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.

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.

 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.

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.

 sebster wrote:

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.

 Captain Avatar wrote:

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.

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.

 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.

Well done, Dakka!

 daedalus wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

If they wanted to die instead, they could commit suicide.

Is that not a crime over there?

A crime that if attempted unsuccessfully carries the death penalty!!

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.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2014/05/clayton-locketts-victim-had-a-name-stephanie-neiman.html/


Here's a face to go along with the name. She was 19 years old:

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

Except it's right. That the victim suffered does not mean that the guilty party should.

An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Except it's right. That the victim suffered does not mean that the guilty party should.

An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.

Only true if people are stupid enough to keep poking each others eyes out with no provocation.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Except it's right. That the victim suffered does not mean that the guilty party should.

An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.

No. an eye for an eye means the person with the last eye controls the universe!

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Except it's right. That the victim suffered does not mean that the guilty party should.

An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.

No. an eye for an eye means the person with the last eye controls the universe!

The gods have seen fit to bless me with a spare

 Frazzled wrote:

 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?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Except it's right. That the victim suffered does not mean that the guilty party should.

An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind.

No. an eye for an eye means the person with the last eye controls the universe!

The gods have seen fit to bless me with a spare

WASHINGTON!! OK.

I thought it was W.V. until I looked a lil closer

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

 Spacemanvic wrote:

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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Spacemanvic wrote:

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?

 Frazzled wrote:

Nonsense. Do you have empathy for Stalin? Chairman Mao? Jeffrey Dahmer?

That's a narrow sidestep away from the Godwinning box on my bingo card.

How does his suffering ease her suffering?

It doesn't. So?

So how is it helping to improve the situation?

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.

Hence the creepy torture fantasy stuff.

Justice.