News Death Penalty for cut and dried cases?

[nismaratwork]

Death penalty in that case works.

If you let the guilty go, they will commit the same atrocities.

If you put them in jail, you spend money for no reason and there's a possibility they can escape. And they can also commit atrocities to other inmates who did not commit murder or rape.

If you kill them, you solve all previous problems.

21 pages of discourse... I'm amazed none of us considered your 'modest proposal'.

Tell me, did you bother to read anything but the title of this thread before you resurrected it?!

 

[Ken Natton]

If you kill them, you solve all previous problems.

The primary flaw in your reasoning is the notion that killing them is free of adverse consequences.

 

[mugaliens]

I believe in accountability, and for some crimes death is a fit punishment.

After sifting through many comments on this rather proflic thread, many of which are all over the map, it was nice to stumble across your succinct statement of belief. :)

I'm interested in hearing why you believe this to be true.

One case where I would support the death penalty stems from a video link a friend sent me. It's far too graphic to share here on PF. Essentially, some robbers chased a guy into the entrance to a mall, shot him a couple of times, then took the bag which he was still holding.

Mission accomplished, right?

No. One of the robbers stepped outside the entrance, then back to where the guy lay, severely injured, and proceeded to shoot him several more times. The victim had clearly expired by then, but the robber still wasn't done. He walked over and kicked him several times, then leaned over and shot him in the head at very close range twice more.

Aggravated murder, and everything, including the perp's face, caught on videotape, no less.

I would support clearing him of insanity before breakfast, followed by a swift trial (just how long does it take to show a 46-second video?), and same-day sentencing, with capital punishment to be administered before sundown.

I would absolutely not support this 20-something rotting in jail at taxpayers' expense for the next 50 to 80 years, particularly when the US already has, at 737 people per 100,000 population, the highest rate of incarceration of any developed country.

One thing really concerns me is the means of capital punishment. Just because someone committed a heinous crime doesn't mean their execution should be anything but humane. I support the idea that a prisoner should be given the option of being administered gaseous anesthesia before lethal injection.

 

[JaredJames]

One thing really concerns me is the means of capital punishment. Just because someone committed a heinous crime doesn't mean their execution should be anything but humane. I support the idea that a prisoner should be given the option of being administered gaseous anesthesia before lethal injection.

As much as I dislike seeing people in any form of pain or suffering, I have to look at the way their victim died along with the circumstances surrounding it and consider why this person deserves to die painlessly. Did they consider their method of murder humane? Did they think of the suffering of the person they murdered?

I think the stress and suffering of the person in the run up to the execution and then the actual event are all deserved. After all, they brought it on themselves. I don't understand how anyone can defend a murderer (so far as the 'pain and suffering' they may encounter goes).

 

[granpa]

It could, not unreasonably, be argued that anyone who commits murder is, by virtue of that fact alone, 'insane'.

 

[DanP]

As much as I dislike seeing people in any form of pain or suffering, I have to look at the way their victim died along with the circumstances surrounding it and consider why this person deserves to die painlessly. Did they consider their method of murder humane? Did they think of the suffering of the person they murdered?

You got to be garbageting me. Just execute, we are not torturers.

 

[DanP]

After sifting through many comments on this rather proflic thread, many of which are all over the map, it was nice to stumble across your succinct statement of belief. :)

I'm interested in hearing why you believe this to be true.

One case where I would support the death penalty stems from a video link a friend sent me. It's far too graphic to share here on PF. Essentially, some robbers chased a guy into the entrance to a mall, shot him a couple of times, then took the bag which he was still holding.

Mission accomplished, right?

No. One of the robbers stepped outside the entrance, then back to where the guy lay, severely injured, and proceeded to shoot him several more times. The victim had clearly expired by then, but the robber still wasn't done. He walked over and kicked him several times, then leaned over and shot him in the head at very close range twice more.

Aggravated murder, and everything, including the perp's face, caught on videotape, no less.

I would support clearing him of insanity before breakfast, followed by a swift trial (just how long does it take to show a 46-second video?), and same-day sentencing, with capital punishment to be administered before sundown.

I would absolutely not support this 20-something rotting in jail at taxpayers' expense for the next 50 to 80 years, particularly when the US already has, at 737 people per 100,000 population, the highest rate of incarceration of any developed country.

One thing really concerns me is the means of capital punishment. Just because someone committed a heinous crime doesn't mean their execution should be anything but humane. I support the idea that a prisoner should be given the option of being administered gaseous anesthesia before lethal injection.

Upload it on a public FTP and post post the link to it together with a NSFW comment, so more sensitive souls can avoid it.

 

[JaredJames]

You got to be garbageting me. Just execute, we are not torturers.

I'm not advocating making their deaths long and painful. I completely agree, make it quick and get it over with, but I don't know why people keep argue they should administered any form of anesthesia / painkiller. If the lethal injection / gas / electric chair does inflict some pain for the short time it takes, then so be it. They deserve that at the very least. (I abhor murder and don't like the idea of spending a single tax payers penny on locking them up.)

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm not advocating making their deaths long and painful. I completely agree, make it quick and get it over with, but I don't know why people keep argue they should administered any form of anesthesia / painkiller. If the lethal injection / gas / electric chair does inflict some pain for the short time it takes, then so be it. They deserve that at the very least. (I abhor murder and don't like the idea of spending a single tax payers penny on locking them up.)

I've fully outlined my views in many many pages here, so I'm not going to debate the issue again. You've added a new element here; DanP has been clear: He has a sense of justice that is uncompromising and doesn't allow for mercy for convicted killers, rapists (and such), mental issues aside. I disagree, but let's work from that base: reciprocity... an eye for an eye.

Do you want these people dead so they're no longer a burden on the system, and because you have said, you abhor their crime, or do you want them to pay beyond simply being killed? It's virtually no effort to sedate someone, so the only reason to do otherwise is the express request of the condemned, or a desire to make them suffer beyond the knowledge of impending death.

If you believe in reciprocity, I understand even though I disagree, but wanting to inflict pain, or to allow pain to be inflicted needlessly is, as DanP says, a kind of torture.

 

[JaredJames]

I've fully outlined my views in many many pages here, so I'm not going to debate the issue again. You've added a new element here; DanP has been clear: He has a sense of justice that is uncompromising and doesn't allow for mercy for convicted killers, rapists (and such), mental issues aside. I disagree, but let's work from that base: reciprocity... an eye for an eye.

Do you want these people dead so they're no longer a burden on the system, and because you have said, you abhor their crime, or do you want them to pay beyond simply being killed? It's virtually no effort to sedate someone, so the only reason to do otherwise is the express request of the condemned, or a desire to make them suffer beyond the knowledge of impending death.

If you believe in reciprocity, I understand even though I disagree, but wanting to inflict pain, or to allow pain to be inflicted needlessly is, as DanP says, a kind of torture.

I agree, no mercy.

I want them gone so they're no longer a burden on the system / threat to others (if released). I don't want them to put under unnecessary pain due to prolonging the death, and if there was a quick and painless 'instant kill' solution then I'd certainly back it. However, as it stands, I don't see why a few minutes of discomfort is that much of a problem given what they've done to end up in that situation.

 

[nismaratwork]

I agree, no mercy.

I want them gone so they're no longer a burden on the system / threat to others (if released). I don't want them to put under unnecessary pain due to prolonging the death, and if there was a quick and painless 'instant kill' solution then I'd certainly back it. However, as it stands, I don't see why a few minutes of discomfort is that much of a problem given what they've done to end up in that situation.

OK, I understand your position, thanks for the clarification!

 

[mugaliens]

As much as I dislike seeing people in any form of pain or suffering, I have to look at the way their victim died along with the circumstances surrounding it and consider why this person deserves to die painlessly. Did they consider their method of murder humane? Did they think of the suffering of the person they murdered?

I think the stress and suffering of the person in the run up to the execution and then the actual event are all deserved. After all, they brought it on themselves. I don't understand how anyone can defend a murderer (so far as the 'pain and suffering' they may encounter goes).

I hear (I think) where you're coming from. I also think that as a civilized society, we absolutely must be able to separate retribution from justice, and for that matter, even justice from punishment.

I think any advanced society would distance themselves from both the crime as well as the nature of the crime, and simply exact punishment, particularly capital punishment, on the basis of the crime that was committed and the verdict, and nothing more.

 

[mugaliens]

And how about for http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101005/ap_on_re_us/us_home_invasion" ? The case is clearly cut and dry, and quite horrific at that.

"Last year, Gov. M. Jodi Rell vetoed a bill that would have abolished the death penalty in Connecticut, saying the state cannot tolerate people who commit particularly heinous murders."

I'd say this qualifies, and is a prime candidate for exercising Connecticut's death penalty law.

 

[DanP]

And how about for http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101005/ap_on_re_us/us_home_invasion" ? The case is clearly cut and dry, and quite horrific at that.

A paroled burglar ...

Yes, this is what happens when soft souls let ppl out of prisons.

Combined Murder , sexual assault , breaking entry, assault with a weapon ... I hope they'll just put a bullet into his nape and dispose of the body, fast. Or preferably let the survivor of the assault kill him if he so desires.
We need capital punishment. We need to kill perpetrators of crimes such as this one.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes, this is what happens when soft souls let ppl out of prisons.

Combined Murder , sexual assault , breaking entry, assault with a weapon ... I hope they'll just put a bullet into his nape and dispose of the body, fast. Or preferably let the survivor of the assault kill him if he so desires.
We need capital punishment. We need to kill perpetrators of crimes such as this one.

Bolded part is more like Sharia law than US law.

 

[JaredJames]

Bolded part is more like Sharia law than US law.

I agree.

I do accept the death penalty as a suitable punishment for truly horrific crimes, but I would never advocate having the victim (or relevant persons) enact the sentence. It is the justice systems place to assign and carry out punishment.

 

[DanP]

Bolded part is more like Sharia law than US law.

Really ? Dont bring Sharia into this. Dont bring any religious laws into this. It has no place.

Btw, wouldn't you like to kill the perpetrator with your own hands if it would be your daughters who suffocated and burnt alive, your women, your wife, which was raped for hours and killed slowly ? Think about it, how would you feel to be your family there, victims of crime, and not a tabloid news story which you can dismiss, thinking in the back of your mind .. "this will never happen to me" ?

 

[DanP]

I agree.

I do accept the death penalty as a suitable punishment for truly horrific crimes, but I would never advocate having the victim (or relevant persons) enact the sentence. It is the justice systems place to assign and carry out punishment.

Hihihi. The system doesn't kill. Humans do. Somebody has to start the lethal injection process.

 

[Andre]

So far I did not contribute to this thread with commonalities but I stumbled upon something interesting. Groupthink in jury's. Obviously the groupthink factors, in combination with the power of fallacies in the argumention may lead to the convincing impression that an innocent is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

http://www.ijar.lit.az/pdf/1/2009(1-24).pdf

..attorneys Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld and their Innocence Project at Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School, have used DNA evidence to help free 175 individuals who were imprisoned after being wrongly convicted of crimes, 14 of whom were on death row...

 

[DanP]

So far I did not contribute to this thread with commonalities but I stumbled upon something interesting. Groupthink in jury's. Obviously the groupthink factors, in combination with the power of fallacies in the argumention may lead to the convincing impression that an innocent is guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

http://www.ijar.lit.az/pdf/1/2009(1-24).pdf

So does other psychological biases. A whole bunch of them. Race bias maybe one of the most important. But those in itself are not reason enough to eliminate death penalty.

 

[nismaratwork]

Really ? Dont bring Sharia into this. Dont bring any religious laws into this. It has no place.

Btw, wouldn't you like to kill the perpetrator with your own hands if it would be your daughters who suffocated and burnt alive, your women, your wife, which was raped for hours and killed slowly ? Think about it, how would you feel to be your family there, victims of crime, and not a tabloid news story which you can dismiss, thinking in the back of your mind .. "this will never happen to me" ?

Why wouldn't I bring in the law-set that matches what you said exactly? Under Sharia law the condemned is to be killed by the next of kin of the victim, OR shown mercy by those same people. Even the Code of Hammurabi doesn't match it so well... not my fault this is where you took it.

As for the rest, I think the individual emotional desire for revenge being suppressed by the state is part of what separates a real judicial system from religious law or the Chinese version of roaming death-mobiles. My desire to kill the person who killed by my daughter (and I would want to kill them) is eclipsed by the public good and agreed-upon standards of justice.

 

[DanP]

Why wouldn't I bring in the law-set that matches what you said exactly? Under Sharia law the condemned is to be killed by the next of kin of the victim, OR shown mercy by those same people. Even the Code of Hammurabi doesn't match it so well... not my fault this is where you took it.

Because Sharia is a religious complex of laws. It's a sacred law for Islam, often misunderstood deeply. Even more so nowadays with all the anti muslim propaganda one has to endure.

Leave Sharia and the Bible and whatever other religious codex you find apart from this. It has nothing to do secular laws we are talking about here.

As for the rest, I think the individual emotional desire for revenge being suppressed by the state is part of what separates a real judicial system from religious law or the Chinese version of roaming death-mobiles. My desire to kill the person who killed by my daughter (and I would want to kill them) is eclipsed by the public good and agreed-upon standards of justice.

Big words. It's a guess, as good as any other. I sincerely hope you won't have to test this belief during your life time. Public good yeah ... when your wife is raped and killed. I doubt that "public good" has anything to do with it.

Anyway, agreed standards of justice change.

 

[apeiron]

My desire to kill the person who killed by my daughter (and I would want to kill them) is eclipsed by the public good and agreed-upon standards of justice.

Even a religious code is based on some group level standards of justice. What we think of as more civilised is justice based on more abstract or generalised principles. This is why we like the idea of handing over the decisions and punishments to an impersonal, rational, decision-making process. It is a way to ensure the best group-level outcomes.

DanP wants a justice system based on just what he himself feels is appropriate, which is not even as civilised as a religious code. This is why he has to keep repeating the most extreme and unlikely scenario (wives and daughters being raped repeatedly for hours) to argue that the personal emotional response should in principle be preferred over the impersonal social and rational one.

 

[DanP]

This is why he has to keep repeating the most extreme and unlikely scenario (wives and daughters being raped repeatedly for hours) to argue that the personal emotional response should in principle be preferred over the impersonal social and rational one.

Yeah, right. Very unlikely. As you could see for your own eyes, a case of this kind was posted here just several posts ago. One was mentioned by Evo when the thread was started. But of course, you choose to conveniently ignore those events which happen right in front of our eyes (murders and rapes) to support your so called "rational" position.

 

[CRGreathouse]

This is why he has to keep repeating the most extreme and unlikely scenario (wives and daughters being raped repeatedly for hours) to argue that the personal emotional response should in principle be preferred over the impersonal social and rational one.

I've been trying to stay out of this discussion, but I wanted to bring something up on this point. If DanP was only suggesting the death penalty in rare and extreme situations, then he would be quite justified in discussing those situations to justify the death penalty.

More generally, it seems that the appropriate situations to discuss are the least 'extreme' where there is argument as to whether the death penalty should apply. If a person wanted to argue for the death penalty only in these cases, then discussing those cases as justification is appropriate. If a person wanted to apply it to not just brutal rape-murders but also to murder and manslaughter, then justifications would be required for the manslaughter case -- using the more-extreme case doesn't suffice for the argument.

 

[apeiron]

Yeah, right. Very unlikely. As you could see for your own eyes, a case of this kind was posted here just several posts ago. One was mentioned by Evo when the thread was started. But of course, you choose to conveniently ignore those events which happen right in front of our eyes (murders and rapes) to support your so called "rational" position.

You said: "Or preferably let the survivor of the assault kill him if he so desires."

And that was what Nismar and myself in turn responded to. There is a good reason why this is not in fact preferable. If you can offer a rational answer why justice should be personal rather than impersonal, please do.

 

[DanP]

You said: "Or preferably let the survivor of the assault kill him if he so desires."

And that was what Nismar and myself in turn responded to. There is a good reason why this is not in fact preferable. If you can offer a rational answer why justice should be personal rather than impersonal, please do.

Irrelevant, this explanation doesn't makes your first post any more interesting. If you didn't observed yet, we are talking in this thread about cut and dried cases (as cut and dry as they can be) , where dead penalty is very likely candidate in many jurisdictions.

Those are exactly the kind of crimes you repeatedly ignore, namely murder I, rapes followed by death of the victim and so on. For you it seems that aggravated rapes and murder do not exist and we are a perfect society. Murder and rapes are "unlikely" for you. I wonder if we live on the same planet :P Perhaps you should start by aknolwdgin that those cases do happen and they aint so unlikely as you try to make it.

 

[apeiron]

Those are exactly the kind of crimes you repeatedly ignore, namely murder I, rapes followed by death of the victim and so on. For you it seems that aggravated rapes and murder do not exist and we are a perfect society. Murder and rapes are "unlikely" for you. I wonder if we live on the same planet :P Perhaps you should start by aknolwdgin that those cases do happen and they aint so unlikely as you try to make it.

Why the evasion? You said individuals ought to have the right to deliver justice. I said there is a reason why this is "uncivilised".

If your position is based on good principle, then it would apply equally well to minor crimes like shoplifting.

Should a shop-keeper be able to punish shoplifters (for example, by locking them in stocks outside the shop for public humiliation). How do you imagine you would reply to the question as (a) a shopkeeper who has lost a lot of money over many years, and (b) father of a daughter caught in the act by such a shopkeeper? If the answer is not exactly the same, then your position is obviously unsound - emotionally subjective rather than rationally objective.

As to whether I live on another planet (ie: planet rational), well objectively the homicide rate is about 1 in 50,000 per year. And a lot of that is domestic violence and baby-bashing.

So I do indeed spend little to no time obsessing about murder/rapes, and instead give rather more time to contemplating death or maiming at the hands of such things as mountain bike trails.

 

[DanP]

So I do indeed spend little to no time obsessing about murder/rapes, and instead give rather more time to contemplating death or maiming at the hands of such things as mountain bike trails.

Perhaps then you shouldn't get involved in threads where ppl discuss exactly the situations you choose to ignore, and move to a thread where maiming resulting from extreme sports is discussed ?

 

[Char. Limit]

As to whether I live on another planet (ie: planet rational), well objectively the homicide rate is about 1 in 50,000 per year. And a lot of that is domestic violence and baby-bashing

You use the legal term for "domestic violence", but not the legal term for "child murder" or whatever it's called?

Just a strange non-sequitur (sp?) i noticed. You could have easily called the first "spouse-bashing". (Taking care to note that the ratio of domestic violence by a man as opposed to by a woman is a lot closer to 1:1 than many people think)