Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Fun fact about Americans #2,437;

A large number of Americans are simultaneously obsessed with maintaining their freedoms, to the point of advocating personal weapon ownership to allow for violent revolution against their government, while at the same time utterly contemptuous of the legal body dedicated towards maintaining their freedoms.



Meanwhile, I’ve advocated ‘death by explosion’ for a while now. Sit the guy on top of metric crapload of explosives, throw a match and run like hell. He’ll be ripped to shreds in seconds so it can’t be painful, and the body parts flying everywhere will help remind everyone exactly what they’re really doing.

Death by explosion? Hmmm.

This is why I said do it with a shotgun, you can't miss.

@JohnHwangDD, his head popping off is a problem how?

Messy.

Panic wrote:yeah...
not from me, I think the UK needs to bring back Death sentence, when proof is 100% that the dude did it.

Like Barry George ..... right ?

yeah,
just like with barry george... his evidence wasn't 100%, but it was enough to convict. he was a stalker (he admitted this on release) with gun powder residue on his person.
but no one saw him do it (i.e. not 100% sure) and no confession. so there was a possibility of innocence.

this countrys got alot of real bad dudes on life sentences where there was no doubt that they murdered alot of people...
I offer Fred and Rosemary West, Peter William Sutcliffe, Myra Hindley as examples of people who should have been killed straight after conviction... no appeal.

It sounds that mr fat ass definently 100% Raped and Murdered two young women. If it was my family i'd be suing the state for letting this farse of a defence continue.

PaniC.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Except, those switches and levers all have the potential for error, and that's a minor problem in a world in which meat comes in neat, little, plastic-wrapped, bloodless packages.

If we still butchered our animals fresh, a lot of this silly squeamishness would go away.

I always chuckle when people say stuff like this.

My family still butchers our own cattle and pigs, and we process any deer we kill while hunting. Trust me when I say this doesn't have much to do with being squeamish in regards to executing a human. You might get more used to the sight of lots of blood, but I doubt that takes away much of the squeamishness of a human execution. As someone who has done the deed personally on more than one occasion, killing a living animal is something that still gives me pause. It definitely gives you a certain respect over the power of life and death, and stirs up feelings you can't really replicate without having experienced yourself. Although I do think anyone who eats meat should be at least familiar with the process, and participate in it at least once, if at all possible. Just so you have a little understanding of the gravity of the whole thing.

I don't know but I would imagine when humans are involved the feelings and squeamishness are multiplied by 1,000.

And I say this as someone who is okay with execution, if the person being executed did in fact commit the crime. I guess I'm just saying it's not something to be taken lightly, either way.

Panic wrote:yeah,
It sounds that mr fat ass definently 100% Raped and Murdered two young women. If it was my family i'd be suing the state for letting this farse of a defence continue.

PaniC.

There are actually no legal grounds for the family of the victims to sue the state. There's a certain myth that families of victims of violent crime have legal rights. They actually don't, at least not in the criminal sphere. You can sue the guy in civil court for wrongful death (like happened to OJ), but a criminal trial is between the State and the Defendant. The reason for this is to eliminate revenge killings and honor duels and all that nonsense. Killing anybody, regardless of station, is a crime and the state will prosecute.

I'm pretty ambivalent about the death penalty. I think the state has the right to kill those that are dangerous, and I think modern courts are getting better (although still pretty bad) at convicting the right people. I'm not sure that it's necessary any more, what with modern prisons and the like, but I understand that the option belongs on the table. What bugs me is, as Hordini pointed out, is the casual or even eager way people seem to advocate it. Crime or no crime, I think a state sanctioned termination should be treated solemnly. I also think that far too much of the support for the death penalty comes from the desire to have vengeance. What do you hear after every execution? "Well, now the victims family can have closure." I don't want to minimize the human need for vengeance, or denigrate the grief of the families, but the legal system does not exist for revenge.

sebster wrote:Fun fact about Americans #2,437;

A large number of Americans are simultaneously obsessed with maintaining their freedoms, to the point of advocating personal weapon ownership to allow for violent revolution against their government, while at the same time utterly contemptuous of the legal body dedicated towards maintaining their freedoms.

You're assuming the legal body is dedicated towards maintaining our freedoms. I'd proffer thats not the case. Not maliciousdly but like every bureaucracy, governemnt and the courts seek an increase of their power generally.

Meanwhile, I’ve advocated ‘death by explosion’ for a while now. Sit the guy on top of metric crapload of explosives, throw a match and run like hell. He’ll be ripped to shreds in seconds so it can’t be painful, and the body parts flying everywhere will help remind everyone exactly what they’re really doing.

Lets take the executioner out. Same to same but make it a nice claymore situation. That way there is no exeuctioner. His life is literally in his own hands.

Hordini wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Except, those switches and levers all have the potential for error, and that's a minor problem in a world in which meat comes in neat, little, plastic-wrapped, bloodless packages.

If we still butchered our animals fresh, a lot of this silly squeamishness would go away.

I always chuckle when people say stuff like this.

I'm just saying it's not something to be taken lightly, either way.

Given that I've cleaned my share of fresh animals, I don't know what you're chuckling about. It's a messy business, which is why it makes me a little nuts that people think meat comes from supermarkets.

We have this notion that everything in the real world dies in a neat, tidy, bloodless fashion when the reality of dying is very different. I agree that we shouldn't be condemning people willy-nilly. But that's something to resolve with the legal system, not the executioner.

How about that blowfish poison? Put some of it on the outside of one of those extra-thin needles that diabetics use, he'll be dead before he even feels the prick of the needle. No suffering, no mess. Of course, I'm still firmly on the side of the crap-ton of explosives method myself. Also, it costs millions of dollars to keep a scumbag on death row while they drag out the appeals proccess. That's tax dollars that could be spent on something constructive.

Polonius wrote:I don't want to minimize the human need for vengeance, or denigrate the grief of the families, but the legal system does not exist for revenge.

In theory, it exists to take the place of revenge, so we don't all end up blind and toothless.

But there is a basic human notion of justice and fairness, and when someone has killed another, they probably ought to be put down like any other destructive predator.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Polonius wrote:I don't want to minimize the human need for vengeance, or denigrate the grief of the families, but the legal system does not exist for revenge.

In theory, it exists to take the place of revenge, so we don't all end up blind and toothless.

But there is a basic human notion of justice and fairness, and when someone has killed another, they probably ought to be put down like any other destructive predator.

Well, you're combining two thoughts there. There's the fairness concept, "a person who kills should be killed himself" with a socital necessaty concept: "A person that is dangerous to others should be eliminated."

I'd argue that the criminal justice system isn't about fairness. Tort and Contract law are more interested in what's fair, although even they tend to focus more on Justice than fairness. Criminal law is based on the idea that there are certain actions that hurt the state, and thus the state can sanction those that perform those acts. The sanctions can be putative, reforming, disabling, or whatever, but the State has the right to punish those that violate it's laws. Fairness has little to do with it (as anybody familiar with drug sentancing guidelines can attest to). Fairness is concerned with accuracy, justice is obsessed with precision. Whether the death penalty is a "fair" punishment is not the question, it's if it is just.

Even your example, that a person that kills another ought to be put down, opens a lot of questions. What about self defense? Defense of others? What about a drunk driver? Or an honest bar fight that ends in a freak death? What about crimes of passion? Crimes of stupidity? What about the insane? You have to start drawing lines, and once you start, it simply becomes a matter of policy to determine what's a capital murder and what's not. Myself, I like the old school idea of "Malice Aforethought" as a good benchmark, but even that is a tricky standard.

I know I'm a minority opinion, and I really don't mean any of this personally, I just feel very... chilled by the zeal for the death penalty many people seem to express. Killing another person for the good of the state may have to happen, but I really don't think it should be celebrated. I really try to remember that most people are just spouting off, or joking, but I'm in Law School, and Criminal Law is an interest of mine, specifically prosecution. It's a bit different when you learn the law and the facts and part of my job search will require deciding if I could try a capital case. It's a heavy issue, and one that I've spent some time thinking about, so I apologize if I come off as grumpy and judgmental.

Polonius wrote:[
Even your example, that a person that kills another ought to be put down, opens a lot of questions. What about self defense? Defense of others? What about a drunk driver? Or an honest bar fight that ends in a freak death? What about crimes of passion? Crimes of stupidity? What about the insane? You have to start drawing lines, and once you start, it simply becomes a matter of policy to determine what's a capital murder and what's not. Myself, I like the old school idea of "Malice Aforethought" as a good benchmark, but even that is a tricky standard.

Of course none of those reach the standard of Capital Murder (local nomenclature may vary) so are void arguments on their face.

Having witnessed the erroneousness of the legal system in work second hand, I'm kind of glad these guys get appeals. Sure it may be a waste of money a lot of the time, but other times they find out they really got the wrong guy. They just need to work on streamlining the system a bit better. Perhaps wave the appeal process for guilty or no contest pleas. Maybe put in some sort of express lane that the prisoners can opt into rather than rotting for ever.

All in all, I’m very pro death (penalty, stupidity, or whatever else gets people off my freeways). But at the same time I want to make sure that the people dieing are the ones that are doing so because of their own actions, not just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

As for method, I’m ok with the injection, guillotine, explosive collar, firing squad, CO poisoning, or letting the prisoner have their choice of a variety of things. Funny enough, I’m kind of wondering why the gas chamber uses cyanide rather than carbon monoxide to take people out. Seems like going to sleep due to oxygen displacement in your blood would be an easy way to go.

Polonius wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:In theory, it exists to take the place of revenge, so we don't all end up blind and toothless.

But there is a basic human notion of justice and fairness, and when someone has killed another, they probably ought to be put down like any other destructive predator.

Well, you're combining two thoughts there. There's the fairness concept, "a person who kills should be killed himself" with a socital necessaty concept: "A person that is dangerous to others should be eliminated."

I'd argue that the criminal justice system isn't about fairness. Tort and Contract law are more interested in what's fair, although even they tend to focus more on Justice than fairness. Criminal law is based on the idea that there are certain actions that hurt the state, and thus the state can sanction those that perform those acts.

Even your example, that a person that kills another ought to be put down, opens a lot of questions. What about self defense? Defense of others? What about a drunk driver? Or an honest bar fight that ends in a freak death? What about crimes of passion? Crimes of stupidity? What about the insane? You have to start drawing lines, and once you start, it simply becomes a matter of policy to determine what's a capital murder and what's not. Myself, I like the old school idea of "Malice Aforethought" as a good benchmark, but even that is a tricky standard.

I know I'm a minority opinion, and I really don't mean any of this personally, I just feel very... chilled by the zeal for the death penalty many people seem to express. Killing another person for the good of the state may have to happen, but I really don't think it should be celebrated.

I'm in Law School, and Criminal Law is an interest of mine, specifically prosecution. It's a bit different when you learn the law and the facts and part of my job search will require deciding if I could try a capital case.

If you go back to the earliest systems, you have things like Leviticus and the Code of Hammurabi, for which the notions of fairness and justice conflate together: If you blind me, I take your eye as recompense; If you kill my brother, I'm entitled to kill you.

Modern Criminal Law recognizes that these things very easily get out of hand as societies and networks get larger - bands of vigilantes are a bad thing in the large. The notion that they somehow "offend the state" is simply wierd and distasteful to me. I see it as the expediency of centralizing things, and the modern American hyper-legalist / literalist approach only furthers the artificiality of things. By taking the victims out of the picture and focusing so heavily on the law and procedure, premeditated murder is only marginally different from having an expired license plate tag.

Really, it bothers me that the state has gotten away from the notion of acting in the interests of people, but rather acts of its own accord. The way you put it, the state is no longer answerable.

In the modern era, the law is all about splitting hairs in each of the above situations, and then finding loopholes, so in all of the above cases, the killer should go free. The only exception to this is likely to be self-defense, because we Americans are stupidly perverse that way. But that's all a dodge.

To me: self defense and defense of others should be a free pass. Drunk drivers should be summarily executed by the side of the road. Barfight? - if he started it, he goes down, same as "passion". No exception for stupidity or insanity - if someone can't understand the basic idea not to kill other people, they probably shouldn't be in society.

Personally, I cheer every time a murderer is executed. The hurdle and burden of proof is so great, it's good that someone finally pays "the ultimate price", if only to show the rest of us what that limit really is. The day that we can't execute is the day that punishment itself starts down the slippery slope towards nothingness.

I don't really think we need any more lawyers, but if you're actually trying to *help* the community, I suppose I can't fault you for that.

I have read hundreds of your posts and I have never agreed more to any of them than I do to this one. Bravo!

POST DELETED BY MODQUISITION

I agree with Polonius that cheering the death penalty is distasteful, I said as much in the other thread where we were discussing this.

I'm sorta in two minds about the death penalty in terms of right and wrong though. I think it's okay in some cases. But it should be approached with respect.

This particular case is irritating. The guy should be told to lose the weight or accept the pain, I reckon. But I'm not a specialist in the area by any means.

I think this thread serves as a wonderful reminder of the cardianl rule of online forums:

Don't take anyone seriously.

I think he should be given bread & water only until he's a svelt 185 then killed in whatever means allowed by the State.

Give me Texas with their "Express Lane" Death row for violent criminals convicted by 3 or more witnesses.

Can't really see why they don't just put a shotgun to the back of their head when they are not expecting it, to me half the torture of it all is them knowing when it's happening and how, and the waiting it creates.

You know, I wonder if anyone has every used C&U to try and get around the wait in prison? I don't mean the appeals process, but from what I understand there is still a substantial wait even unrelated to that.

This thread really got me thinking about my own anti-capital punishment standpoint, so I've done a bit of research. Here's some links for you to look at, I'll leave you to make your own conclusions, but I think it's interesting.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=168

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=6&did=111#Released

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=108&scid=7

I realise this is an anti-death penalty site, so bear any possible bias in mind, have a poke around there though, I've been intrigued by a lot of what there is on there. I'd love to see any statistics and studies that counter these claims (genuinely, I'd like to see the other side).

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Given that I've cleaned my share of fresh animals, I don't know what you're chuckling about. It's a messy business, which is why it makes me a little nuts that people think meat comes from supermarkets.

I was chuckling because you seemed to be implying that if more people were familiar with the process of slaughtering and butchering animals, they would be more accepting of the death penalty. And that some people think meat comes from supermarkets.


I'm just saying I think it might give people a better perspective on the whole life cycle, or whatever you want to call it, and help people to have a little more respect regarding the whole thing. That doesn't necessarily mean people would be more gung-ho towards the death penalty though.

I could be wrong about that, however. But keep in mind I say this as someone who is not against executing someone who has committed a heinous crime.

jfrazell wrote:You're assuming the legal body is dedicated towards maintaining our freedoms. I'd proffer thats not the case. Not maliciousdly but like every bureaucracy, governemnt and the courts seek an increase of their power generally.

Nah dude, I didn’t mean the courts, who are ultimately there to administer the law, regardless of what the law may be. I mean the ACLU and other bodies dedicated to protecting civil liberties. It makes me laugh when you see someone pointing out how important their guns are to keep their government in line, then in the next sentence they’ll be attacking the ACLU or a similar body.

Lets take the executioner out. Same to same but make it a nice claymore situation. That way there is no exeuctioner. His life is literally in his own hands.

That’s a good one, yeah. Anything will do though, as long as it’s reasonably instant and painless and absurdly bloody at the same time. I just hate how we pretend that the death penalty is supposed to be clinical and clean. It isn’t, you’re killing someone, and ramping up the gore to comical levels really should help everyone keep that in mind.

Note that I’m not anti-death penalty, because I’m really kind of ambivalent to it. Locking someone in solitary for life is really no less horrible, and is probably less honest than just killing them. And that’s really all I’m after, a little bit of honesty in the process. The criminal did something horrible and brutal, and now we’re going to do something horrible and brutal in return, like putting them on top of a crapload of explosives or running them through a minefield.

sebster wrote:

jfrazell wrote:You're assuming the legal body is dedicated towards maintaining our freedoms. I'd proffer thats not the case. Not maliciousdly but like every bureaucracy, governemnt and the courts seek an increase of their power generally.

Nah dude, I didn’t mean the courts, who are ultimately there to administer the law, regardless of what the law may be. I mean the ACLU and other bodies dedicated to protecting civil liberties. It makes me laugh when you see someone pointing out how important their guns are to keep their government in line, then in the next sentence they’ll be attacking the ACLU or a similar body.

Lets take the executioner out. Same to same but make it a nice claymore situation. That way there is no exeuctioner. His life is literally in his own hands.

That’s a good one, yeah. Anything will do though, as long as it’s reasonably instant and painless and absurdly bloody at the same time. I just hate how we pretend that the death penalty is supposed to be clinical and clean. It isn’t, you’re killing someone, and ramping up the gore to comical levels really should help everyone keep that in mind.

Note that I’m not anti-death penalty, because I’m really kind of ambivalent to it. Locking someone in solitary for life is really no less horrible, and is probably less honest than just killing them. And that’s really all I’m after, a little bit of honesty in the process. The criminal did something horrible and brutal, and now we’re going to do something horrible and brutal in return, like putting them on top of a crapload of explosives or running them through a minefield.

I am not sure about "similar bodies," but as the ACLU has put forth briefs supporting Washington DC's confiscatory position on firearms, and a slew of other interesting things, I'd take that they are defending my rights as incorrect.

jfrazell wrote:

I am not sure about "similar bodies," but as the ACLU has put forth briefs supporting Washington DC's confiscatory position on firearms, and a slew of other interesting things, I'd take that they are defending my rights as incorrect.

I think this is exactly his point. The ACLU is mostly working against stuff like the warrantless wiretapping and various aspects of the patroit act that violate the 4th amendment. To say that because the ACLU differs on how they view the 2nd amendment means they're not defending you rights only shows that you and they have a different view of what constitute your rights. Of course, if you're a middle class white christian guy that supports the government, doesn't cause any trouble or appears to cause trouble, then no, it seems unlikely that you're going bank heavily on the ACLU for your own rights.

I don't agree with all of their positions, and they can sometimes make quit an annoyance of themselves, but I really think it's unfair to dismiss all of their work.

What Polonius said. Disagree with the ACLU on one issue and they're automatically godless Communists out to destroy your rights?

jfrazell wrote:

Polonius wrote:[
Even your example, that a person that kills another ought to be put down, opens a lot of questions. What about self defense? Defense of others? What about a drunk driver? Or an honest bar fight that ends in a freak death? What about crimes of passion? Crimes of stupidity? What about the insane? You have to start drawing lines, and once you start, it simply becomes a matter of policy to determine what's a capital murder and what's not. Myself, I like the old school idea of "Malice Aforethought" as a good benchmark, but even that is a tricky standard.

Of course none of those reach the standard of Capital Murder (local nomenclature may vary) so are void arguments on their face.

Well, that was my point. I was showing that there are so many types of homicide that we immediately dismiss from the capital murder argument, that in the end it becomes a judgment call. It's not "however kills shall be killed," but rather a complex method of analyzing how they killed, why the killed, what else they've done in the past, etc. States could execute the legally slowed until recently, and plenty of dumb ass folks are still on death row, committing stupid crimes. The legal bar for an insanity defense is actually very tough to reach, no matter what Law and Order may show. I'm also not certain that people like Dahmer or Manson aren't deeply disturbed, if not legally insane.

So, they may be void argument, but they weren't my arguement. They were to set up my argument, that the death penalty is a confused blend of policies, not a pure Hammurabi style fairness doctrine.