Read this, and then tell me you don't believe in Capitol Punishment

[Joe Franklin]

This is the worse case of child neglect homicide since the turn of the century.:(
http://www.pjstar.com/stories/022108/TRI_BFRH57AL.064.php

[Grazzt]

I still don't support capital punishment. What anyone going to gain from killing those assholes?

[Ben Morgan]

That is sad, but I'm still against capital punishment

[Joe Franklin]

I still don't support capital punishment. What anyone going to gain from killing those assholes?

If they are put to death, they can never kill a child again. It's simple logic my friend. As long as a murderer is left alive, he/she has the chance to murder again, inside and outside of prison. Same applies to sexual predators/felons.

[K'Nort]

And regardless of whether you support the idea of capital punishment (and I do), this analysis (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/02/04/080204fa_fact_toobin) makes a good argument for why it's pretty much pointless to try any more. Unless you are really, really just out for blood, and that's certainly a bad thing.

[Ben Morgan]

If they are put to death, they can never kill a child again.

Life in prison would have the same effect

[Joe Franklin]

Life in prison would have the same effect


But it wouldn't possibly stop them from murdering again. They can escape from prison and murder again(it happens sometimes), and they can murder, guards, visitors, and other prisoners as well(this also happens sometimes). If they are executed, they can never murder again.

[K'Nort]

Life in prison would have the same effect

In fairness, life sentences frequently turn into parole, etc. Although eliminating the capitol punishment option would probably improve that. Because there wouldn't be the "Well if it was THAT bad, they would have sentenced him to death instead of to life" argument.

[Joe Franklin]

And regardless of whether you support the idea of capital punishment (and I do), this analysis (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/02/04/080204fa_fact_toobin) makes a good argument for why it's pretty much pointless to try any more. Unless you are really, really just out for blood, and that's certainly a bad thing.

Capitol punishment is not revenge, it's justice put forth by the law of the society/community which the criminal murdered in, and making sure the murderer can never murder anybody else again. It's simple logical societal/community justice in regulation with the law of the land.

[Bear]

Capital Punishment is wrong, on the conditions that it denies the person who has committed the offense the ability to: make retribution, do some serious penance (possibly life in jail), or recognize that they have committed themselves to something that is horribly wrong.

If someone doesn't know the difference between what is right or wrong--or doesn't care--then they are defective; and we are also at fault (even if only in some small way) for allowing them to remain as such. But killing them for being mentally defective, or psychologically imperfect is somewhat nazi-ish, I think. We are saying that they are less equal than us; and that there is no hope.

No one wants the task of taking such a person, and trying then, to the best of our unique ability, to reformulate them into a "good" person; but perhaps that is our penance.

As a teacher, I am often told that my student's failure is my own; and I hate, truly, being said that, every time. Because, it forces me to recognize my own culpability, for the degeneration of society. What didn't I do right?

[K'Nort]

Capitol punishment is not revenge, it's justice put forth by the law of the society/community which the criminal murdered in, and making sure the murderer can never murder anybody else again. It's simple logical societal/community justice in regulation with the law of the land.

I'm sorry but you really need to re-word that statement. Your point is unclear.

[Joe Franklin]

If someone doesn't know the difference between what is right or wrong--or doesn't care--then they are defective; and we are also at fault (even if only in some small way) for allowing them to remain as such. But killing them for being mentally defective, or psychologically imperfect is somewhat nazi-ish, I think. We are saying that they are less equal than us; and that there is no hope.


Death penalty is not killing/murder, it's a penalty enforced by the law of the land. It's called justice.

Murdering a child is injustice, and the death penalty is justice. One is evil, the other is good. It's basic moral logic. What Hitler did to the Jews in the gas chambers was evil, and taking Hitler out with the death penalty if captured would be good.

[Tobias March]

Death penalty is not killing/murder, it's a penalty enforced by the law of the land. It's called justice.

Murdering a child is injustice, and the death penalty is justice. One is evil, the other is good. It's basic moral logic. What Hitler did to the Jews in the gas chambers was evil, and taking Hitler out with the death penalty if captured would be good.

Man you gotta read Eichmann's defence of his actions one day.

[gary bolt]

Godwin's Law in action!

[Michael P]

Well, no, I don't believe in capitol punishment. I don't see where going around, haranguing government buildings is going to solve anything.

[K'Nort]

Well, no, I don't believe in capitol punishment. I don't see where going around, haranguing government buildings is going to solve anything.

Y'know, I did think about looking that up and then I got lazy.

Damn it.

[Bear]

Death penalty is not killing/murder, it's a penalty enforced by the law of the land. It's called justice.

Murdering a child is injustice, and the death penalty is justice. One is evil, the other is good. It's basic moral logic. What Hitler did to the Jews in the gas chambers was evil, and taking Hitler out with the death penalty if captured would be good.

I would say it would be "best" to have never allowed Hitler to hurt anyone to begin with.

But, since having succeeded at being the scumbag he was, they should have analyzed him until he finally died. I say if you kill them, you squander what information you could have otherwise gleaned from studying the psychotic mind.

Perhaps then, if we only had a book: "The 7 habits of highly f-ed up heads of state" we could have recognized and prevented the holocaust to begin with.

[gary bolt]

I don't believe in capitol punishment or capital punishment.

[Bear]

Beside all of this...would any of us actually desire to be the person who administers the lethal injection? Or flips the knife switch? Or diffuses the gas?

I think it would seriously damage our individual minds (if not souls) to engage in such similarly barbaric action.

[morna]

Capital Punishment is wrong, on the conditions that it denies the person who has committed the offense the ability to: make retribution, do some serious penance (possibly life in jail), or recognize that they have committed themselves to something that is horribly wrong.

If someone doesn't know the difference between what is right or wrong--or doesn't care--then they are defective; and we are also at fault (even if only in some small way) for allowing them to remain as such. But killing them for being mentally defective, or psychologically imperfect is somewhat nazi-ish, I think. We are saying that they are less equal than us; and that there is no hope.

No one wants the task of taking such a person, and trying then, to the best of our unique ability, to reformulate them into a "good" person; but perhaps that is our penance.

As a teacher, I am often told that my student's failure is my own; and I hate, truly, being said that, every time. Because, it forces me to recognize my own culpability, for the degeneration of society. What didn't I do right?

As a teacher, one would hope that you could form a sentence.

[Josh S]

I'm probably missing something, but what is wrong with "one wants the task of taking such a person"?


The death penalty is bad. It's simple logic.

[Joe Franklin]

As a teacher, one would hope that you could form a sentence.

He didn't say accredited teacher.;) :D

[Mike Pothier]

I'm not necessarily against capital punishment. I just think the stipulations should be astronomical.

[Michael P]

I'm probably missing something, but what is wrong with "one wants the task of taking such a person"?

Taking them where?

[morna]

I'm probably missing something, but what is wrong with "one wants the task of taking such a person"?


The death penalty is bad. It's simple logic.

He doesn't complete the thought. It's just bad sentence structure. The post is riddled with it. It alarms me that this guy's a teacher. Sorry for nitpicking but this was just too much for my psyche.

I'll go away now.

[Bear]

Time to derail already?

[Grazzt]

If they are put to death, they can never kill a child again. It's simple logic my friend. As long as a murderer is left alive, he/she has the chance to murder again, inside and outside of prison. Same applies to sexual predators/felons.

"For every problem, there is a solution that is neat, simple, and wrong." H. L. Mencken.

By your logic sterilization will keep them from killing another child. Why aren't you arguing for their sterilization?

[Josh S]

Taking them where?

"No one wants the task of taking such a person, and trying then, to the best of our unique ability, to reformulate them into a "good" person; but perhaps that is our penance."

Writing isn't a strength, but the only thing I can see that should be done is possibly taking out "then" and the first comma. Is there a word to use instead of "taking"?

[K'Nort]

As a teacher, one would hope that you could form a sentence.

Pretty sure it's Catholic school.

[Josh S]

He doesn't complete the thought.

Not before the comma, but he did complete the thought.

It's just bad sentence structure. The post is riddled with it. It alarms me that this guy's a teacher. Sorry for nitpicking but this was just too much for my psyche.

Fair enough.

[Matt Algren]

Death penalty is not killing/murder. . . Yes it is. Duh.
. . . it's a penalty enforced by the law of the land. It's called justice.

Murdering a child is injustice, and the death penalty is justice. One is evil, the other is good. It's basic moral logic. What Hitler did to the Jews in the gas chambers was evil, and taking Hitler out with the death penalty if captured would be good.I'm not sure your comparison hangs together. Maybe if the baby had been killed by the state because he disturbed the peace (Ever been around a five month old? Them's the most peace-disturbin' folks around!) you might have a valid comparison.

Regardless of whether I believe in capital punishment, your torches-and-pitchforks reasoning is one of the big reasons people argue against it.

[MaxofSteel]

The "parents'" lack of remorse is what angers me the most (aside from the child's death that is).

In cases such as this, I consider it more fitting to carry out a punishment equal to the crime, or in a similar vein. My view is that these people need to understand what they did and - if possible - suffer for it. If not, they should be kept in a cell and starved.

[Sanagi]

Sorry, I still don't think the government should kill people.

[Joe Franklin]

By your logic sterilization will keep them from killing another child. Why aren't you arguing for their sterilization?

Nope. They can always kill any child they come in contact with, it doesn't have to be their own. Sterilization won't keep somebody from killing a child.

[Joe Franklin]

Sorry, I still don't think the government should kill people.

So, are you anti-abortion then?

[Rachel Grey]

Time to derail already?

This thread is now about

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i66/Largo01/optimus_prime.jpg

Optimus Prime.

He's like a robot Jesus.

[Ryan K]

So, are you anti-abortion then?

*thread explodes*

[Matt Algren]

So, are you anti-abortion then?
Are you saying that aborted fetuses are people?

And why are you changing the subject?

[K'Nort]

So, are you anti-abortion then?

We don't have fully nationalized medicine quite yet, you know.

[K'Nort]

Are you saying that aborted fetuses are people?


Well that's beside the point. He's saying the govt is performing the abortions.

Ten to one, the next step is that people in the thread deserve to die too.

[Ryan K]

This thread is now about

http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i66/Largo01/optimus_prime.jpg

Optimus Prime.

He's like a robot Jesus.


Do Transformers believe in the death penalty?

How about abortions?

Do Transformers even have babies, and if so does Optimus (their Jesus) weep when pregnant teenage Transformers kill the innocent, robotic life within them just because they're irresponsible WHORES!?!

[Ben Morgan]

I'm still trying to figure out what "capitol" punishment is

[Josh S]

I never really cared for Transformers, but Optimus Prime is quite visually pleasing.

[Joe Franklin]

Well that's beside the point. He's saying the govt is performing the abortions.


Exactly. Millions of tax dollars are spent each year on free abortion clinics, so that's why I asked the government killing question.

[Sanagi]

So, are you anti-abortion then?
I'm against politicians performing them.

[Joe Franklin]

I'm still trying to figure out what "capitol" punishment is

I typed to fast and spelled it wrong.:D

[Mike Pothier]

You make baby Optimus cry.

[Michael P]

I'm against politicians performing them.

What if the politicians are trained and licensed physicians?

[morna]

Darwinism in action. I don't think the kid had much of a chance. Looking at those parents it wouldn't surprize me if he had FAS and god knows what other defects. Perhaps the idiots saved the world from another canabalistic murdering sex predator.

Who knows.



edit: oops sorry - derailed the derail.

[Joe Franklin]

Darwinism in action. I don't think the kid had much of a chance.

So, that child's parents were the fittest?;)

I think not.

[K'Nort]

Darwinism in action. I don't think the kid had much of a chance. Looking at those parents it wouldn't surprize me if he had FAS and god knows what other defects. Perhaps the idiots saved the world from another canabalistic murdering sex predator.

Who knows.

Too bad the kid couldn't have been aborted and thus saved all that agony.


Oh wait.

[Bear]

What if the politicians are trained and licensed physicians?

Hey, Ron Paul wouldn't do that.

Seriously: this thread hasn't been aborted itself yet?

http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2006/08/25/megatron-transformers-1.jpg

He looks like he'd abort someone.

[Sanagi]

What if the politicians are trained and licensed physicians?
Hmm... I dunno. Could be a conflict of interest. They might try to select the next generation of voters.

[Grazzt]

Nope. They can always kill any child they come in contact with, it doesn't have to be their own. Sterilization won't keep somebody from killing a child.

That doesn't make sense. These morons didn't go out looking for a child to kill, they just decided that they didn't want their child anymore, so they killed it. I honestly doubt that they're ever going to be a threat to any child ever again (provided that they don't have any more of their own).

[Ben Morgan]

Nope. They can always kill any child they come in contact with, it doesn't have to be their own. Sterilization won't keep somebody from killing a child.
Well it's not like they're out to murder any child they come in contact with, not letting them adopt would be more effective than killing these people

[Joe Franklin]

Well it's not like they're out to murder any child they come in contact with, not letting them adopt would be more effective than killing these people

So, you would let them watch your child for free when you go on vacation? Afterall, they would only kill their own children, not yours.;)

[Ryan K]

Why are we talking about letting them watch other people's childrens?

The punishment options here are not DEATH PENALTY or LET THEM GO HOME AND THINK ABOUT WHAT THEY"VE DONE.

Give 'em life in prison without the possibilty of parole and let them find out how much inmates like baby killers. Problem solved.

[Rachel Grey]

http://www.iwatchstuff.com/2006/08/25/megatron-transformers-1.jpg

He looks like he'd abort someone.

Sad thing is, Starscream's face was worse.

[Ryan K]

Megatron's nose looks like a bat'leth.

[Joe Franklin]

Give 'em life in prison without the possibilty of parole and let them find out how much inmates like baby killers. Problem solved.

I don't want my tax dollars to pay for murderers to eat, drink, smoke, do drugs, get laid, have a warm/dry place to sleep inetc.....................for life, just like what murderous prisoners get to do in prisons in the US at the expense of the tax payers. I'm tired of feeding and sheltering millions of violent and cold hearted murderers with my tax money.

[Michael P]

You really don't have a fucking clue about how anything actually works, do you?

[Matt Algren]

Speaking of Transformers... (http://newteevee.vodpod.com/video/92692-on-the-prowl)

[Ryan K]

I don't want my tax dollars to pay for murderers to eat, drink, smoke, do drugs, get laid, have a warm/dry place to sleep inetc.....................for life, just like what murderous prisoners get to do in prisons in the US at the expense of the tax payers. I'm tired of feeding and sheltering millions of violent and cold hearted murderers with my tax money.

It costs more of your tax money to execute them.

And it's not like prison is a nice place. At all. It's a dreary, numbing, soul sucking place. Just because they get cable, doesn't mean anybody is having fun.

[Joe Franklin]

You really don't have a fucking clue about how anything actually works, do you?

Please explain to me about how things work oh wise CBR mentor.:)

[BlairH]

As a rule, I think CP is a fairly bad idea. However repeated, sexual offenders consistently show little hope for rehabilitation, (JWK has covered this ground in the past) since their crimes stem from psychological urges that can not be quashed. As such, I think that CP should be an option for these individuals.

[K'Nort]

It costs more of your tax money to execute them.

Exactamundo.

[Josh S]

It costs more of your tax money to execute them.


He never said he had a problem with funding killing people. Just housing and feeding them. What a humanitarian!

[Rachel Grey]

I'm tired of feeding and sheltering millions of violent and cold hearted murderers with my tax money.

Politicians?

[Bear]

We are obligated as "good" persons, to care for even those whose actions we despise.

[Mike Pothier]

Out of curiosity, Joe, how old are you?

[Demon wizard]

I read it, and I don't believe in capital punishment. Let the bastards spend the rest of their lives in prison. The death penalty isn't justice, It's revenge. And what about false convictions? Some one gets life in prison and later evidence surfaces proving their innocence the government can let them out and attempt to compensate for F-ing up their lives. Which obviously doesn't work with dead people.

[Kid Omega]

I don't want my tax dollars to pay for murderers to eat, drink, smoke, do drugs, get laid, have a warm/dry place to sleep inetc.....................for life, just like what murderous prisoners get to do in prisons in the US at the expense of the tax payers. I'm tired of feeding and sheltering millions of violent and cold hearted murderers with my tax money.


I don't want my tax dollars paying for murder. I don't care what a criminal does, slaying them is not justice. This is not the middle ages, and we shouldn't have to demand blood satisfaction for every crime.

And can we crank down the ridiculous hypotheticals? Maybe?

[Matt Algren]

Millions??

[Demon wizard]

Millions??

Of course, everyone in prison is either a murderer or a rapist.

[Michael P]

Millions??

There are millions of offenders in the US prison system. However, a lot of them are in for nonviolent, drug-related offenses.

Not everyone in prison is a baby-raping puppy-killer.

[Ryan K]

Millions??

In the last census it was determined 1/3 of Americans have killed at least one person.

That's a little inflated because of Texans.

[Ryan K]

Not everyone in prison is a baby-raping puppy-killer.

Exactly. At least half are only puppy-raping baby killers.

[Matt Algren]

There are millions of offenders in the US prison system. However, a lot of them are in for nonviolent, drug-related offenses.

Not everyone in prison is a baby-raping puppy-killer.
You, sir, are a liar. I just heard a statistic that over 1/3 of Americans have killed at least one person.

How do you counter that, sir? I ask you; HOW?

[macul]

Exactamundo.

To be fair, it is the endless appeals that cost. A bullet is cheap.

[K'Nort]

To be fair, it is the endless appeals that cost. A bullet is cheap.

And the now-mandatory psychological histories. I hadn't known about those. That's something in the article I linked to on the first page.

[Nick Soapdish]

To be fair, it is the endless appeals that cost. A bullet is cheap.

But the reason for those appeals is to cut down on the odds of us accidentally executing the wrong person although they seem to be more of a formality, given the flaws in cases that still slip through.

Capital punishment definitely isn't justice and it isn't acting as a disincentive to future crimes when it executes the wrong person.

[StoneGold]

Not everyone in prison is a baby-raping puppy-killer.

Don't baby rapers tend to get killed in prison?



Actually, I have no clue, that's just what every cop show ever has said.

[Ryan K]

Don't baby rapers tend to get killed in prison?



Actually, I have no clue, that's just what every cop show ever has said.

Not automatically, but yeah, they're not welcomed with open arms by the other inmates. A lot of those inmates are mothers and fathers themselves.

I do believe many states automatically put baby killers, pedophiles, and the like in administrative segregation or safe-keeping away from the general population for their safety. I believe Texas does (I know they do with confirmed gang members and homosexuals).

[Gilda Dent]

I read it. I've read worse. I'm still against the death penalty.

I don't want my tax dollars to pay for murderers to eat, drink, smoke, do drugs, get laid, have a warm/dry place to sleep inetc.....................for life, just like what murderous prisoners get to do in prisons in the US at the expense of the tax payers. I'm tired of feeding and sheltering millions of violent and cold hearted murderers with my tax money.

Millions? You're off by an order of magnitude.

In 2004, there were 633,700 in state prisons in the U.S. for violent offenses, including assault, rape, and murder. I've had difficulty breaking it down further than that, but let's assume for a moment that half of those were for murder. That gives us a few hundred thousand. This still quite a large number, but you're off by an order of magnitude.

[StoneGold]

Just give em to the Tossed Salad Man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=077UtUWGQOA

[Asa]

Awfull! just awful,. That does not constitute capital punishment though. There must be something wrong with them, I quess there was no grandparents to help the baby. How about the screaming didn't anyone here the sreaming. The baby must have cried. Lock them up for life, let them remember what they did for the rest of their lives, and no perole.:evilangry

[Demon wizard]

Awfull! just awful,. That does not constitute capital punishment though. There must be something wrong with them, I quess there was no grandparents to help the baby. How about the screaming didn't anyone here the sreaming. The baby must have cried. Lock them up for life, let them remember what they did for the rest of their lives, and no perole.:evilangry

And make them toss a couple salads.

[That JonoGuy]

As horrible as a crime is, I still am against the Death Penalty. Sure, I may wish them death, but to actually do so is murder in my eyes. Just because it is government sponsored doesn't make it any less wrong.

[Phrozen]

I think there should be a death penalty because there are people that simply need to die.

Now, I think it is used to often and I would rather have life with hard labor come back.

[BoosterBronze]

Death penalty is not killing/murder, it's a penalty enforced by the law of the land. It's called justice.

Murdering a child is injustice, and the death penalty is justice. One is evil, the other is good. It's basic moral logic. What Hitler did to the Jews in the gas chambers was evil, and taking Hitler out with the death penalty if captured would be good.

Your argument seems to be "The death penalty is good, therefore the death penalty is good."

[Gilda Dent]

Your argument seems to be "The death penalty is good, therefore the death penalty is good."

Well, at least he's consistent.

[Josh S]

Your argument seems to be "The death penalty is good, therefore the death penalty is good."

It's foolproof!

[Gingold]

I don't believe in capital punishment. Except if Kitty Dukakis was raped and murdered. Gotta draw a line somewhere.

[Paul McEnery]

Your argument seems to be "The death penalty is good, therefore the death penalty is good."

Which sounds, to my ears, strangely like "boy, I'd like to kill someone, can I kill someone, can I can I, gee, I sure wish I could kill someone."

[Sanagi]

Please explain to me about how things work oh wise CBR mentor.:)
Well, human beings are morally ambiguous, which means figuring out who deserves to die is harder than you might think.

[Titan76]

Sorry, I still don't think the government should kill people.
Does that mean we should should abolish the Army, Navy, Air Force, CIA, etc because they kill people and they are Government employees.


Well, human beings are morally ambiguous, which means figuring out who deserves to die is harder than you might think.
If they are like Osama Bin Laden I don't think it would be too hard.

[LtMarvel]

Why you shouldn't believe in capital punishment: fallable people are in charge. This man* died in prison of a crime he didn't commit. Why? Police messed up (one person line-up for the witness). Judge messed up (didn't allow public defender to tell the jury about the line-up). And the man was homeless/not able to fully defend himself. Now that a serial killer has confessed to that man's crime.

*Arrrgh. I can't get the search to come up with the article in a timely matter. I'll try again with the faster connection at work.

[Forefinger]

I'm all for killing people.

[Dan Apodaca]

Killing people for killing people is what simple people do. Try being more creative.

[Typo Lad]

I'm stilla against it.

Now, if you asked me if I was for forced sterilization, then I'd be allllll over that.

[Rabid Trekkie]

Killing people for killing people is what simple people do. Try being more creative.

You mean like torture?

[Huh?]

I am against capital punishment, but I sometimes wonder what would happen to that stance if something horrible happened to one of my loved ones.

In the case that started the thread, are the parents drug addicts? Is the guy that found the kid and moved him car seat and all an idiot? There are a lot of facts missing from that story if you ask me.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

Anecdotally, one can always find a case, or sadly, a multitude of cases, in which no tears would be shed for the murderer and where proof of his or her guilt is irrefutable.

In practice, however, the death penalty in this country is a disaster. It is imposed in a discriminatory manner (if you're black and poor and commit a murder against a nonblack victim, you have a much greater chance than nonblack defendant who murdered a black victim), it is imposed in a relatively arbitrary manner, the studies on its deterrent effect are, at best, mixed (I'm aware of Nanci Mocan's latest study, but not conversant enough with it to make a judgment on it), it's extraordinarily expensive to implement and, lastly, as with any field in which human judgment is a part, it is prone to erroneous results. There are also the philosophical arguments that the use of violence begets violence and that the State shows moral ambiguity and/or hypocrisy when it inflicts death on citizens as a punishment for inflicting death.

It is a rare event when a convicted murderer escapes from prison, and I realize such events are held up as examples as to why the death penalty should be imposed, but it strikes me that is an argument for better prisons and better training and pay for guards rather than an argument for the death penalty.

[mattx110]

Does that mean we should should abolish the Army, Navy, Air Force, CIA, etc because they kill people and they are Government employees.

Imagine all the people... living for today?

[Matt Algren]

Imagine all the people... living for today?
I HAVE A BOARD WITH A NAIL IN IT!

[Huh?]

Anecdotally, one can always find a case, or sadly, a multitude of cases, in which no tears would be shed for the murderer and where proof of his or her guilt is irrefutable.

In practice, however, the death penalty in this country is a disaster. It is imposed in a discriminatory manner (if you're black and poor and commit a murder against a nonblack victim, you have a much greater chance than nonblack defendant who murdered a black victim), it is imposed in a relatively arbitrary manner, the studies on its deterrent effect are, at best, mixed (I'm aware of Nanci Mocan's latest study, but not conversant enough with it to make a judgment on it), it's extraordinarily expensive to implement and, lastly, as with any field in which human judgment is a part, it is prone to erroneous results. There are also the philosophical arguments that the use of violence begets violence and that the State shows moral ambiguity and/or hypocrisy when it inflicts death on citizens as a punishment for inflicting death.

It is a rare event when a convicted murderer escapes from prison, and I realize such events are held up as examples as to why the death penalty should be imposed, but it strikes me that is an argument for better prisons and better training and pay for guards rather than an argument for the death penalty.I definitely understand this argument, and for the most part agree with everything you said. What is troubling to me is that the alternative gets pretty damn expensive too.

It costs a fortune to keep a person in prison for life. I have read/seen enough about our prison system to know that prison does not deter a "criminal" from committing crimes. They don't want to get caught, but going to prison is like a professional going to a trade show. You get to network and learn all about your business on someone else's dime.

[The Mutt]

Anybody that brings up cost when discussing the death penalty is morally bankrupt.

The death penalty is wrong in all cases. It's the Justice System, not the Vengeance System.

Why is it that Americans think the government can't do anything right ever, yet they have no problem with the government deciding who to kill?

[Mike Pothier]

I'll repeat what I said earlier. I'm not against the death penalty, per se. I do believe there are some real evil bastards in the system that probably deserve death.

I just believe the requirements to send a person to death row should be astronomical. I mean, you need an air-tight case just to CONSIDER it, and even then, no DNA/video/confession means no death penalty.

[Monty_Cristo]

If they are put to death, they can never kill a child again.

the residents of Elm Street disagree.

[Dan Apodaca]

I just can't get over the intense irony in people who support the death penalty.

Look; the people you want to kill? These are people who did what they thought was right, regardless of moral or ethical implications. People who administered punishment that they decided the victims deserved. People who deemed themselves worthy of doling out the most permanent and damaging of acts.

And those are exactly the qualities that are present in all arguments for the death penalty. Don't be the cliche of the guy who becomes what he hates. Have some self-awareness. Consider that you might be wrong sometimes.

What feels good isn't always what's right.

[Paul McEnery]

I'm stilla against it.

Now, if you asked me if I was for forced sterilization, then I'd be allllll over that.

Your kinky love life is your own business.

[mattx110]

I just can't get over the intense irony in people who support the death penalty.

Look; the people you want to kill? These are people who did what they thought was right, regardless of moral or ethical implications. People who administered punishment that they decided the victims deserved. People who deemed themselves worthy of doling out the most permanent and damaging of acts.

And those are exactly the qualities that are present in all arguments for the death penalty. Don't be the cliche of the guy who becomes what he hates. Have some self-awareness. Consider that you might be wrong sometimes.

What feels good isn't always what's right.
I'd go further and say the existence of the death penalty is an assurance to a potential murderer that there are times when killing is justified, and allowed by circumstance to a rightful authority.

Some murderers are afraid to die, others are afraid they might be wrong. And I can't justify putting fear into the first category, to lend support to the second.

[Phrozen]

I just can't get over the intense irony in people who support the death penalty.

Look; the people you want to kill? These are people who did what they thought was right, regardless of moral or ethical implications. People who administered punishment that they decided the victims deserved. People who deemed themselves worthy of doling out the most permanent and damaging of acts.

And those are exactly the qualities that are present in all arguments for the death penalty. Don't be the cliche of the guy who becomes what he hates. Have some self-awareness. Consider that you might be wrong sometimes.

What feels good isn't always what's right.

Actually, the people I would recommend most for the death penalty are serial killers and violent sexual offenders. Both know what they are doing is wrong but they do it anyway.

Your non serial killer or violent sexual offender should get life with hard labor.

[Pól Rua]

This is the worse case of child neglect homicide since the turn of the century.:(
http://www.pjstar.com/stories/022108/TRI_BFRH57AL.064.php

I still don't believe in Capital Punishment.
There.

I'm not going to get all irrational and huffy, and try and make my dick look bigger by screaming, "GRAWR! BAD PEOPLE KILL BABY! KILL THEM!!! KILL THEM DEAD!!!"
Are the deaths of these people going to bring the baby back?
No.
Would the threat of the death penalty have saved the baby?
Hell no, these people are so dog shit oblivious that there's no deterrent factor here.
The only thing this does is soothe our moral outrage with a bit of old-fashioned revenge.

Revenge is not an adequate rationale, especially when the law is still an ass.
So no. I still don't believe in the death penalty.

[Ben Morgan]

I'm not going to get all irrational and huffy, and try and make my dick look bigger by screaming, "GRAWR! BAD PEOPLE KILL BABY! KILL THEM!!! KILL THEM DEAD!!!"Great, now look what you made Pól do

[Pól Rua]

Great, now look what you made Pól do

...puny humans...

[Joe Franklin]

Would the threat of the death penalty have saved the baby?
Hell no, these people are so dog shit oblivious that there's no deterrent factor here.


If they knew for a fact they would be stripped naked, tarred, feathered, and hung by their necks from a tree in public, then the baby would be alive and well right now, count on it.;)

[Mike Pothier]

If they knew for a fact they would be stripped naked, tarred, feathered, and hung by their necks from a tree in public, then the baby would be alive and well right now, count on it.;)

Because that sure as hell stopped people from committing crimes back in the dark ages when punishment involved those things.

[Paul McEnery]

If they knew for a fact they would be stripped naked, tarred, feathered, and hung by their necks from a tree in public, then the baby would be alive and well right now, count on it.;)

No, there's no sign here whatsoever of an unhealthy fixation upon the means of death, and the desire to apply it.

[Pinball]

If they knew for a fact they would be stripped naked, tarred, feathered, and hung by their necks from a tree in public, then the baby would be alive and well right now, count on it.;)
When's the last time the government executed someone like that...?

[Gilda Dent]

If they knew for a fact they would be stripped naked, tarred, feathered, and hung by their necks from a tree in public, then the baby would be alive and well right now, count on it.;)

Hogwash. This baby was going to be neglected and possibly abused the entire time it was in the custody of these people had it not died from the abuse.

People do evil, sick twisted things because it doesn't occur to them that they'll get caught. People still commit murder in Texas where they're executed roughly five minutes after being arrested.

Criminals commit serious crimes because they either think they'll get away with it or because they're in a state of mind where they don't care.

[Nick Soapdish]

If they knew for a fact they would be stripped naked, tarred, feathered, and hung by their necks from a tree in public, then the baby would be alive and well right now, count on it.;)

To an extent, the penalty doesn't matter. Criminals don't think that they'll get caught and if they are, that there won't be enough to put them away.

It's partly because of how slow trials can be and the delayed punishment that may happen, but that's a trade-off that we pay in order to make sure that we aren't punishing the wrong people for crimes.

[Dan Apodaca]

Actually, the people I would recommend most for the death penalty are serial killers and violent sexual offenders. Both know what they are doing is wrong but they do it anyway.

I know you'd love to believe that, because it makes it easier to justify capitol punishment, but that's a total load.

Every person is different, and people with the kind of major psychological damage that causes them to be serial killers or violent sexual offenders are especially exempt from any sort of definition of "standard". You can't say that every single one of them understands that society's law doesn't allow that behavior, let alone that they give any weight to society's law in their own mind.

What's legal isn't always what's right, and even a serial killer or a rapist understands that idea.

[Pól Rua]

If they knew for a fact they would be stripped naked, tarred, feathered, and hung by their necks from a tree in public, then the baby would be alive and well right now, count on it.;)

Bull. Shit.
These people don't know what fucking day it is.
They don't understand cause and effect.
You want me to believe they can comprehend hypothetical moral quandries?
Nope.
Not buyin' it.

[Drew Van T.]

I don't believe in capitol punishment or capital punishment.

Maybe not "punish" the Capitol, but there are many good reasons to reduce the salaries of representatives and senators.

[Matt]

Optimus Prime says no to Capital Punishment.
So do I.

[StoneGold]

Optimus Prime says no to Capital Punishment.
So do I.

What about the episode where he made Thundercracker get down on his knees before shooting his head off?

[StoneGold]

http://www.nightgig.com/Drawnsword/sketchblog/voltron.jpg

[Wesley Dodds]

Optimus Prime says no to Capital Punishment.
So do I.

Really? When?

[rick]

Sorry gang, but some sons of bitches deserve execution.

Because of that, I am a firm believer in the death penalty for certain types of killings.

The person sentenced should have full access to the courts and the chance to appeal right up to the Supreme Court, have the chance for DNA testing, the whole nine yards.

But it not only doesn’t bother me that Tim McVeigh, Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy are dead, I fully support the sentence that killed them.

[Huh?]

For those out there that don't support the death penalty in any case, what are the alternatives you would suggest? What types of punishments for or deterrants of crime do you think will work better?

Try to answer this question:

Your spouse and your two kids were just killed by someone. This man tortured them for a couple hours, raped them all and then beat them to death while the others looked on. There is no doubt as to who commited the act because he videotaped the whole thing. What punishment should he receive? What would you want in that instance?

[The Mutt]

For those out there that don't support the death penalty in any case, what are the alternatives you would suggest? What types of punishments for or deterrants of crime do you think will work better?

Try to answer this question:

Your spouse and your two kids were just killed by someone. This man tortured them for a couple hours, raped them all and then beat them to death while the others looked on. There is no doubt as to who commited the act because he videotaped the whole thing. What punishment should he receive? What would you want in that instance?

I would want my hands around his throat, but I'd settle for putting him in prison for the rest of his life.

But then, I'm civilized.

[mattx110]

Sorry gang, but some sons of bitches deserve execution.

Because of that, I am a firm believer in the death penalty for certain types of killings.

The person sentenced should have full access to the courts and the chance to appeal right up to the Supreme Court, have the chance for DNA testing, the whole nine yards.

But it not only doesn’t bother me that Tim McVeigh, Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy are dead, I fully support the sentence that killed them.But who gets the rights to broadcast on cable?

For those out there that don't support the death penalty in any case, what are the alternatives you would suggest? What types of punishments for or deterrants of crime do you think will work better?

Try to answer this question:

Your spouse and your two kids were just killed by someone. This man tortured them for a couple hours, raped them all and then beat them to death while the others looked on. There is no doubt as to who commited the act because he videotaped the whole thing. What punishment should he receive? What would you want in that instance?
Kind of an irrelevent question. When the principle is that "murder is wrong", who gets to do the killing doesn't make a difference. My desire to dehumanize myself in retalliation does nothing to cancel out the fact that from my understanding, a government condoning murder provides justification for murderers.

[Mike Pothier]

Kind of an irrelevent question. When the principle is that "murder is wrong", who gets to do the killing doesn't make a difference. My desire to dehumanize myself in retalliation does nothing to cancel out the fact that from my understanding, a government condoning murder provides justification for murderers.

Murder is the unlawful taking of a life. The death sentence is not unlawful, and its not condoning anything. I challenge you to find a murderer who justified his actions by blaming the death sentence.

[The Mutt]

Murder is the unlawful taking of a life. The death sentence is not unlawful, and its not condoning anything. I challenge you to find a murderer who justified his actions by blaming the death sentence.

And I challenge you to find one who said, "I was gonna kill him, but then I got to thinking about Old Sparky."

[Wesley Dodds]

Murder is the unlawful taking of a life. The death sentence is not unlawful, and its not condoning anything. I challenge you to find a murderer who justified his actions by blaming the death sentence.

Then Iranian executions of homosexuals aren't murder. After all, it's the law.

[Mike Pothier]

Hey, I never said the law can't be shitty. In that country, its not murder. Reprehensible, evil, but technically not murder.

[Nick Soapdish]

For those out there that don't support the death penalty in any case, what are the alternatives you would suggest? What types of punishments for or deterrants of crime do you think will work better?

Try to answer this question:

Your spouse and your two kids were just killed by someone. This man tortured them for a couple hours, raped them all and then beat them to death while the others looked on. There is no doubt as to who commited the act because he videotaped the whole thing. What punishment should he receive? What would you want in that instance?

I have a lot less of a problem with capital punishment when it's absolutely certain that the person being executed is in fact the person guilty of the crime. But that's supposed to be the case all the time and it's not. I'm not sure how one would dictate otherwise "beyond a not-entirely-unreasonable doubt"

I don't think that anything would act as a deterrent in that particular case. Certainly not anything that rules out cruel and unusual punishment.

What would I want in that particular instance?

I'd like to be given a baseball bat and get to beat on him until he goes down. And then get to do it again once he heals up. And probably again and again.

But it shouldn't be my call. I'd be angry enough that I'd probably be willing to do the same even if there wasn't absolute proof and it was only "beyond a reasonable doubt". And I'm not likely to be much of a skeptic then, even if it isn't a personal connection. It's a heinous crime and unless you don't know much about it, anybody is going to get worked up about it.

I don't think that we should let our justice system be ruled by our emotions. Justice isn't about revenge.

[Mike Pothier]

And I challenge you to find one who said, "I was gonna kill him, but then I got to thinking about Old Sparky."

I never said capital punishment acts as a deterrent. But it doesn't encourage murder either.

[Cei-U!]

I never said capital punishment acts as a deterrent. But it doesn't encourage murder either.

You are possibly wrong about that. When I was working for the Washington State Attorney General's Office in the '90s, we saw statistics that suggested a rapist or pedophile is more likely to kill their victims if the crime is commited in a state with the death penalty.

Cei-U!

[mattx110]

Murder is the unlawful taking of a life. The death sentence is not unlawful, and its not condoning anything. I challenge you to find a murderer who justified his actions by blaming the death sentence.
Ok. Using courtroom definition of terms, killing people is wrong, even if it wouldn't be called "murder" by a judge. No matter who is doing the killing, it's still wrong. Wait... that means you don't actually have an argument, you're actually using as support for the death penalty the fact that there is such thing as a death penalty. I'm sure all those "fur is murder" mean it in the legal sense, and are too stupid to realize that killing animals for coats isn't technically murder according to the government.

And I don't think you understand. The deah penalty is an admission that killing is justifiable. Maybe I'll go to prison and ask inmates in there for murder if the fact that their government tells them that killing can be justified had an effect on their decision-making process, but that isn't really necessary for you to understand the concept.

Did I ever say "the death penalty makes people want to kill"? No. But when someone who decides he has just as much moral fortitude and authority as the government, sees that it condones killing those that "deserve it", well... ask a psychologist.

[Wesley Dodds]

You are possibly wrong about that. When I was working for the Washington State Attorney General's Office in the '90s, we saw statistics that suggested a rapist or pedophile is more likely to kill their victims if the crime is commited in a state with the death penalty.

Cei-U!

So, their logic is that if they will get the death penalty for the rape anyway, they may as well kill the victim so they can't tell the police anything.

[The Mutt]

Map of the civilized world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Death_Penalty_World_Map.png

[Cei-U!]

So, their logic is that if they will get the death penalty for the rape anyway, they may as well kill the victim so they can't tell the police anything.

Which is weird and counterintuitive (since rape and molestation aren't usually considered capital offenses) but that seemed to be what the figures were saying.

Cei-U!

[macul]

Map of the civilized world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Death_Penalty_World_Map.png

And I'm glad to be a part of the civilized world. As rick said, some people just don't deserve to live. There is no case for Ted Bundy breathing air. Or Charles Manson. Or any number of other without-a-doubt murderers or pedophiles.

[Mike Pothier]

Ok. Using courtroom definition of terms, killing people is wrong, even if it wouldn't be called "murder" by a judge. No matter who is doing the killing, it's still wrong. Wait... that means you don't actually have an argument, you're actually using as support for the death penalty the fact that there is such thing as a death penalty. I'm sure all those "fur is murder" mean it in the legal sense, and are too stupid to realize that killing animals for coats isn't technically murder according to the government.

You specifically said "Government condones murder". That is technically wrong, as I pointed out from a legal standpoint. That is all.

And I don't think you understand. The deah penalty is an admission that killing is justifiable. Maybe I'll go to prison and ask inmates in there for murder if the fact that their government tells them that killing can be justified had an effect on their decision-making process, but that isn't really necessary for you to understand the concept.

The death penalty isn't justifying anything. Again, you specifically said that it influences some criminals to kill, and I'm saying that is bunk. Is there a single study to even back up what you are saying?

Did I ever say "the death penalty makes people want to kill"? No. But when someone who decides he has just as much moral fortitude and authority as the government, sees that it condones killing those that "deserve it", well... ask a psychologist.

Do you really think any murderer out there stopped to think about what the government stance on killing is before committing his actions? Even a single one?

More to the point, people who HAVE been sanctioned to kill, soldiers, how many of them are murderers? How many of them come back to the US and commit murder because they believe its okay because the government thinks its okay?

[mattx110]

You specifically said "Government condones murder". That is technically wrong, as I pointed out from a legal standpoint. That is all. Again, "technically wrong" doesn't mean "wrong". It means you weren't comfortable with the use of the term "murder"



The death penalty isn't justifying anything. Again, you specifically said that it influences some criminals to kill, and I'm saying that is bunk. Is there a single study to even back up what you are saying? How can a government deciding proper authority has the right to kill not justifying anything? The fact is, people aren't allowed to kill eachother. The government is of the people, by the people, for the people, and killing people. See the contradiction there?



Do you really think any murderer out there stopped to think about what the government stance on killing is before committing his actions? Even a single one?

More to the point, people who HAVE been sanctioned to kill, soldiers, how many of them are murderers? How many of them come back to the US and commit murder because they believe its okay because the government thinks its okay?
Have you asked murderers why they haven't felt justified? Do you think that nothing of the United States culture gets through to them? And military people with PTSD, depression and other mental health issues that lead to violent action is completely real, studied and written on. I've got a friend who did a bit of research into it, and I can get you some references if you like. I'd do it already, but I'm CBRing in the middle of my own work.

And so far. Cei-U has evidence that the existence of the death penalty has corresponded to an increased chance of murder. If you look at the violent crimes and murder rates in the United States and similar economic powers in Europe, and see which countries have the death penalty... Well, there might just be a connection.

[Nick Soapdish]

And I'm glad to be a part of the civilized world. As rick said, some people just don't deserve to live. There is no case for Ted Bundy breathing air. Or Charles Manson. Or any number of other without-a-doubt murderers or pedophiles.

But our justice system isn't perfect. There are a lot of without-a-doubt murderers that are just wasting air. Some of those have later been discovered to have been innocent after their executions.

How many innocent people are "acceptable" losses? (I have it in quotes since if we're continuing to execute even with some failures, obviously it's acceptable on some level.) Ted Bundy escaped twice. Both thanks to ridiculously lax security - another failure of the system. So which failure is worse - executing the wrong person or letting a murderer escape and kill again? And then, which is less likely?

[Loren]

Which is weird and counterintuitive (since rape and molestation aren't usually considered capital offenses)

There's no "usually" about it. The Supreme Court forbid the death penalty for rape in 1977. Rape and molestation haven't been capital offenses for over 30 years.

There is one tiny potential loophole. The Louisiana Supreme Court (http://volokh.com/posts/1179944391.shtml) recently upheld a death penalty conviction in a rape case where the victim was under 12. The 1977 case dealt only with adult rapes, so the question of whether one can be executed for raping a child is still an open question. A question which the Supreme Court will almost certainly answer.

[Gordon Smith]

There's no "usually" about it. The Supreme Court forbid the death penalty for rape in 1977. Rape and molestation haven't been capital offenses for over 30 years.

There is one tiny potential loophole. The Louisiana Supreme Court (http://volokh.com/posts/1179944391.shtml) recently upheld a death penalty conviction in a rape case where the victim was under 12. The 1977 case dealt only with adult rapes, so the question of whether one can be executed for raping a child is still an open question. A question which the Supreme Court will almost certainly answer.

Loren, does this ruling apply to the Uniform Code of Military Justice? Rape is still currently listed as a capital crime under Article 120 of the code.

[Wesley Dodds]

A question which the Supreme Court will almost certainly answer.

Well, what percentage of Americans know there's no death penalty for rape?

[Nick Soapdish]

Well, what percentage of Americans know there's no death penalty for rape?

That also raises the question of what percentage of Americans know whether there is the death penalty in their own state.

I'm sure that people in Florida, Virginia and Texas are likely to know because we have them on the express lane. But maybe not for states that use it less frequently.

[Gilda Dent]

For those out there that don't support the death penalty in any case, what are the alternatives you would suggest? What types of punishments for or deterrants of crime do you think will work better?

Try to answer this question:

Your spouse and your two kids were just killed by someone. This man tortured them for a couple hours, raped them all and then beat them to death while the others looked on. There is no doubt as to who commited the act because he videotaped the whole thing. What punishment should he receive? What would you want in that instance?

Two separate questions. I'll take the second one first.

What would I want?

I would want him to be tortured to death, very slowly and painfully, kept alive for as long as possible so that he could endure as much pain as possible during what time he has left. If you've read the A History of Violence graphic novel, the fellow at the end has suffered about to the same degree as I'd want this fellow to suffer. Heck, strike the "to death" part. I'd want him tortured while being kept alive for as long as possible with no break. A couple of decades would be nice.

What should happen?

The problem here is that I'm the last person who would be qualified to decide what should happen to someone who had done something like this because what I want is an expression of my basest instincts, a desire to hurt those who've hurt those I love and my extension hurt me in the worst way possible. The law should be better than my basest instincts, it shouldn't be an instrument for me to get revenge on those who've harmed me, it should be an impartial force of justice.

The law should be better than me, not a reflection of the worst, most flawed parts of me.

[Huh?]

Can someone explain to me why we have so much more violent crime in this country than the rest of the "civilized world?"

I understand the argument that the death penalty is not civilized, and I agree with that argument, but what the hell are we doing so wrong that our crime statistics are the way they are when compared to other developed countries?

I don't think incarceration is working well in this country either.

[Huh?]

Two separate questions. I'll take the second one first.

What would I want?

I would want him to be tortured to death, very slowly and painfully, kept alive for as long as possible so that he could endure as much pain as possible during what time he has left. If you've read the A History of Violence graphic novel, the fellow at the end has suffered about to the same degree as I'd want this fellow to suffer. Heck, strike the "to death" part. I'd want him tortured while being kept alive for as long as possible with no break. A couple of decades would be nice.

What should happen?

The problem here is that I'm the last person who would be qualified to decide what should happen to someone who had done something like this because what I want is an expression of my basest instincts, a desire to hurt those who've hurt those I love and my extension hurt me in the worst way possible. The law should be better than my basest instincts, it shouldn't be an instrument for me to get revenge on those who've harmed me, it should be an impartial force of justice.

The law should be better than me, not a reflection of the worst, most flawed parts of me.I agree with your points.

I guess my question is sort of worded badly. I am trying to find out what you think society (the law) should do with him. Something that you see as justice. What is justice for a person like that? Currently there are two punishments: death (in some states) or life in jail. What else?

[Gilda Dent]

I agree with your points.

I guess my question is sort of worded badly. I am trying to find out what you think society (the law) should do with him. Something that you see as justice. What is justice for a person like that? Currently there are two punishments: death (in some states) or life in jail. What else?

Life in prison without the possibility of parole.

[Cei-U!]

Cei-U has evidence that the existence of the death penalty has corresponded to an increased chance of murder. If you look at the violent crimes and murder rates in the United States and similar economic powers in Europe, and see which countries have the death penalty... Well, there might just be a connection.

Not to impugn my own credibility here but "evidence" is a strong word for my vague recollection of a document I read eleven years ago. It was offered as food for thought, not as fact.

Cei-U!

[Mike Pothier]

Again, "technically wrong" doesn't mean "wrong". It means you weren't comfortable with the use of the term "murder"

I'm perfectly comfortable with the term murder, under the proper circumstances. Murder by definition is unlawful homicide. If the government says it is lawful, then it isn't murder. Simple, no?

How can a government deciding proper authority has the right to kill not justifying anything? The fact is, people aren't allowed to kill eachother. The government is of the people, by the people, for the people, and killing people. See the contradiction there?

Not at all. There are many circumstances when killing is justified. A man breaks into your home and threatens your life and the life of your loved ones. Justifiable homicide. An officer of the law shoots what he percieves to be a real threat to his person and the people around him. Justifiable homicide. A soldier kills another soldier during wartime conditions. Justifiable... well, I hope you get the picture.

Now, I know what you are going to say. Those are situations where threat to life is real, and very current. That is true. And like I said, under MOST circumstances, I'm very against the death penalty. Its a too final solution in a very flawed system. But in cases of, say, Richard Allen Davis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Allen_Davis), I really don't see a problem. People like him are waste of life anyway.

Have you asked murderers why they haven't felt justified? Do you think that nothing of the United States culture gets through to them? And military people with PTSD, depression and other mental health issues that lead to violent action is completely real, studied and written on. I've got a friend who did a bit of research into it, and I can get you some references if you like. I'd do it already, but I'm CBRing in the middle of my own work.

Heh, I'm CBRing in work too.

No, I haven't asked any murderers, and apparently neither have you. I have yet to see any evidence either way, that capital punishment has any effect whatsoever on the actions of the criminal population. I'm sure there is SOME effect, of course, but what effect that is depends on the individual, and indeed there are so many variables that pinning this on capital punishment seems like an overreaction.

And so far. Cei-U has evidence that the existence of the death penalty has corresponded to an increased chance of murder. If you look at the violent crimes and murder rates in the United States and similar economic powers in Europe, and see which countries have the death penalty... Well, there might just be a connection.

Like I said before, there are so many variables in this situation that I really think any connection between violence and the death sentence is weak at best.

[rick]

But who gets the rights to broadcast on cable?



That would be a great quote if it reflected on anything I had written in the post above.

As it is, what you wrote was nothing but a smart assed jibe.

[rick]

No, I haven't asked any murderers, and apparently neither have you. I have yet to see any evidence either way, that capital punishment has any effect whatsoever on the actions of the criminal population. I'm sure there is SOME effect, of course, but what effect that is depends on the individual, and indeed there are so many variables that pinning this on capital punishment seems like an overreaction.



The argument that the death penalty is a crime deterrent is silly and I doubt it ever deterred anyone ever.

The death penalty is about punishment for committing a crime so horrendous that society, by way of the courts has decided that you have given up your right to live.

And again, I have no real problem with that as long as it is only used for murders with special circumstances.

[Shellhead]

Anybody that brings up cost when discussing the death penalty is morally bankrupt.

The death penalty is wrong in all cases. It's the Justice System, not the Vengeance System.

Why is it that Americans think the government can't do anything right ever, yet they have no problem with the government deciding who to kill?

Okay, I will accept your label of "morally bankrupt." Because I think that it's too expensive housing inmates who will never be set free due to the nature of the crimes they have committed.

Taking my numbers from a site that is opposed to the death penalty:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=413&scid=9

As of 2007, the death row population in the U.S. is 3,350. The average incarceration time of a death row inmate is 15 years, and would most likely be longer except for the occasional use of the death penalty. I couldn't find cost figures at this site, but an annual cost of $20,000 per year to house an inmate was a common low-end estimate. So let's do the math on just that current death row population:

3,350 inmates * 15 years * $20,000 = $1,005,000,000.

Just over a billion dollars. I bet there are all kinds of things that money could be better spent on, like better access to health care for poor kids. Of course, since I'm morally bankrupt, it doesn't make sense for me to judge innocent children to deserve more funding than 3,350 of our worst criminals.

I thought that the purpose of prison was rehabilitation, not punishment. But realistically, there are some crimes so heinous that no amount of apparent rehabilitation will ever be enough. We're not going to let those guys go, and to speak of rehabilitating them is pointless.

Even the Department of Justice website didn't have stats on how many inmates were serving a life sentence. Whatever that number is, that is another group of guys costing us $20,000 a year each. And the death penalty doesn't have to be as expensive as it currently is, multiple appeals are expensive while bullets are cheap.

[Paul McEnery]

For those out there that don't support the death penalty in any case, what are the alternatives you would suggest? What types of punishments for or deterrants of crime do you think will work better?

Try to answer this question:

Your spouse and your two kids were just killed by someone. This man tortured them for a couple hours, raped them all and then beat them to death while the others looked on. There is no doubt as to who commited the act because he videotaped the whole thing. What punishment should he receive? What would you want in that instance?

I'd kill the bastard myself.

But damn if I'm going to bring the state into his death. It's perfectly obvious that the state can't be trusted with the death penalty, for one thing. For another thing, every time the state kills someone, we're all complicit in that death, because we are the state. And I'm not okay with that.

[Loren]

Loren, does this ruling apply to the Uniform Code of Military Justice? Rape is still currently listed as a capital crime under Article 120 of the code.

No, it doesn't apply. In fact, the last person executed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Bennett) under the Code of Military Justice was convicted of rape (and attempted murder). Then again, that was in 1961. All 7 men currently on military death row were convicted of murder.

Military executions also require an explicit OK from the President to go forward. Eisenhower and JFK both approved the last one.

[Gordon Smith]

No, it doesn't apply. In fact, the last person executed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_A._Bennett) under the Code of Military Justice was convicted of rape (and attempted murder). Then again, that was in 1961. All 7 men currently on military death row were convicted of murder.



Well, as a practical matter, the military hasn't treated rape as a capital crime since Bennett's execution, so the Supreme Court has never been asked to litigate on the issue.



Military executions also require an explicit OK from the President to go forward. Eisenhower and JFK both approved the last one.

And they'll likely be the last Presidents to approve such a sentence for many years to come.

[mattx110]

I'm perfectly comfortable with the term murder, under the proper circumstances. Murder by definition is unlawful homicide. If the government says it is lawful, then it isn't murder. Simple, no?

Not at all. There are many circumstances when killing is justified. A man breaks into your home and threatens your life and the life of your loved ones. Justifiable homicide. An officer of the law shoots what he percieves to be a real threat to his person and the people around him. Justifiable homicide. A soldier kills another soldier during wartime conditions. Justifiable... well, I hope you get the picture.

Now, I know what you are going to say. Those are situations where threat to life is real, and very current. That is true. And like I said, under MOST circumstances, I'm very against the death penalty. Its a too final solution in a very flawed system. But in cases of, say, Richard Allen Davis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Allen_Davis), I really don't see a problem. People like him are waste of life anyway.
Well, I don't see killing in self-defense as justifiable. It should never be the intention of the person defending themself. If it happens, and people are saved because of it, then I'll get less angry, but it's still sad, and still not quite right. And putting someone from a jail cell to an electric chair can never be confused with self defense really.

I have some sociology book somewhere with differing views on why the death penalty is or isn't a form of deterrent. I can't be 100% sure, but I think Ed Koch was another who saw the death penalty as more of a condoning of killing people than a punishment or way to deter potential muderers. The book had some facts and figures, but was definitely more about creating and understanding the concepts than figuring out once and for all if it works. I can find the essays, which may not sway anyone, but maybe for "Huh?" if he's interested in thoughts on the death penalty, it's a few people who have protested it in government positions, and a few who have used it. (I only cut down your response, because last time I got into one of these "point by point" discussions, the whole thing got very long and messy fast)

That would be a great quote if it reflected on anything I had written in the post above.

As it is, what you wrote was nothing but a smart assed jibe. Well, it wasn't really an attack on you. More a play on the supposed to be closed circuit McVey (I think it was him) execution actually being broadcast as mostly snow.

[elldot21]

Two separate questions. I'll take the second one first.

What would I want?

I would want him to be tortured to death, very slowly and painfully, kept alive for as long as possible so that he could endure as much pain as possible during what time he has left. If you've read the A History of Violence graphic novel, the fellow at the end has suffered about to the same degree as I'd want this fellow to suffer. Heck, strike the "to death" part. I'd want him tortured while being kept alive for as long as possible with no break. A couple of decades would be nice.

What should happen?

The problem here is that I'm the last person who would be qualified to decide what should happen to someone who had done something like this because what I want is an expression of my basest instincts, a desire to hurt those who've hurt those I love and my extension hurt me in the worst way possible. The law should be better than my basest instincts, it shouldn't be an instrument for me to get revenge on those who've harmed me, it should be an impartial force of justice.

The law should be better than me, not a reflection of the worst, most flawed parts of me.

I'm sorry, but using that logic, you could justifiably say EVERY punishment is wrong.

You're reasoning is childish at best, misguided idealism at worse. That you place yourself above a societies ability to justly govern it's lawful and unlawful citizens is just as much misguided as passionately carrying out vigilante justice.

Worse, you prolong suffering at the expense of the victims when clear cut cases of evil deserve to be speedily prosecuted and verdicts fulfilled.

[Mike Pothier]

Well, I don't see killing in self-defense as justifiable. It should never be the intention of the person defending themself. If it happens, and people are saved because of it, then I'll get less angry, but it's still sad, and still not quite right. And putting someone from a jail cell to an electric chair can never be confused with self defense really.

Whoa. So if some guy is threatening you with imminent harm, and you had a gun in your hand, you don't think its justifiable to shoot to kill?

We're done here.

[Shellhead]

Whoa. So if some guy is threatening you with imminent harm, and you had a gun in your hand, you don't think its justifiable to shoot to kill?

We're done here.

How did a gun get in mattx110's hand?

[Paul McEnery]

I'm sorry, but using that logic, you could justifiably say EVERY punishment is wrong..

I'm sorry, but every time this argument comes up, someone comes up with this exact line of bullshit.

However, you're righter than you think.

Yes. Every punishment is wrong.

[Matt Algren]

I'm sorry, but using that logic, you could justifiably say EVERY punishment is wrong.

You're reasoning is childish at best, misguided idealism at worse. That you place yourself above a societies ability to justly govern it's lawful and unlawful citizens is just as much misguided as passionately carrying out vigilante justice.

Worse, you prolong suffering at the expense of the victims when clear cut cases of evil deserve to be speedily prosecuted and verdicts fulfilled.
You say things like that, you got to back it up, son.

I'm not seeing where Gilda's placing herself above anybody or prolonging anybody's suffering by saying that the victim is not in objective enough to decide punishment. Reread her post and let me know if you read it wrong the first time through. If not, show your work when you explain your position.

And when you're calling someone childish, you might doublecheck your spelling and grammar.

[Mike Pothier]

How did a gun get in mattx110's hand?

Don't worry. He would never use it.

[mattx110]

Whoa. So if some guy is threatening you with imminent harm, and you had a gun in your hand, you don't think its justifiable to shoot to kill?

We're done here.
I think we were kinda done anyway. But "shooting to kill" in a civilian environment is a bit much. It's also a judgement, which isn't something I'm prepared to make in that kind of moment of stress. There's always more to circumstances than "He's here with a gun, I'm here with a gun, he wants to shoot me".

I find it better to err on the side of not killing. Just in case, y'know. He might just need a sectioning.

[Paul McEnery]

Whoa. So if some guy is threatening you with imminent harm, and you had a gun in your hand, you don't think its justifiable to shoot to kill?

We're done here.

Hang on. You're seriously saying that that idea strikes you as coming out of left field?

Seems to me that's standard Christian praxis.

[Sanagi]

Yes. Every punishment is wrong.
"Two wrongs don't make a right."

The most basic lessons are the ones we forget most easily.

[Mike Pothier]

Hang on. You're seriously saying that that idea strikes you as coming out of left field?

Seems to me that's standard Christian praxis.

I wasn't aware we here arguing Christian doctrine. Entirely from a secular standpoint, defending oneself from harm using lethal methods is completely justifiable.

[mattx110]

I wasn't aware we here arguing Christian doctrine. Entirely from a secular standpoint, defending oneself from harm using lethal methods is completely justifiable.
I'd like a definition of "harm".

[Mike Pothier]

Good god, do we really need to get into semantics here?

Harm means your ass is dead.

[mattx110]

Good god, do we really need to get into semantics here?

Harm means your ass is dead.
You didn't seem to have a trouble with semantics, when I clearly stated that calling the death penalty "murder", had nothing whatsoever to do with charging the government for the legal offense of murder for implementing it. So yea, semantics seems important.

Plus, I've never seen "harm" and understood it to mean "dead". In no dictionary does "harmed" mean "killed". Maybe "harmed to death", but that just sounds silly. Intent to harm, seems very different from intent to kill.

[Demon wizard]

Whoa. So if some guy is threatening you with imminent harm, and you had a gun in your hand, you don't think its justifiable to shoot to kill?

We're done here.

Is there any reason not to just shoot him in the leg or something?

[Puma]

Is there any reason not to just shoot him in the leg or something?

You shoot for center mass, the torso. You won't necessarily kill the person but the odds of hitting them are far greater.

[Mike Pothier]

You didn't seem to have a trouble with semantics, when I clearly stated that calling the death penalty "murder", had nothing whatsoever to do with charging the government for the legal offense of murder for implementing it. So yea, semantics seems important.

You specifically said the government condones murder. I pointed out that was incorrect. Hardly semantics.

Plus, I've never seen "harm" and understood it to mean "dead". In no dictionary does "harmed" mean "killed". Maybe "harmed to death", but that just sounds silly. Intent to harm, seems very different from intent to kill.

Well what do you think I meant? Did I really need to enunciate on what I meant by the use of harm in the context of using deadly force to protect one's own life?

[Mike Pothier]

Is there any reason not to just shoot him in the leg or something?

When trained officers of the force are taught to shoot the body in deadly situations, why should it be any different for anybody else in a similar situation?

[mattx110]

You specifically said the government condones murder. I pointed out that was incorrect. Hardly semantics. Again, I corrected this perception of yours posts ago, but you'd rather repeat than go "oh... I'm glad I understand what you mean."


Well what do you think I meant? Did I really need to enunciate on what I meant by the use of harm in the context of using deadly force to protect one's own life?
Yes. Obviously words are important, and the assumptions people make on the intent of what is being written isn't completely matching up with what is being intended.

[Paul McEnery]

I wasn't aware we here arguing Christian doctrine. Entirely from a secular standpoint, defending oneself from harm using lethal methods is completely justifiable.

You were arguing that matt's point was freakish. When, as a bog standard Christian position, I'd argue that it's pretty widespread, actually.

[Paul McEnery]

You specifically said the government condones murder. I pointed out that was incorrect. Hardly semantics.


Of course it is.

The death penalty is simply state-sanctioned murder.

You can claim that it isn't, but that's where the semantics start.

[Paul McEnery]

You shoot for center mass, the torso. You won't necessarily kill the person but the odds of hitting them are far greater.

Well exactly.

If you wanted a guaranteed kill, you'd go for a head shot. What you want is a guaranteed "man down".

[macul]

Is there any reason not to just shoot him in the leg or something?

Despite what Hollywood wants you to believe, you don't stop a person by shooting them in the leg. And not all badguys have glassjaws either.

[macul]

Well exactly.

If you wanted a guaranteed kill, you'd go for a head shot. What you want is a guaranteed "man down".

That's not it at all. A torso is much easier to hit than a person's head. Two rounds center mass is standard procedure. They don't choose center mass over the head because center mass isn't a guaranteed kill. It's just a smarter target.

[Tish-the-Scorpion]

i don't believe in capital punishment...

[Puma]

That's not it at all. A torso is much easier to hit than a person's head. Two rounds center mass is standard procedure. They don't choose center mass over the head because center mass isn't a guaranteed kill. It's just a smarter target.

Which is what I said in my post that Paul was quoting from, which then makes his statement accurate.

[Paul McEnery]

That's not it at all. A torso is much easier to hit than a person's head. Two rounds center mass is standard procedure. They don't choose center mass over the head because center mass isn't a guaranteed kill. It's just a smarter target.

Yeah, that's the point Puma (and me too!) was making.

[Mike Pothier]

Again, I corrected this perception of yours posts ago, but you'd rather repeat than go "oh... I'm glad I understand what you mean."

You didn't correct anything, instead simply restating your position with different words. I'm not saying you don't have a right to believe the death sentence is wrong. I'm just clarifying that its LEGAL and therefore not MURDER.

Either way, this branch of discussion is clarified, and therefore done with.

Yes. Obviously words are important, and the assumptions people make on the intent of what is being written isn't completely matching up with what is being intended.

Well excuse me for assuming you were smart enough to undersand what I meant when discussing the use of deadly force when someone intends to harm you.

[macul]

Yeah, that's the point Puma (and me too!) was making.

Apologies. It's just more enjoyable to assume you are wrong.

That's a joke too. Don't kill me. :D

[mattx110]

You didn't correct anything, instead simply restating your position with different words. I'm not saying you don't have a right to believe the death sentence is wrong. I'm just clarifying that its LEGAL and therefore not MURDER.

Either way, this branch of discussion is clarified, and therefore done with.



Well excuse me for assuming you were smart enough to undersand what I meant when discussing the use of deadly force when someone intends to harm you.
Understanding what you say is the acid test for intelligence after all. :cool:

[howyadoin]

Despite what Hollywood wants you to believe, you don't stop a person by shooting them in the leg.Wouldn't that depend on the caliber and muzzle velocity?

[Paul McEnery]

Wouldn't that depend on the caliber and muzzle velocity?

The trick is to use a bazooka.

[Mike Pothier]

You were arguing that matt's point was freakish. When, as a bog standard Christian position, I'd argue that it's pretty widespread, actually.

Even among the Christian community, I doubt the majority would disagree with deadly force used in self defense is completely wrong under all circumstances. Even in my religion, where we stress non-violence to an incredible degree, the use of killing in self defense is considered acceptable if your life is in real danger.

[Paul McEnery]

Apologies. It's just more enjoyable to assume you are wrong.

That's a joke too. Don't kill me. :D

You bastard! It's all "pull the string and see what stupid thing I can get Barbie to say this time" with you, isn't it.

:D

[Paul McEnery]

Even among the Christian community, I doubt the majority would disagree with deadly force used in self defense is completely wrong under all circumstances. Even in my religion, where we stress non-violence to an incredible degree, the use of killing in self defense is considered acceptable if your life is in real danger.

There's quite a lot of people who haven't read their New Testament, then.

[Pól Rua]

The trick is to use a bazooka.

You just like saying "Bazooka".
Me too.

Bazooka!
ba-ZOO-ka!
BA-ZOO-KA!
BA-ZOOOOOOOOO-KAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!

rock-a-hula!

[Pól Rua]

You bastard! It's all "pull the string and see what stupid thing I can get Barbie to say this time" with you, isn't it.

:D

Math is Hard.

[Mike Pothier]

Of course it is.

The death penalty is simply state-sanctioned murder.

You can claim that it isn't, but that's where the semantics start.

Impossible. The definition of murder is the unlawful taking of a life. The government is the institution who sets the laws. You can say its disgusting. you can say its abhorrent. You can say its immoral. You cannot, however, call it murder.

[Mike Pothier]

There's quite a lot of people who haven't read their New Testament, then.

Where in the NT does it state that nonviolence applies to all situations?

[Paul McEnery]

Impossible. The definition of murder is the unlawful taking of a life. The government is the institution who sets the laws. You can say its disgusting. you can say its abhorrent. You can say its immoral. You cannot, however, call it murder.

What a load of hooey. You're picking and choosing between definitions to suit your argument. And that's the definition of semantics. Worse, you've now forced me to reach for the bloody dictionary myself, and I hate that:

"To kill brutally or inhumanly."

And oh look, that's the meaning normal people use when they're not putting their thumb on the scales.

[Paul McEnery]

Where in the NT does it state that nonviolence applies to all situations?

When Jesus says "turn the other cheek", I'd have thought. Just for starters.

Come off it, it's all the bloody way through.

What you mean here is: you want it to be okay to shoot people in self-defence, but you recognize there are ethical difficulties to it, therefore you exclude Matt's perfectly reasonable position as unreasonable so that you can exclude your own ethical difficulties right along with him. And then it's all simple again!

I might add that matt's doing exactly the same thing right back atcha.

[Ben Morgan]

You just like saying "Bazooka".
Me too.

Bazooka!
ba-ZOO-ka!
BA-ZOO-KA!
BA-ZOOOOOOOOO-KAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!

rock-a-hula!

BAZOOKA!!!!!!


Boy, this is fun

[Michael P]

Impossible. The definition of murder is the unlawful taking of a life.

That's the legal definition of murder. (Actually, it's a recursive fallacy posing as the legal definition of murder, but we'll go with the first thing.) That doesn't make it the moral definition of murder. And the moral definition of murder is exactly what Paul is talking about.

[Mike Pothier]

That's the legal definition of murder. (Actually, it's a recursive fallacy posing as the legal definition of murder, but we'll go with the first thing.) That doesn't make it the moral definition of murder. And the moral definition of murder is exactly what Paul is talking about.

The legal definition is the only one I'm arguing by.

[mattx110]

When Jesus says "turn the other cheek", I'd have thought. Just for starters.

Come off it, it's all the bloody way through.

What you mean here is: you want it to be okay to shoot people in self-defence, but you recognize there are ethical difficulties to it, therefore you exclude Matt's perfectly reasonable position as unreasonable so that you can exclude your own ethical difficulties right along with him. And then it's all simple again!

I might add that matt's doing exactly the same thing right back atcha.
Hey... nobody likes a taddle. He started it.

By the way, the old Testament. Even the unholy who act in vengeance against sin and sinners can commit holy acts with their unholy intent. Tell me which is a more badass religion. That might of actually been in the NT. I wish I remembered that better.

[K'Nort]

Well excuse me for assuming you were smart enough to understand what I meant when discussing the use of deadly force when someone intends to harm you.

You're actually the one who is wrong here.

There are all sorts of scenarios where I'm fine with someone losing their life. But I'm also aware that some people think 'harm' just means 'injure.' Hell, most people do. And there are also plenty of people who feel that it's okay to shoot to kill someone who is only trying to injure you, not necessarily kill you. (Not to mention shooting to kill someone simply for stepping on their property.) Thus, there was no reason for Matt to automatically interpret your statement the way you intended.

[Michael P]

The legal definition is the only one I'm arguing by.

Good for you. Here in reality, the moral definition is relevant to the discussion as a whole.

[Mike Pothier]

When Jesus says "turn the other cheek", I'd have thought. Just for starters.

There is a HUGE gap between turning the other cheek and letting a man cause permanent, of not deadly, harm to you. Heck, I could have found a better passage off the top of my head. "He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword". Thats more of a statement of the consequences of violence than a flat out prohibition against violent force.

Come off it, it's all the bloody way through.

What you mean here is: you want it to be okay to shoot people in self-defence, but you recognize there are ethical difficulties to it, therefore you exclude Matt's perfectly reasonable position as unreasonable so that you can exclude your own ethical difficulties right along with him. And then it's all simple again!

I'm not having any ethical difficulties about using deadly force to protect me and the ones I love from harm.

I might add that matt's doing exactly the same thing right back atcha.

Well, naturally.