NY Times - Woman Tortured for 19 Hours

[benthewraith]

The time crept by so slowly and painfully that the 23-year-old Columbia University journalism student had decided it was time to end her life.

Over many torturous hours, she had been repeatedly raped, sodomized and forced to perform oral sex, a prosecutor told a jury on Thursday. The accused, Robert A. Williams, 31, had doused the woman’s face and body with boiling water and bleach, forced her to swallow handfuls of pills and to chase them with beer, sealed her mouth with glue, and bound her wrists and legs with shoelaces, cords and duct tape, said the prosecutor, Ann P. Prunty. And now, Ms. Prunty said, he was asking the woman to gouge out her own eyes with a pair of scissors.

And so the woman, sitting on the floor of her studio apartment in Hamilton Heights and holding a pair of scissors between her knees — the blade pointing toward her face — tried to stop the suffering. She lowered her face to the blade, but turned her head at the last moment, trying to stab herself in the neck instead of her eyes.

I lost my stomache reading this. I'm speechless. :eek:

Rest of article can be found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/06/nyregion/06rape.html?ex=1370491200&en=bc60cf51266f5a15&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

[dukebound85]

i hope that dude burns in hell:mad:

no one deserves that

so so sad:(

[iJohnHenry]

The ******* should have been shot dead by the first cop on the scene.

"He" does not deserve even 15 seconds of fame for this.

[thechidz]

this actually happened last year. I was on campus and am still shocked that this hasn't gotten more attention. I am not trying to start any arguments but there are feelings around campus that the reason it hasn't gotten as much attention is because the woman was white and the rapist was a black man. Whereas in the noose hanging incident (which was also repulsive by the way) got instant worldwide media coverage. Not to suggest that the noose hanging incident wasn't terrible, but it kind of makes you wonder where media agenda falls sometimes no?

[iJohnHenry]

Animals are animals, no matter what the pigment colour.

He should have been "off-ed", on the spot!!

[MrSmith]

The guy must be insane. Surely no sane human being could do that. If he isn't insane then this is another argument for the death penalty.

[iJohnHenry]

If he isn't insane, then this is another argument for the death penalty.

Look out (for me especially.)

Why the distinction??

Mother Nature (Blessings Be Upon Her Name) would have taken care of this anomaly early-on.

[skunk]

Supposedly sane people do this kind of thing every day. Adding to the sum of violence by summary or even deliberated execution is no solution. Life imprisonment may be the only answer.

[iJohnHenry]

Why are you still up, stinky. ;)

But life imprisonment is a penalty to Society as well.

Why??

[skunk]

Why are you still up, stinky.Please stick to the topic.

But life imprisonment is a penalty to Society as well.

Why??Judicial murder is an abomination in its dehumanising, its calculation, its random application and its vengefulness, and it leaves no possibility for correction, either of a mistake or of the perpetrator. The purely financial cost difference of either option is firstly irrelevant and secondly marginal.

[iJohnHenry]

Sorry to say, but the economics does come into play, in these times.

A waste of skin is just that. Why make the individual linger on???

[skunk]

Sorry to say, but the economics does come into play, in these times.Even if life imprisonment were twice as expensive (and it is not, the difference - as I said - is marginal) as execution, to even consider the cost as a criterion for justice is completely unacceptable. If we as a society choose to kill people for money's sake, how can we lay claim to any civilisation at all?

[Iscariot]

this actually happened last year. I was on campus and am still shocked that this hasn't gotten more attention. I am not trying to start any arguments but there are feelings around campus that the reason it hasn't gotten as much attention is because the woman was white and the rapist was a black man. Whereas in the noose hanging incident (which was also repulsive by the way) got instant worldwide media coverage. Not to suggest that the noose hanging incident wasn't terrible, but it kind of makes you wonder where media agenda falls sometimes no?

Do you have any idea how well she's recovered from the ordeal?

Sorry to say, but the economics does come into play, in these times.

You're right, it does. Life imprisonment is far cheaper than execution.

Even if life imprisonment were twice as expensive (and it is not, the difference - as I said - is marginal) as execution, to even consider the cost as a criterion for justice is completely unacceptable. If we as a society choose to kill people for money's sake, how can we lay claim to any civilisation at all?

Life imprisonment is far cheaper than execution. There are zero social or economic factors that are improved through capital punishment.

[skunk]

There are zero social or economic factors that are improved through capital punishment.We are in agreement.

Despite your threats of refrigerator abuse.

[Abstract]

The reason I hate the insanity plea is because EVERY act that seems so deranged can be argued to have been done by an insane person, as only an insane person would be insane enough to do it. It just seems like an argument that can be used for any person who has done something particularly bad.

[thechidz]

Do you have any idea how well she's recovered from the ordeal?

.

no, which is very sad since I am a student here...This is the first I've heard about it since it happened and when it did I was shocked there wasn't more media coverage... why?

I guess people just don't want the truth when it gets too real

[Sun Baked]

All it takes is for her to visit one of the white gangs at the prison and I'm sure the cute black guy will be raped for more than 19 hours.

Always good to do what you can to help those in prison see the light of god.

[MrSmith]

Wow, wished I hadn't mention capital punishment... For the record, I do not support it, but this is one of those cases that could be used as an argument for it. Whatever, the victim should never have to suffer this guy walking around free again. Prison or hospital for life.

[iJohnHenry]

If we as a society choose to kill people for money's sake, how can we lay claim to any civilisation at all?

I will accept that challenge.

If you can produce ANY evidence that this individual is worthy of saving, I will recant my call for the death penalty.

[Abstract]

I tend to think that the death penalty is OK if there's no way such a person can be rehabilitated. Killing people while robbing a bank, or in some gang violence is one thing, but this type of crime is entirely different.

[NC MacGuy]

Clockwork Orange....

[iJohnHenry]

but this type of crime is entirely different.

Thank you.

There might yet be hope for our civilisation.

Bleed-heart skunks notwithstanding.

;)

[Abstract]

Please don't get me wrong. I know I come across as someone who is all for the death penalty, since I always say all these mofos should be killed off, but only articles about really heinous crimes are ever posted here, so my answer is always atypical of how I generally feel about it.

I agree with Skunk in a general sense, but in certain cases such as this one, I can't.

[Iscariot]

I will accept that challenge.

If you can produce ANY evidence that this individual is worthy of saving, I will recant my call for the death penalty.

Thank you.

There might yet be hope for our civilisation.

Bleed-heart skunks notwithstanding.

;)

Skunk is not the only one who opposes the death penalty. You have also changed the goalposts. Before, it was economic. Now that that has been dismissed, it's about producing evidence of an abstract concept? Where will it be set next?

Here's one for you: burden of proof. If you want an action undertaken (death penalty), it is you who must make the case that it is an improvement upon the alternatives. What makes the death penalty a better choice than life imprisonment? Show your work.

Please don't get me wrong. I know I come across as someone who is all for the death penalty, since I always say all these mofos should be killed off, but only articles about really heinous crimes are ever posted here, so my answer is always atypical of how I generally feel about it.

I agree with Skunk in a general sense, but in certain cases such as this one, I can't.

Where do we draw the line? Where can we say "here, and no further"?

[iJohnHenry]

Show your work.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/terical.gif

What is this, some requisite course for college??

If you feel this individual is worthy of saving, step forward, and provide for his room and board.

Bleeding-heart Liberals give me heartburn.

[Abstract]

Where do we draw the line? Where can we say "here, and no further"?

Well I don't believe jail should be for sitting around and doing nothing. If you're going to spend 20+ years in prison, you better be "fixed" by the time you're out, or at least an honest attempt and opportunity should be made. However, in some cases, I don't think it's really possible.

[Iscariot]

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/terical.gif

What is this, some requisite course for college??

If you feel this individual is worthy of saving, step forward, and provide for his room and board.

Bleeding-heart Liberals give me heartburn.

No, it's a discussion forum wherein I expect you to adhere to logical debate if you're participating in one.

Further, I am no liberal, sir. Have you forgotten that you and I live in a country that abolished the death penalty over three decades ago? I hardly think standing up for a 32-year old decision is particularly liberal. If you're trying to make it personal, you'd be making a huge mistake.

So once again, I task you: name one real, quantifiable benefit to capital punishment. All I'm asking is for you to factually support your position.

[Silencio]

The state should not have the power of life and death over any individual. That is abdicating too much power to the state. We have a criminal justice system, not a criminal revenge system.

Besides, life imprisonment is the much harsher sentence in the end. Give this "man" a life sentence and he'll get far more than he ever gave out.

[Iscariot]

Well I don't believe jail should be for sitting around and doing nothing. If you're going to spend 20+ years in prison, you better be "fixed" by the time you're out, or at least an honest attempt and opportunity should be made. However, in some cases, I don't think it's really possible.

I agree on both points, but I don't see capital punishment as the alternative.

[iJohnHenry]

So once again, I task you: name one real, quantifiable benefit to capital punishment. All I'm asking is for you to factually support your position.

Accepted.

Zero recidivism.

[Sun Baked]

Accepted.

Zero recidivism.

10-20 years of free housing, drugs, food, and sex to balance out the beatings.

[iJohnHenry]

and sex to balance out the beatings.

Only if he was an unwilling participant. ;)

[Iscariot]

Accepted.

Zero recidivism.

Same could be said for life imprisonment without parole. Especially since it takes over eleven years for an execution to be carried out, on average.

[martychang]

Especially since it takes over eleven years for an execution to be carried out, on average.

That's an entirely separate issue, which is highly regrettable.

Regardless, I don't think Current Events is the correct place for this type of discussion. There's a reason there's a post requirement on Politics/Social Issues...

[Iscariot]

That's an entirely separate issue, which is highly regrettable.

It's not a separate issue, it's one of the factors that sets apart capital punishment: theory from capital punishment: fact.

[Badandy]

There are zero social or economic factors that are improved through capital punishment.

The person will not ever do it again.



Just sayin'

[Iscariot]

The person will not ever do it again.

Neither will a person who recieves a life sentence without parole.

[Badandy]

Neither will a person who recieves a life sentence without parole.

You can't be sure though. The political environment changes. Things change. His death would not.

[Iscariot]

You can't be sure though. The political environment changes. Things change. His death would not.

You can't be sure political environments won't shift in the 11+ years he'll spend on death row. You can't be sure he did it, even with an eye witness report. It's impossible to be absolutely certain of anything.

Which is actually an excellent example of why our justice system cannot be set in absolutes.

[Gelfin]

If you feel this individual is worthy of saving, step forward, and provide for his room and board.

You keep using this word save. It is a very curious choice of words for referring to withholding the death penalty, and a loaded one. If I pull a gun on you and then elect not to shoot you, have I saved you? I daresay you cannot save someone from something you yourself are hypothetically doing to him.

You would be correct to presume it is hard to think about this specific case and make any sort of argument requiring me to care what happens to this man, but that is precisely why we cannot design our justice system by anecdote. We establish formal justice systems because frankly we cannot be trusted with ad hoc justice. When I cannot bring myself to care about someone's fate, that's exactly when the blind lady should step in and take it out of my hands. That's also why any talk of who deserves to die by society's hand must be viewed with utmost suspicion. If nothing else, history has shown just how slippery that slope is.

[MrSmith]

True words, but our judicial system is ****ed anyway: how many murderers actually serve a life sentence (Hindley/Brady/Krays aside)?

[skunk]

What is this, some requisite course for college??No, but it should be a minimum requirement for taking someone's life. The only conceivable excuse for killing is if you are under immediate threat of death or serious injury and acting in self-defence.

If you feel this individual is worthy of saving, step forward, and provide for his room and board.It is not so much the individual who needs "saving", but those who would continue the cycle of violence out of fear or in pursuit of satisfaction. Life imprisonment is the only answer which makes any sense socially, ethically or economically.

Bleeding-heart Liberals give me heartburn.This has no place in a serious discussion.

[KJmoon117]

Wow after reading that article, I think I'm going to puke... This guy should get life imprisonment in solitary confinement for life. I want this man to suffer for the rest of his life, death sounds good as well but the insanity that comes with long periods of solitary confinement should do this man justice.

[.Andy]

It's pathetic to see people in 2008 still calling for the state sanctioned death of defenseless fellow human beings. Absolute cowardice, on a level below even the worst violent crime. The rest of the world has moved on and has suffered no ill consequences. It's time for third world justice systems to catch up to the 21st century.

The person will not ever do it again.
Even if they didn't do it in the first place. From this post on we can take it that Badandy (and everyone else who supports the death penalty in this thread) has 100% confidence in the legal system, and will never be hypocritical and criticise it.


The reason I hate the insanity plea is because EVERY act that seems so deranged can be argued to have been done by an insane person, as only an insane person would be insane enough to do it. It just seems like an argument that can be used for any person who has done something particularly bad.
It just seems like......? You're going to have to do better than that. Mental health is a big issue that all modern societies are absolutely pathetic at providing the treatment and support as required. What you're really trying to say here is that you've no confidence in the legal system and medical profession to distinguish actual mental illness from feigned. In that case I can't see why you'd support the death penalty at all. Surely you've no confidence at any conclusions reached by the legal system on any crime.

[skunk]

Wow after reading that article, I think I'm going to puke... This guy should get life imprisonment in solitary confinement for life. I want this man to suffer for the rest of his life, death sounds good as well but the insanity that comes with long periods of solitary confinement should do this man justice.Wanting someone to suffer should not be the criterion for justice.

[MrSmith]

Kind of Devil's advocate, skunk, but what is the correct criterion for justice?

[.Andy]

Wanting someone to suffer should not be the criterion for justice.
But it is a great way to show how sanctimonious you are and how heavily you berate a specific crime. What could be a better way to illustrate your visceral disgust for a crime than to post about the offender being raped and sodomised in gaol.

[blackfox]

As an aside, I take issue with the equation of a anti-death penalty stance with "bleeding heart liberalism".

I think there are a variety of moral and practical reasons why the death penalty is not necessarily a viable solution to heinous crimes - very little of which have to do with liberalism.

To point, if it were up to me, in this case I would have the offender live a long and uncomfortable life behind bars.

[teflon]

All I can say about the death penalty is, you stoop down to their level, you become them. It's tragic that there are such sadistic and deranged people in the world who would inflict pain and death on innocent, defenseless fellow human being who have done nothing to them whatsoever. However, I'll be damned if I let those murders turn me into one of them too.
Also, ultimately revenge and anger would only destroy a person. Even though the acts that man committed is utterly disgusting, it is only through forgiveness that one can move on, not through hatred or revenge. If you really want to show that the acts that murders commit are wrong, be the bigger person and be above them. Don't resort to their methods. Then they have really won.
The death penalty also gives the government too much power, is too absolute etc., but I see that other members have already touched on that.

[Iscariot]

But it is a great way to show how sanctimonious you are and how heavily you berate a specific crime. What could be a better way to illustrate your visceral disgust for a crime than to post about the offender being raped and sodomised in gaol.

Oh! Oh! I know this one.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/06/Crocker1.JPG

[MrSmith]

Hanging, drawing, and quartering in that specific case... :)

[Much Ado]

To point, if it were up to me, in this case I would have the offender live a long and uncomfortable life behind bars.

If the period of imprisonment is indefinite, then does discomfort matter much?

EDIT: Alliteration is my friend.

[Killyp]

Oh! Oh! I know this one.

[SpearsTiradeSnip]

LOL! Post of the day... thanks for the laugh...

[Cromulent]

As an aside, I take issue with the equation of a anti-death penalty stance with "bleeding heart liberalism".

I agree. Just because you don't support the death penalty does not make you a liberal.

In fact I hate it when people use the term liberal as they invariable do not understand the political concepts behind Libertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian).

[BoyBach]

In fact I hate it when people use the term liberal as they invariable do not understand the political concepts behind Libertarianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian).


I hate it when people use "libertarianism" and not "liberalism".

;) :p

[Cromulent]

I hate it when people use "libertarianism" and not "liberalism".

;) :p

Meh, good catch it's too early for me (even though it is 11:30am :p).

Still what type of liberalism was being referred too? Classical liberalism?

Edit : It should still be noted that often libertarians do get unnecessarily accused of being liberals when they are not. Which was my original point (if extremely badly made).

[BoyBach]

Meh, good catch it's too early for me (even though it is 11:30am :p).

Still what type of liberalism was being referred too? Classical liberalism?


Not a bloody clue! :p

[skunk]

Kind of Devil's advocate, skunk, but what is the correct criterion for justice?The criteria should be (a) whether or not the public needs protection from the behaviour in question, and (b) whether or not incarceration serves this purpose. As I have said before, judicial murder has no place in any society we claim to be civilised (a point which almost every democratic society appears to agree with), and state-sanctioned justice should not be motivated by revenge or a desire for catharsis.

[skunk]

Hanging, drawing, and quartering in that specific case... :)How would this barbarism serve the interests of justice? Or of our society? Or of the victim?

Your smiley face seems grossly incongruous in the circumstances.

[MrSmith]

The criteria should be (a) whether or not the public needs protection from the behaviour in question, and (b) whether or not incarceration serves this purpose. As I have said before, judicial murder has no place in any society we claim to be civilised (a point which almost every democratic society appears to agree with), and state-sanctioned justice should not be motivated by revenge or a desire for catharsis.
(a) fits any crime, otherwise it wouldn't be a crime.
(b) yes, other 'punishments' can be of more benefit to society (a la Boy George)
As I said, I don't support the death penalty, but preventing a criminal from reoffending does nothing for the original victim. Do you not care about them?

How would this barbarism serve the interests of justice? Or of our society? Or of the victim?

Your smiley face seems grossly incongruous in the circumstances.
Chill. It's a joke. Did you really not see that?

[skunk]

As I said, I don't support the death penalty, but preventing a criminal from reoffending does nothing for the original victim. Do you not care about them?Please be clear. Are you saying that you are not in favour of the death penalty except insofar as it gives redress to the victim (who in most cases is already dead)? People will rape, murder and steal. The purpose of the criminal justice system should be to physically restrain those who have been convicted if appropriate. More killing serves no purpose.

Chill. It's a joke. Did you really not see that?A joke in response to what? It was difficult to see which post you were addressing.

[MrSmith]

Please be clear. Are you saying that you are not in favour of the death penalty except insofar as it gives redress to the victim (who in most cases is already dead)? People will rape, murder and steal. The purpose of the criminal justice system should be to physically restrain those who have been convicted if appropriate. More killing serves no purpose.
The idea of the death penalty is abhorrent to me. Life imprisonment for heinous crimes such as the subject of this thread should really mean life. If someone destroys my property they should pay for it. If they take away my ability to make a living they should do whatever it takes to maintain the kind of life I would have had. That is what I mean by caring about the victim. In both cases incarceration would have done nothing for them (the victim).

A joke in response to what? It was difficult to see which post you were addressing.Obviously I was referring to the post above mine. If you haven't seen his/her vid I suggest you don't.

[skunk]

The idea of the death penalty is abhorrent to me. Life imprisonment for heinous crimes such as the subject of this thread should really mean life. If someone destroys my property they should pay for it. If they take away my ability to make a living they should do whatever it takes to maintain the kind of life I would have had. That is what I mean by caring about the victim. In both cases incarceration would have done nothing for them (the victim).I still do not understand what you are suggesting. Life or death?

[Cromulent]

I still do not understand what you are suggesting. Life or death?

I believe he was stating he believed in reimbursement rather than the death penalty or prison.

[skunk]

I believe he was stating he believed in reimbursement rather than the death penalty or prison.How could that be achieved from a homeless psychopath? Surely the only thing that would help the victim is to be sure that her attacker will never be roaming the streets again.

[ucfgrad93]

If he isn't insane then this is another argument for the death penalty.

Agreed.

[skunk]

The guy must be insane. Surely no sane human being could do that. If he isn't insane then this is another argument for the death penalty.I said earlier that supposedly sane people do this kind of thing and worse every day. You said that the death penalty was abhorrent to you. Where do you stand, because for the life of me I can't make it out.

[CalBoy]

Show your work.

iJohnHenry normally doesn't carry the personal burden of logically defending his views, but, for once we disagree about something so I will show my work. ;):p

Now don't get me wrong-I don't support the death penalty as it stands at the moment in the US. However, I also don't support full abolition of it because I think it has a specific place in society (which I will get to later).

Accepted.

Zero recidivism.
That's the worst possible defense you can throw out for capital punishment. Life in prison would achieve the same results at a fraction of the cost.

It's not a separate issue, it's one of the factors that sets apart capital punishment: theory from capital punishment: fact.

Actually I think they are indeed separate issues. In order to evaluate capital punishment, we should first look at the theory of capital punishment itself. Once we've tackled the insurmountably difficult question of what capital punishment in an abstract sense can do for society, we can then tackle the question of the best ways to implement capital punishment. Should either the theory of capital punishment or the exercise of capital punishment fall short of our demands, we would be obligated to suspend the action, but, we should evaluate them separately because they carry different requirements and restrictions.


Where do we draw the line? Where can we say "here, and no further"?

And this is where I will get into the theoretical aspects of capital punishment.

To answer the question, we should first ask ourselves the nature of law of itself. What is the ultimate purpose of law? Well, sparing ourselves a long philosophical discussion, I think we can agree that laws protect individuals, communities, society, and other sentient but non-voting parties from harm and unfair loss.

I believe skunk made the claim that locking up a criminal protects society from his/her future actions, and thus serves to protect other innocent people. I think we can extend this principle to every other legitimate law (again, skunk has made this claim already by outlining what a criminal justice system should do). I think this is a fairly good view of the justice system, and if you're happy with it, I am as well.

Now let's look at incarceration. It's a very effective method of protecting society from the offender while he's locked up, but it does little to reform or help repair the damage caused to society. In many ways, this is a worse form of justice than community service or other programs that could rehabilitate burglars, crooks, and others who commit economic crimes or sexual crimes that don't harm others (such as prostitution).

For violent crime, however, society is fearful that these criminals will strike again. Indeed, society's intuition isn't all that inaccurate as violent crimes are more often committed by repeat offenders. We might say that in such instances, quarantine is best for both the criminal and for society.

In the case of murder, however, society has an entirely different metric. This action, so powerful and destructive, has long been considered the worst possible crime. And it's for good reason, for murder takes from someone what is most central to our very humanity. There is no doubt that for a killer, quarantine is at minimum the best method of justice, for it ensures protection to others and sends a message to the criminal that he is no longer defendable in the eyes of society.

Now, we can finally turn our attention to capital punishment. :p

Here is a form of justice in seeming contrast with the statements I just made above. After all, it takes the life of one individual and puts it squarely in the hands of the state. The state is given the unusually great power of being able to control whether an individual lives or dies, how he shall meet his end, and who will perform the act. I believe skunk mentioned that the state should not have this power because no one should have this power.

I will not answer with the usually horrid bad arguments, but rather with a simple question: why not?

In the Post-Industrial age, one struggles to find a power the state does not have. It is a crime for me to take your money through coercion, yet the state has that power as long as it uses due process.

It is a crime for me to hold you captive against your will, and yet this too is a power the state has so long as it uses due process.

It is a crime for me to enter your property and search for something I seek, yet this again is within the state's power as long as the state uses due process.

I could go on and on, but you get the idea. Killing, as a horribly destructive action, is still an action like any other. One might argue that its results are final and irreversible, but so are many other actions that the state has under due process. Building a dam destroys whole ecosystems that will never return, building highways or rail systems wipes out climates for birds that will either adapt or perish, and perhaps to stress the importance of the insignificance of finality, I point out that vaccinations forever put an an end to many, many diseases.

So, finality is not so much an important criterion, or else we would have to evaluate many, many other state actions from that point of view.

Now of course you're going to tell me that the criminal justice system can and does make mistakes and innocent men can be and have been put to death. I completely agree; that problem does exist. However, it is not a problem with capital punishment the theory, it is a problem with capital punishment the exercise. Or more precisely, it is an obstacle presented by due process and the limitations of forensic science.

However, for the moment, we're not done with theory yet. I think we can say that finality is not so much an obstacle with the theory of capital punishment, because finality is the entire purpose of capital punishment. It is intended to be permanent. It is philosophically the greatest action society can undertake-the finality of ending one of its own members' lives. Buildings can be built or torn down, great art archived, yet the death of an individual is permanent-or is it?

Does an individual cease to have an effect on society because of his death? Surely we all know something about Caesar, or Elizabeth I, or George Washington, or Lincoln, or JFK, or MLK?

Surely we also remember Jack the Ripper, or Custer, or Timothy McVeigh?

Finality, then, is not the grave loss we'd like to believe, despite its initial attraction. Finality can serve a good purpose, once we've determined that we've found the right purpose (which I'll admit is a lot harder than most are willing to believe).

So, I come now back to the beginning of capital punishment the theory. In essence, capital punishment acknowledges the terrible actions of an individual and pronounces upon them the most powerful form of justice society has at its disposal. Is it final? Definitely, because that's what it's intended to do. Not to take out revenge, to appease the victim, to deter others-no, these are all false reasons. Rather, the action delivers to society a memory-a memory that society is not perfect, and that this individual was so failed by society that he committed horrible actions.

I move on now to what I view is the more problematic side of capital punishment: the exercise. Far too many meet their end in the US by capital punishment. It is over used, used incorrectly, and is a travesty of justice.

Never mind the gross evidentiary incompetence of most capital trials, capital trials in the US are overly sensationalized by the media and appease bloodlust rather than achieve the goal I outlined above.

Your average murderer should not qualify for the death penalty. Because of its overuse, people have now forgotten the gravity of such a sentence. Instead, only the worst and most serious criminals should be put to death. The last criminal I feel that qualified for death (and who was subsequently put to death) was Timothy McVeigh. His actions caused the death of a few hundred, destroyed hundreds of families, and his goal itself was to undermine the fabric of society. These are the actions that deserve death. Putting someone to death because they carry out a crime of passion is wrong. Their motivation was selfish and of only moderate consequence to society as a whole.

Putting serial killers to death is also wrong. They clearly suffer from a mental defect, and more importantly, they can serve as valuable assets in understanding future serial killer crimes. Robbing a serial killer of his sense of control will be sufficient to destroy his strength.

Now, in this case, the man does not deserve to be put to death. Sure he was an absolute monster, but he simply does not present a threat to society that requires a permanent and everlasting punishment like death. We needn't remember this crime; while it's horrible and I can't imagine the condition that poor woman is in, killing this man will not do anything for society, her, him, or anyone else.

Which brings me to my last point about capital punishment. It needs to have much stronger standards of evidence. I mean obscenely tough. Eye witnesses are not good enough. Video cameras, physical forensic evidence, and a very clear understanding of why the act was committed. It should also not be left in the hands of a standard jury. I feel that prosecutors should first convict the person of the crime, and then be allowed to file for capital punishment. If a tribunal of appellate judges feels that there is sufficient evidence of great harm to society, then the prosecutor will be allowed to proceed.

Rather than convince a standard jury, however, he should be required to convince 23 individuals (unanimously) who were not part of the original jury. The evidence standards should, again, be very, very high. In my view, no more than 1 person per decade should be executed, because that's probably the frequency of great crimes in the US. It's likely even less, but I'm just using that as an indication of how overused I think the death penalty is.

[Iscariot]

Actually I think they are indeed separate issues. In order to evaluate capital punishment, we should first look at the theory of capital punishment itself. Once we've tackled the insurmountably difficult question of what capital punishment in an abstract sense can do for society, we can then tackle the question of the best ways to implement capital punishment. Should either the theory of capital punishment or the exercise of capital punishment fall short of our demands, we would be obligated to suspend the action, but, we should evaluate them separately because they carry different requirements and restrictions.

I'm going to go ahead and disagree, and point out that you are well aware of the factors that contribute to the length of a death row's inmate wait on death row. Unless you are planning to make some significant changes to how capital cases are processed and perhaps even due process itself, it's always going to be the reality of the situation.

I will not answer with the usually horrid bad arguments, but rather with a simple question: why not?

The answer to that question is simple: because the alternative is better in every single measurable way. I think that's a very satisfactory answer.

You've given me a laundry list of why you think the state should have the power, and I could nitpick them all day. But that's not the point I'm making. Maybe the state should have the power. The question I put forth is different. What is the fundamental advantage of exercising the power? Where does it become beneficial to society? I haven't gotten a satisfactory answer yet.

[ham_man]

When he is convicted and sentenced to life without parole, I can guarantee you that the guards will not so much as bat an eye when he begins to realize just how low on the prison totem pole he is.

[skunk]

In my view, no more than 1 person per decade should be executed, because that's probably the frequency of great crimes in the US. It's likely even less, but I'm just using that as an indication of how overused I think the death penalty is.Nicely argued though your post may be, I entirely disagree with your conclusions. It almost seems from this paragraph that 1 person per decade should be chosen by lottery for the drop: you have presented no convincing criterion for selection, you are granting those selected a far more rigorous version of due process (which may lead as well to their exoneration as to their conviction) and are thereby privileging precisely those whom you excoriate the most.

As the apostle says, you have failed to make any case for utility.

[ucfgrad93]

Far too many meet their end in the US by capital punishment. It is over used, used incorrectly, and is a travesty of justice.

According to this website (http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/usexecute.htm) there have been 1,102 executions in the United States since it was reinstated in 1976. Doesn't seem too excessive to me.

Its funny how everyone seems to think how bad executions are, but then are just fine and dandy with the concept of abortions.

The number of abortions performed in the United States dropped to 1.2 million in 2005 -- the lowest level since 1976, according to a new report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/16/AR2008011603624.html

Over a million abortions in ONE YEAR, in just the United States!! Pardon me for not feeling bad about 1,102 scumbags getting executed.

[themadchemist]

Life imprisonment is far cheaper than execution. There are zero social or economic factors that are improved through capital punishment.

Like you, I oppose capital punishment (though reading about cases like this really tests my resolve on the matter). That said, there have been some studies recently that capital punishment may actually be effective as a deterrent (contradicting a lot of previous work). So the effectiveness of capital punishment to deter future violent crimes, which would definitely be a social benefit, is at the very least debatable. While I don't think a deterrent effect could make capital punishment morally acceptable, it would certainly constitute a positive externality to the practice.

[iJohnHenry]

iJohnHenry normally doesn't carry the personal burden of logically defending his views, but, for once we disagree about something so I will show my work. ;):p

Agreed, I am opinionated, to be sure. My profile indicates as much.

That's the worst possible defense you can throw out for capital punishment. Life in prison would achieve the same results at a fraction of the cost.

Disagree. It costs about $40K a year in Canada to keep an inmate secure with 3 squares, entertainment better than I have, schooling, etc. I know your numbers are lower, because we have "rights" for the incarcerated up here.

After all, it takes the life of one individual and puts it squarely in the hands of the state. The state is given the unusually great power of being able to control whether an individual lives or dies, how he shall meet his end, and who will perform the act. I believe skunk mentioned that the state should not have this power because no one should have this power.

Agreed, but the convicted killer DID have that power. Cromulent mentioned reimbursement. I agree with this. A life(s) was taken, a life is forfeit.


I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

:eek:

11 years on death-row is just a pension plan for lawyers. Justice delayed is justice denied. If modern criminology says the perp is guilty, what is the problem??

Do the living victims of the killing get no consideration??

Execution has become ritualized beyond belief. The Chinese, remember them, the largest trading partner of the US of A, prefers a pistol shot to the back of the head. Quick, decisive and cheap (yes, attack me for THAT one).

Just a cheap as the killer valued the life of his victim(s).

[skunk]

Over a million abortions in ONE YEAR, in just the United States!! Pardon me for not feeling bad about 1,102 scumbags getting executed.No matter what your opinion on abortion, the execution of one wrongly convicted person renders the entire procedure of judicial murder 100% unacceptable in practical terms, let alone the moral terms which we have already covered. The mere possibility that a system sanctioned by society could hold down and deliberately put to death an innocent and helpless person should be utterly repugnant.

[skunk]

11 years on death-row is just a pension plan for lawyers. Justice delayed is justice denied. If modern criminology says the perp is guilty, what is the problem??You have a touchingly naïve faith in "modern criminology". Look up the work of Clive Stafford Smith some time.

Do the living victims of the killing get no consideration??What do you want? Blood money? For them to watch the alleged killer die? What does this mean? Incidentally, I would point out that THIS MAN MURDERED NOONE.

Execution has become ritualized beyond belief. The Chinese, remember them, the largest trading partner of the US of A, prefers a pistol shot to the back of the head. Quick, decisive and cheap (yes, attack me for THAT one).Ah. So you favour a society run on Chinese lines, do you? Why didn't you say?

[thechidz]

, I would point out that THIS MAN MURDERED NOONE.


some would say that what he did was worse. some would say he murdered parts of her. she will never live the life she could have lived. This was a promising soul... he murdered that

[skunk]

some would say that what he did was worse. some would say he murdered parts of her. she will never live the life she could have lived. This was a promising soul... he murdered thatRape is not a capital crime, even in the USA, despite what some would say.

[iJohnHenry]

You have a touchingly naïve faith in "modern criminology". Look up the work of Clive Stafford Smith some time.

Stop touching me!! :D

What do you want? Blood money? For them to watch the alleged killer die?

Watching an execution would not be for me, if involved, but if it provides closure for others, I would support it.

What does this mean? Incidentally, I would point out that THIS MAN MURDERED NO ONE.

He took her life away, as surly as if he put a bullet into her skull.

Ah. So you favour a society run on Chinese lines, do you? Why didn't you say?

Oh, quite the jump there. From Chinese-style execution to an entire society run in the Chinese style.

Have a nice evening. :apple:

[skunk]

Have a nice evening. :apple:Your argument lacks any cogency or indeed integrity.

[ucfgrad93]

some would say that what he did was worse. some would say he murdered parts of her. she will never live the life she could have lived. This was a promising soul... he murdered that

Well said and I agree.

[ucfgrad93]

No matter what your opinion on abortion, the execution of one wrongly convicted person renders the entire procedure of judicial murder 100% unacceptable in practical terms, let alone the moral terms which we have already covered. The mere possibility that a system sanctioned by society could hold down and deliberately put to death an innocent and helpless person should be utterly repugnant.

I disagree. Just because there is a possibility of an innocent person could be executed doesn't mean that there should not be a death penalty. People die all of the time using tools, cars, alcohol, etc. should there not be any of those things either?

[.Andy]

I disagree. Just because there is a possibility of an innocent person could be executed doesn't mean that there should not be a death penalty. People die all of the time using tools, cars, alcohol, etc. should there not be any of those things either?
Instead of a trial how about we give suspected murderers tools, cars, alcohol etc? Let them sort themselves out....

[ucfgrad93]

Instead of a trial how about we give suspected murderers tools, cars, alcohol etc? Let them sort themselves out....

I'm thinking steel cage match! ;)

[thechidz]

Rape is not a capital crime, even in the USA, despite what some would say.

how can you trivialize such a horrendous crime and suggest, "it was only rape"?:confused:

[.Andy]

I'm thinking steel cage match! ;)
Only if it's against supporters of the death penalty.

how can you trivialize such a horrendous crime and suggest, "it was only rape"?:confused:
Skunk's post suggested nothing of the sort. You either have trouble with comprehension or are being disingenuous. If it's the latter you're the one trivialising the crime for the sake of argument.

[Iscariot]

Agreed, I am opinionated, to be sure. My profile indicates as much.

No one begrudges your right to have an opinion, but in the PRSI forums, that opinion must be backed up by fact. It is, in fact, in the PRSI rules.

Disagree. It costs about $40K a year in Canada to keep an inmate secure with 3 squares, entertainment better than I have, schooling, etc. I know your numbers are lower, because we have "rights" for the incarcerated up here.

The average cost of a capital case from start to finish in North Carolina is $2.2 million. Florida, $3.2 million. Texas, $2.3 million. All of these sums are vastly higher than the cost of keeping an inmate incarcerated in an American prison.

As an FYI, $40K is an incredibly inaccurate figure when it comes to Corrections Canada, especially when you're talking about a maximum security prison where an inmate for a capital case would be housed. It's the kind of number that somebody just makes up when they have no factual idea what they're talking about ;)

[MrSmith]

I still do not understand what you are suggesting. Life or death?

I believe he was stating he believed in reimbursement rather than the death penalty or prison.

Yes, where appropriate this would be better justice in my eyes, or at least an element to be considered in sentencing.

Where do you stand, because for the life of me I can't make it out.

It's not black and white, goodies and baddies. Making a stand on something where there are so many variables and stubbornly arguing against anything else is myopic. As I have said, in principle I am against the death penalty. The idea of one person putting another person to death does not sit well with me. But I have to agree:

Like you, I oppose capital punishment (though reading about cases like this really tests my resolve on the matter).

How could that be achieved from a homeless psychopath? Surely the only thing that would help the victim is to be sure that her attacker will never be roaming the streets again.

Yes. 'Justice' must ensure the psycho never walks the streets again so that he can never hurt anyone again. If the state can guarantee he will stay in prison for life then society is safe. Unfortunately, the reality is that he will get out in a relatively short time. I'm not saying that the logical solution to this is to gas/shoot/hang him instead. Life imprisonment needs to be defined for sure. If it's not then I can't say I'm happy with Psycho walking the streets again. Maybe, just maybe, someone's life will end up being saved if he is executed. That isn't such a hypothetical scenario.

Could this be considered modern day monstricide?

[thechidz]

Skunk's post suggested nothing of the sort. You either have trouble with comprehension or are being disingenuous. If it's the latter you're the one trivialising the crime for the sake of argument.

Im only going by what he wrote.

[.Andy]

Im only going by what he wrote.
And Skunk wrote that rape is not a capital crime. It has nothing to do with what you posted. No one is saying that it's not a heinous crime or the culprit doesn't deserve to be punished. The reasons for rejecting the death penalty is a separate issue, no matter what emotive attempts are made to muddy the two.

Rejecting the death penalty as useless does not equal soft on crime.

Rejecting the death penalty in this case does not trivialise rape.

[Iscariot]

Im only going by what he wrote.

http://members.aol.com/plittle/StrawmanPoster.jpg

[.Andy]

strawman.jpg
Wonderful Iscariot :D. I'm saving this.

[thechidz]

ok, I felt as though the way skunk replied to my statement about the loathsomeness of the crime as "rape isn't a capitol offense" was mechanical and inhuman. I feel that his desire to disregard the death penalty has produced comments which do not take into account how this crime goes above and beyond anything that should ever happen to a human being. This is beyond torture of a pow or slavery or racism or sexism. This is an absolute nightmare that I feel does not permit any being, human or animal, a modicum of forgiveness in any way shape or form and I think nothing short of a quick bullet to the back of the head and a shallow grave in a garbage dump is a proper solution.

[.Andy]

ok, I felt as though the way skunk replied to my statement about the loathsomeness of the crime as "rape isn't a capitol offense" was mechanical and inhuman. I feel that his desire to disregard the death penalty has produced comments which do not take into account how this crime goes above and beyond anything that should ever happen to a human being. This is beyond torture of a pow or slavery or racism or sexism.
I think you'll find that the vast majority agree with this although to different degrees and sentiments. With the exception of your death penalty comment - you're confusing the two issues again.

This is an absolute nightmare that I feel does not permit any being, human or animal, a modicum of forgiveness in any way shape or form and I think nothing short of a quick bullet to the back of the head and a shallow grave in a garbage dump is a proper solution.
If you're motivated by revenge and don't believe in a fair trial or a humane legal system then this is a great idea.

[solvs]

What is this, some requisite course for college??
It's a requisite of the forum.

If you feel this individual is worthy of saving, step forward, and provide for his room and board.
If you feel this person is worth killing, step forward and go for it.

Bleeding-heart Liberals give me heartburn.
Comments like this give me headaches.

The person will not ever do it again.
He won't really get a chance to do anything again.

Just sayin'.

Do the living victims of the killing get no consideration??
Vengeance is not justice.

Just as cheap as the killer valued the life of his victim(s).
So we should be just as bad as they are?

Rape is not a capital crime, even in the USA, despite what some would say.
Yeah, it's not even an issue in this case. :confused:

Look, this guy makes me sick just as much as it does anyone else. I have the same visceral reaction. I wonder sometimes if we should allow executions. But this can't be the basis for a justice system. We have to put aside immediate emotional response, and think about the ramifications. About what's really best for the greater good. Killing them accomplishes nothing. It isn't cheaper, it isn't a deterrent, and worse, puts us at the same level as them. Worse actually since we're supposed to be the civil ones. The only good it accomplishes is that it makes us feel better (some of us) and that it makes things a lot easier for the criminals. Though it does remove any ability for them to even attempt to redeem themselves, even if they don't, we could at least give them the opportunity.

If someone killed someone close to me, or even hurt them, I'd feel the same way. I'd want revenge. I'd be angry. But that's why those close to the victims aren't the ones deciding punishment. Because it's about society, not just us. And because I know afterwards, I wouldn't feel any better if they died too. I'd feel worse because another human life has been extinguished when it doesn't need to be.

[thechidz]

If you're motivated by revenge and don't believe in a fair trial or a humane legal system then this is a great idea.

nope, this doesnt have anything to do with revenge... and in this case I say screw the legal system. this is a special situation in my eyes and Im sure in this girl's family's eyes as well. I think better off to just rid the world of this guy, once and for all. there is no alleged action here. there is no presumption of innocence. we know he did it and he should be erased.

[.Andy]

nope, this doesnt have anything to do with revenge... and in this case I say screw the legal system. this is a special situation in my eyes and Im sure in this girl's family's eyes as well. I think better off to just rid the world of this guy, once and for all. there is no alleged action here. there is no presumption of innocence. we know he did it and he should be erased.
So in your opinion newspaper articles the best place to decide if a person is a 'special case' that doesn't deserve the right to a fair trial?

[thechidz]

what do you mean?? I am a student at the same school she was so I have more insight to this than just from the article...

[solvs]

nope, this doesnt have anything to do with revenge... and in this case I say screw the legal system. this is a special situation in my eyes and Im sure in this girl's family's eyes as well. I think better off to just rid the world of this guy, once and for all. there is no alleged action here. there is no presumption of innocence. we know he did it and he should be erased.
But that's a slippery slope argument. Where do we draw the line? So far, it's drawn at murder only. And even then, only in certain circumstances. We start looking at it this way - and yes, it is revenge, what else would what you're calling for be - and what else gets counted in there as a crime punishable by death. Wouldn't undo what he did. Locking him up for life, with complete psyche evaluation, just seems like a better option than having him trying to plead out against a lengthy death penalty trial and appeals that will cost more and accomplish nothing. Not saying we let the guy go, but killing him because he did something bad, no matter how terrible not even murder, that's a scary proposition.

Again, this is completely horrific and the guy is more than likely an irredeemable monster, but I just don't see how becoming him, committing murder to avenge not even a murder, makes things any better.

[.Andy]

what do you mean?? I am a student at the same school she was so I have more insight to this than just from the article...
Sorry, even if I were to buy this there would be absolutely nothing you could say that would convince me that anyone should go without a fair trial and be immediately put to death. Newspaper articles and school rumours make for a terrible misconceptions. Think of it from another point of view - what if there were other perpetrators who raped her while she was unconscious that she didn't know about? They'd be assured to get off scott free if there wasn't a full trial that could possibly reveal such information.

So far you've made the point that it's a horrendous crime. Check - we all agree on this one. However you've done a terrible job in making a case for why anyone should go without a fair trial (or any trial at all) and what would be accomplished by putting anyone to death in a gangland style killing. Although you deny it, it's hard to see any logic to your viewpoint besides being motivated by revenge.

[CalBoy]

I'm going to go ahead and disagree, and point out that you are well aware of the factors that contribute to the length of a death row's inmate wait on death row. Unless you are planning to make some significant changes to how capital cases are processed and perhaps even due process itself, it's always going to be the reality of the situation.

Well as I explained, I would dramatically change the death penalty from how it is currently used in the US. I don't agree with the current implementation.

However, I still assert that whether or not the implementation of the death penalty is correct is a separate matter from the moral and ethical considerations we give to the death penalty.

On an abstract level, I find the death penalty ethically reasonable, but on a practical level, I despise how it is practiced. So, if you were to present me with the option of either keeping the current death penalty system in the US or abolishing it entirely, my vote would be for abolition because I find that the death penalty isn't being executed as I would like.

That doesn't, however, mean that I would reject the death penalty in any and all cases. Just those that happen to be found in current operation.

The answer to that question is simple: because the alternative is better in every single measurable way. I think that's a very satisfactory answer.

So then you don't necessarily contest the state's power to take life? You agree that in narrow circumstances, the state has a legitimate interest in taking life. What you object to is this particular expression of that power, which is an entirely different matter n'est-ce pas?

What is the fundamental advantage of exercising the power? Where does it become beneficial to society? I haven't gotten a satisfactory answer yet.
Yes, I forgot to address this in my first post. :o

I think that with the system I laid out (very very few executions coupled with much better due process), it becomes possible for the death penalty to serve as a monument to the failures of society and humanity.

Consider for a moment the vast number of people on death row across the several states and the Federal government. I doubt most Americans could name more than one death row inmate (if that-heck, I can only think of one at the moment). The symbolic power of the death penalty is lost entirely when it is overused and treated as a standard for murder (rather than the exception).

With few executions, the memory of an execution would not only be stronger, but the event surrounding it would also become more significant. This would not only respect those who suffered at the hands of such a killer, but it would also remind society that its work is never done.

In a sense, the execution would itself be a form of monument, honoring those who were lost, those who grieved, those who killed, and those who survived. Its value would be purely symbolic, but I think it would be a very profound symbol. That is the utility to be had from performing only the rare execution.
It almost seems from this paragraph that 1 person per decade should be chosen by lottery for the drop:

I didn't intended for that at all. :o

I was merely trying to provide reference as to how rare it should be relative to how often it happens today.

It isn't rigid, it's just meant to serve as a relative marker.

you have presented no convincing criterion for selection,
Well actually my point about Timothy McVeigh laid out what I feel are good criteria:

a) the killing of multiple persons
b) a pattern and practice of using the deaths of those persons to advance a particular goal that is sinister to not only those who died, but also to a significant portion of the population,

and

c) a killing or series of killings that sought to present a direct threat to the fundamental functioning of society.


you are granting those selected a far more rigorous version of due process
Actually, no. The initial trial would remain the same. Only if a prosecutor decided to pursue the death penalty (the prosecutor would only be allowed to do this post-trial, and only if a jury finds for a specific type of murder charge) would the second tier of due process be initiated, which would only determine whether or not the criminal is fit to receive the death sentence given the evidence. It would be the 23 jurors' responsibility to look for the 3 criteria I mentioned above and then return their verdict. As I mentioned previously as well, the standards of evidence would be much higher and the burden on the prosecutor would be immense, such that the trial would undoubtedly take at least 15-20 months and that no stone be left unturned.

(which may lead as well to their exoneration as to their conviction) and are thereby privileging precisely those whom you excoriate the most.

The initial verdict would be shielded from the considerations of the second. Just as appellate judges cannot undo the decisions of a jury, nor would a death penalty jury be allowed to change the findings of fact of the first.

As the apostle says, you have failed to make any case for utility.
Well I've made one now, so feel free to butcher that one. ;):p
According to this website (http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/usexecute.htm) there have been 1,102 executions in the United States since it was reinstated in 1976. Doesn't seem too excessive to me.

It is horridly excessive. Can you name 5 of them off the top of your head? Do you know what they did? Who they did it to? Where? When?

As we have it now, the death penalty doesn't serve any purpose but to bleed our budget dry. Those 1,102 executions likely came at a cost of over $3 billion (possibly more depending on how many are from California).

Its funny how everyone seems to think how bad executions are, but then are just fine and dandy with the concept of abortions.

Why are you dragging that into this? They are completely unrelated.

Also, if you can't tell the difference between a fully sentient adult human and a non-sentient fetus, then I have pity for you.


Disagree.
I wasn't aware facts were up for disagreement. :rolleyes:

It costs about $40K a year in Canada to keep an inmate secure with 3 squares, entertainment better than I have, schooling, etc. I know your numbers are lower, because we have "rights" for the incarcerated up here.

The cost to prosecute a person to death is enormous. As Iscariot has already mentioned, it ranges in the few millions, and that's in states with a less than stellar due process record. In California I'd bet the cost is twice as much (as in close to $5 million).
Agreed, but the convicted killer DID have that power.
No, he doesn't. He falsely usurps that power, much like the state does if it doesn't use due process.

The very fact that he's being tried is proof of the fact that he did not have the power to do what he did.

Cromulent mentioned reimbursement. I agree with this. A life(s) was taken, a life is forfeit.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

We're not talking about money or physical property that can be repaired or replaced. We're talking about human life. I don't believe that even you would be absurd enough to suggest that we can trade human lives like melons at a market.

11 years on death-row is just a pension plan for lawyers. Justice delayed is justice denied.
Justice for whom exactly? Your bloodlust?

If modern criminology says the perp is guilty, what is the problem??

Of course you realize that "modern" criminology is rarely ever certain of anything.

Do the living victims of the killing get no consideration??

They should and do. I would offer free counseling, additional insurance (in the case of a breadwinner) and other services to help them adjust back into a normal state of being. With the millions of dollars we'd be saving per execution, we'll be able to easily accommodate the victims.
The Chinese, remember them, the largest trading partner of the US of A,
Sorry, no. Canada is the US's largest trading partner.

prefers a pistol shot to the back of the head. Quick, decisive and cheap (yes, attack me for THAT one).

Naw, I'd say you've tied your own noose with that one.

nope, this doesnt have anything to do with revenge... and in this case I say screw the legal system.
Saying "screw this" in any case violates the fundamental principles of justice and law. The law should be prepared to serve the best and the worst. Exceptions for either is a travesty.

this is a special situation in my eyes and Im sure in this girl's family's eyes as well. I think better off to just rid the world of this guy, once and for all. there is no alleged action here. there is no presumption of innocence. we know he did it and he should be erased.
You shouldn't let your emotions dictate your decisions for you.

If you do, you loose that which makes you human.
what do you mean?? I am a student at the same school she was so I have more insight to this than just from the article...

Yes, you undoubtedly know her better than any of us, but that doesn't change the fact that your knowledge of the situation is at best based on hearsay and second hand accounts.

I think it's scary that you're ready to put a man to death whom you know nothing about, whose situation is unknown to you, and whose actions aren't even up to par with the minimum for the death penalty (murder).

[Iscariot]

So then you don't necessarily contest the state's power to take life? You agree that in narrow circumstances, the state has a legitimate interest in taking life.

I agree that the state has the power, I don't agree that in narrow circumstances it has legitimate interest. Much as you have problems with the implementation of the death penalty, I have similar issues with what powers we ultimately give the state. However, I recognize the distinction: one is reality, and the other is how I would like things to be.

For the record, though, your state has the power, my state does not.

In a sense, the execution would itself be a form of monument, honoring those who were lost, those who grieved, those who killed, and those who survived. Its value would be purely symbolic, but I think it would be a very profound symbol. That is the utility to be had from performing only the rare execution.

There are three fundamental flaws with this. You assume that:

A) The dead wish to be (and the families of the dead wish for them to be) honoured;

B) A negative incentive would stop the likes of would-be McVeighs and serve as some kind of example to society; and

C) There is any symbolic value in state-sanctioned killing.

I can tell you unequivocally that A is not true for all, that B will have no effect, and that there are many despots who would agree with C.

You know what a much better symbol to honour the lost and grieving, and to send a message to those who would break society's contracts? That we will unwaveringly stand up for what is right and to treat every member of society with some modicum of dignity and respect no matter what, and that we will never, ever bend. I think that is a much more profound and heroic position to take.

[edesignuk]

That is gut wrenchingly horrible to read, no one can even begin to imagine what she went through. Awful, just awful :(

[a456]

Unfortunately the majority are focusing on the person who committed the crime. He isn't worth two nanoseconds of your emotional brain space, it is the victim who deserves the care, the attention, the brain space, and also the money for the best possible rehabilitation.

Let the law figure out the other side of things, it's what they are paid for after all. The man is a problem for which the legal system has to find the best solution in the context of your society.

Don't waste your hate on him.
Do save your love for her.

[skunk]

On an abstract level, I find the death penalty ethically reasonable, but on a practical level, I despise how it is practiced.The death penalty is neither reasonable nor practical on any level if we are to lay claim to any enlightenment. It is unnecessary, uncivilised and irreversible.

So then you don't necessarily contest the state's power to take life?Iscariot may not, but I most certainly do. The state has no conceivable interest in taking life.
I think that with the system I laid out (very very few executions coupled with much better due process), it becomes possible for the death penalty to serve as a monument to the failures of society and humanity.With your system, which is both arbitrary in its selection process and random in its criteria, the death penalty would indeed serve as a monument to the failure of society and humanity: that is precisely my argument.
With few executions, the memory of an execution would not only be stronger, but the event surrounding it would also become more significant. This would not only respect those who suffered at the hands of such a killer, but it would also remind society that its work is never done.
In a sense, the execution would itself be a form of monument, honoring those who were lost, those who grieved, those who killed, and those who survived. Its value would be purely symbolic, but I think it would be a very profound symbol. That is the utility to be had from performing only the rare execution. You - and "society" - have no right to commandeer human frailty for exemplary purposes. This is bordering on the perverse.

Well actually my point about Timothy McVeigh laid out what I feel are good criteria:

a) the killing of multiple persons
b) a pattern and practice of using the deaths of those persons to advance a particular goal that is sinister to not only those who died, but also to a significant portion of the population,
and
c) a killing or series of killings that sought to present a direct threat to the fundamental functioning of society.Such subjective criteria can never be a fair basis for life and death decisions. Should there be a poll each time to measure the revulsion whipped up by the popular press?

[Iscariot]

Iscariot may not, but I most certainly do. The state has no conceivable interest in taking life.

I don't contest that the state has the power, because it certainly does, and currently exercises it. I do contest whether the state should have the power. It's an important distinction.

[mactastic]

The reason I hate the insanity plea is because EVERY act that seems so deranged can be argued to have been done by an insane person, as only an insane person would be insane enough to do it. It just seems like an argument that can be used for any person who has done something particularly bad.
Just because any jackass can use the insanity defense doesn't mean it works every time. In fact, it almost never works; and even when it does work, it doesn't do much for you except provide padding on the walls of your room.

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/terical.gif

What is this, some requisite course for college??

If you feel this individual is worthy of saving, step forward, and provide for his room and board.
Actually, if you feel this individual is worthy of executing, step forward, and provide the money for it. Remember, executions are more expensive than life imprisonment.

Bleeding-heart Liberals give me heartburn.
Stupid conservative blowhards give me heartburn.

Accepted.

Zero recidivism.
Which is, of course, the same result as life imprisonment. Sorry, not a distinction.

You can't be sure though. The political environment changes. Things change. His death would not.
How do you know the execution wouldn't mean his ghost haunts this woman for the rest of her life? I mean, if we're really not sure of anything in life...

nope, this doesnt have anything to do with revenge... and in this case I say screw the legal system. this is a special situation in my eyes and Im sure in this girl's family's eyes as well. I think better off to just rid the world of this guy, once and for all. there is no alleged action here. there is no presumption of innocence. we know he did it and he should be erased.
They're all special situations to someone. Every person killed leaves behind friends or family who could make this same argument -- "but THIS TIME it's really special, and we must use the death penalty".

[CalBoy]

The death penalty is neither reasonable nor practical on any level if we are to lay claim to any enlightenment. It is unnecessary, uncivilised and irreversible.

Sure you describe it as "uncivilized" because that's what you believe. Why don't you outline what "civilized" is, and then argue why the death penalty violates those ideals.

For the moment your entire argument is one giant circle of "the death penalty is wrong because it is uncivilized."

Iscariot may not, but I most certainly do. The state has no conceivable interest in taking life.
I do contest whether the state should have the power. It's an important distinction.

So both of you would say that the state can never take the life of an individual?

What if that life threatens the lives of others? Suppose the only way to alieviate the threat is to kill that individual?

Or would you agree that the state can take life, but only in very narrow and limited circumstances?

With your system, which is both arbitrary in its selection process and random in its criteria,
Nonsense. My criteria are specific to crimes which threaten the very stability of social order. The vast majority of violent crime don't do this, and hence don't qualify for the death penalty. However, the few that are so awfully destructive to the fabric of society should be treated differently.

You - and "society" - have no right to commandeer human frailty for exemplary purposes. This is bordering on the perverse.

So by extension skunk, you would oppose monuments which honor horrible events (ie 9/11, the Vietnam War Memorial, etc) as these things commandeer human frailty just as easily as an execution, despite their exemplary purposes.

Such subjective criteria can never be a fair basis for life and death decisions.
The standards would hardly be subjective. My very loose and rough description of a new system has not gone into the statutory depth that is required in order to have the system live up to due process.

Despite your low opinion of the American legal system, it is mostly very thorough, even when dealing with a minority defendant. The jury is trusted with making only a very limited decision; most of the true legal work is done before hand.

Should there be a poll each time to measure the revulsion whipped up by the popular press?
Nice ad absurdum, but you know I won't take the bait.

It's quite easy to retain our current system of executions that are conducted largely in private and still publicize the events post facto.

[Iscariot]

Suppose the only way to alieviate the threat is to kill that individual?

That would be a very strong argument were it true. My criteria for taking a life is and always has been whether it is necessary. I am not seeing a compelling argument for any advantages to capital punishments over life imprisonment.

Or would you agree that the state can take life, but only in very narrow and limited circumstances?

I agree that the (your) state can take life. There is no disputing that, because it continues to happen. I do not agree that this is a power the state should have. If I did, then I would not be against the death penalty.

So by extension skunk, you would oppose monuments which honor horrible events (ie 9/11, the Vietnam War Memorial, etc) as these things commandeer human frailty just as easily as an execution, despite their exemplary purposes.

There is, of course, a monumental difference between constructing something to honour horrible events, and destroying something to honour horrible events. I refer you to my post #102, in which I outline the flaws with honouring the dead through execution.

Despite your low opinion of the American legal system, it is mostly very thorough, even when dealing with a minority defendant. The jury is trusted with making only a very limited decision; most of the true legal work is done before hand.

Even with the highest confidence in the legal system, it is impossible for it to reach 100% certainty. While your suggestion certainly limits the possibility of a wrongful execution, it still remains a possibility. And once we trod on one mans life, we are all damaged.

[thechidz]

They're all special situations to someone. Every person killed leaves behind friends or family who could make this same argument -- "but THIS TIME it's really special, and we must use the death penalty".

I disagree...

the details of this particular crime are not commonplace (thankfully)

[Iscariot]

the details of this particular crime are not commonplace (thankfully)

Hopefully he won't get a commonplace sentence.

[Gelfin]

All states hold and wield the power to take life. A police officer who exercises deadly force is taking life under color of state authority. When he does, very difficult questions are raised:


Did the officer have reason to believe a killing would prevent an equal or greater harm?
Was that harm absolutely clear and present?
Was a killing the only possible way to prevent that harm?
Was the officer sufficiently diligent in eliminating non-lethal alternatives?
Did the officer's own actions serve to exacerbate and escalate conditions to a point that lethal force became unavoidable?


Very often the answers to those questions are unsatisfying. Many police agencies are notorious for eternally issuing vague public statements about "ongoing investigations," sometimes for years, until members of the public take the hint and give up asking. The application is often problematic, but even so few of us would say that police should be forbidden from ever using lethal force under any circumstances. We understand that exigent circumstances occasionally require extreme responses.

Therefore I propose that in the interests of discussion we forego somewhat dramatic claims to absolute principle. We all admit a few circumstances in which we would permit agents of "society" to take a life on our behalf.

The question is whether any candidate circumstances for exercise of the death penalty can ever meet the criteria of exigency we require of a police officer's exercise of lethal force. When we as members of society, individually and collectively, call for an execution, we incur the burden of subjecting ourselves to the same hard inquiry to which we would subject the police officer:


Does society have an interest so compelling as to justify taking life, and does taking life effectively serve that interest?
Is that interest absolutely clear and present?
Is state-decreed homicide the only action that can possibly serve this interest?
Have we fully investigated alternative ways to satisfy that interest?
In committing this act, are we actually serving the interests of society, or are we using "society" as a glittering rationalization of the uncivilized vengeful impulses from which a formal justice system is meant to save us?


I can admit the hypothetical existence of an exercise of state homicide that meets these standards. I cannot, however, conjure up an example of one. I do not accept that any current application of the death penalty does so, and, while admitting the possible shortcomings of my own imagination, my intuitions leave me highly dubious of the prospect.

[skunk]

Sure you describe it as "uncivilized" because that's what you believe. Why don't you outline what "civilized" is, and then argue why the death penalty violates those ideals.To me, being "civilised" requires the abandonment of cold-blooded murder by the state. I have no argument with killing in self-defence (if Gelfin's criteria are met). What I find repugnant is the gratuitous taking of life when that life is already under the complete control of the state.

Nonsense. My criteria are specific to crimes which threaten the very stability of social order. I have no idea of the criteria you are using. The rape we are nominally discussing certainly does not threaten the stability of social order, and, as I have said before, is not even a capital crime. Are you suggesting adopting an even more arbitrary tariff of punishment than we have at present?

So by extension skunk, you would oppose monuments which honor horrible events (ie 9/11, the Vietnam War Memorial, etc) as these things commandeer human frailty just as easily as an execution, despite their exemplary purposes.They do not commandeer human frailty, they are memorials to suffering and transcendence.

Despite your low opinion of the American legal system, it is mostly very thorough, even when dealing with a minority defendant. The jury is trusted with making only a very limited decision; most of the true legal work is done before hand.One mistake is enough to discredit the whole if one is dealing with execution.

[mactastic]

I disagree...

the details of this particular crime are not commonplace (thankfully)
So if I flog you with a badger, you'll want me executed based on this theory that non-commonplace crimes deserve death? :confused:

Face it, the details of many crimes are not commonplace; and furthermore, many victims or nearby residents will naturally feel that the crime committed against or near them is particularly heinous. It's a natural reaction. Didn't you say you live nearby, and were closely affected by this crime? If so, then it is natural for you to feel that this particular crime is "not commonplace" and something to be treated specially.

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to which portions of this crime are "not commonplace"? The length of the assault? The assertion of power and control over the victim? The repeated infliction of physical pain and torment? The victim's desire to die rather than continue to be assaulted? The attempt by the perpetrator to erase evidence of their misdeeds?

With the exception of the length of the assault, this fits the awful description of many, if not most, stranger-rapes I've heard stories of. And it's a natural reaction to want to beat this man to a bloody pulp. I can easily picture myself breaking every bone in his miserable body were I given the opportunity. But that's an emotional reaction, not a logical reaction. The law is not about emotion, it's about logic. Logic says that if I, or the state, kill this man it won't un-rape this woman. It won't prevent further rapes any more than a life sentence would. It won't even lessen the chance that someone else will commit a similar crime. The only possible benefit is for the victim to see their attacker face death, and while many will desire this out of their emotional reaction as I have described above, there is no evidence to show that such action provides any actual therapeutic benefit; and in fact may be detrimental to bring all the old memories to the surface years after the fact when the sentence is finally carried out. And while that may remain as a debatable benefit, the law is not tasked with the benefit of the individual, but rather of society as a whole. How does the taking of this life benefit society as a whole?

The one response I can understand is that there is no further recidivism; however, if given a choice between attempting to fix the justice system such that it never executes an innocent person and attempting to fix supermax prisons such that no one escapes, the latter challenge is by far the easier of the two.

[thechidz]

So if I flog you with a badger, you'll want me executed based on this theory that non-commonplace crimes deserve death? :confused:
.

you are being facetious and I think it is disrespectful to this woman and the horror she endured.

[thechidz]

The law is not about emotion, it's about logic. Logic says that if I, or the state, kill this man it won't un-rape this woman. It won't prevent further rapes any more than a life sentence would..

wrong. it will absolutely and unequivocally prevent him from comitting another crime. Whereas, a life sentence risks him being released or escaping, and do not try to tell us that wouldn't be possible in our grand, logical justice system:rolleyes:

[skunk]

you are being facetious and I think it is disrespectful to this woman and the horror she endured.

wrong. it will absolutely and unequivocally prevent him from comitting another crime. Whereas, a life sentence risks him being released or escaping, and do not try to tell us that wouldn't be possible in our grand, logical justice system:rolleyes:Oh, bollocks. Rape is NOT A CAPITAL CRIME in NY. End of story. Get over it or change the law. A death sentence is not an option.

[thechidz]

I still consider this to be much more than mere rape. it is not so black and white. Rape with malice and severe emotional distress with the intent to murder. imprisonment, kidnapping, torture etc etc etc.

[MrSmith]

Oh, bollocks. Rape is NOT A CAPITAL CRIME. End of story. Get over it or change the law. A death sentence is not an option.
Regardless of the penalty deserved, surely you regard this as more than 'just' forced sex.

[skunk]

I still consider this to be much more than mere rape. it is not so black and white. Rape with malice and severe emotional distress with the intent to murder. imprisonment, kidnapping, torture etc etc etc.

Regardless of the penalty deserved, surely you regard this as more than 'just' forced sex.Sure. It is, as pointed out above, all kinds of vile things as well as rape. None of them, however, is a capital offence in the USA.

Nor should murder be, for that matter.

[MrSmith]

...None of them, however, is a capital offence in the USA.

Crimes Punishable by the Death Penalty (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=144):

Idaho: aggravated kidnapping
Kentucky: kidnaping with aggravating factors
Montana: aggravated sexual intercourse without consent

[skunk]

Crimes Punishable by the Death Penalty (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=144):

Idaho: aggravated kidnapping
Kentucky: kidnaping with aggravating factors
Montana: aggravated sexual intercourse without consentRight, point taken. I amend my reply to "None of them, however, is a capital offence in the State of New York", though I would point out that nobody in the US has been executed for a crime other than murder since 1964, so the distinction is moot.

[iJohnHenry]

Then the law is an ass, and should be changed.

Again, IMO.



[skunk]

Then the law is an ass, and should be changed.To what purpose? Perhaps you should concentrate on getting the death penalty reintroduced in your own country.

[iJohnHenry]

Now that's funny, truly.

If they would but allow a plebiscite, it would be back tomorrow.

[skunk]

Now that's funny, truly.

If they would but allow a plebiscite, it would be back tomorrow.Oh really? Explain this, then:
http://www.amnesty.ca/deathpenalty/canada.phpTwenty Years of Abolition: the Canadian Experience

Contrary to predictions by death penalty supporters, the homicide rate in Canada did not increase after abolition in 1976. In fact, the Canadian murder rate declined slightly the following year (from 2.8 per 100,000 to 2.7). Over the next 20 years the homicide rate fluctuated (between 2.2 and 2.8 per 100,000), but the general trend was clearly downwards. It reached a 30-year low in 1995 (1.98) -- the fourth consecutive year-to-year decrease and a full one-third lower than in the year before abolition. In 1998, the homicide rate dipped below 1.9 per 100,000, the lowest rate since the 1960s.

The overall conviction rate for first-degree murder doubled in the decade following abolition (from under 10% to approximately 20%), suggesting that Canadian juries are more willing to convict for murder now that they are not compelled to make life-and-death decisions.

All of Canada's national political parties formally oppose the reintroduction of the death penalty, with the exception of the Reform Party which supports a binding national referendum on the issue.

A motion to reintroduce capital punishment was debated in the House of Commons in 1987. On June 30, the motion was soundly defeated on a free vote (148-127), despite public opinion polls indicating majority support for the death penalty.

A national poll conducted in June, 1995 found that 69% of Canadians moderately or strongly favoured the return of the death penalty, exactly the same level of support as 20 years ago. However, other surveys suggest that this abstract support is 'a mile wide and an inch deep'. In 1996, a cross-section of 1500 Canadians were asked to name the major concerns and issues facing the country; not one named reinstatement of the death penalty as a priority. (For comparison, a similar sample in the USA would be 15,000 individuals; polls of this size are considered to be accurate within 2.5 percentage points 95% of the time).

When the motion to reintroduce capital punishment was announced in February of 1987, popular support for reintroduction stood at 73% . By June (when the parliamentary vote was taken), popular support had slipped to an all-time low of 61%, following widespread discussion of death penalty issues in the media.

An opinion poll taken in December of 1998 showed a dramatic and unprecedented increase in the number of Canadians who oppose the death penalty. The survey, conducted less than two weeks after Canadian Stanley Faulder was granted a last-minute stay of execution in Texas, found that 48 per cent of Canadians support the death penalty, 47 per cent are opposed and 6 per cent are unsure. Pollsters attributed the sudden swing against the death penalty to the new wording of the question asked (which used the term "death penalty" rather than "capital punishment") and to publicity surrounding the controversial Faulder case.

Among Canadian religious organizations opposed to the death penalty are: the Anglican Church of Canada, the United Church of Canada, the Canadian Catholic Conference, the Presbyterian Church in Canada, the Baptist Convention of Ontario and Quebec, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, the Canadian Unitarian Council, the Lutheran Church, the Quaker Society of Friends and the Mennonite Central Committee. Many denominations and religious leaders were actively involved in opposing the 1987 reinstatement attempt.

Since abolition, at least 6 Canadian prisoners convicted of first-degree murder have been released on grounds of innocence. Two were incarcerated for more than 10 years before their innocence was established, after wrongful conviction for crimes that would likely have resulted in their execution if Canada had retained the death penalty.

Canadian research on the deterrent effect of punishment has reached the same conclusion as the overwhelming majority of US studies: the death penalty has no special value as a deterrent when compared to other punishments. In fact, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has stated: "It is futile to base an argument for reinstatement on grounds of deterrence".

Under the terms of the Canada/USA extradition treaty, Canada may choose to refuse an extradition request without assurances that US prosecutors will not seek or impose the death penalty. In a number of recent cases, US prosecutors have voluntarily agreed not to seek the death penalty in order to obtain the prompt return of murder suspects.

There are no current measures calling for death penalty reinstatement. The present Canadian government is opposed to the return of capital punishment and has rejected calls for a national referendum on the issue.

[iJohnHenry]

That explains Amnesty view, but does not address the question of the outcome of a plebiscite.

Balance that infomercial with the latest developments in Toronto, Hamilton, Vancouver.

Murder in the streets is getting worst, and no end in sight.

And this with "gun control". Give me a break!!

[skunk]

Why did I not expect you to produce any link or evidence in support of your views? Why did I not think you would even address the substantive points in the article?

[Badandy]

It's pathetic to see people in 2008 still calling for the state sanctioned death of defenseless fellow human beings.

Defenseless?! He could have not tortured a woman for 19 hours!

Absolute cowardice, on a level below even the worst violent crime.

Rethink that, now.

Even if they didn't do it in the first place. From this post on we can take it that Badandy (and everyone else who supports the death penalty in this thread) has 100% confidence in the legal system, and will never be hypocritical and criticise it.

Try to read my comment in context. Thanks.

What you're really trying to say here is that you've no confidence in the legal system and medical profession to distinguish actual mental illness from feigned.

In my opinion, people who commit murder are crazy, and are mentally ill. Maybe you can't diagnose some of them, but many of them that you might consider not-ill surely have extreme reactions in the face of jealousy and betrayal. Just because extreme, illogical reactions to age-old emotions don't have fancy medical names doesn't mean they're any less indicative of the mental (un)health of the perpetrator.

[themadchemist]

Nonsense. My criteria are specific to crimes which threaten the very stability of social order.


Ah, yes, the "social order." You know what really threatens the social order? Civil disobedience, political agitation, critique of the government, attempts to change the definition or power balances in "families," atheism, socialism, technology (like this damned internet!), etc.

Murder doesn't violate the social order--not even mass murder. Terrorist actions are horrific, and should be swiftly punished, but because of their staggering destruction of life and property, not because of their effects on the social order. Look at the exceptional level of generosity and humanity people show after disasters--no, indeed, crime usually makes people behave better and reinforces the current social order, as those thrown into flux look for ways to reconnect with tradition.

If your goal in putting people to death is to keep the social order intact, you need to go after civil society: Only by crushing the pursuit of expanded rights, changed priorities, and new paradigms of community organization and empowerment, can you keep the frigid social order intact.

Or, if you believe, as I do, in expanded rights; priorities that keep up with an inevitably changing society; technology and innovation; and, above all, people's rights to express themselves, their beliefs, and their grievances in a manner of their choosing, then maybe you should shelve this "social order" business...Hoorah for Schumpeterian creative destruction!

[skunk]

Defenseless?! Yes, defenceless, when in the custody of the State.

Rethink that, now.Not necessary, because it is true.

Try to read my comment in context. Thanks.I saw the same thing. If that is not what you meant, perhaps your context was at fault.

In my opinion, people who commit murder are crazy, and are mentally ill.In that case, none of them should be executed, but they should all receive therapeutic treatment instead.

But I'm afraid you are terribly mistaken. Outwardly sane people like you and are capable of committing the most dreadful crimes. Criminals are not "other people".

[skunk]

Ah, yes, the "social order." You know what really threatens the social order? Civil disobedience, political agitation, critique of the government, attempts to change the definition or power balances in "families," atheism, socialism, technology (like this damned internet!), etc.You forgot the most destabilising thing of all: that "homosexual agenda" those bloody gays are trying to subvert our children with.

[Iscariot]

That explains Amnesty view, but does not address the question of the outcome of a plebiscite.

Balance that infomercial with the latest developments in Toronto, Hamilton, Vancouver.

Murder in the streets is getting worst, and no end in sight.

And this with "gun control". Give me a break!!

Once again, you are pulling "facts" completely out of thin air. Perhaps you need a refresher about the rules of the PRSI forum:

II. Be willing to engage in fact-based debate

Provide links or other form of citation to corroborate claims; uncited claims will be considered opinion/hearsay
Repetition of opinion/hearsay as the factual basis for an argument will fall under the heading of "trolling"


Oh, and for the record:

The Conservative government found that just one in five Canadians supported the death penalty as a criminal deterrent in a survey it commissioned this summer in support of its justice policies.

Additionally, Statscan released a report that crime was at it's lowest point in 25 years in 2007.

Toronto, crime is down across the board. Shootings are down nearly 30 per cent.

[MrSmith]

Well here's the most interesting thing I've learnt in this discussion: 101% of Canadians have the power of thought:

found that 48 per cent of Canadians support the death penalty, 47 per cent are opposed and 6 per cent are unsure.

[Iscariot]

Well here's the most interesting thing I've learnt in this discussion: 101% of Canadians have the power of thought:

1% margin of error. Also, wasn't that in 1995, if I remember my polls correctly? IIRC, the Conservative Party of Canada's poll in 2007 is the most up to date.

[MrSmith]

1% margin of error.The margin of error is a mathematical calculation that cannot be determined from the extrapolated result. And in any case, the final figures still need to add up to make any sense. On the other hand, if you were just joking then I can loosen up. :cool:

[Iscariot]

The margin of error is a mathematical calculation that cannot be determined from the extrapolated result. And in any case, the final figures still need to add up to make any sense. On the other hand, if you were just joking then I can loosen up. :cool:

I was joking :p

[CalBoy]

That would be a very strong argument were it true.

So you agree with the principle, but you don't agree with when it can be carried out.

In a manner of speaking, we agree on the product, now we're just haggling over the price. ;)

I agree that the (your) state can take life. There is no disputing that, because it continues to happen. I do not agree that this is a power the state should have. If I did, then I would not be against the death penalty.

I am still talking about whether or not the state should have the power as well. I just use the affirmative because I'm a lazy writer. :p

There is, of course, a monumental difference between constructing something to honour horrible events, and destroying something to honour horrible events. I refer you to my post #102, in which I outline the flaws with honouring the dead through execution.

Granted there is a difference, but I don't quite agree that the dead cannot be honored through execution.

And, I note that one of your objections to this is that the dead or their families might not want to have been honored in such a way. To this I point out that we don't allow the victims and their families to dictate justice, so why should we allow them to direct how society honors its losses?

As for the other comment, I wouldn't dare say that the death penalty produces deterrence. That's long been proven false and I know better than to believe that.

The execution would be purely symbolic, and it would behoove you to not underestimate the power of symbols in society and for individuals; we rely upon them as much in life as we do in death.

Even with the highest confidence in the legal system, it is impossible for it to reach 100% certainty. While your suggestion certainly limits the possibility of a wrongful execution, it still remains a possibility. And once we trod on one mans life, we are all damaged.
Not exactly. I would possibly add video footage as part of the evidentiary requirement.

I don't think that would leave any room for doubt.

Therefore I propose that in the interests of discussion we forego somewhat dramatic claims to absolute principle. We all admit a few circumstances in which we would permit agents of "society" to take a life on our behalf.

But I think that is the key to understanding that the issue isn't whether the state should have the power, but when.

Once we enter that arena, the ability to make character assassinations (ie "uncivilized") becomes harder and we're forced to evaluate the matter from a purely moral perspective.

I can admit the hypothetical existence of an exercise of state homicide that meets these standards. I cannot, however, conjure up an example of one.
Which means, you would say (as I do) that the current roster of death row inmates should not be executed.

What you cannot say for certain, however, is if you would be willing to not execute any future criminal because:

I do not accept that any current application of the death penalty does so, and, while admitting the possible shortcomings of my own imagination, my intuitions leave me highly dubious of the prospect.
You might not ever believe something would fit your hypothetical criteria, but the fact remains that it's possible.

In that view, society should not end all executions, but rather the vast, vast majority of them. Those few that from time to time would fit the mold would be carried out.
To me, being "civilised" requires the abandonment of cold-blooded murder by the state. I have no argument with killing in self-defence (if Gelfin's criteria are met). What I find repugnant is the gratuitous taking of life when that life is already under the complete control of the state.

In other words, there is not a single "civilized" nation on earth, nor has there ever been. Let's be honest here and admit that your use of the word "civilized" is to attach a value judgement.

Quite simply skunk, I don't agree with your definition of "civilized." To me, a civilized person or society does the following:


Uses reason over emotion when making decisions.
Seeks to minimize pain and suffering wherever possible
Seeks to develop a sense of equality for those around it (or for the members of society in a societal sense).

I have no idea of the criteria you are using.
I've outlined my criteria in previous posts. They are rather straight forward, although I am more than willing to amend them if you make a constructive criticism about them.

The rape we are nominally discussing certainly does not threaten the stability of social order, and, as I have said before, is not even a capital crime. Are you suggesting adopting an even more arbitrary tariff of punishment than we have at present?

Read my posts again skunk. I do not, nor have I ever, supported the killing of this man, especially since his was not a capital crime.

Nor do I support the death penalty as it is used in the current American system. I only support the death penalty in a theoretical sense that would closely mirror what I laid out in my first post (mind you that isn't a complete list of criteria or considerations, but it is a basic outline).

If you were to put the proposition before me today of suspending or continuing American executions as they are now, I would vote unquestionably to suspend.


One mistake is enough to discredit the whole if one is dealing with execution.

Not at all. Are you discredited for making a single mistake? Is a doctor stripped of his license for a single misprognosis? Is a lawyer disbarred for losing a single case?

If someone is wrongly prosecuted to death (which under my system would be thoroughly impossible-it would see to that), that speaks to a vulnerability in the process, not in the outcome.

Ah, yes, the "social order." You know what really threatens the social order? Civil disobedience, political agitation, critique of the government, attempts to change the definition or power balances in "families," atheism, socialism, technology (like this damned internet!), etc.

I know you're being sarcastic, but even you won't try to deny that Timothy McVeigh did indeed attempt to disrupt the social order; his manifesto was to take down the Federal government.

Civil disobedience, political dissent, etc, never challenge the very foundations of society; they merely seek to change how society thinks.

If, like me, you seek to broaden voices, opportunities, rights, and access to equality, you would not have made such a baseless and frankly poorly thought out sarcastic comment.

Without social order, even the best of minds and freedoms would be paralyzed. A social order is necessary in order to guarantee the freedoms that would liberate the oppressed and inform the ignorant.

No matter what you'd like to believe, the social order is necessary for positive change, and instances of mass murder/terrorism can and do shake the stability of that order, because they drive people to feel insecure in it. Any free and functioning society needs trust; every terrorist attack, mass murderer, etc, shakes that confidence and damages it irreversibly (eg, how do you feel flying on a plane now?).

[Iscariot]

So you agree with the principle, but you don't agree with when it can be carried out.

In a manner of speaking, we agree on the product, now we're just haggling over the price. ;)

No, that's not what I meant. The important parts of that sentence were "would be" and "if it were true". But since it isn't true, it isn't a compelling argument. I laid out my criteria for a compelling argument, and I simply don't see it being met.

I am still talking about whether or not the state should have the power as well. I just use the affirmative because I'm a lazy writer. :p

Then no, I do not believe that it should.

And, I note that one of your objections to this is that the dead or their families might not want to have been honored in such a way. To this I point out that we don't allow the victims and their families to dictate justice, so why should we allow them to direct how society honors its losses?

Because it's NOT society's loss? How would you feel if something you were dramatically opposed to was carried out in the name of your grief?

The execution would be purely symbolic, and it would behoove you to not underestimate the power of symbols in society and for individuals; we rely upon them as much in life as we do in death.

I don't underestimate the power of a symbol in society. I'm sure there are many despots all over the world who would agree with you about the symbolic power of execution. Interestingly, there are far fewer first world nations that would similarly agree. In many cultures, one of the most powerful symbols is to insult the dead.


What you cannot say for certain, however, is if you would be willing to not execute any future criminal because:

You might not ever believe something would fit your hypothetical criteria, but the fact remains that it's possible.

No, I can say that for certain. I can say it with 100% certainty. If we cannot hold ourselves to the very ideals we claim to uphold, then we have lost. No symbolic gesture, no retribution of trespass, is worth giving up that which makes us who we are, Calboy.

[CalBoy]

No, that's not what I meant. The important parts of that sentence were "would be" and "if it were true". But since it isn't true, it isn't a compelling argument. I laid out my criteria for a compelling argument, and I simply don't see it being met.

Well I'll settle for that, just as you'll have to settle for the fact that I haven't yet been fully convinced that the state should not have the power to execute.

Because it's NOT society's loss? How would you feel if something you were dramatically opposed to was carried out in the name of your grief?

Who said anything about doing the execution in the name of the victim?

A single person can have more than one griever, and they don't always see eye to eye. In this case, society can choose to grieve how it wants, and the family can choose to grieve how it wants. No one is forcing or compelling the victim's family to watch, participate in, or support the execution.

I'm sure there are many despots all over the world who would agree with you about the symbolic power of execution. Interestingly, there are far fewer first world nations that would similarly agree.
Nice guilt by association there. ;)

Just because some despots like symbolic death doesn't make all symbolic death bad.

And let's be clear that among developed nations, the status of the death penalty is nearly evenly divided, with Western Europe and Her Majesty's dominions on one side and the US, Korea, and Japan on the other side.

By population and geographic spread, the status of abolition has but a slight advantage; the debate is not nearly as one sided as you'd lead us to believe.

No, I can say that for certain. I can say it with 100% certainty.
Of course you are not Gelfin. ;)

If we cannot hold ourselves to the very ideals we claim to uphold, then we have lost.
As of yet, I don't recall upholding that ideal.
You uphold that idea, and so for you abolition fits. For me it does not. I hold myself to the ideals that are important to me, and I never betray them, and that makes me what I am Iscariot.

Now, because I don't want to continue this seemingly endless discussion, I'd be happy to read anything you'll PM me. If there's one thing I am, it is open minded. If you can send me an article, story, whatever that would convince me to stand for abolition, I would be more than happy to read it with an open mind. Perhaps it will strike a chord with me that you wouldn't know about. :)

[Iscariot]

Who said anything about doing the execution in the name of the victim?

"Honour the victims" was a part of your symbolism, no?

Nice guilt by association there. ;)

It's not guilt by association, it's a demonstration of how easily and readily this kind of symbolism can be co-opted or alternatively interpretted. Much more difficult to do with LIWP or a stone monument.

And let's be clear that among developed nations, the status of the death penalty is nearly evenly divided, with Western Europe and Her Majesty's dominions on one side and the US, Korea, and Japan on the other side. By population and geographic spread, the status of abolition has but a slight advantage; the debate is not nearly as one sided as you'd lead us to believe.


The division is not equal, and the abolition of capital punishment is the clear frontrunner by a not inconsiderable margin. Retentative nations death are also being more and more restrained in their application, with nearly one third of retentionist countries having not executed anyone in ten or more years. Also, swap Korea on your list for Taiwan, IIRC. My comments have been in no way misleading or exaggerative.

Of course you are not Gelfin. ;)

Alas, nobody but Gelfin can be Gelfin, no matter how hard we try. I fear, Calboy, that he is the only Gelfin that will ever grace our ranks.

Now, because I don't want to continue this seemingly endless discussion, I'd be happy to read anything you'll PM me. If there's one thing I am, it is open minded. If you can send me an article, story, whatever that would convince me to stand for abolition, I would be more than happy to read it with an open mind. Perhaps it will strike a chord with me that you wouldn't know about. :)

I will send you something, but not with the intention to sway, but perhaps you will come to a greater understanding of my position.

[CalBoy]

"Honour the victims" was a part of your symbolism, no?

Yes, but that isn't the same thing as doing something "in the name of" that particular thing/person.

It's not guilt by association, it's a demonstration of how easily and readily this kind of symbolism can be co-opted or alternatively interpretted.

Well the fact remains that democracies survive and dictators fall even when there is strong symbolism and the death penalty. What you are really trying to do is attempting to make a jab with this comment, but it doesn't logically hold up, not to mention the fact that it is largely (in fact completely irrelevant) to our discussion.

Let's not mince words and admit that what you're saying is that this type of symbolism should be shunned because others have used it for evil; that is a pure guild by association fallacy and you know it.

The division is not equal, and the abolition of capital punishment is the clear frontrunner by a not inconsiderable margin.
I don't contest that abolition leads amongst economically advanced democracies, but it is hardly a wipe out. The populations at contrast are likely ~600 million for abolition and ~ 450 million against.

If we expand to the rest of the world, we find that abolition is but the dream of Western European democracies composed primarily of whites.

But again this is irrelevant to the morality of the action, which is what we are supposed to be discussing.

Stop getting us off topic! :eek:;):p

Retentative nations death are also being more and more restrained in their application, with nearly one third of retentionist countries having not executed anyone in ten or more years.
Yes, they are moving towards a model very close to mine, where statutorily the penalty is still "on the books" but it is practiced very rarely.

Also, swap Korea on your list for Taiwan, IIRC.
No, South Korea retains the death penalty, though its President has refused to allow current death row inmates to be executed. It is a moratorium, but it is largely dependent upon political strength. Once he or his party leave office, it could return (albeit in a diminished form).

[themadchemist]

I know you're being sarcastic, but even you won't try to deny that Timothy McVeigh did indeed attempt to disrupt the social order; his manifesto was to take down the Federal government.


The question here is not whether Timothy McVeigh was trying to disrupt the social order; the question is whether his execution was justified on that basis alone, and whether an attempt to disrupt the "social order" is sufficient grounds for execution.


Civil disobedience, political dissent, etc, never challenge the very foundations of society; they merely seek to change how society thinks.


If civil disobedience challenged the "very foundations of society" (whatever that means), would it then be justified to punish that disobedience with death?

When Gandhi and the Congress Party led the Indian freedom struggle, they massively disrupted the social order in pretty much every conceivable way. One aspect of the social order was that the Brits ran the show; they pretty well disrupted that. They boycotted public transportation across the country, disrupting urban life in general. They rejected British imports, demanding a complete reordering of the economics of the colony. The emphasis on self-sufficiency was a dramatic reassessment of India's national priorities. The subsequent rejection of the caste system was an indictment on a millennia-old social structure.

The Indian freedom fighters dramatically changed India, so far as, in the end, to agree to the complete changing of its borders. There was grand upheaval over it, too.

For these changes and reforms, did these folks deserve death? On the basis of your argument, this kind of rejection of the status quo social order ought to be punishable by execution. Alas, for Gandhi at least, I suppose it was.

In the United States, slavery was an integral part of society: Socially, economically, politically. It was so central that the framers of the Constitution decided to contradict the very words of their Declaration of Independence in order, specifically, to avert abolition. The abolition of slavery, then, was an attack on a fundamental aspect of American society. So were the movements of women's suffrage, civil rights, and feminism. They all caused huge changes in American society.

If your justification is the preservation of the social order, the greatest threats to the social order (very foundations of society, if you will) have been from movements that have attempted to expand rights for those who do not have them. These constitute the greatest shifts in social order and can be counted as key in numerous wars, purges, and revolutions throughout history. The viciousness of the backlash against these movements is precisely because they threaten the social order. It is precisely because they attack the very foundations of society. Indeed, many non-violent movements for expanded rights have retribution from the government equal to or greater than that of some armed-resistance groups. Perhaps it's because they have more staying power and more effect. Who knows--but groups of people agitating for change, however they agitate for it, are really shaking the foundations of our society. And they ought to, because society, frequently, needs to change, fundamentally. I think that recognizing the basic rights of humanity and citizenship of everyone was revolutionary--these ideas of equality had not really been put into practice in much of the world, until the 1900s; I can't say that there are many more things more disruptive to the status quo. Certainly, those things changed society a whole lot more than Timothy McVeigh ever could hope to by blowing up a building.


If, like me, you seek to broaden voices, opportunities, rights, and access to equality, you would not have made such a baseless and frankly poorly thought out sarcastic comment.


It was only sarcastic so far as I don't think that we should kill any of those people. If you don't either, then I'm glad, but you need to make your arguments a bit more precise.


Without social order, even the best of minds and freedoms would be paralyzed. A social order is necessary in order to guarantee the freedoms that would liberate the oppressed and inform the ignorant.


This is probably all semantic, but I'm going to harangue on it because you responded to my critique with equally lose words ("very foundations of society"). The problem here is that if you want to set out a defensible position for capital punishment, you need to be precise.

I would like you to explain specifically how these did not change the "very foundations" of American society. If you can't do so specifically, then your lose wording creates an ethical imperative (even obligation?) to execute a whole lot more people than you might have thought. It's troubling, because it isn't new, and this obsession with The Social Order has cost us all dearly.


No matter what you'd like to believe, the social order is necessary for positive change, and instances of mass murder/terrorism can and do shake the stability of that order, because they drive people to feel insecure in it. Any free and functioning society needs trust; every terrorist attack, mass murderer, etc, shakes that confidence and damages it irreversibly (eg, how do you feel flying on a plane now?).

For one final repetition: I am not saying that terrorists don't try to change the social order; I am asking whether a blanket statement about the social order is the right justification for execution. The social order can change dramatically for the better or the worse. It's been our luck that the biggest changes have been for the better. I don't understand how the end of slavery, universal suffrage, the Civil Rights Act, the independence of India and the creation of the world's largest democracy, perestroika, etc., etc., etc., are not more fundamental changes to society than one's relative discomfort about flying in a plane. Slavery ended. In America, at least, everyone can vote. Civil rights here are protected. India is independent, the Soviet Union fell, and society changed. Fundamentally. The social order? We rewrote it.

As far as traveling by plane, it looks like people still do that. I, for one, do it all the time.

[Iscariot]

Well the fact remains that democracies survive and dictators fall even when there is strong symbolism and the death penalty. What you are really trying to do is attempting to make a jab with this comment, but it doesn't logically hold up, not to mention the fact that it is largely (in fact completely irrelevant) to our discussion.

I'm not suggesting that capital punishment is a bane on society that will cause it to collapse.

Let's not mince words and admit that what you're saying is that this type of symbolism should be shunned because others have used it for evil; that is a pure guild by association fallacy and you know it.

No. What I am saying is that you cannot redefine the symobilism of capital punishment so readily and easily because it has such strong pre-existing connotations. Important distinction.

I don't contest that abolition leads amongst economically advanced democracies, but it is hardly a wipe out. The populations at contrast are likely ~600 million for abolition and ~ 450 million against.

Then we agree. I never claimed it was a wipe out. I see your accusation of guilt by association and raise you a straw man.

Yes, they are moving towards a model very close to mine, where statutorily the penalty is still "on the books" but it is practiced very rarely.

I would say historical precidence more agrees with the idea that a temporary moratorium typically leads to complete abolition or complete reinstatement. Is there any nation on Earth that practices the model you suggest, complete with stance on symbolism?

No, South Korea retains the death penalty, though its President has refused to allow current death row inmates to be executed. It is a moratorium, but it is largely dependent upon political strength. Once he or his party leave office, it could return (albeit in a diminished form).

You say potato, I say potahto. Ten years of disuse falls into the criteria I listed in that paragraph.

[CalBoy]

If civil disobedience challenged the "very foundations of society" (whatever that means), would it then be justified to punish that disobedience with death?

Civil disobedience by definition can never challenge the foundations of society, because true civil disobedience plays by the rules (ie, Rosa Parks, Ghandi, MLK were all willing to go to prison and pay the price for their dissension, and their actions were intentionally non-violent).

<Ghandi and India stuff>

The key to that change was that it worked within the existing framework of rules (many, many followers sat in jail, including Ghandi), and that in order to initiate change, the movement looked for formal recognition. Ghandi and his followers used the social order for positive change, rather than to change the social order by negative action.

For these changes and reforms, did these folks deserve death? On the basis of your argument, this kind of rejection of the status quo social order ought to be punishable by execution. Alas, for Gandhi at least, I suppose it was.

I think I answered this clearly enough. I would clearly not advocate the execution of a movement that was willing to work peacefully and within the formal structure when necessary.

<slavery, feminism, civil rights>

Again, it was done by the book and through a peaceful means which sought to preserve and extend the social order, not overthrow it.

Certainly, those things changed society a whole lot more than Timothy McVeigh ever could hope to by blowing up a building.

Did McVeigh have a chance at causing such profound change? No, not at all.

Did McVeigh think he had a chance of causing such profound change? Absolutely.

His position is no different from Osama bin Laden's: the building is merely an act which gets media attention and causes some bloodshed. The building is stepping stone to other greater and more destructive actions.

As far as traveling by plane, it looks like people still do that. I, for one, do it all the time.
Yes, but how do you feel about it?

No. What I am saying is that you cannot redefine the symobilism of capital punishment so readily and easily because it has such strong pre-existing connotations. Important distinction.

Ahh, that's entirely different.

And I actually agree with you. My plan is not entirely feasible; it exists mostly in a theoretical sense.

Then we agree. I never claimed it was a wipe out. I see your accusation of guilt by association and raise you a straw man.

Only if you promise to ad hominem me later. ;):D

I would say historical precidence more agrees with the idea that a temporary moratorium typically leads to complete abolition or complete reinstatement. Is there any nation on Earth that practices the model you suggest, complete with stance on symbolism?

Alas, no. I cannot think of one that uses my symbolism model. Heck, I don't think I've met another person who uses my symbolism model. :p

You say potato, I say potahto. Ten years of disuse falls into the criteria I listed in that paragraph.

Meh, I think it's really 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.

Sometimes the formal act of abolition is really what's important, because it marks a time when the majority (or close to it) no longer want to see their country use capital punishment. For the moment, Korea is held hostage by an enlightened leader; I wouldn't call that societal growth of the same caliber as other nations which have abolished the death penalty.

[themadchemist]

Civil disobedience by definition can never challenge the foundations of society, because true civil disobedience plays by the rules (ie, Rosa Parks, Ghandi, MLK were all willing to go to prison and pay the price for their dissension, and their actions were intentionally non-violent).


I still don't know what the foundations of society are, in your mind. And what are the rules? These folks obviously broke the law (that's why they went to jail).


The key to that change was that it worked within the existing framework of rules (many, many followers sat in jail, including Ghandi), and that in order to initiate change, the movement looked for formal recognition. Ghandi and his followers used the social order for positive change, rather than to change the social order by negative action.


But how are you defining that framework? I'd say that the social structure, in which non-Europeans were colonized or minorities were suppressed, was a far more dominant paradigm than some "rules" about civil disobedience. Again, judging by the response, the groups in power obviously thought that all of these actors were threatening the social order and violating the spoken and unspoken rules of society.


I think I answered this clearly enough. I would clearly not advocate the execution of a movement that was willing to work peacefully and within the formal structure when necessary.

Again, it was done by the book and through a peaceful means which sought to preserve and extend the social order, not overthrow it.


What book? They wrote the book and were reviled by the powers that be for doing it. The formal structure you describe was inextricably bound to the structures these reformers challenged. Where is the line between their following of certain societal rules and their rejection of others? That's the line I'd like you to draw.


Did McVeigh have a chance at causing such profound change? No, not at all.

Did McVeigh think he had a chance of causing such profound change? Absolutely.


Again, I'm not denying that he could have caused change. I'm just saying that when you draw the line based on change in social order, you're including a whole lot of people who had way more impact--except in a positive way (from our reading of history--by no means a universal).


His position is no different from Osama bin Laden's: the building is merely an act which gets media attention and causes some bloodshed. The building is stepping stone to other greater and more destructive actions.


So then your problem with bin Laden is not so much the violence as its place as a "stepping stone" to larger social change. If so, then we're back to our first problem. The methods by which the change are achieved are less devastating or important than the change itself. In that case, you end up lumping bin Laden with a lot of positive change-makers. The distinction you draw between bin Laden and these positive change-makers is based on their methods. But that means, then, that the social change is irrelevant to the judgment, because you make no attempt to characterize some change as good and some change as bad. That means that, as earlier in your post, your problem is with the methods, then any mass murderer, without respect to his intent for the social order, should be treated equally. And if you need to do both, then that's fine, but you still need to explain what this change in the social order constitutes.


Yes, but how do you feel about it?


Pretty much the same as I always have: I love it.

[atszyman]

Well here's the most interesting thing I've learnt in this discussion: 101% of Canadians have the power of thought:

The margin of error is a mathematical calculation that cannot be determined from the extrapolated result. And in any case, the final figures still need to add up to make any sense. On the other hand, if you were just joking then I can loosen up. :cool:

Simple rounding error.

47.51%+46.51%+5.51% = 99.53% yet when rounded they add up to 101%.

Admittedly when putting it into print it's probably not a bad idea to make sure that the rounding error doesn't add up this badly but it's understandable.

[MrSmith]

Complex analysis was a challenge. Rounding I got early on. ;):D

[mactastic]

you are being facetious and I think it is disrespectful to this woman and the horror she endured.
Simply pointing out the flaw in your logic...

wrong. it will absolutely and unequivocally prevent him from comitting another crime. Whereas, a life sentence risks him being released or escaping, and do not try to tell us that wouldn't be possible in our grand, logical justice system:rolleyes:
And pray tell, why is his risk of escape from death row zero? If jails are fallible, surely they are fallible all the time?

I still consider this to be much more than mere rape. it is not so black and white. Rape with malice and severe emotional distress with the intent to murder. imprisonment, kidnapping, torture etc etc etc.
These are the same criteria you find in many, if not most, stranger-rapes. Of course, I made this point already and you've ignored it once, so I doubt you'll pay any more attention this time 'round.

How can you rape someone without holding them against their will (ie imprisoning, kidnapping)? Riddle me that, sir. And speaking as someone who knows more than one rape or attempted rape victim, severe emotional distress is par for the course. Show me a rape victim who shrugged it off and said "meh... it wasn't THAT bad". :rolleyes:

[Gelfin]

But I think that is the key to understanding that the issue isn't whether the state should have the power, but when.

Once we enter that arena, the ability to make character assassinations (ie "uncivilized") becomes harder and we're forced to evaluate the matter from a purely moral perspective.

On this point we agree so totally that I am a little confused why you would start that reply with the word "but." Nailing one's own feet to the floor is never a good way to begin a discussion of anything. One always pays closer attention to the great big bloody spikes sticking out of his feet than anything else going on around him.

It is indeed too easy to use hand-waving allusions to grand concepts such as "civilization" and "society" to make points we find difficult to make in more grounded terms. I did try to avoid it, but it does appear one such reference sneaked in through the back door, so I suppose I am obliged to explain what I mean by it. I certainly did not mean to suggest that every application of the death penalty is necessarily uncivilized, and if it seemed I was going for the jugular and implying you were particularly uncivilized for suggesting it, then I was doubly unclear.

While I don't mean to condemn you personally, I do mean to condemn us, humans, to a certain extent. Left to our own devices, our notions of justice are capricious, vengeful, petty, prejudiced and irrational. Individually we inflate acts of reciprocity into acts of domination, collectively we apportion out tiny slivers of moral culpability by forming mobs, and may god have mercy on you all when my orbital death cannon becomes operational. Instinctive human justice is frequently a hideous thing to behold.

We invented civilization to save ourselves from the ruination that grows from those impulses, but the impulses remain, and it proves fairly easy to subvert the institutions of civilization against its own purposes. We dress up our prejudice in the clothes of rationality and righteousness and hope no one notices. Thus anytime we begin speaking of using the framework of society to visit harm upon someone, we must view our own motives with suspicion. Ultimate harm demands deepest suspicion, and utterly irreproachable criteria for its application. We must particularly eliminate the spectre of our own satisfaction at seeing someone we hate suffer, or the whole exercise is tainted.

In other applications of justifiable homicide, we attend scrupulously to a standard of immediate, unavoidable necessity. Delayed or speculative necessity is not acceptable, much less sufficiency or expediency. That is the bar by which we judge taking of a life. If you wish The People to be held to a lower ethical standard just people, then we need to step back and have that discussion first, because I hold that to be the essential nature of mob rule.

Which means, you would say (as I do) that the current roster of death row inmates should not be executed.

Agreed.

What you cannot say for certain, however, is if you would be willing to not execute any future criminal because:

You might not ever believe something would fit your hypothetical criteria, but the fact remains that it's possible.

I also concede that I cannot disprove the existence of such a thing as a god, but I don't think it is my job to do so. Tell me what sorts of people you want to kill and we can talk about why. I do not think you have sufficiently supported the necessity of a "symbolic, exemplary" execution, however infrequently.

Define for me the class of candidates for this treatment. In doing so, keep in mind the possible 8th Amendment consequences, since I am fairly sure that the threat of a government with an inclination to "make examples" of certain prisoners was firmly in the framers' minds at the time.

In that view, society should not end all executions, but rather the vast, vast majority of them. Those few that from time to time would fit the mold would be carried out.

I agree so long as we define "the vast, vast majority" to mean "all" until such time as we can concretely define an application.

Really, I see the two of us as being very close together on this, with substantial overlap.

You seem to be trying very hard to justify this hypothetical case, but without any abstract example we could actually put into law in the form of "if you do X under Y circumstances, we will be obliged to kill you." I think we need that rubber on the road to make any headway on your end.

On the other side of that fine line, I accept the hypothetical case, but I'm not going to go out of my way to actualize it. Instead we can establish metacriteria such that, should a candidate ever reveal itself, we know what a good argument in its favor would look like. In the meantime, that hypothetical should in no way compel us to talk as if we support "The Death Penalty" in general while simultaneously finding ourselves unable to support any known application of it.

[italiano40]

This is a horrible crime that should be instant death

[skunk]

This is a horrible crime that should be instant deathI find your reasoning somewhat lacking.

[mactastic]

This is a horrible crime that should be instant death
How instant? Pre-trial? Just post-rape? Five minute head start?

In any case, this is just another emo response.

[iJohnHenry]

??? Emo's are people that only care about themselves. Why this tag for caring individuals that identify with the victim??

As usual, skunk would prefer to enter into a dialogue of right vs. wrong, good vs. evil, etc.

Intellectual imperatives will have little to do with dissuading those looking for a better World.

[.Andy]

??? Emo's are people that only care about themselves.
Not to put words in his mouth but by emo I'm pretty sure that Mactastic meant emotive/emotional rather than referring to pop culture teenage fashion.

Why this tag for caring individuals that identify with the victim?
Circumventing the legal system and vigilante murder isn't a way to identify with or care for anyone.

The most respect that can be paid any victim is through a full and fair trial, eliciting exactly what happened and who was involved so the true perpetrator(s) are bought to justice and punished for exactly what they did, no more no less.

[iJohnHenry]

I am on-board for everything you say, BUT there needs to be a change to the judicial system to recognise crimes of shear terror for it's own sake.

Rape is a crime of control, not a sexual one.

If you alter someone's chance at a "normal" life, then, in my opinion, your life should be forfeit.

[.Andy]

BUT there needs to be a change to the judicial system to recognise crimes of shear terror for it's own sake.
Are these crimes carried out by frightening shearers?

If you alter someone's chance at a "normal" life, then, in my opinion, your life should be forfeit.
So death to everyone that alters anyone's chance at a normal life? Or are you making special case for rape here? What about kidnapping? Physical abuse? Sending people to war? Religious indoctrination of kids? Not carrying out pre-implantation genetic screening on embryos to ensure you child doesn't have cystic fibrosis?

[iJohnHenry]

Are these crimes carried out by frightening shearers?

Classy.


So death to everyone that alters anyone's chance at a normal life? Or are you making special case for rape here? What about kidnapping? Physical abuse? Sending people to war? Religious indoctrination of kids? Not carrying out pre-implantation genetic screening on embryos to ensure you child doesn't have cystic fibrosis?

So, CF is equal to what happened to this poor girl??

Very weak. (Notice, not week.)

[Iscariot]

This is a horrible crime that should be instant death

Is that like instant coffee, and comes in a powdered form? Because even with instant coffee I still have to warm up some water. Couldn't we work and exothermic chemical reaction in there somewhere?

Intellectual imperatives will have little to do with dissuading those looking for a better World.

Lawl. Forget talking things through and thinking them out logically, let's skip down to our skivvies and eat each other alive. I'm on board.

[.Andy]

So, CF is equal to what happened to this poor girl??

Very weak. (Notice, not week.)

If that's what you got out of my post you seriously need to work on your reading and comprehension skills. I'll post it again for you;

If you alter someone's chance at a "normal" life, then, in my opinion, your life should be forfeit.
So death to everyone that alters anyone's chance at a normal life? Or are you making special case for rape here? What about kidnapping? Physical abuse? Sending people to war? Religious indoctrination of kids? Not carrying out pre-implantation genetic screening on embryos to ensure you child doesn't have cystic fibrosis?

[Iscariot]

If that's what you got out of my post you seriously need to work on your reading and comprehension skills.

I think he'd rather state facts with no links and then call you a silly name, Martha.

[.Andy]

I think he'd rather state facts with no links and then call you a silly name, Martha.
I like it :)! Can a mod please change my username to Martha? (Serious)

[Iscariot]

I like it :)! Can a mod please change my username to Martha? Seriously?

Does it cut, .Andy? Does it burnses yous? Only now do you see the gleaming razor's edge of my wit, sharpened on the bones of the dead. Give in to your hatred, Martha. Take your weapon and strike me down! Only then can I truly become one with the darkness.

[.Andy]

Does it cut, .Andy? Does it burnses yous? Only now do you see the gleaming razor's edge of my wit, sharpened on the bones of the dead. Give in to your hatred, Martha. Take your weapon and strike me down! Only then can I truly become one with the darkness.
On the contrary Iscariot! I've often wished to express my feminine side without harassment. This moniker is my ticket to online freedom as a young lady!

*makes myspace page*

[CalBoy]

On this point...
I don't think I have a point of contention with any thing in that post.

I suppose your model does make more sense (don't worry about finding a violator who suits a model, allow him/her to come forth on their own and then we can make a decision).

As a legalistic mind, however, I usually prefer to have the rules laid out ahead of time, and that's why I'm obsessed with knowing who wouldn't qualify before hand. :o

[Gelfin]

I suppose your model does make more sense (don't worry about finding a violator who suits a model, allow him/her to come forth on their own and then we can make a decision).

As a legalistic mind, however, I usually prefer to have the rules laid out ahead of time, and that's why I'm obsessed with knowing who wouldn't qualify before hand. :o

Oh, I'm fine with not waiting for a violator to appear. In fact, I much prefer it if we sort these things out long before we find ourselves having to untangle our moral outrage from our rational view of society's interests.

We just need specific examples of the sorts of crimes that could possibly count. I can describe the conditions under which I'd let an individual legally get away with killing someone. Until we can come up with a similar set of conditions for the state, I'm quite content to go on as if there is no excuse for allowing the state to kill people at all. If we think of a case later, we can always revisit the subject then.

[CalBoy]

Oh, I'm fine with not waiting for a violator to appear. In fact, I much prefer it if we sort these things out long before we find ourselves having to untangle our moral outrage from our rational view of society's interests.

We just need specific examples of the sorts of crimes that could possibly count. I can describe the conditions under which I'd let an individual legally get away with killing someone. Until we can come up with a similar set of conditions for the state, I'm quite content to go on as if there is no excuse for allowing the state to kill people at all. If we think of a case later, we can always revisit the subject then.

Ahh, I understand your position now. :)

There is some part of me that hesitates to restrict the state's power so narrowly (ie, killing is only acceptable when others are in mortal peril).

But I suppose that might be rooted in my own primal desire for bloodlust.

*Sigh*

I need to think about this more. :o

[Gelfin]

But I suppose that might be rooted in my own primal desire for bloodlust.

Play your cards right and I might see fit to arrange you some time with the orbital death cannon. ;)

[CalBoy]

Play your cards right and I might see fit to arrange you some time with the orbital death cannon. ;)

Ok, but no pics. ;):eek::p

[Gelfin]

Ok, but no pics. ;):eek::p

I promise nothing! :D

[CalBoy]

I promise nothing! :D

Promise?

:p

:D

[Gelfin]

Promise?

:p

:D

Well, obviously not. :rolleyes::p

[skunk]

What happened to Martha?

[.Andy]

What happened to Martha?
She's not allowed to post in PRSI until she reaches the 100 minimum.

[solvs]

I don't see what's so bad about something like chemical castration. Maybe some time in a padded cell instead of just a normal one. I'm sure people think loony bins are better than jail, but not always.

I suppose if we're going to be just as bad as he is anyway though, we could just torture him a little. Maybe even put it on TV. Would be cruel and unusual, but I'm sure if it makes you feel better, he's such a bad person, forget his rights. Actually, let's just forget everybody's rights if they're bad. We shouldn't even have to prove they're bad. We should just make things easier and torture everybody. That's the America I want to live in.

[MrSmith]

If this thread hasn't died already it certainly has now.

[thechidz]

I don't see what's so bad about something like chemical castration. Maybe some time in a padded cell instead of just a normal one. I'm sure people think loony bins are better than jail, but not always.

I suppose if we're going to be just as bad as he is anyway though, we could just torture him a little. Maybe even put it on TV. Would be cruel and unusual, but I'm sure if it makes you feel better, he's such a bad person, forget his rights. Actually, let's just forget everybody's rights if they're bad. We shouldn't even have to prove they're bad. We should just make things easier and torture everybody. That's the America I want to live in.

again, being facetious doesn't help her at all. If she wants to torture him, I think it would be within her rights. If she wants the state to put him to death, they should. If she wasn't able to make that decision, then the parents should have that right.

[mactastic]

again, being facetious doesn't help her at all. If she wants to torture him, I think it would be within her rights. If she wants the state to put him to death, they should. If she wasn't able to make that decision, then the parents should have that right.
Just out of curiosity, would you favor allowing Valerie Plame to decide what gets done to Scooter Libby? What if she wanted Libby put to death?

[skunk]

If she wants to torture him, I think it would be within her rights. If she wants the state to put him to death, they should. If she wasn't able to make that decision, then the parents should have that right.This is quite possibly the most retrograde and barbaric suggestion I have read on MacRumors, and it is up against some stiff competition.

[thechidz]

This is quite possibly the most retrograde and barbaric suggestion I have read on MacRumors, and it is up against some stiff competition.

I don't think that it is as barbaric as what he did to her. Not even close.

[skunk]

I don't think that it is as barbaric as what he did to her. Not even close.What he did to her was not the result of a suggestion on MacRumors.

[thechidz]

Just out of curiosity, would you favor allowing Valerie Plame to decide what gets done to Scooter Libby? What if she wanted Libby put to death?

lets stick to the crime at hand. there is absolutely no connection

[skunk]

lets stick to the crime at hand. there is absolutely no connectionIndeed there is. A connection of principle.

[mactastic]

lets stick to the crime at hand. there is absolutely no connection
Ever the dodge of those who can't keep their principles straight...

[thechidz]

I do respect your opinion, even if you dont respect mine. But you won't be able to guilt trip me into agreeing with you

[.Andy]

I do respect your opinion, even if you dont respect mine.
There is nothing to respect about calling for people to be put to death vigilante style without trial.

[mactastic]

I do respect your opinion, even if you dont respect mine. But you won't be able to guilt trip me into agreeing with you
I'm not asking you to agree with me. I'm just asking if this concept you raise of the victim deciding the fate of the perpetrator would be applicable beyond this case, or if it's a one-off type thing.

[solvs]

again, being facetious doesn't help her at all.
Nothing is going to undo what happened to her, and the revenge you're calling for doesn't really help her now either.

If she wants to torture him, I think it would be within her rights.
It isn't. Read the Bill of Rights. In this country everyone has rights, everyone. Or none of us do. What happened to her was terrible, no one is arguing that, but what you're arguing is also pretty terrible. We're supposed to be more civilized than that.

If she wants the state to put him to death, they should. If she wasn't able to make that decision, then the parents should have that right.
There's a reason why victims and those closest to the victims aren't the ones dictating punishment to criminals. Besides what should be obvious about due process, our legal system shouldn't be set up as revenge. Which is exactly what you're advocating. That's against everything this country is supposed to stand for. Everything we fought in the American Revolution for. Everything we're supposedly fighting in places like Iraq for (even though we aren't, but that's a different argument).

I don't think that it is as barbaric as what he did to her. Not even close.
It is. Worse actually, since you're supposedly the just one, judging the criminal. You want to do the same thing back to him, and that makes you different how? Especially since you should know better. If we torture him for torturing her, shouldn't we right then be tortured in kind? What you're basically arguing is that because we deem him as bad, we should be able to do whatever we want to him, whether than makes us just as bad, or worse, or not, because if someone does something bad, they lose all their rights. What else can I be but facetious faced with that kind of logic.

You're allowed to be mad. We are too. Doesn't give us the right to become what we are supposedly against, because it demeans us all.

[Iscariot]

There is nothing to respect about calling for people to be put to death vigilante style without trial.

Really? Damn, I was going to ask you to join me in my pitch for Marvel Team-Up: Punisher and Black Tarantuala :(

[MrSmith]

...Everything we fought in the American Revolution for...
To not pay your taxes...?

[solvs]

To not pay your taxes...?
Taxation without representation. King George being able to do whatever he wanted to us and we couldn't do anything about it. One of the reasons we made such a big deal about rights in the Declaration Of Independence, Bill Of Rights, and Constitution. We wanted to be a nation of rights for everyone (slavery notwithstanding, took us awhile to figure that one out :rolleyes: and we still have a ways to go) even the criminals.