider when arguing for the death penalty:
1. Define violent crime. Think of all types of violence.
2. At what point does the execution of innocents become unacceptable for you?
3. Do you there believe there is "good murder" and "bad murder", just as you believe there is "good killing" and "bad killing"?
feeder wrote: In my personal experience, people who support the death penalty are people who are not used thinking things all the way through.
Hrm, that's what I think of people who oppose it.
1. Define violent crime. Think of all types of violence.
Wikipedia does this just fine. Feel free to look it up on your own time.
2. At what point does the execution of innocents become unacceptable for you?
When the math shows that more innocents are harmed in enacting the policy than are saved from harm in upholding it. This is not nearly as deep as you think it is. The goal is removal of harm from innocents. If this is best achieved by executing those convicted of repeat violent offenses, then that's what should be done. If the rest of the justice system is so inept that you find that following this policy actually harms more innocent people than would be harmed by releasing them, then release them, but I think you have a bigger problem on your hands if this is the case.
3. Do you there believe there is "good murder" and "bad murder", just as you believe there is "good killing" and "bad killing"?
This is not a valid question, as it presumes a belief I don't have. What is a "good killing" or a "bad killing", I don't think I've seen these terms in this discussion before.
When the math shows that more innocents are harmed in enacting the policy than are saved from harm in upholding it. This is not nearly as deep as you think it is. The goal is removal of harm from innocents. If this is best achieved by executing those convicted of repeat violent offenses, then that's what should be done. If the rest of the justice system is so inept that you find that following this policy actually harms more innocent people than would be harmed by releasing them, then release them, but I think you have a bigger problem on your hands if this is the case.
Am I correct in assuming based upon this that you'd consider the death of an innocent at the hands of the government equal in "wrongness" to the death of an innocent at the hands of a citizen?
Am I correct in assuming based upon this that you'd consider the death of an innocent at the hands of the government equal in "wrongness" to the death of an innocent at the hands of a citizen?
Absolutely. To the innocent party, I doubt it makes much difference.
feeder wrote: In my personal experience, people who support the death penalty are people who are not used thinking things all the way through.
Hrm, that's what I think of people who oppose it.
1. Define violent crime. Think of all types of violence.
Wikipedia does this just fine. Feel free to look it up on your own time.
2. At what point does the execution of innocents become unacceptable for you?
When the math shows that more innocents are harmed in enacting the policy than are saved from harm in upholding it. This is not nearly as deep as you think it is. The goal is removal of harm from innocents. If this is best achieved by executing those convicted of repeat violent offenses, then that's what should be done. If the rest of the justice system is so inept that you find that following this policy actually harms more innocent people than would be harmed by releasing them, then release them, but I think you have a bigger problem on your hands if this is the case.
3. Do you there believe there is "good murder" and "bad murder", just as you believe there is "good killing" and "bad killing"?
This is not a valid question, as it presumes a belief I don't have. What is a "good killing" or a "bad killing", I don't think I've seen these terms in this discussion before.
Black baby Jesus in a dune buggy! We got ourselves a utilitarian.
Am I correct in assuming based upon this that you'd consider the death of an innocent at the hands of the government equal in "wrongness" to the death of an innocent at the hands of a citizen?
Absolutely. To the innocent party, I doubt it makes much difference.
The problem with that is that we cede our natural rights to the government as part of the social contract where they protect our given rights. As they have responsibility to actively protect and uphold those rights, the innocent put to the death at the hands of the state is doubly wronged. He is not being harmed by the state, and he is actively protected by the state from itself.
Dead men offer no appeals. You can gain little extra information from a corpse, and you do not put to death someone you believe is innocent, so if you have put the innocent to death, there is still a guilty party at large and the dead innocent is no longer capable of attempting to drive further investigation or prove his innocence in any way.
So now you have two ways in which that the doomed innocent were wronged, and another way which wrongs the original victim(s) (deprived of justice) and society (leaving a criminal who could act again still at large) as a whole. While you can't directly measure that impact in a count of heads, there certainly must be an impact there. That is why people find it repugnant.
Meanwhile murdering citizen has no such obligation to actively uphold the protection bestowed upon you by the state; he simply has an obligation to not violate the voluntary cession of his natural rights. What he does is appalling, but not to the extent of when it occurs by state.
Well, that's one way to look at it. I'm sure that a wrongly dead person really cares whether he was wronged once or twice in his killing.
And, it doesn't address the question of the math. If one person is doubly wronged, but the system that leads to a small number of people being doubly-wronged also prevents a much larger number of people from being wronged at all, aren't the fewest wrongs achieved by hitting the small number of people doubly?
If you exclude that there's someone guilty still out on the loose in those situations, perhaps. The math approach here makes sense, but it kind of has a "this'll never happen to me" feeling about it. The dead party was still wronged. I suppose it's academic how wronged they are, and they certainly don't care, but it is no less wronged.
The problem here is that, at least for the people who oppose the death sentence, no amount of math, no matter how accurate, can compensate for the horror of hearing of a literal Kafkaesque situation where the law apprehends and kills an innocent person for crimes not committed. What you advocate is entirely logic based, and it probably IS a good system for creatures that are logic based. Humans really don't seem to be that though.
curran12 wrote: I was going to be amazed at how many people were fine with someone dying in tortured agony here, but then I remembered it was the internet.
I dunno, I just woke up and after skimming the thread am rather pleased with how the conversation has (mostly) failed to devolve, a rarity on such a polarizing subject.
feeder wrote: In my personal experience, people who support the death penalty are people who are not used thinking things all the way through.
Hrm, that's what I think of people who oppose it.
Lol, to be clear, I am not talking about anyone ITT. I have had this convo IRL and can usually show others the error in their thinking.
1. Define violent crime. Think of all types of violence.
Wikipedia does this just fine. Feel free to look it up on your own time.
Not really what I was getting at, but okay...
Wikipedia wrote:A violent crime or crime of violence is a crime in which the offender uses or threatens to use violent force upon the victim. This entails both crimes in which the violent act is the objective, such as murder, as well as crimes in which violence is the means to an end, (including criminal ends) such as robbery. Violent crimes include crimes committed with weapons
So do you advocate the death penalty for multiple robberies? How about bar fights? Basically, what kind of violence justifies an execution?
2. At what point does the execution of innocents become unacceptable for you?
When the math shows that more innocents are harmed in enacting the policy than are saved from harm in upholding it. This is not nearly as deep as you think it is. The goal is removal of harm from innocents. If this is best achieved by executing those convicted of repeat violent offenses, then that's what should be done. If the rest of the justice system is so inept that you find that following this policy actually harms more innocent people than would be harmed by releasing them, then release them, but I think you have a bigger problem on your hands if this is the case.
Well, fair enough. I can see your line of reasoning, but I really think there is too many unknowns to get a mathematically sound ratio of lives lost vs lives spared. Not one that I would be comfortable with implementing, anyway.
3. Do you there believe there is "good murder" and "bad murder", just as you believe there is "good killing" and "bad killing"?
This is not a valid question, as it presumes a belief I don't have. What is a "good killing" or a "bad killing", I don't think I've seen these terms in this discussion before.
Sorry, I'll clarify. "Good" killing is killing via war, execution, (possibly) self-defence. "Bad" killing is murder.
Ouze wrote: For the life of me, I don't understand why we don't just shoot people if we've got to execute them. I've got mixed feelings on capital punishment - I can neither endorse it nor condemn it - but if I had to get it, getting shot in the head point blank with a decent caliber seems more pleasant than either the chair, the gas, or the needle. Messier, I guess.
Yeah, some time ago people decided that you needed to execute people in a nice, clean fashion. There were lots of arguments about it being humane or whatever, but basically it meant they were inventing ways to kill people that didn't make a mess, didn't show any blood.
The result was a bunch of gas and injection based methods of killing that need to be administered very carefully or else they might cause a whole lot of pain while they kill the person.
Personally I'm all for death by explosion. Even over a bullet in the head, with enough explosive you're pretty much guaranteed an instant, pain free death. Sure it'd be gruesome, but you're killing a person, why get squeamish about it?
Ouze wrote: For the life of me, I don't understand why we don't just shoot people if we've got to execute them. I've got mixed feelings on capital punishment - I can neither endorse it nor condemn it - but if I had to get it, getting shot in the head point blank with a decent caliber seems more pleasant than either the chair, the gas, or the needle. Messier, I guess.
Yeah, some time ago people decided that you needed to execute people in a nice, clean fashion. There were lots of arguments about it being humane or whatever, but basically it meant they were inventing ways to kill people that didn't make a mess, didn't show any blood.
The result was a bunch of gas and injection based methods of killing that need to be administered very carefully or else they might cause a whole lot of pain while they kill the person.
Personally I'm all for death by explosion. Even over a bullet in the head, with enough explosive you're pretty much guaranteed an instant, pain free death. Sure it'd be gruesome, but you're killing a person, why get squeamish about it?
There's always the mortor option as pioneered by North Korea!
Maybe we all should agree that being a Murderer & Rapist is an occupational hazard that your execution may not go as planned.
It is the death penalty (a sentence of legal punishment available to the courts in some jurisdictions.)
Since clearly everyone does not agree with the death penalty, your idea will not work.
The easiest thing actually would be to give up the death penalty, then there wouldn't be any botched executions or the active opposition that leads to prolonged appeals processes that make the death penalty more expensive than life imprisonment.
Maybe we all should agree that being a Murderer & Rapist is an occupational hazard that your execution may not go as planned.
It is the death penalty (a sentence of legal punishment available to the courts in some jurisdictions.)
Since clearly everyone does not agree with the death penalty, your idea will not work.
The easiest thing actually would be to give up the death penalty, then there wouldn't be any botched executions or the active opposition that leads to prolonged appeals processes that make the death penalty more expensive than life imprisonment.
I agree. The death penalty is kind of severe. no one deserves death. Not Even Hitler. People only deserve prison and a chance to redeem themselves. We can't go back to stupid ideas like eye for an eye. It just doesn't work. Not in todays society. We cannot degenerate ourselves to our pervious levels of humanity.
Justice does not mean eye for an eye, it means serving justice and not degenerating ourselves to the criminal's level
Why should we go down to their level. Humanity is better than that.
LordofHats wrote: If someone can't be rehabilitated, then keeping them locked up for life is a waste of taxpayer dollars
People will point out that it costs more to kill someone than to imprison them for their lives, but if you ask me both sides are missing the key point - the cost of executing these people or imprioning them for the rest of their lives is utterly trivial to government. There are rounding errors in government accounts that are bigger than the cost of this.
The decision to kill or not kill prisoners in no state or nation on Earth was ever decided on account of money. Not one. People may have claimed that, but they were looking for reasons, no-one started first by looking to save a hundred million off the budget and said 'ha! if we just kill those dozen people we've got locked up for life it'll save 5 million!'
States choose to have systems to kill people because they want to kill them, because they believe it is good to have a final, absolute punishment for people who do truly repulsive things. Similarly, states choose not to kill people because they don't believe that it is moral to choose to kill someone who is locked up and under your control.
Both positions are reasonable, and both stand alone as sensible, moral ways of looking at the issue, and are at the core of why anyone takes either side of the issue. Everything else like money is a justification invented for a position that people have already decided one way or the other.
and only gives them more chances to kill people (prisoners may be prisoners but they're still human).
If you wanted safer, more secure prisons, then you could achieve that easily just by increasing funding for larger and more modern facilities and greater numbers of guards. That you don't says a lot about how much that reason really matters is the choice to kill criminals.
A lot of punishments serve a function of revenge. What makes it justice is that it benefits society as well.
What makes is justice is that it is carried out by an organisation that we as a society have empowered to carry out justice on our behalf. Which is a tautology of course, but that's the point.
This doesn't make it wrong, by the way. It is similarly justice and not revenge when we lock someone up in a cell for five years, for no reason other than we as a society have deemed to call it such.
Of course killing any human being is unethical even in self defense.... We are part of each other and we are human beings.
Sorry, I don't agree with you that self-defense killing is unethical. Personally I see it as one of the most ethical things to do.
To put this in a situation: say someone breaks into my home. my wife, kids and myself are there. This person goes after one of my kids. By your reasoning, I should let this fether do whatever the hell they want with my kids, because killing them on sight is "unethical". No. Protecting myself (and by extension, my kids are myself, because they do not possess the capacity to defend themselves) and my family is the most ethical thing that I can do as a father and a man in Western Society.
The decision to kill or not kill prisoners in no state or nation on Earth was ever decided on account of money. Not one. People may have claimed that, but they were looking for reasons, no-one started first by looking to save a hundred million off the budget and said 'ha! if we just kill those dozen people we've got locked up for life it'll save 5 million!'
Perhaps for some folks, they see the money thing in more the opposite way. Especially where the privatized prisons are operating. Ie. they look and say, "ha! if we kill off these 5 prisoners, that will free up space where we can put 5 or 10 more prisoners, which will make us more money on our contract!"
Not that it's any less fallacious than "saving" money. And, to my knowledge the maximum security/death row type prisons are still actually government run (though if someone knows for sure, please feel free to enlighten us)
LordofHats wrote: Personally, I would like to see a much higher burden for justifying the death penalty. Some people we execute are people who I disagree should have been executed.
And that's actually my problem with the death penalty - I don't think it's possible to add such a higher burden, and instead by adding the option of the death penalty we make the case so much more emotive that we increase the chance of a miscarriage of justice.
I think there is a big difference in the statements 'a crime was committed that was horrible and we think this person did it' and 'a crime was committed that was so horrible we need to kill the person who did it and we think this person did it'. It's a big enough difference that I think it accounts for a fair percentage of the number of people sitting on death row who didn't commit the crimes in question.
The best solution would be to make it harder to get the Death penalty, but to limit the number of appeals and set a hard deadline. The execution date is fixed, you have till then to prove your innocence.
And make the execution much simpler. Its pretty hard to go wrong with a large caliber bullet at point blank range. You can guarantee they won't feel a thing.
There are criminals who must simply be removed from this earth, not having the Death Penalty is simply not a viable option. Take the guy who shot up that kids camp in Sweden(?), no death penalty. He'll either rot away his life indefinitely in a cushy prison(hardly justice, he has a platform to spew his rubbish), and the horrifying possibility exists that he'll get released eventually by some future review panel.
If someone commits deliberate premeditated murder, as far as I am concerned they have given up any rights they were previously deserved. Human life is at the most basic level equal with all other human life, and that is the very reason the death penalty should exist. Otherwise, someone can take a life and continue with their own, which basically says that their continued existence matters more than the life they destroyed. It creates a statement that the murders life is more valued than his victim. The death penalty says the lives are equal and that committing murder means you must lose your own life in exchange.
The same for any other heinous crimes. At a point, you lose your right to continue to exist.
Redbeard wrote: Whoever said "better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent be executed" was a moron. With a recidivism rate of even only 4%, letting 1000 guilty people go free would result in 40 additional innocent victims. Last time I checked, 40 innocent victims was more than one innocent victim.
There are few guarantees in life, but one thing I can absolutely guarantee anyone out there is that anytime the death penalty is brought up, someone will pretend that the alternative to execution is letting the person go, that they will suddenly forget that you can actually lock people up for the rest of their lives if you want to.
This is miles away from any of the silliest assumptions I've ever seen on the internet, but it deserves its place in the internet hall of bad arguments just because it is absolutely, 100% guaranteed to always get mentioned.
But locking an innocent man away for life is no better than executing him. In a way its worse because he's being confined indefinitely.
And no, the possibility that he'll get exonerated isn't an upside. He'd still have lost potentially decades of his life. You might as well have killed him.
You've also exposed him to the criminal elements in prison, now he's more likely to actually become a real criminal.
The possibility of executing someone who is innocent is low enough that its an acceptable risk. yes, the justice system needs reform. cutting the death penalty isn't part of that.
Asherian Command wrote: Of course killing any human being is unethical even in self defense....
In any situation the action that causes the least harm & injustice is the most ethical course of action. If we ignore that, then the only way to be ethical is to just lucky enough to never get stuck in a difficult situation.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: There's always the mortor option as pioneered by North Korea!
Which we always mention everytime this thread comes up, and it never fails to make me smile
I think there is a big difference in the statements 'a crime was committed that was horrible and we think this person did it' and 'a crime was committed that was so horrible we need to kill the person who did it and we think this person did it'. It's a big enough difference that I think it accounts for a fair percentage of the number of people sitting on death row who didn't commit the crimes in question.
Now, what about those certain people who through various means, we KNOW are horrible, horrible people, yet they just sit there rotting away? I mean, guys like Charles Manson are still alive, even though the evidence fits, there's confessions of guilt, and there's a complete lack of repentance in the guilty's actions/words/demeanor, yet due to their locale, we must give them 3 hots and a cot.
I'm fairly certain that some other serial killers have gone to death row, and been expidited a bit (I think Ted Bundy out in Florida was executed, no?) but we still run into certain characters who are still around, even though I think your statements fairly well cover them to a point where execution is a perfectly viable option.
Grey Templar wrote: The best solution would be to make it harder to get the Death penalty, but to limit the number of appeals and set a hard deadline. The execution date is fixed, you have till then to prove your innocence.
That's completely abhorrent.
"What's that? People working for your defence are in the process of getting DNA evidence re-examined under new methods recently invented... well too bad times up in the chamber you go!"
There are criminals who must simply be removed from this earth, not having the Death Penalty is simply not a viable option.
You are free to want the death penalty and your state is free to have it, but to claim that there are people who must be removed from this Earth, and that the death penalty is not viable is just basic ignorance of how much of the world works.
Now, if you'd said that you personally believe that some criminals should be removed from the earth, and that you personally do not want the death penalty removed... then that'd be reasonable, but attempting to put some kind of assertion about how things have to be made your claim just plain wrong.
sebster wrote: Personally I'm all for death by explosion. Even over a bullet in the head, with enough explosive you're pretty much guaranteed an instant, pain free death. Sure it'd be gruesome, but you're killing a person, why get squeamish about it?
Well, I've previously said in this thread and elsewhere that I have very mixed opinions on the death penalty and I've given the usual reasons for it. That being said, I'd be a lot more enthusiastic about if if this were the method of execution.
"What do you think about capital punishment?"
"Well, it's a tragedy, of course, but also, it's awesome as feth".
Asherian Command wrote: The death penalty is kind of severe. no one deserves death. Not Even Hitler. People only deserve prison and a chance to redeem themselves.
I respect your stance as much as I disagree with it My mother feels the same way, opposition to the death penalty regardless of the circumstances. I myself think there are plenty pf people who deserve to die.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Now, what about those certain people who through various means, we KNOW are horrible, horrible people, yet they just sit there rotting away?
I don't believe there's a process possible where you can draw a line and say 'these are the people were are absolutely certain did the crime and these are the people who we just think did it beyond a reasonable doubt'. We have cases of appalling crimes committed, where multiple people put the accused around the location of the crime, and the accused even confessed to the crime, who was later found out to be innocent.
And yeah, so the person sits there, just rotting away. So what? What awful things they've done is done, and there's no un-doing it. At this point, to my reckoning, the question about what to do with the killer is not much of an important question at all, he sits in a cage forever or you kill him, either way he's wasted his life as well as the lives of his victims.
Now that doesn't mean I'm opposed to the death penalty as much as uninterested in it, do it or don't, just make sure you've got the right person. And to my mind, offering up the death penalty increases the chance that there might be a miscarriage of justice for reasons I've mentioned above, and that's why I oppose the death penalty.
But that said, I'm by no means certain that my argument is a complete argument, as there's never been anything definitive to prove that the death penalty increases the number of miscarriages of justice, just the observations of some trial lawyers (most of whom, like Geoffrey Robertson, are well and truly on the left when it comes to matters of justice). And on the other hand, it could be argued that the reason so many death penalty cases are reversed on appeal is that people actually bother to give those full and extensive appeals, unlike life in prison cases which attract nothing like the same level of pro bono work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: "What do you think about capital punishment?"
"Well, it's a tragedy, of course, but also, it's awesome as feth".
As far as I know, research has shown the death penalty (as well as severity of punishment in general) has no discernible effect on the crime rate, and that what actually modifies the crime rate is the chance of being caught. The idea that it actually reduces crime appears to be bunk.
Personally, I think the state murdering someone is worse than a citizen murdering someone. The state has (collectively) much greater power than a citizen and it needs to be better controlled as a result. Power needs safeguards, and the best safeguard we can have in this case is not allowing the state to execute people. There's no benefit to it anyway since it doesn't reduce crime, so it seems like an easy choice.
If you think locking people up for the rest of their lives is inhumane then I think making imprisonment less awful is probably the way to go. You should still be able to live your life in some way in prison. I don't think - and research seems to support - that doing so will increase the crime rate, and if being locked up is a better life than not then your society probably has some pretty serious issues anyway. Then with that baseline in place we can look into recidivism, causes of crime and rehabilitation.
feeder wrote:
So do you advocate the death penalty for multiple robberies? How about bar fights? Basically, what kind of violence justifies an execution?
The repeated kind. I'm willing to give someone a chance to prove that what they did was due to an error of judgement, a lapse of reasoning, whatever. I believe the primary purpose of any penal system should be the rehabilitation and eventual re-admittance of the prisoner into society. But I also believe that you only get to fool me once, and if you prove, through your actions, that you don't want to be a part of a civilized peaceful society, then you can be executed, and that it is in societies best interest to do so.
sebster wrote:
There are few guarantees in life, but one thing I can absolutely guarantee anyone out there is that anytime the death penalty is brought up, someone will pretend that the alternative to execution is letting the person go, that they will suddenly forget that you can actually lock people up for the rest of their lives if you want to.
Did you read any of the rest of this thread, because I haven't seen anyone pretend that the alternative is to lock them up forever. Rather, we believe that the "lock them up forever" approach is both a less humane solution than an execution, and is also more costly than an appropriately implemented death penalty.
Why not make it life in prison with the option of asking to be executed? That way the prisoner can decide for him- or herself if death is preferrable to life in prison.
Further, since this is a very US phenomenon, if you guys want a weaker government wouldn't it make sense to not let the state decide if someone deserves to live?
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Why not make it life in prison with the option of asking to be executed? That way the prisoner can decide for him- or herself if death is preferrable to life in prison.
Further, since this is a very US phenomenon, if you guys want a weaker government wouldn't it make sense to not let the state decide if someone deserves to live?
Americans don't want a "Weaker Government", though I guess I understand why it could seem like that from the outside. The small government types are certainly a very vocal minority. They also want the government to be smaller only in very specific ways that support a conservative worldview.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: Why not make it life in prison with the option of asking to be executed? That way the prisoner can decide for him- or herself if death is preferrable to life in prison.
Further, since this is a very US phenomenon, if you guys want a weaker government wouldn't it make sense to not let the state decide if someone deserves to live?
Who said anything about a weaker government? I'd like a more active government that actually regulated certain problem industries (such as the for-profit prison network), rather than being beholden to all the corporate interests that seem to have bought and paid for the status quo.
I'm glad the Michael Portillo documentary was posted on page one. Well in d-usa!
I always think that Ian Hislop provides a concise and logical reason to be against the death penalty in this QT episode.
It's quite amazing to think that executing the wrong people is seen as an acceptable part of the system, rather than just replacing it with "life with no chance of release"
It's quite amazing to think that executing the wrong people is seen as an acceptable part of the system, rather than just replacing it with "life with no chance of release"
To be fair, personally, I'd rather die than actually suffer a full life term in prison, especially if I didn't commit the crime.
Medium of Death wrote: I'm glad the Michael Portillo documentary was posted on page one. Well in d-usa!
I always think that Ian Hislop provides a concise and logical reason to be against the death penalty in this QT episode.
...
It's quite amazing to think that executing the wrong people is seen as an acceptable part of the system, rather than just replacing it with "life with no chance of release"
I think it's amazing to think that we're willing to institute a poor solution to a problem because we're too lazy to fix another problem within the system.
"Oh no, what if you kill the wrong people" is not an argument against the death penalty, it's an indication that other aspects of your justice system are seriously flawed.
You cannot tell me that someone who has been wrongly convicted and released after spending half their life in a tiny cell has not suffered as much, if not more, than someone executed for the same wrong conviction. You make it sound like the opportunity to let them go after that experience fixes all ills. Maybe if the consequence of getting it wrong were more severe, we'd see more of an effort made not to make these mistakes in the first place.
If the justice system is in an inadequate state to put people in prison for long stretches or for the rest of their lives, as you suggest, wouldn't it make sense to postpone it's lethal elements first? A person can live out the rest of their lives once released, it isn't ideal but it's at least an option that would otherwise be denied to them.
What would be the positive outcome of killing somebody for a crime they didn't commit?
I sense you're going at this for the greater good in society angle, so I hope when your time comes to die for a crime you didn't commit you accept your position as a statistic and allow the state to get on with it.
It's quite amazing to think that executing the wrong people is seen as an acceptable part of the system, rather than just replacing it with "life with no chance of release"
To be fair, personally, I'd rather die than actually suffer a full life term in prison, especially if I didn't commit the crime.
To some people, then, a life sentence would be a greater deterrent than a death sentence.
Medium of Death wrote: If the justice system is in an inadequate state to put people in prison for long stretches or for the rest of their lives, as you suggest, wouldn't it make sense to postpone it's lethal elements first? A person can live out the rest of their lives once released, it isn't ideal but it's at least an option that would otherwise be denied to them.
Yeah, I suppose they could spend those years in jail, being raped and beaten and otherwise tortured at the hands of other inmates. They could contracts HIV or hepatitis. Because being in prison is so much fun.
What would be the positive outcome of killing somebody for a crime they didn't commit?
There is no positive outcome of killing someone for something they didn't do. There is, however, less of a negative outcome than imprisoning them indefinitely for a crime they didn't commit. The dead cease suffering. Again, there's the whole quality of life thing. You really think being locked in a cage for a crime you didn't commit, being forced to dwell on that day after day, is preferable?
I sense you're going at this for the greater good in society angle, so I hope when your time comes to die for a crime you didn't commit you accept your position as a statistic and allow the state to get on with it.
I don't put myself in a lot of situations where this is likely. However, on the off-chance that it were to happen, I would absolutely request to be executed, rather than spending the rest of my days in a box.
This is what I don't get about the "what if we get things wrong crowd". Either you're pedantically worried about a very small number of cases where we actually get things wrong, or you've got blinders on to the larger problem that get things wrong too often. I'm not actually worried, at all, about being convicted of a crime I didn't commit, because I don't believe this is a common occurrence. I think that in the few cases where someone is wrongly convicted of a crime they didn't commit, it's either because they had committed a different crime, placing them in suspicion, or it is a result of further criminal activity.
In the latter case, and I acknowledge that this happens, too often even, if a prosecutor or police officer lies, or withholds evidence that leads an innocent person to be convicted, that is a crime of no less importance than murder itself. I don't suggest designing a penal system based on criminal behaviour among those expected to run it, that just doesn't make sense.
So do you advocate the death penalty for multiple robberies? How about bar fights? Basically, what kind of violence justifies an execution?
The repeated kind. I'm willing to give someone a chance to prove that what they did was due to an error of judgement, a lapse of reasoning, whatever. I believe the primary purpose of any penal system should be the rehabilitation and eventual re-admittance of the prisoner into society. But I also believe that you only get to fool me once, and if you prove, through your actions, that you don't want to be a part of a civilized peaceful society, then you can be executed, and that it is in societies best interest to do so.
Your bloody-minded approach to a civil society certainly is at odds with your cuddly-wuddly squiggoth avatar!
This "one strike and you're out forever" policy would require a massive shift in social spending and priorities, the prison system especially, or the government would be executing hundreds of people a day, essentially for the crime of being poor and/or addicted and desperate.
Rather, we believe that the "lock them up forever" approach is both a less humane solution than an execution, and is also more costly than an appropriately implemented death penalty.
I would rather be alive and in prison, praying for a miracle, than dead in the ground if I was convicted of a capital crime I didn't commit.
Hope is a powerful thing, it's why we have lotteries.
You know those people who have been proven innocent after a long stint in prison seem pretty happy and not criminal. I suppose we should interview those who were executed and see how they think...
There is a sad case in Japan where a man was convicted of murder 48 years ago, and has been on death row ever since. DNA testing has now shown that the evidence against him may have been fabricated, and he has been released.
FRODO:It's a pity Bilbo didn't kill him when he had the chance.
GANDALFity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death and judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends.
So do you advocate the death penalty for multiple robberies? How about bar fights? Basically, what kind of violence justifies an execution?
The repeated kind. I'm willing to give someone a chance to prove that what they did was due to an error of judgement, a lapse of reasoning, whatever. I believe the primary purpose of any penal system should be the rehabilitation and eventual re-admittance of the prisoner into society. But I also believe that you only get to fool me once, and if you prove, through your actions, that you don't want to be a part of a civilized peaceful society, then you can be executed, and that it is in societies best interest to do so.
Your bloody-minded approach to a civil society certainly is at odds with your cuddly-wuddly squiggoth avatar!
This "one strike and you're out forever" policy would require a massive shift in social spending and priorities, the prison system especially, or the government would be executing hundreds of people a day, essentially for the crime of being poor and/or addicted and desperate.
How do you get "one strike" from a proposed system that only executes repeat offenders, and makes every effort to rehabilitate on the first go-round? How do you get executing people for being poor out of restricting this to violent criminals? And, if you're poor and desperate and mug someone, that person doesn't get unmugged due to your desperation.
Reading comprehension is a lost art.
curran12 wrote:You know those people who have been proven innocent after a long stint in prison seem pretty happy and not criminal.
It's easy to appear happy once the outcome has turned in your favour. Have you seen the interviews with them when they're on year 19? Have you seen the damage to the rest of their lives that lengthy incarceration has caused? The PTSD? The scars from the torture they endured in prison? (Referring to conflict with other prisoners).
Kilkrazy wrote: There is a sad case in Japan where a man was convicted of murder 48 years ago, and has been on death row ever since. DNA testing has now shown that the evidence against him may have been fabricated, and he has been released.
The same page has a load more death row stories, mostly from the USA.
How do you return to the real world at that point? I mean, for one, you've been convicted of murder. Even if it's overturned, it's still a black mark on your life. It'd basically be a death sentence for your career, as you've not applied any skills you had for half a century. God forbid you do anything relating to programming. If he were a programmer, the last thing he'd remember using are punch cards.
Easy E wrote: FRODO:It's a pity Bilbo didn't kill him when he had the chance.
GANDALF: Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death and judgement. Even the very wise cannot see all ends.
Balrog: Roar!
GANDALF: Fly you fools... *whip* You shall not pass. Waaahaaaa falling into the abyss.
I've seen the movie too, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the discussion. Are you really citing "Gandalf"?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: There is a sad case in Japan where a man was convicted of murder 48 years ago, and has been on death row ever since. DNA testing has now shown that the evidence against him may have been fabricated, and he has been released.
The same page has a load more death row stories, mostly from the USA.
Yeah, that's sad. But there's a reason it is newsworthy, and that's because it doesn't happen very often. We had something like 30 murders last weekend in Chicago. In one weekend. One city, one weekend.
And why was he convicted? " key evidence against him may have been fabricated,". Someone committed a criminal act that led to his conviction. How is this different than if he were the victim of a murder? It's very sad that any innocent person is the victim of any crime.
From the article: "Like most death row inmates in Japan, Hakamada was largely held in solitary confinement during his 48 years in prison. His mental health has deteriorated as a result of the decades he spent isolated, Amnesty said."
Kilkrazy wrote: There is a sad case in Japan where a man was convicted of murder 48 years ago, and has been on death row ever since. DNA testing has now shown that the evidence against him may have been fabricated, and he has been released.
The same page has a load more death row stories, mostly from the USA.
How do you return to the real world at that point? I mean, for one, you've been convicted of murder. Even if it's overturned, it's still a black mark on your life. It'd basically be a death sentence for your career, as you've not applied any skills you had for half a century. God forbid you do anything relating to programming. If he were a programmer, the last thing he'd remember using are punch cards.
In the UK we dish out substantial monetary compensation to the people who spent a long time inside before they were exonerated.
If they wanted to die instead, they could commit suicide.
It's easy to appear happy once the outcome has turned in your favour. Have you seen the interviews with them when they're on year 19? Have you seen the damage to the rest of their lives that lengthy incarceration has caused? The PTSD? The scars from the torture they endured in prison? (Referring to conflict with other prisoners).
In that case, we should probably execute soldiers after deployment huh? After all, they have just as much if not more trauma than anyone going to prison.
And it's a tragedy that we don't have specialists who could help people with mental illness, we could call them psychologists or psychiatrists or something.
I don't disagree that being falsely imprisoned would be tremendously depressing.
It is a more complex issue and I definitely think that your points make more sense when looking at the subject pragmatically.
I guess back to the OP that the person suffered is perhaps a hit or miss. On one hand we should perhaps offer quick deaths for these people as we simply want to rid them from society, on the other hand it is very hard to feel any empathy for a Rapist who buried his victim alive. That is muddying the waters with personal opinions and feelings though.
If capital punishment has to stay I definitely think Hypoxia should be used as the method demonstrated at the end of this documentary. Person doesn't suffer, but they die.
So do you advocate the death penalty for multiple robberies? How about bar fights? Basically, what kind of violence justifies an execution?
The repeated kind. I'm willing to give someone a chance to prove that what they did was due to an error of judgement, a lapse of reasoning, whatever. I believe the primary purpose of any penal system should be the rehabilitation and eventual re-admittance of the prisoner into society. But I also believe that you only get to fool me once, and if you prove, through your actions, that you don't want to be a part of a civilized peaceful society, then you can be executed, and that it is in societies best interest to do so.
Your bloody-minded approach to a civil society certainly is at odds with your cuddly-wuddly squiggoth avatar!
This "one strike and you're out forever" policy would require a massive shift in social spending and priorities, the prison system especially, or the government would be executing hundreds of people a day, essentially for the crime of being poor and/or addicted and desperate.
How do you get "one strike" from a proposed system that only executes repeat offenders, and makes every effort to rehabilitate on the first go-round? How do you get executing people for being poor out of restricting this to violent criminals?
Apologies, I should have wrote one strike and then you're out, or two strikes and you're out. I do understand your position, I just really don't think it is possible to implement the kind of flaw and corruption proof justice system it would require.
If they wanted to die instead, they could commit suicide.
Is that not a crime over there?
Yeah, we have suicide watch on prisons here, because we wouldn't want to deprive the prison owner of his bed fees.
d-usa wrote:Execute innocent people because we can't be arsed to have non-torturous prisons...
You're making a long line of arguments that are all predicated on the idea that the end result of our legal system is that we have to falsely convict innocent people. Maybe, instead of worrying about whether the falsely convicted are executed, or placed within a barbarous prison system, or allowed to live out their days in a prison-resort, we could focus on the real issue that appears to be that we convict all together too many innocent people. From reading this thread, I've learned one thing, and that's that our justice system is so completely inept that the vast majority of prisoners are probably innocent, and all decisions involving how to handle them within the system must be focused on protecting this innocent majority.
What a load of crap. If you cared half as much about the falsely convicted as you seem to, you'd be in a thread about the flaws in our judicial system, not one about the consequences of criminal activity.
My main objection to the death penalty is that there is always the possibility that an executed person will later be discovered to be innocent and whilst you can always free a wrongly convicted prisoner you cannot resurrect a corpse.
I actually think this particular case, as horrible as the botching of the execution was, is totally the wrong one to hang a debate on the merits of capital punishment on. This guy was a sadistic rapist who buried his victim alive and his guilt is not in doubt. I can’t bring myself to have any sympathy for him.
A far better case to be discussing is someone like Glenn Ford, who was on death row for 30 years after being convicted on flimsy testimony and has now been proven to have been nowhere near the site of the murder. That’s a battle worth fighting.
So who was it who said that it was unlikely that new evidence would crop up after 30 years? And said we should trust the police to have done the job right at the beginning?
A Town Called Malus wrote: So who was it who said that it was unlikely that new evidence would crop up after 30 years? And said we should trust the police to have done the job right at the beginning?
A Town Called Malus wrote: So who was it who said that it was unlikely that new evidence would crop up after 30 years? And said we should trust the police to have done the job right at the beginning?
So the only way to lower the costs of executions is to limit the appeals of those condemned. Doesn't sound like justice to me.
It does if the one party is appealing for appeals sake. In some of these cases, how is it that ANYONE could come up with "new" evidence after 15, 20 or 30+ years? I think that the instances of newer technology (like DNA) being used to solve or reverse convictions is extremely rare and that most police agencies will have done their jobs properly the first time.
Also from the article Lucius linked above, at the time of writing there had been 144 death row acquittals in the USA in the last 40 years. That's an average of 3 to 4 acquittals a year. That is 3 to 4 innocent people who would have died whilst the real guilty party went free. And once someone is dead, there is less push and reason to investigate the case and expose their innocence. They certainly can't keep pushing for it and their lawyer probably won't keep pushing without their client alive.
I think if you were to, off the top of my head, go out and murder 77 people, 10 to 21 years sounds like a sane sentence. We're all Buddha's children, guys. Everyone deserves a 78th chance.
Seaward wrote: I think if you were to, off the top of my head, go out and murder 77 people, 10 to 21 years sounds like a sane sentence. We're all Buddha's children, guys. Everyone deserves a 78th chance.
You're such a softie.
I think we should implement a system where every parent has to pass a means test to prove they earn at least $60,000 a year. Failing this test means execution of the child, as poor children are much more likely to grow up be violent criminals. Society would benefit greatly as less money would be have to spent on law enforcement as less people grow up and choose a career in crime.
I think it's amazing to think that we're willing to institute a poor solution to a problem because we're too lazy to fix another problem within the system.
You make that argument and then go on to argue in post after post about how gakky life is in prison due to inmate violence, contracting HIV and whatnot. I'll just leave your own quote for you to ponder.
Seaward wrote: I think if you were to, off the top of my head, go out and murder 77 people, 10 to 21 years sounds like a sane sentence. We're all Buddha's children, guys. Everyone deserves a 78th chance.
If that's Breivik you're referring to you're kidding yourself if you think there's even a snowball's chance in hell that he's ever getting out again.
Of course killing any human being is unethical even in self defense.... We are part of each other and we are human beings.
Sorry, I don't agree with you that self-defense killing is unethical. Personally I see it as one of the most ethical things to do.
To put this in a situation: say someone breaks into my home. my wife, kids and myself are there. This person goes after one of my kids. By your reasoning, I should let this fether do whatever the hell they want with my kids, because killing them on sight is "unethical". No. Protecting myself (and by extension, my kids are myself, because they do not possess the capacity to defend themselves) and my family is the most ethical thing that I can do as a father and a man in Western Society.
Wow. So you decided to blow them away. Everytime I've heard that defense we usually throw the person in jail. You had the means. All you have to do is yell "Stop or I will shoot!" The person will stop. there are very few people are willing to tangle with someone who has a gun. If they pick up your kid and hold a knife to their head, then blow out their knee caps. If they die from their injuries you didn't murder them you didn't kill them, they died. But the fact remains is that we cannot digress ourselves down to murdering people who enter our house, our house is our castle, but you can't just kill the person because they are robbing you or attacking your kids, you have the power, and they don't.
If they wanted to die instead, they could commit suicide.
Is that not a crime over there?
No. ITs not. if the commit Sudako or the Japanese suicide execution it is not a crime.
If anyone doesn't want to live anymore, that is fascinating, let them die, but discuss with them why they want to die.
See I am a Kantian so..... Yeah. The Death Penalty is something that is beyond our scope.
See there are three theories of Punishment. Retributive (Deserts Theory)- Punishment should be given only when it is deserved and only to the exxtent it is deserved
Utilitarian (Results theory)- Punishment always should have as its aim the good of society.
Restitution (Compensation Theory) - justice is served only if the victims of a crime or offense are provided with restitution or compensation for the harm done to them.
The arguments against Captial punishment are usually various. Violation of the Value of Life Principle, Effect on the criminal's victim or on society, denial of the chance for rehabilitation, executing an innocent person, and ineffectiveness as a deterrent. So basically the main reason someone would commit a crime is because they were deseperate, or they are bonkers crazy. We cannot go down to their level and kill them, wouldn't that justify their murders?
Those people are not coming back, why not just lock them up provide them food and subistence and forget their existence? But give them a chance to rehabilitation? A chance for them to come back to society.
Lets say there is an 18 year old this kid murder his parents in a fit in rage. Low and behold he is given the death penalty, twenty years later regrets what he did and wants to rehabilitate under these circumstances he cannot, he is barred from this chance of redeempetition because of what he did twenty years ago.
Does this man deserve death? Does this man truely deserve to be locked up forever or to be killed? Most people who are given the death penalty in two decades or so usually commit suicide. Because they have truly given up on life. Of course most people will swat my argument away.
But for those who believe that the death penalty is something that works as a detterent. How so? Has crime decreased since the implementation of the death penalty? No. It has not. People ignore it because most crimes or murders are done for what I have said in a heat of passion or they are desperate or the rarer one they are crazy (or have a mental condition).
Source for arguments (Ethics Theory and Practice Jacques P. Thiroux and Keith W. Krasemann)
No human being deserves death, "No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. " (John donne)
We are apart of each other and we cannot deny humans their right to live. I am not saying they get off scott-free, but they are given a chance if they have proven themselves able and in the right mind to come back to society. This would be difficult to get, but not impossible. People can still get a prison sentence but its not for a lifetime* (unless the crime committed is a crime against humanity and or they have a mental condition then they are given to a mental institute for study and rehabilitation)
But the arguments for the 'morality' of capital punishment Is that it is an effective deterrent (Yup sure...) - IT dis-encourages people to kill and commit crime!! It is economic!- Its cheaper to kill the person! Revenge -eye for an eye Effect upon Society's Laws- By having the option of applying the death penalty some argue we give strong sanction to the entire criminal law enforcement system, we put teeth into that system. The forfeiture of Killers Right- They forfeited their right to be a person and a human being the minute they killed someone. The Useleness of Rehabilitation- Rehabilitation doesn't work
Seaward wrote: I think if you were to, off the top of my head, go out and murder 77 people, 10 to 21 years sounds like a sane sentence. We're all Buddha's children, guys. Everyone deserves a 78th chance.
You're such a softie.
I think we should implement a system where every parent has to pass a means test to prove they earn at least $60,000 a year. Failing this test means execution of the child, as poor children are much more likely to grow up be violent criminals. Society would benefit greatly as less money would be have to spent on law enforcement as less people grow up and choose a career in crime.
Yep
most people that are desperate often commit crimes. These people are angry at society for their placement in the world. Can you blame them? Adversity where ever they go? They are desperate so they turn to crime and try to rebel against society and its rules, because the think its full of s---.
Seaward wrote: I think if you were to, off the top of my head, go out and murder 77 people, 10 to 21 years sounds like a sane sentence. We're all Buddha's children, guys. Everyone deserves a 78th chance.
If that's Breivik you're referring to you're kidding yourself if you think there's even a snowball's chance in hell that he's ever getting out again.
This. Breivik will not get out. Norway has a system where the maximum initial sentence is 21 years, however that sentence can be extended later after assessments as to whether the inmate is still a threat to the general public.
It can be extended in blocks of 5 years at a time.
Wow. So you decided to blow them away. Everytime I've heard that defense we usually throw the person in jail. You had the means. All you have to do is yell "Stop or I will shoot!" The person will stop. there are very few people are willing to tangle with someone who has a gun. If they pick up your kid and hold a knife to their head, then blow out their knee caps. If they die from their injuries you didn't murder them you didn't kill them, they died. But the fact remains is that we cannot digress ourselves down to murdering people who enter our house, our house is our castle, but you can't just kill the person because they are robbing you or attacking your kids, you have the power, and they don't.
No... So I say "stop or ill shoot" and they dont... Let's say I follow your advice, and I knee cap them... Now, I probably get sued by the person breaking into MY house, and whether I win or not, I'm still probably going to be heavily in debt or bankrupt paying for my legal/civil defense. Not to mention, I will probably get slammed with numerous, lesser charges that won't get thrown out in court. However, at least in the state I'm living in now, where Castle Laws are pretty strong, if someone that I don't want in my house is there, and I shoot them center mass with my firearm, I may spend a night or two in city/county holding cells while they do the initial investigation into whether it was self-defense (which shouldn't take long, it's my damn house), but after that, most of my legal troubles will be over.
And honestly, where do you live where you honestly think that someone is going to be robbing you/yours or attacking you and ISNT armed in some way? In most cases, you having the means to protect yourself is merely leveling the playing field, it doesnt give you some magic power to stop them by itself.
Wow. So you decided to blow them away. Everytime I've heard that defense we usually throw the person in jail. You had the means. All you have to do is yell "Stop or I will shoot!" The person will stop. there are very few people are willing to tangle with someone who has a gun. If they pick up your kid and hold a knife to their head, then blow out their knee caps. If they die from their injuries you didn't murder them you didn't kill them, they died. But the fact remains is that we cannot digress ourselves down to murdering people who enter our house, our house is our castle, but you can't just kill the person because they are robbing you or attacking your kids, you have the power, and they don't.
No... So I say "stop or ill shoot" and they dont... Let's say I follow your advice, and I knee cap them... Now, I probably get sued by the person breaking into MY house, and whether I win or not, I'm still probably going to be heavily in debt or bankrupt paying for my legal/civil defense. Not to mention, I will probably get slammed with numerous, lesser charges that won't get thrown out in court. However, at least in the state I'm living in now, where Castle Laws are pretty strong, if someone that I don't want in my house is there, and I shoot them center mass with my firearm, I may spend a night or two in city/county holding cells while they do the initial investigation into whether it was self-defense (which shouldn't take long, it's my damn house), but after that, most of my legal troubles will be over.
And honestly, where do you live where you honestly think that someone is going to be robbing you/yours or attacking you and ISNT armed in some way? In most cases, you having the means to protect yourself is merely leveling the playing field, it doesnt give you some magic power to stop them by itself.
How would they sue you? The jury would throw that out the minute they heard that. You said stop and they kept moving. You have the perfect right and means to defend yourself. That doesn't happen. they won't sue you. They can't, because they are doing a malicious attack. People who enter the house are desperate most of the time. If you are an upper class they will probably plan it out first.
How would they sue you? The jury would throw that out the minute they heard that. You said stop and they kept moving. You have the perfect right and means to defend yourself. That doesn't happen. they won't sue you. They can't, because they are doing a malicious attack. People who enter the house are desperate most of the time. If you are an upper class they will probably plan it out first.
It has never been successful in civil court, however in Oregon, it has been tried several times. And while yes, the cases will be thrown out, the fact that I have to get a lawyer means I have to spend money to defend myself against an actual criminal.
I believe in the right to keep & bear arms, the right of self defense and the right to defend others from immediate harm.
I am against the death penalty.
Is this a contradiction? I don't feel that it is.
Why? I believe that it is right to be able to defend oneself and others from an immediate life threatening assault.
However, once the perpetrator has been subdued, tried and incarcerated the immediate threat is gone and you are left with a powerless individual behind bars.
Capital crimes are capital generally because the offender assaulted/killed an individual that was at the moment powerless to defend themselves. So, for our government to kill someone after the threat had been neutralized is, to me, hypocrisy of the highest order.
Such actions by the government, whether supported by the populace or not, does tremendous harm to our culture/society. It does so by creating a rational that allows us violate the principles that our justice system was based upon.
Once society begins to believe that it is ok to ignore the principles that under pin our justice system, the system itself becomes unstable. An unstable system is an easily broken system.
Why is it important to not break our justice system?
If I really have to answer that, then it is unlikely you will ever understand or agree.
I've never felt these kinds of incidents are a 2nd Amendment issue, but rather self defense culture in the US, which results in some rather bloodthirsty mindsets among some people.
Capital crimes are capital generally because the offender assaulted/killed an individual that was at the moment powerless to defend themselves. So, for our government to kill someone after the threat had been neutralized is, to me, hypocrisy of the highest order.
Such actions by the government, whether supported by the populace or not, does tremendous harm to our culture/society. It does so by creating a rational that allows us violate the principles that our justice system was based upon.
Once society begins to believe that it is ok to ignore the principles that under pin our justice system, the system itself becomes unstable. An unstable system is an easily broken system.
Why is it important to not break our justice system?
If I really have to answer that, then it is unlikely you will ever understand or agree.
See, I personally believe that capital punishments, such as the death penalty don't actually violate the "principle" that our justice system was based on. Certainly, we've become softer in our methods of execution for those who still have that, but I don't feel that the principle has changed: to ensure the safety of the innocent and allow them their right to pursue happiness with little to no fear from those who seek them harm.
As time has gone on, our prisons have certainly become more secure from the likes of John Dillinger and others' who have repeatedly escaped prisons, which probably does lessen the "need" for executions or the death penalty, but I think that there are, and will always will be those types of criminal who many people wish, or would say "deserve" to die. I'm talking about guys like Charles Manson, Ted Bundy... the Serial Murderers, Serial Rapists, etc. As a question here, IF Hannibal Lecter was a real person, and really did commit all those crimes as he did in the books/movies, do you think you'd support a death penalty for him? There's clearly no rehabilitation for him. He's not out of his mind, but he sure as heck is a danger to everyone around him.
Captain Avatar wrote:
Capital crimes are capital generally because the offender assaulted/killed an individual that was at the moment powerless to defend themselves. So, for our government to kill someone after the threat had been neutralized is, to me, hypocrisy of the highest order.
So because individuals are prevented from killing when they're not immediately threatened, you believe governments should also follow this restriction? Do you believe that governments and individuals are somehow equal? That all rights of governments should be extended to individuals?
If not, then hypocrisy is not the word you're looking for. Governments have no obligation to hold themselves to the same standards that individuals are held to, and therefore it is not hypocrisy to do this. I could provide numerous examples, but I'm sure you can think of a few on your own.
Once you realize that Governments are empowered to act in the best interest of society, the rest of your argument falls apart. A government that taxes its citizens, claiming to provide for their security, has an obligation to provide that. If removing threats to the safety of the society is the best way to accomplish this, then the government is bound to do so, in a way that individuals are not.
Redbeard wrote: Did you read any of the rest of this thread,
I've read the whole thread. I don't why I did it, but I did.
because I haven't seen anyone pretend that the alternative is to lock them up forever. Rather, we believe that the "lock them up forever" approach is both a less humane solution than an execution, and is also more costly than an appropriately implemented death penalty.
You misread. I said that people will pretend that it is a question of either executing or letting people out of prison again. Leading to the very strange argument that executing people is best, because the number of innocent people executed will be less than the number of people you let go who kill again.... because it completely ignores the possibility of locking someone up for their lives without killing them.
That's the exact argument you made in this post;
"Whoever said "better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent be executed" was a moron. With a recidivism rate of even only 4%, letting 1000 guilty people go free would result in 40 additional innocent victims. Last time I checked, 40 innocent victims was more than one innocent victim."
... and it always comes up in these death penalty threads, and it's completely false.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Redbeard wrote: I think it's amazing to think that we're willing to institute a poor solution to a problem because we're too lazy to fix another problem within the system.
"Oh no, what if you kill the wrong people" is not an argument against the death penalty, it's an indication that other aspects of your justice system are seriously flawed.
And? You can't just wish a better justice system in to existence. It isn't exactly for lack of effort that the current system is as flawed as it is.
The justice system is flawed, and you have to accept that reality when choosing methods of punishments.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: I think if you were to, off the top of my head, go out and murder 77 people, 10 to 21 years sounds like a sane sentence. We're all Buddha's children, guys. Everyone deserves a 78th chance.
I think if you were to, off the top of my head, read about Anders Breivik, you'd learn that the Norwegian legal system is not simply going to let him out after 21 years, but continue to hold him for as long as they please, which will fairly obviously be for the rest of his life.
One of the other few guarantees I'll ever in give in life is that whenever the legal system of another country features in a news story, there will be no shortage of people who have no idea how that system works who end up complaining about the obvious injustice of whatever it is they've made up in their heads.
because I haven't seen anyone pretend that the alternative is to lock them up forever. Rather, we believe that the "lock them up forever" approach is both a less humane solution than an execution, and is also more costly than an appropriately implemented death penalty.
You misread. I said that people will pretend that it is a question of either executing or letting people out of prison again. Leading to the very strange argument that executing people is best, because the number of innocent people executed will be less than the number of people you let go who kill again.... because it completely ignores the possibility of locking someone up for their lives without killing them.
That's the exact argument you made in this post; "Whoever said "better a thousand guilty men go free than one innocent be executed" was a moron. With a recidivism rate of even only 4%, letting 1000 guilty people go free would result in 40 additional innocent victims. Last time I checked, 40 innocent victims was more than one innocent victim."
... and it always comes up in these death penalty threads, and it's completely false.
No, you misread. There's a huge difference between ignoring a possibility, and dismissing it as inferior. I fully accept that the risk to other members of society is reduced by the same amount, whether we execute or imprison those convicted of violent crimes. However, I also believe that execution is far preferable than life imprisonment, because I believe quality of life is more important than quantity of life, and I believe that, properly implemented, the cost to society for executing these people should be far lower than the cost to society for imprisoning them.
It's not A or B or C, it's A or ( B or C ), where B is seen as much better than C. I'm not asking you to necessarily agree with my take on which of B or C are preferable, but I am asking that you acknowledge that I'm not ignoring C.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
See, I personally believe that capital punishments, such as the death penalty don't actually violate the "principle" that our justice system was based on. Certainly, we've become softer in our methods of execution for those who still have that, but I don't feel that the principle has changed: to ensure the safety of the innocent and allow them their right to pursue happiness with little to no fear from those who seek them harm.
Thats cool, not everyone has to believe the same.
I agree that originally the justice system was designed for a country with the death penalty. But over-time, our understanding of philsophy has evolved to a point of which most western nations now understand the contradiction between the expected actions of civilized peoples/nations and sanctioning the cold blooded destruction of a powerless individual.
It comes down to whether or not we as a nation should continue to sink to the level of the murders we prosecute just in order to fulfill a societal revenge fantasy.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
As time has gone on, our prisons have certainly become more secure from the likes of John Dillinger and others' who have repeatedly escaped prisons, which probably does lessen the "need" for executions or the death penalty, but I think that there are, and will always will be those types of criminal who many people wish, or would say "deserve" to die. I'm talking about guys like Charles Manson, Ted Bundy... the Serial Murderers, Serial Rapists, etc. As a question here, IF Hannibal Lecter was a real person, and really did commit all those crimes as he did in the books/movies, do you think you'd support a death penalty for him? There's clearly no rehabilitation for him. He's not out of his mind, but he sure as heck is a danger to everyone around him.
Hannibal Ector? Catch him in the act - put a bullet through his brain pan.
Catch him between crimes- give hime to a max security government research facility to find out what made him like he is. Maybe we can prevent the next serial killer if we know the cause. This is of course all hypothetically speaking.
Redbeard wrote:
So because individuals are prevented from killing when they're not immediately threatened, you believe governments should also follow this restriction? Do you believe that governments and individuals are somehow equal? That all rights of governments should be extended to individuals?
A)Yes. World would be a much better place if our government stopped killing people that are not/were not threating us.
B)Here I could say By the People, For the People....but instead of being flippant, lets get into this in a clear manner. Yes, The government and the people it governs are "supposed to be equal". That is what makes us citizens rather than subjects.
Now to explain my stance
First, we are in this thread discussing the the Judicial system, which while a part of the government is not the entire government. My previous references to government were with the clear implication that I was referncing the Judicial branch of government.
Second, While all branches of the US government are granted powers to aid in their functions, The Justice system stands out as to its dual nature. It is a system by which the people are able to redress their grievances whether these grievances be against a neighbor, stranger, employer or even the government.
And lastly, It is also a system that provides protections and safeguards against the abuse of this system of grievances.
Habeas Corpus, Due Process, The Miranda Warning, The Bill of Rights and Innocent until proven guilty are not suposed to be empty meaningless words. They are our guarantee that we are equal to any person, business or even our own government under the law.
In particular, Innocent until proven guilty is a clarion call announcing that the citizens are supposed to have rights equal to the state in matters of justice.
Now, I will sadly admit that, since the Patriot Act and the NDAA, Many of our rights and protections are being (imo unconstitutionally) stripped away in order to pave way for the expansion of the police state.
Redbeard wrote:
If not, then hypocrisy is not the word you're looking for. Governments have no obligation to hold themselves to the same standards that individuals are held to, and therefore it is not hypocrisy to do this. I could provide numerous examples, but I'm sure you can think of a few on your own.
*Ahem-.... a person, group or organization which holds others to a standard that they themselves are unwilling to adhere is the very definition of Hypocrisy.
Other governments may not have an obligation to hold themselves to the same standard as that of the populace, but the US government does as per the rules and principles under which it was founded.
Here is an interesting fact. At the time of the signing of the bill of rights, The U.S.A. became one of the more progessive contries in the world in regards to the use of the Death penalty.
It is sad that after 220-ish years and many nations following our lead to a more just legal system that we now lag behind many of our peers with a system that is becoming increasingly draconian. We are the only major western power to still have the death penalty.
Redbeard wrote:
Once you realize that Governments are empowered to act in the best interest of society, the rest of your argument falls apart. A government that taxes its citizens, claiming to provide for their security, has an obligation to provide that. If removing threats to the safety of the society is the best way to accomplish this, then the government is bound to do so, in a way that individuals are not.
Eh, not quite. You see by my reply that, Imo, the Death penalty is not in the best interest for our society.
As to removing threats, look at my reply to Ensis Ferrae on his hypothetical Hannibal ector question. There are other ways of dealing with threats to society that stand to yeild much better long term results than simply murdering the murderer. Also, my way doesn't create a desensitized cold uncaring nation.
B)Here I could say By the People, For the People....but instead of being flippant, lets get into this in a clear manner. Yes, The government and the people it governs are "supposed to be equal". That is what makes us citizens rather than subjects.
Well, no point further discussing anything else with you. Good luck with that viewpoint.
scarletsquig wrote: I'm personally in favour of lifetime solitary confinement, with a noose and a chair provided in the cell for them to make use of whenever they want.
It took 8 pages for the creepy torture fantasies to start.
I wonder how much pain and suffering the 19yo girl this guy murdered felt?
He shot Stephanie Neiman with a shotgun, she didnt die, so he shot her again. When that didnt do it, he then had his buddies bury her alive.
Here's a newspaper account:
On June 3, 1999, Stephanie was driving a friend home in her Chevy pickup and had the misfortune of arriving when three men were there, supposedly attempting to beat a debt out of Bobby Bornt, 23, who lived there with his 9-month-old son.
One man hit Stephanie’s friend with a shotgun and forced her to call Stephanie inside. The men then raped the friend and beat Stephanie, when she refused to give up her truck keys. They bound her with duct tape and drove her to a country road.
Still, she refused to say she wouldn’t call the police on them, so they forced her to her knees and made her watch one gunman dig a grave. When one man shot her, his gun jammed, while Stephanie screamed. The man cleared his weapon and shot her again. Even though she was still breathing, the man ordered his accomplices to bury her, which they did.
It’s not clear whether it took 43 minutes more for her to die, and we can’t ask her now if she suffered.
Stephanie Neiman is the young woman referenced, but not identified by name, in our Page One print-edition story today on Clayton Lockett’s botched execution Tuesday night in McAlester, Okla. His crime was reduced to seven words. Her story is mostly told by Oklahoma media, including News9.com and the Tulsa World.
I’m sorry things didn’t go as humanely for Lockett as the state and most people would have preferred. I’m sorry death penalty opponents believe it gives them a fresh, new reason to prattle on about morality and ethics.
And I’m sorry that his execution changes nothing, big picture or small. He ended up where he should have, just 43 minutes late.
Honestly, his victim has jack to do with it. This is not about her, this is about us following the law and executing people humanely. Just because he broke the law doesn't mean that we should.
d-usa wrote: Honestly, his victim has jack to do with it. This is not about her, this is about us following the law and executing people humanely. Just because he broke the law doesn't mean that we should.
That statement is so full of gak it has its own gak processing plant just to handle the amount of gak dumped so that we all don't die in gak.
Nothing was done illegally.
He was executed because of what he did to her. Forgetting the real victim shifts the empathy balance to the killer, when he deserves none.
d-usa wrote: Honestly, his victim has jack to do with it. This is not about her, this is about us following the law and executing people humanely. Just because he broke the law doesn't mean that we should.
the difference being his execution not going as planned was by accident, as opposed to by choice as his crimes were.
the state did everything in good faith, that it went wrong =/= them breaking the law.
also, Ill remember that the victim doesnt matter next time a gun crime is brought up and the chorus of "you dont care about the children" starts singing.
To say a man sentenced to death for a brutal murder has nothing to do with the victim, well, as frazz said... we need a BS plant just to process that amount of word-turds
d-usa wrote: Honestly, his victim has jack to do with it. This is not about her, this is about us following the law and executing people humanely. Just because he broke the law doesn't mean that we should.
That statement is so full of gak it has its own gak processing plant just to handle the amount of gak dumped so that we all don't die in gak.
Nothing was done illegally.
He was executed because of what he did to her. Forgetting the real victim shifts the empathy balance to the killer, when he deserves none.
^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^
In the boo-hoo fest for the "poor misguided" murderer, no one mentioned the brutal death the 19 year old girl suffered.
d-usa wrote: Honestly, his victim has jack to do with it. This is not about her, this is about us following the law and executing people humanely. Just because he broke the law doesn't mean that we should.
That statement is so full of gak it has its own gak processing plant just to handle the amount of gak dumped so that we all don't die in gak.
We all know you love to play internet tough guy and Mr. "get off my lawn I don't give a damn". If they would have put down one of your dogs in that same manner you would cry like a baby and you would be looking for blood.
He was executed because of what he did to her
.
He wasn't executed. His execution failed, and by the authority of the warden it was stayed. Because they fethed it up it was decided that he should be left alive, for now. He died of a heart attack after the execution was stopped, not from a lethal injection.
Forgetting the real victim shifts the empathy balance to the killer, when he deserves none.
The real victim has zero place in the argument of "who cares if he suffers", "the victim didn't get a painless death", "blah blah blah". The victim matters up to the point that the death penalty is given. That's it. Once the decision is made to put him to death the victim doesn't matter one bit. Nada. None. At this point the law takes over and he is guaranteed an execution that is carried out with every attempt at ending his life without suffering. You don't get to kill him slower because he was extra brutal, you don't get to fry him a couple seconds extra because she was young, it doesn't matter. He committed a crime, he was scheduled to be executed because of it. That's her justice. Him suffering is not a part of that.
Nothing was done illegally
.
Everything leading up to this execution is so full of BS that it is very likely that they should have known that there was a high likelyhood of it getting screwed up. Which would make it an execution attempt in violation of the constitution.
easysauce wrote: To say a man sentenced to death for a brutal murder has nothing to do with the victim, well, as frazz said... we need a BS plant just to process that amount of word-turds
The execution has to do with the victim. All this stupid "who gives a feth if he suffered" doesn't.
the state did everything in good faith, that it went wrong =/= them breaking the law.
Except they didn't, and that's the problem:
1) The "proven" lethal injection protocol is out the window. The companies no longer sell the drugs required for it and every state is just making gak up as they go along.
2) Oklahoma does not have any of the drugs required to follow it and they have made up two different execution protocols since they ran out.
3) The execution prior to this was in January. He was given the medications that were supposed to render him unconscious before getting the other drugs. But he didn't go unconscious and he continued to speak as he was executed, describing the pain he could feel as the other drugs were injected.
4) The changed the drugs again, making up a new protocol without knowing if it would work correctly.
5) They still couldn't get any of the drugs, so they went to a compounding pharmacy to get them. You know what a compounding pharmacy is? It's a pharmacy where drugs are made in the bag room without any FDA oversight. They say they make the same drugs as the companies that won't sell them anymore, but it's just stuff mixed together in the backroom without anyone knowing if the drugs are really correct, dosages are correct, or if the mixtures are going to be effective and work as intended.
6) Then Oklahoma decided that nobody will ever be allowed to know who actually made these drugs, which was the argument these guys made in court. "How will anybody know that these drugs are going to work if we can't even check into who made them?" And it's a pretty good argument.
7) The Oklahoma Supreme Court ordered a stay of their execution because of that.
8) The Oklahoma Legislature threatened to impeach the Supreme Court and started to act on that.
9) The Judges changed their mind (hurrah for career politicians) and gave the go ahead.
10) The State decided to schedule both executions back to back, knowing that they had no idea if these drugs would even work and knowing that the last time they tried the drugs screwed up and the guy was still awake when he died.
11) They couldn't find a vein for the guy and it appears that they had to go in through the groin. They don't let any actual medical folks start IV's but it is pretty damn impossible to feth up a femoral line if you know what you are doing. You are either in, or you know that you are not in. A femoral line is not a line that just "blows".
There is a lot of evidence that the "good faith" excuse is bs.
d-usa wrote: Honestly, his victim has jack to do with it. This is not about her, this is about us following the law and executing people humanely. Just because he broke the law doesn't mean that we should.
That statement is so full of gak it has its own gak processing plant just to handle the amount of gak dumped so that we all don't die in gak.
Nothing was done illegally.
He was executed because of what he did to her. Forgetting the real victim shifts the empathy balance to the killer, when he deserves none.
^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^
In the boo-hoo fest for the "poor misguided" murderer, no one mentioned the brutal death the 19 year old girl suffered.
You know, the one he was being executed for?
Again, execution is where she matters. Fething up the execution and him suffering is where she doesn't matter one bit.
d-usa wrote:
Again, execution is where she matters. Fething up the execution and him suffering is where she doesn't matter one bit.
Fate, Karma, Gaia - whatever, would say otherwise. But again, the victim had a name, she suffered - that seems to get lost in the cacophony of political correctness and misplaced empathy.
He wasn't executed. His execution failed, and by the authority of the warden it was stayed. Because they fethed it up it was decided that he should be left alive, for now. He died of a heart attack after the execution was stopped, not from a lethal injection.
The essential difference being, of course, is that the only thing TBone murdered was a bug when he stepped on it, with depraved indifference.
Voluntary Bugslaughter. TBone pleads guilty.
The real victim has zero place in the argument of "who cares if he suffers", "the victim didn't get a painless death", "blah blah blah". The victim matters up to the point that the death penalty is given. That's it. Once the decision is made to put him to death the victim doesn't matter one bit. Nada. None. At this point the law takes over and he is guaranteed an execution that is carried out with every attempt at ending his life without suffering. You don't get to kill him slower because he was extra brutal, you don't get to fry him a couple seconds extra because she was young, it doesn't matter. He committed a crime, he was scheduled to be executed because of it. That's her justice. Him suffering is not a part of that.
Your argument falls and drowns in the aforementioned gak pool, as you have forgotten about 1) the whole punishment phase of criminal trials; 2) acts define the crimes themselves.
Get out your hipwaders boys the poop is getting waist deep.
d-usa wrote:
Again, execution is where she matters. Fething up the execution and him suffering is where she doesn't matter one bit.
Fate, Karma, Gaia - whatever, would say otherwise. But again, the victim had a name, she suffered - that seems to get lost in the cacophony of political correctness and misplaced empathy.
d-usa wrote:
Again, execution is where she matters. Fething up the execution and him suffering is where she doesn't matter one bit.
Fate, Karma, Gaia - whatever, would say otherwise. But again, the victim had a name, she suffered - that seems to get lost in the cacophony of political correctness and misplaced empathy.
Empathy is never misplaced.
Nonsense. Do you have empathy for Stalin? Chairman Mao? Jeffrey Dahmer?
feeder wrote: How does his suffering ease her suffering?
It's not about that. It's about the modern equivalent of the Brazen Bull. The suffering is for the living, not the dead. People appear to just get their rocks off from the bloodsport.
d-usa wrote: Again, execution is where she matters. Fething up the execution and him suffering is where she doesn't matter one bit.
Fate, Karma, Gaia - whatever, would say otherwise. But again, the victim had a name, she suffered - that seems to get lost in the cacophony of political correctness and misplaced empathy.
Empathy is never misplaced.
Nonsense. Do you have empathy for Stalin? Chairman Mao? Jeffrey Dahmer?
Yes. Understanding why they did what they did is the most important part of making sure that it doesn't happen again. Jeffrey Dahmer, for instance had a really overbearing mother who craved constant attention from his father, including attempting suicide from prescription pills she had become addicted to in order to get this attention. This, like so many other early lives of serial killers, led to feelings of neglect within Jeffrey himself.
Also, don't you find it a bit ironic that the people who you are holding up as being not worthy of empathy could be considered to be lacking in empathy themselves? By showing them no empathy, you are becoming more like them.
Can you tell me any terrible action in human history that empathy made worse? Now how many terrible actions in human history occurred due to lack of empathy?
A Town Called Malus wrote: Can you tell me any terrible action in human history that empathy made worse? Now how many terrible actions in human history occurred due to lack of empathy?
well, every person you mentioned only got to do what they do because people empathised with them...
not like stalin or hitler did all the work themselves, people had to empathise with their goals ect to further their agendas. the other powers also empathised with them by not doing anything about it, and then there was the whole "appeasment" thing that was done for hitler at first due to empathy.
plenty of wrong decisions were made because someone was too empathetic and made the short term morally easy/pleasing/acceptable/ect choice instead of the more benificial long term choice.
Can you tell me any terrible action in human history that empathy made worse?
Playing devil's advocate and OFFICIALLY godwinning the thread: Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler.
That was not an act of empathy for Hitler but rather a desperate attempt at trying to avoid all-out war. The effects of the First World War was still very much fresh in Europe at the time of his actions. Hence why at the time, many British people actually approved of Chamberlains actions as an attempt to avoid the wholesale slaughter of millions more young men in fields in France. Even in 1940 there were many politicians who felt we should have accepted Hitler's offer of peace.
Can you tell me any terrible action in human history that empathy made worse?
Playing devil's advocate and OFFICIALLY godwinning the thread: Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler.
That was not an act of empathy for Hitler but rather a desperate attempt at trying to avoid all-out war. The effects of the First World War was still very much fresh in Europe at the time of his actions. Hence why at the time, many British people actually approved of Chamberlains actions as an attempt to avoid the wholesale slaughter of millions more young men in fields in France. Even in 1940 there were many politicians who felt we should have accepted Hitler's offer of peace.
So not really an act of empathy for Hitler.
I agree with that to an extent, but the British disapproving of the Treaty of Versailles and the harsh treatment of ze Germans post-WW1 surely played into the situation, at least a little. I guess I'm not saying "Chamberlain appeased Hitler because he empathized with him", but instead "Chamberlain appeased Hitler because he empathized with Germany".
Can you tell me any terrible action in human history that empathy made worse?
Playing devil's advocate and OFFICIALLY godwinning the thread: Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler.
That was not an act of empathy for Hitler but rather a desperate attempt at trying to avoid all-out war. The effects of the First World War was still very much fresh in Europe at the time of his actions. Hence why at the time, many British people actually approved of Chamberlains actions as an attempt to avoid the wholesale slaughter of millions more young men in fields in France. Even in 1940 there were many politicians who felt we should have accepted Hitler's offer of peace.
So not really an act of empathy for Hitler.
I agree with that to an extent, but the British disapproving of the Treaty of Versailles and the harsh treatment of ze Germans post-WW1 surely played into the situation, at least a little. I guess I'm not saying "Chamberlain appeased Hitler because he empathized with him", but instead "Chamberlain appeased Hitler because he empathized with Germany".
That is true. But in addition to that, if France and England had been more empathetic to Germany after WW1 when the treaty of versailles was written there would have been a lot less support for Hitler in the 30s. A lot of his rhetoric was built around the unfairness of the treaty of versailles which a lot germans agreed with.
The treaty of versailles was unfair. Stripping away Germany's main industrial centre but then also hoisting reparations which it could never hope to repay created the perfect environment of poverty through hyper inflation, anger and hopelessness for the Nazis to exploit.
Frazzled wrote: If Stalin had been more empathetic to Hitler they could have conquered the world.
If the US had been more empathetic with Imperial Japan, Japan could have been left alone to kill millions of Chinese.
Got that the wrong way round. Nazi Germany declared war on the USSR.
And empathy =/= agreeing with a persons actions. So nice strawmen
and more empathy =/= sunshine rainbows and unicorns as you suggest everything would be better from it.
Being able to put yourself in someone elses shoes doesn't magically solve problems, in fact, say you have a killer who is able to put himself in his victims shoes.
does that mean he wont kill them, or does it just make him more able to predict his victims actions and be a better murder?
heck, the killer in question may have empathised with his victim, doesnt stop him from killing her.
I empathise with the killer in that I can put myself in his shoes and know that it sucks to die that way. It doesnt mean I want to change anything, nor does it necessitate a benificial outcome based soley on my ability to empathise with him
In the boo-hoo fest for the "poor misguided" murderer, no one mentioned the brutal death the 19 year old girl suffered.
You know, the one he was being executed for?
That probably has something to do with the fact that she's already dead, and thus beyond our ability to save, whereas innocent people on death row are not (yet).
The only one calling the murderer "poor misguided" is you, but keep thinking that people don't want him punished if that makes you happy.
Throw me in with the bloodthirsty. He made that girl suffer with two failed painful shots, then buried her alive? His punishment was just. I can sleep fine at night too, thanks for asking. My dad always told me you screwed up when you couldn't look at yourself in the mirror without looking away in shame. I'm gonna look at myself tonight, tell the mirror that the bastard deserved to suffer, and go to sleep easy-peasy. Too much hippy talk and kumbaya horse pucky. Any shred of sympathy for his botched execution dried up when I heard the full story of what he did to the girl. I, like Fraz, am okay with vengeance.
We should be horrified when things like this happen - and likewise be horrified that a man shot his victim, then buried her alive.
At least we no longer make executions into pageants, but it is meet that we grant death swiftly, and with as little pain as possible - not for the prisoners being executed, but for our selves.
Like I said, Grump, I'm totally okay with being bloodthirsty. As evidenced by the medium rare prime rib I'm eating after a long day at work that's still reddish pink in the middle. If anything, it's almost too well done. If it ain't screaming when I put the knife in it, it ain't cooked enough.
God, I need help, don't I?
Edit: how the FETH did autocorrect turn 'knife' into 'kilobits'?!
wow. Torturing someone to death like that is just wrong.
If they wanted to execute him they should have just put a bullet through his head. Much quicker, cheaper and humane.
Alternatively, they should bring the guillotine back. Old-fashioned maybe, but there is no better tool for (nearly) painless executions.
Executions are getting harder and harder to defend
Two recent botched executions, one in Ohio and one in Oklahoma, have prompted renewed soul-searching among Americans over whether capital punishment is either humane or effective.
That’s a good thing. But the time to ask ourselves what kind of country and society we want to be isn’t ideally in the aftermath of two spectacular failures of justice, just as it isn’t in the midst of some gruesome murder trial, when emotions are running high and mercy for the perpetrator seems almost an obscene suggestion.
The country needs to have a clear-eyed conversation about the death penalty, one that puts both anecdotal and emotional arguments aside in favor of some serious analysis. Those conversations have begun, but they are still far from clear-eyed.
The logistics of capital punishment, for example, are hardly the point. Drug cocktails can be modified. There are effective and humane ways to kill a person, and if that’s our main concern, there’s a healthy body of research on euthanasia that can guide reform.
The other line of discussion that inevitably emerges is over archaic ideas of justice and vengeance. Hammurabi’s “eye for an eye” is often invoked, but I very much doubt we’d enjoy living under the full code, whereby boys who strike their fathers have their fingers cut off, robbers are put to death and taking slaves is just fine.
Biblical verse is also regularly recited, but the problem here is that there are competing lessons within. The Gospel of Matthew admonishes the “eye for an eye” system in favor of turning the other cheek, whereas Exodus, very much in Old Testament fashion, graphically elaborates on the illustration, adding “tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.” Yes, we get it.
These kinds of arbitrary invocations don’t address the here and now of the death penalty debate. (And, let’s not ignore the fact that the death penalty often is not truly an “eye for eye.” Shouldn’t a man who raped 10 children be raped himself, 10 times over? How is lethal injection equal punishment for a torturous death?)
Picking and choosing codes of justice from thousands of years ago seems an ill-advised way to begin an adult conversation about what the death penalty truly is: state-sanctioned murder. And if that’s the case, then we need to ask some very adult questions.
For one, is it just? Starting from a pro-life point of view, it hardly seems consistent with a culture that values life. In fact, a couple of Republicans in Kentucky are reconciling that very notion right now. State Rep. David Floyd introduced a bill to repeal the state’s death penalty, arguing in the Louisville Courier-Journal that conservatives “should not support a state government program that can kill innocent people.”
And indeed, innocent people are killed. In a study released last week, of the 7,482 death sentences handed down from 1973 to 2004, 117, or 1.6%, were eventually exonerated. The authors concluded though that with more time and resources, more than 200 additional prisoners would also have been cleared.
How many wrongful executions have we overseen? It’s nearly impossible to know — which in and of itself, should give us serious pause about the justness of capital punishment.
The next obvious question we must ask is: Does capital punishment work?
For decades, in order to satisfy death-penalty opponents who said supporters were motivated purely by blood lust, proponents have tried to make the argument that the death penalty is an effective deterrent. And for just as many decades, the evidence of that has either been non-existent or inconclusive.
In 2012, the National Academy of Sciences picked apart immense bodies of research and bluntly issued cease and desist warnings, claiming the studies have been flawed or futile. Former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge H. Lee Sarokin might have put it best when he wrote in 2011: “Persons contemplating murder do not sit around the kitchen table and say I won’t commit this murder if I face the death penalty, but I will do it if the penalty is life without parole.”
In the absence of any evidence that proves the death penalty reduces crime, we should continue asking serious questions about our commitment to it.
(And might I remind fellow conservatives that we are quick to point out that there’s no evidence gun control reduces gun crime; we should apply the same level of scrutiny here.)
Another question we must consider, crass though it is: Is the death penalty cost-effective?
The answer is undeniably “no.”
Death penalty trials alone can cost $1 million more than ones in which life without parole is sought, according to Richard C. Dieter of the non-partisan Death Penalty Information Center.
The cost of incarcerating a death-row prisoner can outpace the cost of housing a general-population prisoner by $100,000 a year, according to a 2011 California study.
In some states, a death penalty case can bankrupt a county. Seattle Times writer Jonathan Martin found that in Washington state, criminal justice costs consume 80% of county budgets, and administrators routinely worry about the financial devastation a capital case will cause.
Worse, states pay for the death penalty whether they use it or not. In New Jersey, prior to abolishing it, taxpayers spent more than a quarter-billion dollars on a capital punishment system that, over 23 years, executed no one.
As a pro-life, fiscally responsible conservative, I’ve long had problems with capital punishment. But in the face of all this evidence that the death penalty is neither just nor effective nor cost-efficient, it makes me wonder why anyone still supports it.
It will be impossible to argue with those who say, “it’s only fair” and “an eye for an eye.” And it’s futile and deeply inappropriate to reason with victims of heinous crimes who, understandably, want retaliation.
But putting anecdotes, trite expressions and emotion aside, it’s imperative that we all question our steadfast beliefs about capital punishment. And conservatives in particular, should lead the charge to abolish it.
One of the best argument against the Death Penal I've seen.
Did I mention she's also Don't bypass the language filter like this. Reds8n
This one took two hours of gasping before the guy died.
Wait, is that supposed to be good or bad?
Depends on how soft you are?
Also, love how in the article the guy says "this violates the constitution's amendment on cruel or unusual punishment" What he's failing is in the "or" part, as the constitution reads AND
So, the states have to come up with riskier cocktails for executions.
Obviously, the strategy here by the opponents is to shape public opinion by making states choose between either canceling death sentences or facing political fallout from more botched executions caused by unproven cocktails.
What I don't understand, is if the states continues to perform executions, why don't they use Helium overdose? Literally puts them to "sleep".
Soladrin wrote: So, when will we go back to firing squads? Or maybe a syringe full of bleach, that should do the trick.
Is that strong on Justice??
Honesty... Capital Punishment isn't something that I'd advocate for...
Maybe hard labor/chain-gangs, but the arguments against Capital Punishment does have merits.
However, opponents who support these companies (and the EU for restricting propofol) for refusing to sell the medications used for executions is making it worse for the condemned.
So, the states have to come up with riskier cocktails for executions.
Obviously, the strategy here by the opponents is to shape public opinion by making states choose between either canceling death sentences or facing political fallout from more botched executions caused by unproven cocktails.
What I don't understand, is if the states continues to perform executions, why don't they use Helium overdose? Literally puts them to "sleep".
Maybe not Justice enough?
So many ways around that.
-Pump them full of alcohol.
-guillotine. Vive le France!
Everyone of those cases just reaffirms my opposition to capital punishment.
Not because of "oh my, so the poor guilty guy suffered a bit", but because of "bad enough that there is a decent chance we are killing someone innocent, but we can't even kill the innocent swiftly and without discomfort".
As far as I'm aware aren't these botched executions to do with the fact that they can't import the tried and tested drugs in from Europe in anymore? Whats going on now is trial and error as they come up with something new.
Sigvatr wrote: Why don't they just shoot them in the head anyway? Isn't it a lot cheaper and efficient?
Even that doesn't guarantee death.
Depends on the caliber...eh?
Not even that really.
I can tell you stories about people that took shots to the head (both self-inflicted and not) ranging in many calibers as well as shotguns that survived the shot and we found them and treated them with half their head gone. It's a pain in the ass trying to intubate someone when the front of their head is missing and you have to look for air bubbles in the blood to look for the airway.
Sigvatr wrote: Why don't they just shoot them in the head anyway? Isn't it a lot cheaper and efficient?
Even that doesn't guarantee death.
Depends on the caliber...eh?
Not even that really.
I can tell you stories about people that took shots to the head (both self-inflicted and not) ranging in many calibers as well as shotguns that survived the shot and we found them and treated them with half their head gone. It's a pain in the ass trying to intubate someone when the front of their head is missing and you have to look for air bubbles in the blood to look for the airway.
Woah.
O.o
Has Lifetime started filming "The German™" yet in the VA ED?
Sigvatr wrote: Why don't they just shoot them in the head anyway? Isn't it a lot cheaper and efficient?
Even that doesn't guarantee death.
It does if you use an Elephant Gun. Just saying...
Or you could just use an M-2. I've personally seen the damage those can do, and about the only reason to put anything back together after that, is if the family insists on an open casket funeral
Sigvatr wrote: Not sure why I should care for a murderer :/
You don't care about the murderer perse, you care about the fact that we are a civilized nation that has it enshrined in our laws to not execute people in cruel and unusual ways.
If we botch that one, why do we care if we botch any other laws?
If we're going to execute people, I'd also prefer a close range headshot with a high caliber round or ideally, a shotgun. It seems like the quickest and least painful, and if you don't want to see the mess, maybe you have no right to execute someone.
Ouze wrote: If we're going to execute people, I'd also prefer a close range headshot with a high caliber round or ideally, a shotgun. It seems like the quickest and least painful, and if you don't want to see the mess, maybe you have no right to execute someone.
What about that old circus trick, the human cannonball?? Seems like it'd work quite well with the right amount of charge, and a distinct lack of safety net
I think one of the reasons they don't execute with a gun any more is because the executioner would know for sure that they were the one that did it. Nowadays don't they try to disguise who actually flicked the switch by having more than one person do it?
Da Boss wrote: I think one of the reasons they don't execute with a gun any more is because the executioner would know for sure that they were the one that did it. Nowadays don't they try to disguise who actually flicked the switch by having more than one person do it?
Yeah, but we also now have the tripod mounted, computerized systems available on combat vehicles to protect soldiers more... so you could easily use a system like this, and remove most of the human element out of it.
Da Boss wrote: I think one of the reasons they don't execute with a gun any more is because the executioner would know for sure that they were the one that did it. Nowadays don't they try to disguise who actually flicked the switch by having more than one person do it?
Not exactly. In firing squads, 5 or 6 guns are given to the shooters, but one has a blank cartridge, with the idea that the shooters don't know which one had the blank, and therefore can rationalize that they didn't kill anyone.
Sigvatr wrote: Why don't they just shoot them in the head anyway? Isn't it a lot cheaper and efficient?
Even that doesn't guarantee death.
Use a 12 gauge shotgun with a deer slug at point blank range to the base of the skull.
Obliterates the central brain stem, instantaneous, and not going to fail.
And like anything purely mechanical we could automate it so nobody actually has to pull the trigger.
Alternately, we take a page out of Kim Jong Un's playbook and use high explosives.
There are plenty of simple and effective ways of killing someone without needing a PhD in organic chemistry and increasingly difficult to acquire chemicals.
)
) and its quick. And if you grab the head fast enough, they can watch the life drain from their own body!!
SOFT ON CRIME 
It's well-established that convicted felons have surrendered these rights, otherwise we'd have no moral ground for imprisonment at all.
