Can An Execution be Done Without Being Cruel and Unusual?

[CalBoy]

So the eye for an eye thread has veered a tad off topic, so I thought this would be an appropriate place to continue death penalty discussions. :)

I'm going to repeat my argument from that thread so we have a starting point:

"I find it hard to believe that you can execute anyone without inflicting cruel and unusual punishment.

Even if the procedure itself is flawless (which even lethal injection, largely considered the least painful, cannot promise all the time), the simple fact of knowing that one is going to die instills psychological torture of the highest magnitude.

Death row inmates have a suicide rate that is 6 times higher than the standard prisoner, and nearly 13 times higher than the population in general. If this doesn't speak to psychological torture, I don't know what does.

The courts have upheld their legality, but are gradually shrinking the pool of acceptable candidates for the death penalty. And let's not forget that the death penalty has not been free from dissent. The courts have generally upheld the death penalty by fairly thin margins."

[robanga]

I think you can take someone out in a pretty humane way, particularly compared to how the majority of the world's people check out when " helped" by others.

We all know we are going to die, its a nature of being human and as we get older that day always gets closer.

If you define the greatest fear anyone can ever have as death, yes I suppose they get to experience that, but then again that depends on the individuals values etc.

Its distasteful IMHO but I understand why it has to be done by the state, and it end the end from a rather cold perspective, it is ultimately less expensive to do than housing the individual into their ripe old age.

[EricNau]

. . .it is ultimately less expensive to do than housing the individual into their ripe old age.
Not exactly.

University of Florida - Experts Agree: Death Penalty Not A Deterrent To Violent Crime (http://news.ufl.edu/1997/01/15/death1/)
"[T]he cost of executing a prisoner in Florida averages about $3.2 million, mostly in trial costs. Keeping that same person in prison for life costs only about $600,000, and the millions of dollars spent on executing prisoners could be put to much better use . . ."

[robanga]

Not exactly.

University of Florida - Experts Agree: Death Penalty Not A Deterrent To Violent Crime (http://news.ufl.edu/1997/01/15/death1/)
"[T]he cost of executing a prisoner in Florida averages about $3.2 million, mostly in trial costs. Keeping that same person in prison for life costs only about $600,000, and the millions of dollars spent on executing prisoners could be put to much better use . . ."

That is one study based on a current paradigm that may not hold into the future, I am not sure about its current deterrence value but one thing is for sure if you make all penalties across the board harsher, there is a deterrence value. I lived in Singapore for a time, and the cultural buzz there is very aware of how the state is capable of correcting you.

Also if you place limits on the legal process, you could reduce the overall costs. Of course you will risk execution of more innocent parties as a price.

I'd like to see the same cost analysis for Texas for instance, where the process seems to occur somewhat faster. I haven't seen such a study but it would be interesting.

[gilkisson]

I understand the concern about "cruel and unusual" punishment. But, the death penalty was not originally included within that definition. By itself, Constitutionally, the death penalty is neither cruel nor unusual.

And while we are feeling sorry for the convict on death row, who is worrying every day about his future... why do we spare no concern for the victims? For the children killed, women tortured, bodies mutilated and tortured. Why no concern for their families?

I don't advocate the application of the death penalty. I wish it would be never issued again. To get there, I would have no more of the crimes committed that cause that penalty to be invoked. I would have no more families living the rest of their lives with their last memories of their dead loved ones being a trip to the coroner's freezer to identify the body parts.

Not eye for an eye. It's removing a clear and proven threat to society from our midst. And then hoping we will never have to make that decision again.

[EricNau]

That is one study based on a current paradigm that may not hold into the future, I am not sure about its current deterrence value but one thing is for sure if you make all penalties across the board harsher, there is a deterrence value. I lived in Singapore for a time, and the cultural buzz there is very aware of how the state is capable of correcting you.
You're going to need evidence to backup that claim. According to the press release I linked to, "After a while, increases in the severity of punishment have decreasing incremental deterrent effect. So if you haven’t deterred somebody by life, you are not going to deter them by death."

Also if you place limits on the legal process, you could reduce the overall costs. Of course you will risk execution of more innocent parties as a price.
That sounds like a fabulous idea. :rolleyes:

We've undoubtedly killed innocent people in the past; if abolishing capital punishment could save so little as one life, then that's what we ought to do.

[robanga]

I understand the concern about "cruel and unusual" punishment. But, the death penalty was not originally included within that definition. By itself, Constitutionally, the death penalty is neither cruel nor unusual.

And while we are feeling sorry for the convict on death row, who is worrying every day about his future... why do we spare no concern for the victims? For the children killed, women tortured, bodies mutilated and tortured. Why no concern for their families?

I don't advocate the application of the death penalty. I wish it would be never issued again. To get there, I would have no more of the crimes committed that cause that penalty to be invoked. I would have no more families living the rest of their lives with their last memories of their dead loved ones being a trip to the coroner's freezer to identify the body parts.

Not eye for an eye. It's removing a clear and proven threat to society from our midst. And then hoping we will never have to make that decision again.

Good points. Although having been a contractor for the correctional system at one time, I can tell you given the food and conditions in those places, execution may be the more humane treatment then 20-30 years in there.

[robanga]

You're going to need evidence to backup that claim. According to the press release I linked to, "After a while, increases in the severity of punishment have decreasing incremental deterrent effect. .


The question is where does the line begin? Its plain to any human or parent that penalty equals deterrence. I'd rather err on the meaner side of that equation.

[EricNau]

I understand the concern about "cruel and unusual" punishment. But, the death penalty was not originally included within that definition. By itself, Constitutionally, the death penalty is neither cruel nor unusual.
What definition, and according to who? There are no definitions associated with amendments to the Constitution. Our Supreme Court Justices have been granted the authority to interpret the meanings of the Constitution, and many have found the death penalty to violate the eighth amendment.

And while we are feeling sorry for the convict on death row, who is worrying every day about his future... why do we spare no concern for the victims? For the children killed, women tortured, bodies mutilated and tortured. Why no concern for their families?
Completely irrelevant to this discussion. In what way does an additional death show concern for a victim's family? Surely we can show concern without taking another life?

Not eye for an eye. It's removing a clear and proven threat to society from our midst. And then hoping we will never have to make that decision again.
A direct contradiction to your statement above, and also, irrelevant. There are other ways to remove threats to our society, without killing them.

[hulugu]

I understand the concern about "cruel and unusual" punishment. But, the death penalty was not originally included within that definition. By itself, Constitutionally, the death penalty is neither cruel nor unusual.

Well, here's the text: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"

And while we are feeling sorry for the convict on death row, who is worrying every day about his future... why do we spare no concern for the victims? For the children killed, women tortured, bodies mutilated and tortured. Why no concern for their families?

I think there's great concern for the victims after a crime has been committed, but we spend a great deal of our legal energy to ensure that people are "innocent until proven guilty." This is a good thing, IMHO, because it defocuses undue attention to the victim and tries to protect all citizens from abuse by legal authorities. But, ultimately, what can the state do? Will putting the convict through mental or physical abuse help the families? Heal wounds? Bring back the dead? If it could, then we could have a different conversation, but right now, there's nothing to be gained by vengeance except an authorization to the state to abuse its citizens. This is a bad road.

I don't advocate the application of the death penalty. I wish it would be never issued again. To get there, I would have no more of the crimes committed that cause that penalty to be invoked. I would have no more families living the rest of their lives with their last memories of their dead loved ones being a trip to the coroner's freezer to identify the body parts.

Not eye for an eye. It's removing a clear and proven threat to society from our midst. And then hoping we will never have to make that decision again.

I hate to think you're referring to a specific case, especially one that touches you personally, but I will say this, few murder cases are this dramatic. Most are accidents or the result of chemical-fueled conflicts. Many murders are about money, sadly often pitiful amounts, or love. Most murders are sad and wretched.

[gilkisson]

What definition, and according to who? There are no definitions associated with amendments to the Constitution. Our Supreme Court Justices have been granted the authority to interpret the meanings of the Constitution, and many have found the death penalty to violate the eighth amendment.

Incorrect. The Fifth Amendment (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am5) does indeed state that parson cannot be deprived of his life for a crime without due process of law. Therefore, with due process, the death penalty is indeed constitutional.


Completely irrelevant to this discussion. In what way does an additional death show concern for a victim's family? Surely we can show concern without taking another life?

You are confusing two issues. Killing and murder are not the same. Murder is why the criminal is in jail. Killing that murderer, with due process, is not murder. It is the same as a soldier killing his enemy in time of war. That is also not murder. He is then removing a threat to his Nation. The repeating murderer, the child predator, is also a threat to the nation.

Your personal bias may disagree with the death penalty, and I respect that -- but the Constitution is quite clear.

[CalBoy]

I think you can take someone out in a pretty humane way, particularly compared to how the majority of the world's people check out when " helped" by others.

How exactly can a state take anyone "out" in a humane way?

In order to grant a person full due process they have to know of the crimes which they are charged with and the potential penalties. Many death row inmates have their fates sealed for years before execution; can you imagine the mental anguish we cause by telling them that they are going to die?

This isn't a case of "putting Lassie down" where Lassie has no idea what's happening.

Not to mention the fact that even lethal injections are botched often enough where medical professionals are increasingly objecting to its use (imagine feeling your heart stop but being unable to express this pain to the world).

We all know we are going to die, its a nature of being human and as we get older that day always gets closer.

This is irrelevant to the question of whether or not capital punishment is cruel and unusual by nature. By this logic, murder ought not be a crime because that person would have "died anyways."

then again that depends on the individuals values etc.

I think we can both agree that death scares most people (not me in particular, but many people are scared of it). It's a generally consistent finding amongst all walks of life. So why do we impress this fear needlessly onto some of our own kind?

Its distasteful IMHO but I understand why it has to be done by the state,

Why must it be done by the state?

it is ultimately less expensive to do than housing the individual into their ripe old age.

That's not true at all. The lengthy appeals process for capital crimes costs many times more than a standard life term.

Even so, we should not be basing our decisions off of economic efficiency; that's not what justice is based on.
That is one study based on a current paradigm that may not hold into the future,

I hardly think the appeals process is going to get cheaper as time goes on.


I am not sure about its current deterrence value but one thing is for sure if you make all penalties across the board harsher, there is a deterrence value.

What's wrong with life in prison? Fairly large sentence if you ask me. You could also implement a prison worker program or other programs as needed.

There's no need to kill the individual, especially given the fact that crime rates in the US are higher than other developed countries (which incidentally don't use the death penalty).

I'd like to see the same cost analysis for Texas for instance, where the process seems to occur somewhat faster. I haven't seen such a study but it would be interesting.

Texas is also notorious for having very sloppy due process and postmortem evidence turning up proving the innocence of the now killed inmate. Is that what a justice system should be doing?
I understand the concern about "cruel and unusual" punishment. But, the death penalty was not originally included within that definition. By itself, Constitutionally, the death penalty is neither cruel nor unusual.

Well truth be told, there are evolving standards of decency. 230 years ago the Constitution would have likely stood in the way of a black man or a woman from being President.

The Constitution evolves so that we can use it today and make it relevant for today. In 1787 there wasn't a well developed study of psychology so the founding fathers couldn't have imagined the extent to which death row inmates ponder and attempt suicide.

Of course we could always say that the death penalty is constitutional, but that any method used to achieve it is unconstitutional (because it is cruel).
why do we spare no concern for the victims?

No one said they don't care about the victim, but justice is not about vengeance. Frankly I'd much rather see the money we save from the death penalty go towards more counseling and social services for victims of violent crime.

Imagine how far ~$1 million more dollars per victim's family could go in that regard.


Not eye for an eye.

If you are advocating the death penalty for the "sake of the victim" then that is an 'eye for an eye' argument.

It's removing a clear and proven threat to society from our midst. And then hoping we will never have to make that decision again.

Life in prison removes them as effectively as death. At least with life we can always make up for a bad prosecution or bad evidence collection. With death, it's permanent.
The question is where does the line begin? Its plain to any human or parent that penalty equals deterrence. I'd rather err on the meaner side of that equation.

You can err on the side of life in prison so that you remove the threat from society while leaving yourself an out incase you made a mistake.

[gilkisson]

I hate to think you're referring to a specific case, especially one that touches you personally, but I will say this, few murder cases are this dramatic. Most are accidents or the result of chemical-fueled conflicts. Many murders are about money, sadly often pitiful amounts, or love. Most murders are sad and wretched.

I've responded indirectly to your other comments in another post, so I'll jump to the end of yours.

I do have a personal view on this issue, yes.

And most murders are sad, wretched, petty, stupid. Yes they are. And I am not advocating the death penalty in those cases. There is a huge difference between stupid and evil*. Stupid can be cured, or at least blunted. Evil cannot.

*I do not use "evil" in the moral or "biblical" sense. There are synonyms to the word, but "evil" has fewer letters. You know what I mean.

[mgguy]

The courts have upheld their legality, but are gradually shrinking the pool of acceptable candidates for the death penalty. And let's not forget that the death penalty has not been free from dissent. The courts have generally upheld the death penalty by fairly thin margins."

Until the Supremes get a majority ruling in your favor, it is still legal. A lot of rulings have dissent; rarely is there unanimity among the judges. You are entitled to your personal point of view, but as long as it is legal your opinion should not override the will of the majority of people who support this form of punishment.

According to the press release I linked to, "After a while, increases in the severity of punishment have decreasing incremental deterrent effect. So if you haven’t deterred somebody by life, you are not going to deter them by death."


You are addressing only general deterrence, which is still debatable. If punishment were swift and certain, it would probably be more effective in deterring someone from killing in the first place.

You have neglected to address specific deterrence. They will not be able to kill again if they are dead.


We've undoubtedly killed innocent people in the past; if abolishing capital punishment could save so little as one life, then that's what we ought to do.

I don't agree with this equation. I question the wisdom of withholding punishment from all those who are guilty in hopes of sparing one person who may be innocent. I do however believe that there should be overwhelming convincing evidence of guilt before this punishment is used.

[robanga]

I don't agree with this equation. I question the wisdom of withholding punishment from all those who are guilty in hopes of sparing one person who may be innocent. I do however believe that there should be overwhelming convincing evidence of guilt before this punishment is used.

Yes sparing all the guilty because you may have it wrong in a few cases, seems unproductive.

[CalBoy]

What definition, and according to who?

Technically he's right on this one; the Constitution specifically allows death for treason and leaves open its use via the 5th Amendment by saying, "no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property..."
Until the Supremes get a majority ruling in your favor, it is still legal.

But is it just? The Supreme Court held for 58 years that segregation was legal. Did that make segregation between 1896 and 1954 anymore correct?
rarely is there unanimity among the judges.

On the contrary most cases are unanimous; we only hear about the closely divided ones because they tend to be more sensationalistic. ;)

You are entitled to your personal point of view, but as long as it is legal your opinion should not override the will of the majority of people who support this form of punishment.

If the majority is wrong, then it should be allowed to carry out its will.

If we use majority opinion as the basis for law, then we would likely have no standing Bill of Rights since each of those rights protects a minority, not the majority.

We're also discussing the nature of cruel and unusual punishment here; if modern science finds death penalties to be cruel and unusual, why do we allow the majority, which is not educated in the matter, make the decision? We have a republic for a reason; so the majority's idiocy is checked.

[mgguy]

You can err on the side of life in prison so that you remove the threat from society while leaving yourself an out incase you made a mistake.

But you can't do that because by your definition it would be cruel. Can you imagine the anguish of sitting in prison for years for a crime you know you didn't commit and no one would believe you. It would be enough to drive you crazy and want to kill yourself.

[EricNau]

You are addressing only general deterrence, which is still debatable. If punishment were swift and certain, it would probably be more effective in deterring someone from killing in the first place.
Again, these proposed changes would only ensure one thing: more innocent lives would be lost.

You have neglected to address specific deterrence. They will not be able to kill again if they are dead.
Nor would that be possible if they received life without parole. Why is the death penalty a better option than life in prison?

I don't agree with this equation. I question the wisdom of withholding punishment from all those who are guilty in hopes of sparing one person who may be innocent. I do however believe that there should be overwhelming convincing evidence of guilt before this punishment is used.

Yes sparing all the guilty because you may have it wrong in a few cases, seems unproductive.
Very odd, coming from those who showed so much concern for victims. Would not an innocent man put to death be a victim? Why do they not deserve our concern?

[gilkisson]

Well truth be told, there are evolving standards of decency. 230 years ago the Constitution would have likely stood in the way of a black man or a woman from being President.

The Constitution evolves so that we can use it today and make it relevant for today. In 1787 there wasn't a well developed study of psychology so the founding fathers couldn't have imagined the extent to which death row inmates ponder and attempt suicide.

Of course we could always say that the death penalty is constitutional, but that any method used to achieve it is unconstitutional (because it is cruel).


You bring out flaws in our Constitution that have, thankfully, been patched, fixed or repaired. We have grown a great deal. We are all indeed created equal, it's what we do individually from there that makes the difference.

Yes, the methods of execution have changed, and that is good. As our society has changed, we have redefined what we consider cruel.

I would be more than willing to see the end of the death penalty. I have no love for it. However, I am not willing to accept the "collateral damage", the cost of doing business, of the cruel and unusual crimes that merit death. Why should be accept it as fact that such murders will always happen, we must shrug our shoulders and move on? By abolishing the ultimate penalty, with no thought for prevention of the crime, is that not what you are doing?


No one said they don't care about the victim, but justice is not about vengeance. Frankly I'd much rather see the money we save from the death penalty go towards more counseling and social services for victims of violent crime.

Again, why do we accept that we must live with violent crime? The idea of abolishing these most hideous of crimes is no more pie-in-the-sky than the thought that a life sentence can somehow rehabilitate the murderer.


Imagine how far ~$1 million more dollars per victim's family could go in that regard.

There is no dollar value. Trust me, there is not. To suggest the grief can be bought off is callous indeed.

[EricNau]

There is no dollar value. Trust me, there is not. To suggest the grief can be bought off is callous indeed.
To suggest revenge is an adequate cure for grief would be even more callous.

Besides, that's clearly not what CalBoy was advocating. Certainly more money devoted to victim services would be beneficial.

[CalBoy]

But you can't do that because by your definition it would be cruel. Can you imagine the anguish of sitting in prison for years for a crime you know you didn't commit and no one would believe you. It would be enough to drive you crazy and want to kill yourself.

Are we done with the sarcasm?

The fact remains that death row inmates have a suicide rate that is 6 times higher than all other prisoners.

No matter what, every death row inmate is appealing his sentence until the last possible moment to any judge who will listen. This doesn't happen with life in prison. There is a clear difference in the level of cruelty.

You bring out flaws in our Constitution that have, thankfully, been patched, fixed or repaired.

And not always by amendments either.

It took some fancy reading to get things like desgregation, women's rights, etc, through the courts. For some reason the Court likes evolving standards of decency. Even Scalia isn't against it all the time.

By abolishing the ultimate penalty, with no thought for prevention of the crime, is that not what you are doing?

And who says we can simultaneously prevent crime?

Punishment is only a minimal deterrent to crime, and with the death penalty there has been no deterrent factor to be found as of yet despite quite a lot of searching by advocates.

You know what's a better deterrent to crime? Education, anti-poverty programs, health and human services, etc. Invest in your fellow man, and everyone reaps the rewards.

Again, why do we accept that we must live with violent crime?

Because no utopia has yet to exist on this planet. Humans are imperfect by nature. The best we can hope for is that those of us who are rational don't sink to the level of those whom we detest.

The idea of abolishing these most hideous of crimes is no more pie-in-the-sky than the thought that a life sentence can somehow rehabilitate the murderer.

A life sentence probably won't rehabilitate a murderer, but it has a very slim chance of doing so. You know what has no chance of doing so? Death.

In either case, the point of life in prison is more quarantine than it is reform.
There is no dollar value. Trust me, there is not. To suggest the grief can be bought off is callous indeed.

I never once mentioned that the grief can be "bought off." The money would go towards counseling and other social services for the victim's family/friends. That to me sure as hell beats saying, "here's the guy who killed Suzie; wanna sink to his level and watch us kill him now?"

[EricNau]

Interesting Map. Does anyone else see a pattern?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Death_Penalty_World_Map.png


Color scheme:
Blue: Abolished for all crimes
Green: Abolished for crimes not committed in exceptional circumstances (such as crimes committed in time of war)
Orange: Abolished in practice
Red: Legal form of punishment for certain offenses

[gilkisson]

...

I would like the record to show that I do not associate myself with the comments of certain others who may make contrarian comments on this topic.

[63dot]

So the eye for an eye thread has veered a tad off topic, so I thought this would be an appropriate place to continue death penalty discussions. :)

I'm going to repeat my argument from that thread so we have a starting point:

"I find it hard to believe that you can execute anyone without inflicting cruel and unusual punishment.

Even if the procedure itself is flawless (which even lethal injection, largely considered the least painful, cannot promise all the time), the simple fact of knowing that one is going to die instills psychological torture of the highest magnitude.

Death row inmates have a suicide rate that is 6 times higher than the standard prisoner, and nearly 13 times higher than the population in general. If this doesn't speak to psychological torture, I don't know what does.

The courts have upheld their legality, but are gradually shrinking the pool of acceptable candidates for the death penalty. And let's not forget that the death penalty has not been free from dissent. The courts have generally upheld the death penalty by fairly thin margins."

I believe the death penalty is wrong. Period.

Does it bring back the murdered person? Does it rehabilitate the defendant who committed the homicide who now resides under the care of the Department of Corrections? Life imprisonment is the answer if the key is to get the guilty party off the street.

As much as I cannot stomach a person like Charles Manson, he is no longer doing anymore harm and will never get out.

Knowing what it's like to die is terrible and I only felt that once and never want to be there again. I was a Belfast Christian missionary and the missionary sent before me was killed on Falls Road and that's where I was headed. Though I had no real stats on this area of conflict, it was a bad year with UK/IRA violence and there were six groups, either on one side or the other, or somewhere in between and all were armed. I had to call everybody I knew before I left to say goodbye. Unless somebody is in a position where they believe they are going to die, or face a strong possibility of that, they don't know how cruel any armed conflict or execution is.

We were British missionaries working as aid workers and some of us got tortured by the SAS as the British government had no tolerance for anybody butting their noses in this area/region.

Years later when my 2nd cousin was going to Bosnia during the war also as a missionary, those thoughts came back to me.

My belief is that anybody who has ever had a gun pointed at them, once, or many times, may have a very strong view about simply putting a felon to death.

An eye for an eye makes the world blind. If I had the money, I would give any pro death penalty people a ticket to Falls Road in Belfast so they could see how well an eye for an eye has worked.

Rant over.

[gilkisson]

You know what's a better deterrent to crime? Education, anti-poverty programs, health and human services, etc. Invest in your fellow man, and everyone reaps the rewards.

And I am not arguing against that position. I agree with it. Let's do it! And again, because it gets glossed over, I am not saying "murder == death penalty". There are crimes, and there are Crimes.


I never once mentioned that the grief can be "bought off." The money would go towards counseling and other social services for the victim's family/friends. That to me sure as hell beats saying, "here's the guy who killed Suzie; wanna sink to his level and watch us kill him now?"

Sorry, it sounded that way. Thank you for clearing that up, and I herewith retract my "bought off" remark.

However (and you knew there would be a however), although you trivialize the situation, there is something to be said for catharsis. There are some things a man can do which are beyond the pale.

[dukebound85]

You know what's a better deterrent to crime? Education, anti-poverty programs, health and human services, etc. Invest in your fellow man, and everyone reaps the rewards.


while i agree in theory in practice it will never be.

as long as we live in a society, there will be haves and have nots. there will always be those that will have to be garbage men or work at mcdonalds

as such, there will always be crime as there will always be those who are raised in poor circumstances and are more prone to it

doesnt mean we cant try though as it will help some but it will never completely solve the issue of crime

[gilkisson]

I believe the death penalty is wrong. Period.

Does it bring back the murdered person? Does it rehabilitate the defendant who committed the homicide who now resides under the care of the Department of Corrections? Life imprisonment is the answer if the key is to get the guilty party off the street.

As much as I cannot stomach a person like Charles Manson, he is no longer doing anymore harm and will never get out.

Knowing what it's like to die is terrible and I only felt that once and never want to be there again. I was a Belfast Christian missionary and the missionary sent before me was killed on Falls Road and that's where I was headed. Though I had no real stats on this area of conflict, it was a bad year with UK/IRA violence and there were six groups, either on one side or the other, or somewhere in between and all were armed. I had to call everybody I knew before I left to say goodbye. Unless somebody is in a position where they believe they are going to die, or face a strong possibility of that, they don't know how cruel any armed conflict or execution is.

We were British missionaries working as aid workers and some of us got tortured by the SAS as the British government had no tolerance for anybody butting their noses in this area/region.

Years later when my 2nd cousin was going to Bosnia during the war also as a missionary, those thoughts came back to me.

My belief is that anybody who has ever had a gun pointed at them, once, or many times, may have a very strong view about simply putting a felon to death.

An eye for an eye makes the world blind. If I had the money, I would give any pro death penalty people a ticket to Falls Road in Belfast so they could see how well an eye for an eye has worked.

Rant over.

Good rant. I cannot fault you, if you can accept that from the likes of me.

I've not been in Belfast. But I have been in a situation requiring that decision be made. Altogether different from the situation you describe.

I'll not cheapen your experience with a contrast to an opposite one. I understand your feelings and the adroitness of your expression.

[CalBoy]

There are crimes, and there are Crimes.

It doesn't matter whether someone is convicted of a crime or a Crime; no penalty should ever defy their humanity, which is what the death penalty does.

Sorry, it sounded that way.

No problem. :) I'm glad we can move on from it.

However (and you knew there would be a however), although you trivialize the situation, there is something to be said for catharsis. There are some things a man can do which are beyond the pale.

We don't give the prisoner that choice; it is thrust upon them. That isn't catharsis, it's just killing.

[CalBoy]

while i agree in theory in practice it will never be.

I never said it would be so in absolute terms. However, education and anti-poverty programs can minimize crime and make everyone better off. Seeing as how the death penalty provides zero deterrence value, I'd rather go that route.

as long as we live in a society, there will be haves and have nots. there will always be those that will have to be garbage men or work at mcdonalds

I don't know about your area, but garbage men make pretty good money out here if they're in a union (which most of them are). But anyways, the point is that those things help reduce crime, not eliminate it. We can't ever expect zero crime, so we might as well go for the next best thing.

[63dot]

Good rant. I cannot fault you, if you can accept that from the likes of me.

I've not been in Belfast. But I have been in a situation requiring that decision be made. Altogether different from the situation you describe.

I'll not cheapen your experience with a contrast to an opposite one. I understand your feelings and the adroitness of your expression.

I absolutely accept other points of view. I want to hear your experiences.

I know people who have been in war and they think more war is needed to finally end conflict.

The war to end all wars, again, so to speak.

And I also have a friend who did three tours in Vietnam in the Marine Corps and he believes as I do. We are all different and have different points of view.

I am also staunchly pro-life and that dovetails with my anti-death penalty point of view. The Bible is the only book next to my bed* and that's my take. But I know there are plenty of pro-death penalty Christians. And I know there are plenty of pro-choice Christians, too, but we all accept each other.

Some deal with death in thinking more is needed to end needless killing. Some, like me, realize that we, as a world need to abolish the death penalty and abortion. This will, maybe in centuries, eventually make the world no longer need standing armies.

One pacifist I worked with at DoD, was a career Navy Chief and he said he was working really hard to make the US Navy its best so that one day he, and the US armed forces, could work themselves out of their jobs. That was his personal goal. No military here, no military anywhere. Basically world peace, but done initially through deterrent nuclear weapons.

* - OK, macworld, contracts, torts, criminal law, Constitutional law, etc, but I try to keep such non spiritual stuff out of the bedroom, as it bugs my wife. :)

[dukebound85]

I never said it would be so in absolute terms. However, education and anti-poverty programs can minimize crime and make everyone better off. Seeing as how the death penalty provides zero deterrence value, I'd rather go that route.


oh id rather go that route too


I don't know about your area, but garbage men make pretty good money out here if they're in a union (which most of them are).
just trying to make a point lol

But anyways, the point is that those things help reduce crime, not eliminate it. We can't ever expect zero crime, so we might as well go for the next best thing.

agree

[CalBoy]

just trying to make a point lol



I know, but I still get shocked whenever I hear how much they make out here! :p

[63dot]

I know, but I still get shocked whenever I hear how much they make out here! :p

In my county, about the same as a freshly minted asst. DA or public defender, and more than a legal aid attorney. More than a small company MBA. Not as much as a stripper in the city. :)

When I was in high school, the department head, tenured hs english teacher, said he made less than a garbage man. They make 45K where I live.

[RamblinWreck]

Is it just me, or does life without parole in solitary confinement seem much more cruel and unusual than the death penalty?

I'd take a bullet from a firing squad and have it over in a millisecond vs. having to sit in a cell for the next sixty years reflecting on the poor choice I made.

[CalBoy]

Is it just me, or does life without parole in solitary confinement seem much more cruel and unusual than the death penalty?

I'd take a bullet from a firing squad and have it over in a millisecond vs. having to sit in a cell for the next sixty years reflecting on the poor choice I made.

Personally, I would take death as well, but most prisoners clearly wouldn't. In either case, we aren't giving them a choice; it is being done forcefully.

[dukebound85]

Personally, I would take death as well, but most prisoners clearly wouldn't. In either case, we aren't giving them a choice; it is being done forcefully.

so would you be ok with death by state if the inmate opted for it?

[63dot]

it is being done forcefully.

That's the part people forget.

Much of the world sees the cruelty in taking life, thus the above map.

Look who we are in company with. Almost universally, it's countries we have blamed as ones being run by warlords, Islamic extremists, and human rights abusers of communist countries.

[mgguy]

The fact remains that death row inmates have a suicide rate that is 6 times higher than all other prisoners.



You keep stressing this statistic, but do you have any evidence that their higher suicide rate (assuming your datum is accurate) is actually due to the torment they may be feeling about being put to death rather than some other cause? It is possible that it is rather due to their psychological set that underlies their propensity to murder. They could also be tormented by the demons that lead them to commit murder in the first place, or even possibly in some cases by the intense guilt they be feeling over having killed another human being. There is a huge potential self-selection bias (murderers self-select themselves to be murderers) in your analysis that makes it difficult to attribute the suicide rate difference to their fear of the death sentence.

[EricNau]

You keep stressing this statistic, but do you have any evidence that their higher suicide rate (assuming your datum is accurate) is actually due to the torment they may be feeling about being put to death rather than some other cause? It is possible that it is rather due to their psychological set that underlies their propensity to murder. They could also be tormented by the demons that lead them to commit murder in the first place, or even possibly in some cases by the intense guilt they be feeling over having killed another human being. There is a huge potential self-selection bias (murderers self-select themselves to be murderers) in your analysis that makes it difficult to attribute the suicide rate difference to their fear of the death sentence.
I'm unaware of the specifics of this study, but a proper study would need to compare death row inmates to inmates who committed similar crimes and received a lesser sentence of life in prison.

[djellison]

I understand why it has to be done by the state.

I don't. Just one, ONE single example of a death penalty served later found out to be a miscarriage of justice is all the possible evidence ever required to render the entire concept utterly unacceptable. I would far FAR rather have my taxes spent on housing prisoners for life sentences. If they are guilty - that's fine. If they are not ( and there are DOZENS, literally DOZENS of death row cases that have been released ) then it's insurance against a deadly miscarriage of justice.

There was an interesting documentary here in the UK some months ago that investigated each of the ways executions are carried out. Electrocution, Gas Chamber, Lethal Injection, Hanging were all looked at. Each have problems, some massively so.

ANYONE who thinks the Electric Chair or the Gas Chamber is even slightly acceptable is sick in the head. They are a sick and twisted freak show. No civilised person would ever condone or carry out such a process.

Hanging is a million miles from reliable. You look up a table of the weight of the prisoner, and that defines the drop you put on them to hopefully snap their neck without decapitation. It goes wrong - quite often - leaving a decapitated head on the floor, or a very slow painful strangulation.

That leaves the Lethal Injection, conducted by people with no medical training, and medically proven to be massively flawed. The cocktail given is wrong. Ever read the horror stories of people who can feel what's going on under general anaesthetic? That is medical proven to have occurred in nearly half of lethal injection cases - they are paralysed, but aware, and able to feel the final fatal drug doing it's job, an unimaginably painful process.

So, can an execution be done without being cruel and unusual? A re-working of the lethal injection would be the least cruel - but the very process of walking up to some one, and saying "Right - we're going to walk you down to this room and kill you now" is inherently cruel.

Being put in prison for the rest of your life is a death penalty. It's also the only one that's reversible.

[63dot]

Being put in prison for the rest of your life is a death penalty. It's also the only one that's reversible.

Thus the writings of Blackstone's Commentaries which became the foundation for American law. The precedent put for from this great legal thinker centuries ago was that to jail or execute one person wrongfully was more heinous than it was to let 10, or 100 guilty people go free by accident through trial. British and American judges have added on to that estimate and said 1000.

That is why a prosecutor has to prove all elements of a crime (5 or more) through a standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" or approaching 99.99% percent. And the defense has to prove their defense through only a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not, of 50.01 percent). The moving party (prosecutor) has a much smaller chance of winning than the opposing party (defense).

In the OJ Simpson case, it did not help the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard when the time of death of Nicole and Ronald was listed precisely at the time OJ was 45 minutes away at a Baskin Robbins ice cream place where he met fans and signed an autograph. Personally, I think he did it, but the LA investigators stuck to the time of death, and having OJ that far from the scene of the crime, and at an ice cream place didn't help the prosecution. If one person saw OJ at the ice cream place, then that person may be ruled out as an alibi. But 41 men, women, and children saw OJ Simpson there. This is what killed off the guilty verdict for the jurors as it caused great doubt. It wasn't the glove that didn't fit. Blood, or any fluid may make a leather glove shrink over time.

The legal system was set up to favor the accused as innocent until proven guilty and used Blackstone as their guide. Much of what Blackstone also said is the foundation of English Common Law.

[ucfgrad93]

I don't view the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment. In almost all cases the criminal is getting a far more humane death than the victims ever got.

[.Andy]

In almost all cases the criminal is getting a far more humane death than the victims ever got.
What do the victims have to do with how we're killing defenseless humans?

[iJohnHenry]

I'd take a bullet from a firing squad and have it over in a millisecond vs. having to sit in a cell for the next sixty years reflecting on the poor choice I made.

A bullet to the back of the head, a Chinese preference I believe, would be sufficient. All this ceremony is bunk.

so would you be ok with death by state if the inmate opted for it?

Won't happen. Most states have anti-suicide laws. :rolleyes:

In almost all cases the criminal is getting a far more humane death than the victims ever got.

Amen. In some cases, God does make *****.

[ucfgrad93]

What do the victims have to do with how we're killing defenseless humans?

Personally, I don't mind if the execution process is painful. Not saying that we should cut them up into little pieces or anything like that. I just don't view lethal injection or electrocution as being so bad that they should be outlawed.

[Cave Man]

Not exactly.

University of Florida - Experts Agree: Death Penalty Not A Deterrent To Violent Crime (http://news.ufl.edu/1997/01/15/death1/)
"[T]he cost of executing a prisoner in Florida averages about $3.2 million, mostly in trial costs. Keeping that same person in prison for life costs only about $600,000, and the millions of dollars spent on executing prisoners could be put to much better use . . ."

You know, China really has a much more efficient execution system that's a lot cheaper than ours. Perhaps we should adopt theirs?

[.Andy]

Personally, I don't mind if the execution process is painful. Not saying that we should cut them up into little pieces or anything like that. I just don't view lethal injection or electrocution as being so bad that they should be outlawed.
You didn't answer my question though. You seem to be saying that a painful execution process is justified because of the nature of the crimes that the offender committed. The victim was put through fear and pain therefore we can put the offender through fear and pain.

Is this really the way you think that society should be shaping it's ethics and morality? Based on the actions of criminals? If we abhor murder how can we ever be justified in executing others?

[ucfgrad93]

I'm not trying to justify it. I'm not saying we should have a more painful way of executing criminals. What I'm saying is that the methods chosen are acceptable for execution. They may not be perfect and may cause some pain, but I don't view them as cruel and unusual.

[Topher15]

There was an episode of BBC Horizon earlier this year on this very subject:

How To Kill A Human Being?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/executions/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/executions/near_death/

It's on YouTube:
Part 1: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Do9VLZCHlN0
Part 2: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=x7qK89oHnGI
Part 3: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QPz_Qbjf330
Part 4: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3vnBsDtoyKc
Part 5: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo1RTebuonk

One of the issues with capital punishment is if you're going to kill people, we should do it as humanly as possible, but then on the flip side, if someone's crime is bad enough to deserve death, why should we ensure them die comfortable way?

I don't support capital punishment anyway - why kill them when you can lock them up forever? Plus, the possibility of sentencing an innocent person (which happens a lot) is enough to question the practice, in my view.

[synth3tik]

Personally I believe that capital punishment is not affective because of the fact that it is not cruel. I think people who think they have nothing to loose will think differently when facing the prospect of say being whipped in a salt bath.

[ZachsMacDaddy]

I don't understand the desire to NOT be cruel and unusual. After all, the people who face this fate are often doing so because they performed cruel and unusual acts against others.

I'm all for a death sentence that is as close to what you were convicted of as possible. Suffer like the monster you are.

[.Andy]

I'm not trying to justify it.
I beg to differ. This sentence is a justification:
In almost all cases the criminal is getting a far more humane death than the victims ever got.


I'm not saying we should have a more painful way of executing criminals. What I'm saying is that the methods chosen are acceptable for execution.
But you're saying that they are acceptable because of the nature of the actions of the criminal. My point is that as a society, we see inflicting pain and murdering others as abhorrent. Why then is it acceptable for us to turn around and do exactly those things to someone because of what they've done? It's hypocritical and a completely bankrupt way to shape societal ethics. First and foremost we should determine punishments with an aim to protect society, to prevent reoffending, and to rehabilitate where possible. Executing someone because they've killed just makes us all complicit in killing.


I don't understand the desire to NOT be cruel and unusual. After all, the people who face this fate are often doing so because they performed cruel and unusual acts against others.

I'm all for a death sentence that is as close to what you were convicted of as possible. Suffer like the monster you are.
You don't see how you're reducing yourself and society to that of the criminal by these actions? If you appose cruel and unusual acts (i.e. in this case killing a defenseless individual) why are you happy to have them carried out on your behalf? What are you hoping to accomplish besides cold-blooded revenge?

[ucfgrad93]

First and foremost we should determine punishments with an aim to protect society, to prevent reoffending, and to rehabilitate where possible. Executing someone because they've killed just makes us all complicit in killing.

And society has done that. Currently it is lawful to execute criminals in the United States. Not all murderers are sentenced to death.

[ZachsMacDaddy]

You don't see how you're reducing yourself and society to that of the criminal by these actions? If you appose cruel and unusual acts (i.e. in this case killing a defenseless individual) why are you happy to have them carried out on your behalf? What are you hoping to accomplish besides cold-blooded revenge?

What is the point in trying to keep some of these monsters behind bars? If they somehow manage to escape (and some do) and do harm to anyone else, how do you explain to the victims (or their families) how that was allowed to happen?

Some people who commit crimes to such a disgusting degree DO deserve to die. Yes, part of it IS revenge. The other part is to ensure that society is forever safe from that particular individual and that they are not a burden or risk to society in any way, shape or form.

[emt1]

As a health care professional, I am against all forms of killing.

[.Andy]

And society has done that. Currently it is lawful to execute criminals in the United States. Not all murderers are sentenced to death.
But the question remains what exactly is being accomplished by having defenseless people executed on your behalf? Surely that's a question you should be stopping and asking yourself? The blood is on everyone's hands so surely we should have a rational and logical reason for these actions.

What is the point in trying to keep some of these monsters behind bars? If they somehow manage to escape (and some do) and do harm to anyone else, how do you explain to the victims (or their families) how that was allowed to happen?

Some people who commit crimes to such a disgusting degree DO deserve to die. Yes, part of it IS revenge. The other part is to ensure that society is forever safe from that particular individual and that they are not a burden or risk to society in any way, shape or form.
Surely the answer here is simply better prison systems? Or is killing people (and the occasional innocent individual) justified because of a lack of adequately funding and ensuring prison security? Are executions justified for expediency?

[63dot]

As a health care professional, I am against all forms of killing.

Wow, you and me don't agree on much, but on this one, we are on the same page. Who would have thought! ;)

Speaking about EMT's, do you watch "Ghost Whisperer" ?

[leekohler]

I'm against the death penalty because it's too expensive and because of all the people who've been wrongly executed.

I also think it's more fitting that people who've done horrible things live in prison forever. It's a much more terrifying fate.

[ucfgrad93]

But the question remains what exactly is being accomplished by having defenseless people executed on your behalf? Surely that's a question you should be stopping and asking yourself?

Like others have said, society is forever protected from the criminal. I've asked myself this question and I find that the death penalty is a justified and acceptable form of punishment. I do not find the death penalty cruel and unusual.

[.Andy]

Done it. And once again, I do not find the death penalty cruel and unusual punishment.
And we're back to my first question? Why? Talk me through it (slowly I'm a moron :p)!

[63dot]

I'm against the death penalty because it's too expensive and because of all the people who've been wrongly executed.

I also think it's more fitting that people who've done horrible things live in prison forever. It's a much more terrifying fate.

At one time, Pennsylvania had a period where there was no death penalty, just life imprisonment, and an absolute duty to carry out their promise of life imprisonment, and guess what? Violent crime went way down. Coincidence, causation, correlation? What do you think? ;)

On one note, I had a friend who worked at a very high security prison where the gates rarely opened so the workers did several days long shifts, and had their own quarters inside the compound. To him, even at 70K as head chef, yes they do have chefs :) , he felt the oppressiveness of not being able to go home after days at a time. The risk was too high to have workers at this Federal prison to let the gates open up that often daily to go home. He told me that though his quarters were OK, and he was treated well, he felt horrible being behind the bars so he quit. Took a job that paid less than half of that.

The worst shift was a 14-14, where you go to work, the gates slam, you live and work there for 14 days without ever going outside the compound, and then you have 14 days off. But of course, the guards get to sleep unlike Scotland where a guard could do three shifts, back to back to back! Bloody Hell, I think I forgot to close the gate! :) Or maybe I closed it on Tuesday, is it Tuesday or is it Wednesday? :)

[abijnk]

I am against the death penalty. Period.

*scuttles off to watch The Life of David Gale*

[dukebound85]

And we're back to my first question? Why? Talk me through it (slowly I'm a moron :p)!

most of it is revenge which i can empahsize with. most who advocate for the death penalty do not care about deterring crime or how much it costs as primary concerns. they advocate for the death penalty because they feel it is more fitting justice for the crimes they commit than getting off easy in their opinion by having the criminal live in prison for the rest of his life

At one time, Pennsylvania had a period where there was no death penalty, just life imprisonment, and an absolute duty to carry out their promise of life imprisonment, and guess what? Violent crime went way down. Coincidence, causation, correlation? What do you think? ;)


why did they go away with the practice? or did they? (your post implied they have since adopted death penalty)

[leekohler]

At one time, Pennsylvania had a period where there was no death penalty, just life imprisonment, and an absolute duty to carry out their promise of life imprisonment, and guess what? Violent crime went way down. Coincidence, causation, correlation? What do you think? ;)

Interesting. I'll take it a step further:

Do you think it's possible that some criminals commit crimes because they want to die themselves?

most of it is revenge which i can empahsize with. most who advocate for the death penalty do not care about deterring crime or how much it costs as primary concerns. they advocate for the death penalty because they feel it is more fitting justice for the crimes they commit than getting off easy in their opinion by having the criminal live in prison for the rest of his life

How is life in prison "getting off easy"? It would be absolutely terrifying. Prison is probably the closest thing to hell on earth.

[63dot]

why did they go away with the practice? or did they? (your post implied they have since adopted death penalty)

I don't know where they stand today. All I know is that Pennsylvania has a couple of football teams that ain't bad, and a baseball team that did 'em proud. :)

[63dot]

Interesting. I'll take it a step further:

Do you think it's possible that some criminals commit crimes because they want to die themselves?

The homicide-suicide principal (there's some latin name for that I can't recall). I don't really know. I had an great uncle who was a kamikaze pilot, and a bad one at that. He is still alive. :)

[dukebound85]

How is life in prison "getting off easy"? It would be absolutely terrifying. Prison is probably the closest thing to hell on earth.

i never said i believed that.

i merely said those that advocate the death penalty probably have that mindset that since they (the murderers) are allowed to live, it is getting off easy as the only fair justice in their mind would be to execute them

[leekohler]

i never said i believed that.

i merely said those that advocate the death penalty probably have that mindset that since they (the murderers) are allowed to live, it is getting off easy as the only fair justice in their mind would be to execute them

I suppose. It seems like the death penalty is "getting off easy" to me.

[hulugu]

What is the point in trying to keep some of these monsters behind bars? If they somehow manage to escape (and some do) and do harm to anyone else, how do you explain to the victims (or their families) how that was allowed to happen?

This seems like a red herring. Very, very few people escape from maximum security prisons making such an event a near statistical anomaly. Furthermore, this logic seems dangerous. What about the drug dealer, who might be released on good behavior only to head right back to trafficking? Do we incarcerate our criminals for eternity?

Some people who commit crimes to such a disgusting degree DO deserve to die. Yes, part of it IS revenge. The other part is to ensure that society is forever safe from that particular individual and that they are not a burden or risk to society in any way, shape or form.

But the problem is revenge is an emotional act, its an act of retribution (often violence) in order for some emotional satisfaction, which is rarely achieved. This is not what the state, a system of laws, should be invested in. Instead, the state should do what's best for the law and justice without the emotional reaction that motivates revenge. In a just society, revenge is an acid.
If the motive is to remove the criminal from society, prison does that. Yes, it's costly and expensive, but the motivation for justice should also not come by expediency or attempts for efficiency. Instead, the process to take someone's life should be laborious and expensive.

[djellison]

I'm all for a death sentence that is as close to what you were convicted of as possible. Suffer like the monster you are.

By putting that suffering back onto the monster, can you not see that you, yourself, become the exact same monster you are trying to punish?

Person A is killed by Person B in an horific and brutal way.
You kill Person B in an horific and brutal way.
So, why should you not be killed in an horrific and brutal way.

If you're going to give it the eye-for-an-eye treatment, then why stop with the criminal.

Doug

[dukebound85]

By putting that suffering back onto the monster, can you not see that you, yourself, become the exact same monster you are trying to punish?

Person A is killed by Person B in an horific and brutal way.
State kills Person B in an horific and brutal way.
So, why should you not be killed in an horrific and brutal way.

If you're going to give it the eye-for-an-eye treatment, then why stop with the criminal.

Doug

substituted state for you. if person A kills my child and i then kill person A, you can rest assured ill be facing prison or death sentence. however the death sentence means it is not I who would be executing them but rather the State

but back to your example, the difference is one's state sanctioned. doesnt mean its "right" but it debunks your logic

keep in mind im not advocating death sentences just pointing out flaws in what you said

[blackfox]

Personally, I find the death penalty to be the path-of-least-resistance in dealing with an intractable social/human problem.

A certain % of people will, for a variety of reasons, commit monstrous and horrific acts. How do we as a society deal with this fact, and the supposition that this is a sad part of the human condition?

While the death penalty provides a seductively simple solution - both to the state who must deal with this individual and what he/she represents - and to the victim(s), who gain the cheaper satisfaction of vengeance - it speaks very little to the problem, or to societal health.

While I certainly don't know the magic cure to all this, I know that it lies in the more difficult analysis of uncomfortable realities and imperfect responses.

To me, a life in prison at least allows a chance at redemption for the convicted and a chance at forgiveness for the aggrieved. Sure, it may not happen often - but even a slim % bespeaks of successes that highlight the better part of our nature - not our worst.

[mactastic]

Why should be accept it as fact that such murders will always happen, we must shrug our shoulders and move on? By abolishing the ultimate penalty, with no thought for prevention of the crime, is that not what you are doing?



Again, why do we accept that we must live with violent crime? The idea of abolishing these most hideous of crimes is no more pie-in-the-sky than the thought that a life sentence can somehow rehabilitate the murderer.
The sad truth is that you must live with violent crime. If you want to live in a free society, that is. If you're willing to live in a totally controlled society, we could probably nearly eliminate violent crime, but allowing people freedom of action will unfortunately mean that some abuse that freedom.

And no one is talking about a life sentence being afforded to a murderer in order for them to rehabilitate themselves. That's not the point of a life sentence.

while i agree in theory in practice it will never be.

as long as we live in a society, there will be haves and have nots. there will always be those that will have to be garbage men or work at mcdonalds

as such, there will always be crime as there will always be those who are raised in poor circumstances and are more prone to it

doesnt mean we cant try though as it will help some but it will never completely solve the issue of crime

I don't understand the desire to NOT be cruel and unusual. After all, the people who face this fate are often doing so because they performed cruel and unusual acts against others.

I'm all for a death sentence that is as close to what you were convicted of as possible. Suffer like the monster you are.
You, sir, would be happy in a place like Iran (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=616785).

Maybe you should see if they're accepting immigration applications?

[skunk]

My point is that as a society, we see inflicting pain and murdering others as abhorrent. Why then is it acceptable for us to turn around and do exactly those things to someone because of what they've done? It's hypocritical and a completely bankrupt way to shape societal ethics.The behaviour is akin to a parent telling his or her child: "Don't ********* swear". Comedy ethics, nothing less, nothing more.

[mgguy]

I pointed out the specific deterrent effect of capital punishment would ensure that the murderer would not repeat this act, and you said this:



Nor would that be possible if they received life without parole. Why is the death penalty a better option than life in prison?


?

You fail to acknowledge that the murderer can kill guards, prison staff, other prisoners, or visitors to the jail (including his own legal representatives). Killing the murderer would prevent them from killing again, inside prison walls. One has to weigh the good to society of taking the murderer's life against the bad of possibly killing an innocent convictee and riling up those like you who object to the death penalty. Society has made this calculus and decided that the death penalty is legal and appropriate in the cases in which it is used, which are very rare.

[63dot]

You, sir, would be happy in a place like Iran (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=616785).

Maybe you should see if they're accepting immigration applications?

You know the funny thing is that my study partner in undergraduate school was this really nice lady from (a more backward middle eastern country) and she had to come to America to get a degree since her country did not allow women to get educated. But when she saw America with their liberal justice system, drug dealers near her house not getting arrested/shot on the spot, people with handguns either in her neighborhood or on prime time TV, she wanted to finish her American degree, and get the hell out. She wanted to go back to her country which had a law and order system we would find heinous.

On one hand she wanted a western education, but on the other hand she knew just a few years ago, women were put to death for learning how to read. I asked her if she seemed to get enlightened in the US, but she saw more bad in the liberal America than good.

This lady was very polite and classy, too but her country was her culture and her home. It fit her value system. There are many Americans who would be much happier in her country. They could have more than one wife, they can kill another human being at the slightest provocation if the village ordains it (think OK Corral, wild west), and any felons either have their hands cut off or are beheaded publicly. And to change things up, like China, a bullet to the head is another remedy.

I am not against having a trade off with Arabs who don't like their harsh system who want a kinder gentler America where they can reside, and have vengeance hungry Americans move to those countries.

Just because somebody is born here, they won't always find much sense with the Constitution. I am all for using my tax money to ship such Americans out if they hate our system and want to live in a patriarchal Islamic/cleric run state. I had a girlfriend who converted to Islam and wanted to move to Libya. She had developed values that did not fit her native USA anymore.

Also in my Arab study partner's country, if you are ten or eleven and female, you can marry. I don't condone that at all and my Arab study partner thought I was crazy thinking an adult is 18, but there are plenty of American men who would want one, two, or ten such wives. I say ship them over there, too. This particular Arab country has a of ex-patriates living there now from all over the world. The way an American sees a 35 year old is how her country sees an 18 year old. By 35, you are old in her country, if you even make it that far. Anyway, Iran is liberal and modern compared to her nation and she did mention she wished that her country would be a tad bit more progressive.

[Desertrat]

Nothing unusual about the death penalty. Been happening all over the world for centuries.

Cruel? Absent pain and drawnout suffering, it likely isn't cruel. But I don't see why they swab the injection area with alcohol before inserting the needle...

Do I favor the death penalty? Emotionally, yes. Intellectually, no. It costs the taxpayers way too much, for one thing. And there is that possibility for error in whodunnit.

'Rat

[63dot]

Do I favor the death penalty? Emotionally, yes. Intellectually, no. It costs the taxpayers way too much, for one thing.
'Rat

That's the way I feel about war, as in going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan or Pakistan. There is a part of me that is angry and I want revenge and capture that mad man. That is my emotion speaking. It's as if I want to catch the man and put him up to a world war II style firing squad.

Intellectually, I know many innocent people will get killed and hurt in a full out hunt for him, and they will be considered collateral damage and in that sense, it makes no sense. Hundreds of US and allied soldiers will die going after him like Obama wants to, but most assuredly, thousands of Afghanis and Pakistanis, who have no fight in this matter, will get killed by mistake, as happened in Iraq. Will it be worth it to kill thousands more, most of them innocent, to avenge 9/11?

If there was a way to extract Bin Laden w/o hurting others, I am all for it. But large weapons will probably be needed to likely get the job done. Villages may need to be occupied. Ethnic tensions will erupt. People in that region of the world will start killing each other, kind of like Iraq. It could be 20,000 deaths later when we have Bin Laden captured, if he is even alive in the first place.

I say keep a careful eye out, and then arrest him, but an all out invasion of that region will just lead to more bloodshed, way more than happened on 9/11 and that's my intellectual side talking. But it took years to come to that conclusion. When I heard he fled to the Taliban in those hard to reach caves where many a Russian got killed fighting over there against the Taliban, I thought that those 1 mile radius mini-nukes would be perfect. That's what they were designed for, but then my better senses came to me. We would be no better than the terrorists if we bombed them or rolled into a whole bunch of divisions into that region.

Could we deploy a small fast moving detail of seals and delta force using just small arms and bring Bin Laden to the steps of the Capitol in D.C. cuffed and ready to stand trial? Yes. But we will more likely send in the massive regular army with their big weapons, large number of troops from other nations to help, and with destructive air support. Tanks will be there, and "our" weapons of mass destruction will be present.

Knowing what we know from Iraq, that when we deploy a lot of US troops anywhere, people die needlessly, and we should watch how we go after Bin Laden and catch that criminal in the most painless fashion possible but I am afraid that Afghanistan will be our "new" Iraq.

[RamblinWreck]

Do I favor the death penalty? Emotionally, yes. Intellectually, no. It costs the taxpayers way too much, for one thing. And there is that possibility for error in whodunnit.


Agree on both points. I'm for the death penatly, but the endless appeals system makes it hard to justify the cost of carrying out capital punishment.

[63dot]

Agree on both points. I'm for the death penatly, but the endless appeals system makes it hard to justify the cost of carrying out capital punishment.

What is interesting about appeals, and all appeals are expensive as we know, is that there are so many cases, actually most of the cases in all law school books, which are appeals cases. Many decisions in the lower courts are reversed, some reversed and remanded, and some affirmed. It's very lengthy and costly and is in the legal field of contracts, torts, real property, copyright law, tax, and many other areas of American jurisprudence.

The appeals court, and the costs, will not go away soon unless we gut the entire legal system, not to mention state Supreme Courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court.

We have a deep and entrenched system of lower court, appeals court, and supreme court and that will not change in any of our lifetimes. And unless judges, lawyers, and lobbyists want to make $10 dollars an hour, the legal process will not be cheap. Some appeals tax attorneys make $1000 dollars an hour.

[EricNau]

Nothing unusual about the death penalty. Been happening all over the world for centuries.
In the past perhaps, but in modern times the preponderance of the world has abolished capital punishment, leaving the US among countries such as Cuba, a handful of African nations, the Middle East, India, and China which maintain the barbaric practice.

Most notably opposed to the death penalty are Canada, Mexico, the whole of the EU, the entire continent of South America (excluding Guyana), Greenland, Russia, and Australia.


It's high time the parents and people of America start practicing what they preach, in that two wrongs most certainly do not make a right.

[CalBoy]

so would you be ok with death by state if the inmate opted for it?

In a hypothetical case, we would have to assume that the state isn't coercing the prisoner to ask for the death penalty.

If that was possible, I wouldn't have any particular problem with it because suicide is a personal choice; however, the state should not be helping anyone carry out their suicide, so I would not be for the death penalty even if the prisoner asked for it.
You keep stressing this statistic, but do you have any evidence that their higher suicide rate (assuming your datum is accurate) is actually due to the torment they may be feeling about being put to death rather than some other cause?

Well the fact that their suicide rate is higher (twice that) than other prisoners, I think we can see that there is something unique about being on death row.

The sheer number of appeals surrounding death row inmates, generally up until the very last moment of their lives, speaks to a very strong desire to not be killed.

It is possible that it is rather due to their psychological set that underlies their propensity to murder.

They may in fact feel remorseful over their crimes, but that doesn't imply that they are suicidal.

If I were a betting man, I'd say that their desire to reform is undercut by the state's lethal force. That can be a terrible psychological force; wanting to correct at least some part of your life, only to have another entity tell you it's time to die.

There is a huge potential self-selection bias (murderers self-select themselves to be murderers) in your analysis that makes it difficult to attribute the suicide rate difference to their fear of the death sentence.

I won't dispute that point; there likely are other factors in play.

The question remains then: why are we killing those who are not mentally well or as balanced as the average person?

I don't view the death penalty as cruel and unusual punishment. In almost all cases the criminal is getting a far more humane death than the victims ever got.

How the victim died has no bearing on what happens after. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Personally I believe that capital punishment is not affective because of the fact that it is not cruel.
So you're not going to respond to the premise I put forth in the thread at the beginning? Psychological torture is acceptable now?

I guess water boarding is fine then, since the person isn't actually drowning.

I think people who think they have nothing to loose will think differently when facing the prospect of say being whipped in a salt bath.

This argument has been proven false by many people. Let me summarize by saying this:

Murder is not a standard violation of the law. Unlike a speeding ticket or some other minor infraction, you cannot alter the "market price" for murder (which is what speeding tickets and other fines do: they raise the cost of breaking the law). Those who commit murder are not going to be weighing the potential punishments in their head, because they already know that murder is among the worst things they can do. As such, the death penalty does not have any discernible deterrent value.

I don't understand the desire to NOT be cruel and unusual. After all, the people who face this fate are often doing so because they performed cruel and unusual acts against others.

This little nagging thing called the 8th Amendment and my sense of conscience gets in my way.

I'm all for a death sentence that is as close to what you were convicted of as possible. Suffer like the monster you are.

Have you ever read Beowulf?

Who's the bigger monster: the one who can't control himself, or the one who can?

What is the point in trying to keep some of these monsters behind bars? If they somehow manage to escape (and some do) and do harm to anyone else, how do you explain to the victims (or their families) how that was allowed to happen?

You have the prison guards and builders who let that happen explain it to them, not our sense of humanity.

In any case, escapes are very rare, and can occur as easily on death row as in other high security prisons; let's not forget that many inmates are on death row for 20 years, and most are on death row for at least a few years.

Yes, part of it IS revenge.

Revenge has no place in justice.


The other part is to ensure that society is forever safe from that particular individual and that they are not a burden or risk to society in any way, shape or form.

Life in prison achieves the same result and lets the state correct its mistake incase one was made.


You fail to acknowledge that the murderer can kill guards, prison staff, other prisoners, or visitors to the jail (including his own legal representatives).

These stories are few and far between.

We have more stories where the wrong person was executed and we only found out after the fact.

So, what say you?

Society has made this calculus and decided that the death penalty is legal and appropriate in the cases in which it is used,

Society hasn't made any calculus.

The death penalty is nothing more than mob mentality codified into law.

which are very rare.
Really, 50+ executions in a given year is rare to you?

I mean Texas gets 2 in every month. It could be a sports event with that kind of frequency.

Cruel? Absent pain and drawnout suffering, it likely isn't cruel.

You didn't answer the point about psychological torture.

[EricNau]

You fail to acknowledge that the murderer can kill guards, prison staff, other prisoners, or visitors to the jail (including his own legal representatives). Killing the murderer would prevent them from killing again, inside prison walls. One has to weigh the good to society of taking the murderer's life against the bad of possibly killing an innocent convictee and riling up those like you who object to the death penalty. Society has made this calculus and decided that the death penalty is legal and appropriate in the cases in which it is used, which are very rare.
Guard/prison staff - You're have a point, although cases of fatal assaults on guards within death row are extremely rare.

Other prisoners - Excuse me? You're advocating capital punishment with the notion that one convict could potentially kill another? So, what, we should kill them all before they can kill each other? (Perhaps I need to point out the obvious, but prisoners are grouped according to the severity of the crimes they committed. Therefore, convicts on death row are isolated among others on death row. This will always be the case, regardless of capital punishment or not.)

The random innocent convict - Again, based on the way prisons are organized, this innocent convict would also be on death row. Do you see the problem here?

Visitors - Extremely unlikely, based on the way high security prisons regulate visitations. If they were able to kill a visitor, it would most likely be their own (which they would most probably be less inclined to attack).

Legal reps - Not applicable. In the absence of a death penalty, there would be no reason for a legal rep to represent said convict (after the initial trial). In fact, capital punishment introduces more opportunities for a legal rep to be attacked, due to the numerous mandatory appeals associated with death penalty cases. If you really cared about the safety of legal reps, you'd repeal the death penalty.

[skunk]

Nothing unusual about the death penalty. Been happening all over the world for centuries.You could say the same about slavery, war, murder, rape, genocide and tax-dodging. Since when has history been a defence?

[TuffLuffJimmy]

You could say the same about slavery, war, murder, rape, genocide and tax-dodging. Since when has history been a defence?

I don't think he's defending it as much as just stating that it's nothing out of the ordinary. And the omission of unusual, just drives the cruel part further.

EDIT: I should read the thread before opening my virtual mouth.

[63dot]

I don't think he's defending it as much as just stating that it's nothing out of the ordinary. And the omission of unusual, just drives the cruel part further.

EDIT: I should read the thread before opening my virtual mouth.

This thread, a great read btw, has become HUGE. I read the whole thing and didn't get a lot done around the house.

.............

Let's revisit the core topic here: Cruel and Unusual:

My Arab study partner in college thought I was a savage being American because Americans could "own guns" and have "premarital sex".

In her country, people who had premarital sex were stoned to death until recently. Only the cops/police had guns so no fear of bank robbers, home invasion, American style street gangs.

In her country, people who stole got executed while more liberal Arab states merely cut your hand off or jailed you. But on the other hand, she told me you could leave $100 dollars out on your porch and nobody would steal it. The concept of a locked house or car door is foreign to her.

In America, it would be insane for a woman or small child to walk through our toughest inner cities at night. In her country, a small child or woman could walk through any area, including the tough areas, in her country without fear.

We have the issue of date rape and it makes our news. We have the issue of pedophilia and it makes the news. In her country, there is no such thing as a husband raping a woman, and no such protection for the woman. And pedophilia is almost non existent in her country as ten year olds are married, if you are female.

Men in America, in her opinion, were cheaters, and got away with it. In her country, if a man fancied a woman, but was already married, he would simply marry her, too and add her to his collection of wives. She could not understand monagamy. Even the Jews she so hated had their King Solomon who had many wives, including many Arab wives from modern day Egypt, Iran, Iraq, and other countries.

So what is cruel and unusual to us Americans is different from her country's point of view.

She saw a squabble between her fellow Arabs Kuwait and Iraq, and that history and tension goes back further than what CNN will tell you. How could America be civilized by coming over there, into their relatively "small" squabble and leveling Iraq on a massive scale?...our military is larger than all the region's armies combined. How civilized is that? Who is the cruel and unusual one?

She gave me her perspective and for the first time, I understood her culture.

But in the last few decades, life expectancy has nearly doubled in her country. Oil has been discovered in large amounts and what was the poorest Arab state (some areas still stone age in her country w/o clean water) is the fastest growing Arab nation on earth. So someone here may want to send ZachsMacDaddy to Iran. Well, if he goes to this Arab country, he can teach English there and make more money than any of us here. Much, much more. I have two friends who went to Saudi Arabia and were millionaires, in US dollars, within a few years. There are sectors, or oasises, in Arab nations hungry for Americans and will pay very handsomely for any services we give them. Only you will have to be rather conservative to tolerate certain aspects of their culture. In many countries, even MBA American women getting paid 7 digits have to cover up all the way in public.

[ZachsMacDaddy]

You, sir, would be happy in a place like Iran (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=616785).

Maybe you should see if they're accepting immigration applications?

No thanks, I'll pass. I did live there back in the late 70's for about 8 months. I was 6, but I still remember things about it. We were evacuated due to the war.


Perhaps I should refrain from posting on days when I am in a bad mood? :rolleyes: I think capital punishment is a good thing. I don't think it's the answer in every case.

Should someone who rapes and murders a child or children die? Yup.
Should someone who murders several people die? Think so.
Serial killer? Adios.
Shoot someone in a bar fight? no death.

But, this is why we have a constitution and a government to back it up (ok, maybe not the current one, they've never read the thing). I am only one person. I am not going to challenge the current system. I may never serve on a jury for a murder trial depending on what questions are asked during jury selection, so I probably won't ever have a chance to hand down a death sentence.

I think the constitution also states that I have the right to express my opinion too, doesn't it? Of course when someone posts an opinion that another person doesn't like, that freedom of speech becomes a debatable thing.

[63dot]

No thanks, I'll pass. I did live there back in the late 70's for about 8 months. I was 6, but I still remember things about it. We were evacuated due to the war.


Perhaps I should refrain from posting on days when I am in a bad mood? :rolleyes: I think capital punishment is a good thing. I don't think it's the answer in every case.

Should someone who rapes and murders a child or children die? Yup.
Should someone who murders several people die? Think so.
Serial killer? Adios.
Shoot someone in a bar fight? no death.

But, this is why we have a constitution and a government to back it up (ok, maybe not the current one, they've never read the thing). I am only one person. I am not going to challenge the current system. I may never serve on a jury for a murder trial depending on what questions are asked during jury selection, so I probably won't ever have a chance to hand down a death sentence.

I think the constitution also states that I have the right to express my opinion too, doesn't it? Of course when someone posts an opinion that another person doesn't like, that freedom of speech becomes a debatable thing.


Are you Arab American? One of my best friends, who is got his BS in computer science at Cal State is moving back to Iran where his family is. He was born here, raised here, but he wants to be back there to help Iran as they are getting more progressive and he wants to rebuild it into a democracy.

Despite American reports we hear about an Islamic fundamentalist state, the truth is that there are a lot of free thinkers and highly educated people there these days. Iran will change into a more modern nation, by our standards quickly. It would be a travesty for us to invade them.

[ZachsMacDaddy]

Are you Arab American? One of my best friends, who is got his BS in computer science at Cal State is moving back to Iran where his family is. He was born here, raised here, but he wants to be back there to help Iran as they are getting more progressive and he wants to rebuild it into a democracy.

Despite American reports we hear about an Islamic fundamentalist state, the truth is that there are a lot of free thinkers and highly educated people there these days. Iran will change into a more modern nation, by our standards quickly. It would be a travesty for us to invade them.

No, born in the USA. Lived in Iran for about 8 months in the 70's. Lived in Saudi Arabia for about 8 months in the early 80's. The rest has all been based here in the USA. I would never go back to the Middle East either. Even as a child I was fearful in Saudi Arabia. I did occasionally walk around the neighborhood alone as a 4th grader, but I did not feel safe. I was HAPPY to get out of there.

If I had to choose between living here with the death penalty abolished or living in the Middle East, I'll stay here.

[63dot]

No, born in the USA. Lived in Iran for about 8 months in the 70's. Lived in Saudi Arabia for about 8 months in the early 80's. The rest has all been based here in the USA. I would never go back to the Middle East either. Even as a child I was fearful in Saudi Arabia. I did occasionally walk around the neighborhood alone as a 4th grader, but I did not feel safe. I was HAPPY to get out of there.

If I had to choose between living here with the death penalty abolished or living in the Middle East, I'll stay here.

I can't speak for Saudi, but my study partner in college, mentioned above, lives in a country that is 100% percent safe for men, women, and children, especially Americans, Europeans and Asians. This country pays Americans bookoo bucks. PM me for more info since I don't want to offend anybody about some of the bad stuff I already said about said Arab nation. I did counter it with the good info above. What you make in a day there will pay your rent for the whole month. Americans go there, work for a few years, live there like kings, and come back to America to a mansion they bought, with cash. Similar stories from Aramco in Saudi, but this country is on the rise faster than Saudi Arabia ever was.

There are some backward areas still but the life expectancy went from the 40s (near the lowest on earth) to the mid-70s in just a few decades. Once they get it all together, their life expectancy will be the highest, or close to, in the world, approaching Japan's 81+ year old average life expectancy.

But what won't change (quickly, or at all) is their very harsh stance on the death penalty and second class citizenship of women. But they won't publicly behead you (an American) because you jaywalked or failed to bow to a sheik because they don't want us to flatten them with carrier jets.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

I think the constitution also states that I have the right to express my opinion too, doesn't it? Of course when someone posts an opinion that another person doesn't like, that freedom of speech becomes a debatable thing.

When did anyone say that you shouldn't have freedom of speech?

[ZachsMacDaddy]

When did anyone say that you shouldn't have freedom of speech?


Seems if your opinion differs from someone's too much they want you to get out of the country. It may be better to keep a controversial opinion to yourself.

[63dot]

Seems if your opinion differs from someone's too much they want you to get out of the country. It may be better to keep a controversial opinion to yourself.

I think the great thing about America is that we have the freedom of speech, even with controversial opinions.

I love that we are strong, that we have a military to keep us safe in a dangerous world. But at the same time, I don't like how we used that military to attack Iraq on false pretenses, like Condi Rice confessed earlier this month (probably for Bush Co. damage control :) ).

At least I can say what I just did and be OK. In some countries, I would be executed by the end of the day.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Seems if your opinion differs from someone's too much they want you to get out of the country. It may be better to keep a controversial opinion to yourself.

Are you implying that he doesn't have the right to say you should get out of the country? ;)

Saying controvercial things is a two way street. He never said that the state should forcibly remove you from the U.S.; he was making an analogy because in Iran, they don't have protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

[és:]

It may be better to keep a controversial opinion to yourself.


That would be doing a disservice to the people that have fought for your freedoms.

[dukebound85]

That would be doing a disservice to the people that have fought for your freedoms.

a bigger disservice is having people tell you to get out of the country because you have a differing opinion

[iJohnHenry]

I'm happily surprised that CalBoy has hung-in so long with this thread.

When two sides have agendas, a simple question, as voiced above, becomes a war.

[63dot]

a bigger disservice is having people tell you to get out of the country because you have a differing opinion

You spit on the uniforms of our soldiers with that statement. Personally, that makes me sick.

We are free to live here or move out, and we are free to suggest that people here may find happiness elsewhere in the world. What the hell is wrong with that?

My dad went from an internment camp to the US Army in world war II to fight for your point of view and my point of view. Americans shed blood for the freedom of speech. There is no disservice in what our troops did/do and you make it sound like they died in vain. I don't suggest you stop by my American Legion anytime soon.

Hey, I suggest you take 10 hours off and watch "band of brothers".

[és:]

a bigger disservice is having people tell you to get out of the country because you have a differing opinion

In a free country people have the right to be complete and utter wankers. We every believe in freedom of expression or we don't.

[63dot]

In a free country people have the right to be complete and utter wankers. We every believe in freedom of expression or we don't.

He/she probably believes we went to Normandy in 1944 to soak in the French sea breeze. I bet that person has never seen a soldier.

I am a huge opponent of the current war policy in Iraq with Bush Co. But I also realize that there were some important wars we fought for the good of mankind, like stopping Germany/Italy/Japan in world war II. I am sure he/she finds dishonor in that and considers them babykillers.

[dukebound85]

You spit on the uniforms of our soldiers with that statement. Personally, that makes me sick.

We are free to live here or move out, and we are free to suggest that people here may find happiness elsewhere in the world. What the hell is wrong with that?

My dad went from an internment camp to the US Army in world war II to fight for your point of view and my point of view. Americans shed blood for the freedom of speech. There is no disservice in what our troops did/do and you make it sound like they died in vain. I don't suggest you stop by my American Legion anytime soon.

Hey, I suggest you take 10 hours off and watch "band of brothers".

what? im merely pointing out the fact its the soldiers who defend our right to free speech and our right to have different opinions. to have people in this thread tell another poster to get out of the country because his view is different than his is a disservice:cool:

so free speech doesnt extend to having different opinions? so anyone with a different opinion should be told to get out of the country? ooook

[és:]

He/she probably believes we went to Normandy in 1944 to soak in the French sea breeze. I bet that person has never seen a soldier.

Don't get me wrong, in this case I fully disagree with ZachsMacDaddy when he says ''I'm all for a death sentence that is as close to what you were convicted of as possible. Suffer like the monster you are." - I just believe in the his right to believe it and express that belief.

In turn, I have the right to think it's a disgusting opinion and say what I think about it.

[63dot]

Don't get me wrong, in this case I fully disagree with ZachsMacDaddy when he says ''I'm all for a death sentence that is as close to what you were convicted of as possible. Suffer like the monster you are." - I just believe in the his right to believe it and express that belief.

In turn, I have the right to think it's a disgusting opinion and say what I think about it.

I was referring to dukebounds insulting statements towards our men and women in uniform. I almost lost my breakfast. So much blood, so much sacrifice, and he/she just dismisses it like it was nothing.

[és:]

what? im merely pointing out the fact its the soldiers who defend our right to free speech and our right to have different opinions. to have people in this thread tell another poster to get out of the country because his view is different than his is a disservice:cool:

so free speech doesnt extend to having different opinions? so anyone with a different opinion should be told to get out of the country? ooook

When you say "a bigger disservice is having people tell you to get out of the country because you have a differing opinion" you have to remember it's that persons right to say it. Oh, and I think it should be noted that mactastic didn't say anything of the sort. He said "You, sir, would be happy in a place like Iran. Maybe you should see if they're accepting immigration applications?" - which is entirely different from "get out of the country". ZachsMacDaddy's opinion is certainly leaning in the direction of the Iranian 'justice' 'system'.

[dukebound85]

I was referring to dukebounds insulting statements towards our men and women in uniform. I almost lost my breakfast. So much blood, so much sacrifice, and he/she just dismisses it like it was nothing.

insulting? i didnt mean to insult at all

im just sick and tired of people who dont like ones opinion because its different to be told to get up and leave the country.

last i checked, we should be able to have differing opinions. to deny someone's ability to have a different opinion goes against what our armed forces protect

When you say "a bigger disservice is having people tell you to get out of the country because you have a differing opinion" you have to remember it's that persons right to say it. Oh, and I think it should be noted that mactastic didn't say anything of the sort. He said "You, sir, would be happy in a place like Iran. Maybe you should see if they're accepting immigration applications?" - which is entirely different from "get out of the country". ZachsMacDaddy's opinion is certainly leaning in the direction of the Iranian 'justice' 'system'.

fair enough. i misinterpreted what mactastic said

[63dot]

what? im merely pointing out the fact its the soldiers who defend our right to free speech and our right to have different opinions. to have people in this thread tell another poster to get out of the country because his view is different than his is a disservice:cool:

so free speech doesnt extend to having different opinions? so anyone with a different opinion should be told to get out of the country? ooook

Hey if somebody doesn't like me and wants me to get out, that's their opinion. If somebody doesn't like you and wants you to get out, that's their opinion.

That's freedom of speech, backed by the blood of our soldiers. So you think unpopular opinions are worse than seeing the blood of young men and women shed on shores and deserts around the world?

They fight for us, and die, daily. Give them some credit. You don't have to love the military, or join them, or the DoD, or coast guard, cops, CIA, FBI, etc, but realize they will die for you in a heartbeat. Respect that.

[és:]

insulting? i didnt mean to insult at all

im just sick and tired of people who dont like ones opinion because its different to be told to get up and leave the country.

last i checked, we should be able to have differing opinions. to deny someone's ability to have a different opinion goes against what our armed forces protect



fair enough. i misinterpreted what mactastic said

I agree, but surely you can see the discrepancy here?


fair enough. i misinterpreted what mactastic said

http://www.energeticforum.com/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif

[63dot]

insulting? i didnt mean to insult at all

im just sick and tired of people who dont like ones opinion because its different to be told to get up and leave the country.

last i checked, we should be able to have differing opinions. to deny someone's ability to have a different opinion goes against what our armed forces protect

OK, agreed. :)

Everyday, in liberal northern California, where I live there are people I meet who think "all" soldiers are evil/wrong and blame them, instead of the "wrong" policy of the Iraq war and the mistakes "Bush" made. It's not the fault of the foot soldier though they often take the blame.

BTW, I am a bleeding heart liberal, too, but I also served my country in a non military capacity (with a couple of three digit acronym agencies) both against the Serbs and the Soviets, who were enemies at the time. When one of us die, it never makes the news.

[dukebound85]

Hey if somebody doesn't like me and wants me to get out, that's their opinion. If somebody doesn't like you and wants you to get out, that's their opinion.

That's freedom of speech, backed by the blood of our soldiers. So you think unpopular opinions are worse than seeing the blood of young men and women shed on shores and deserts around the world?

They fight for us, and die, daily. Give them some credit. You don't have to love the military, or join them, or the DoD, or coast guard, cops, CIA, FBI, etc, but realize they will die for you in a heartbeat. Respect that.

wow you like putting words in my mouth? no where did i say i didnt have the utmost respect for the armed services

the thought behind my post is that to advocate someone to get out of the country just because they have a different opinion is wrong as that statement goes against the concept of free speech

then es pointed it out that the ability to say that statement, which fundamentally goes against the freedom of speech, is protected under freedom of speech

[és:]

OK, agreed. :)

Everyday, in liberal northern California, where I live there are people I meet who think "all" soldiers are evil/wrong and blame them, instead of the "wrong" policy of the Iraq war and the mistakes "Bush" made. It's not the fault of the foot soldier though they often take the blame.


It's anyone's fault but the brave men and woman serving our countries. I just wish we were better at looking after the families of the soldiers and the soldiers that have limbs blown off.

The wars, which I wholeheartedly oppose, are the fault of men in suits.

[63dot]

wow you like putting words in my mouth? no where did i say i didnt have the utmost respect for the armed services

the thought behind my post is that to advocate someone to get out of the country just because they have a different opinion is wrong as that statement goes against the concept of free speech

then es pointed it out that the ability to say that statement, which fundamentally goes against the freedom of speech, is protected under freedom of speech

anyway, see my above post

we actually agree on this topic :)

[63dot]

It's anyone's fault but the brave men and woman serving our countries. I just wish we were better at looking after the families of the soldiers and the soldiers that have limbs blown off.

The wars, which I wholeheartedly oppose, are the fault of men in suits.

So true.

When the second Iraq war got underway, it was popular and soldiers were largely seen as heroes.

But as the war started resembling Vietnam, with no end, and a lot of innocents being killed, then a lot of America turned their anger toward the soldiers. Same as what happened in Vietnam.

Main street America have scads of shop owners who won't hire veterans. Soldiers with PTSD have a reason, by God, but people are treating them like psychopaths from a 70s flick.

[CalBoy]

I think capital punishment is a good thing.

Can you please justify your answer by telling us why?

Specifically I'd like you to answer three questions for me:

1) What does the death penalty do that life in prison cannot do?

2) Why isn't it cruel to tell someone that they are going to die and then let them exist as a "dead man walking" for years? Would you say the same thing if the person wasn't convicted of a crime?

3) What precisely is good about capital punishment? It doesn't provide any balance to the victims, it doesn't deter crime, and it costs society greatly in more ways than one.


But, this is why we have a constitution and a government to back it up

Interesting you should say that:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

How do you resolve the conflict between wanting a punishment that in the modern world has been deemed cruel (by Europe, every nation in the Americas with the exception of 38 legal jurisdictions within the US, and the less despotic regimes of Asia)?
I'm happily surprised that CalBoy has hung-in so long with this thread.

When two sides have agendas, a simple question, as voiced above, becomes a war.

Yeah, it seems no one wants to answer my original question save for a few.

Thankfully I'm a stubborn prick! :D

[63dot]

Yeah, it seems no one wants to answer my original question save for a few.

Thankfully I'm a stubborn prick! :D

Your stubbornness paid off as it became a targeted discussion on the topic at hand. Kudos to you. :)

However, on the thread about "hate crimes", people kept on referring it to an extension of affirmative action as to what it really is, a law forbidding anybody to inflict a hate crime against one of another group for the reason of said person belonging to that group.

That means hate crime could be Asians attacking a black person, white people attacking black people, black people attacking Asians, Asians attacking Islamic clerics, black people attacking Icelanders, for the group they belong to.

I was stubborn and kept of citing law, ALI restatements, and Model Penal Code, but that thread kept on going on and on about affirmative action and preferential treatment, so my stubbornness did not pay off. That thread was stupid from stem to stern, but this thread is great and has on topic debate.

[mactastic]

Should someone who rapes and murders a child or children die? Yup.
Should someone who murders several people die? Think so.
Serial killer? Adios.
Shoot someone in a bar fight? no death.
And of course the question of whether they should be executed is a separate question from whether you have the right to execute someone.

I think the constitution also states that I have the right to express my opinion too, doesn't it? Of course when someone posts an opinion that another person doesn't like, that freedom of speech becomes a debatable thing.
A bit martyr-ish today, are we? Where have I ever said that you don't have a right to express your opinion?

a bigger disservice is having people tell you to get out of the country because you have a differing opinion

insulting? i didnt mean to insult at all

im just sick and tired of people who dont like ones opinion because its different to be told to get up and leave the country.

last i checked, we should be able to have differing opinions. to deny someone's ability to have a different opinion goes against what our armed forces protect
I can't count the number of times I have been told "America: love it or leave it" by people who thought my lack of support for our war in Iraq meant that I sympathized with Osama bin Laden and his ilk.

fair enough. i misinterpreted what mactastic said
Exactly. Had I said "Get out of my country" (a sentiment which has been expressed to me on numerous occasion by "patriotic Americans"), you might have a grievance.

[skunk]

The wars, which I wholeheartedly oppose, are the fault of men in suits.War is a thoroughly despicable method of pursuing policy objectives in almost all cases, and pre-emptive wars are completely inexcusable, but the worst excesses are ultimately carried out by members of those brave armed forces sent to do the dirty work. It is precisely because such behaviour by the participants is so very difficult to control in a war zone that war should remain so very much a method of last resort. An environment where killing, assault and the creation of terror are accepted, indeed necessary, activities should never be entered into except if one's own very survival is at stake.

[Desertrat]

EricNau, a couple of casual points, just in passing: The only mammalian surplus on the planet is Homo Sap.

Some members of the species deny their own humanity by their actions. I see no compelling reason for their continued existence. Regular or Extra Crispy, mox nix to me.

As for what others do or think, that they believe as they do is not the determinant for any other society. If you get into the majority-rule deal on punishments, we'd have to take up chopping off of thieves' hands. I've read that there are over a billion adherents to the Koran. And China's billion+ are not revolutionizing against the death penalty, there. (Yeah, egregious examples, and halfway silly, but there ya go...)

'Rat

[ZachsMacDaddy]

Can you please justify your answer by telling us why?

Specifically I'd like you to answer three questions for me:

1) What does the death penalty do that life in prison cannot do?

2) Why isn't it cruel to tell someone that they are going to die and then let them exist as a "dead man walking" for years? Would you say the same thing if the person wasn't convicted of a crime?

3) What precisely is good about capital punishment? It doesn't provide any balance to the victims, it doesn't deter crime, and it costs society greatly in more ways than one.



Interesting you should say that:



How do you resolve the conflict between wanting a punishment that in the modern world has been deemed cruel (by Europe, every nation in the Americas with the exception of 38 legal jurisdictions within the US, and the less despotic regimes of Asia)?


Yeah, it seems no one wants to answer my original question save for a few.

Thankfully I'm a stubborn prick! :D

#1 - It completely removes the worst of the worst criminals from society and from the world. It gives a 100% guarantee that the person will NEVER be able to do harm to another person, whether outside or inside of prison.

#2 - The prolonged time on death row is often the appeals system. You have the wrongfully convicted who appeal as long as possible to try to expose their innocence and then you have the guilty as sin scumbag who appeals to tie things up and stay alive as long as possible to a: stay alive and b: continue to be a burdon on the rest of us.

There is no way around this without affecting those few wrongfully convicted people. You can't say "you're going to die in 6 weeks" after sentencing. The legal system won't allow it. The appeals process is what holds everything up.

Whether it's cruel to tell them they're going to die is up for debate, just like whether executing them is up for debate. It's a matter of interpretation and every one of us seems to differ on that interpretation.

#3 - Do you consider the victims to be only the deceased? What about their family and friends? I think it DOES provide comfort to some of them to know that the person who did this to their loved ones is gone and can never do harm to ANYONE again.

I think the possibility of execution WILL deter some criminals. Probably not as many as it should, but some. Unfortunately I think many of those who would be eligible for it are so determined that they don't care if they get life or death as a result. In that case, if they don't care, then let's give them death. Since they didn't care what the end result of their crime was anyways, is it really that "cruel" to execute them?

I'll throw this one out too. I'm not sure if someone already mentioned it or not and I'm not going to go back and re-read the whole thread again. So you get rid of the death penalty and people get life instead. Then you add in some innocent people who were wrongly convicted. One day a murderer comes along in prison and they kill another inmate who happened to be one of those wrongly convicted people. Now the system has allowed that poor person to be negatively affected at least 2 times, 1st by being imprisoned and 2nd by being killed in prison by someone who could have been executed had their been a death penalty. Sure, it's sounds like I'm reaching here, but c'mon, I won't be the first to do it.

The Supreme Court is in charge of determining what is "Constitutional," not me, you or anyone else. Since we still have capital punishment, I'd say they have so far determined that it is ok. We have a voice with which to express our opinions on it, but they have the final say.

"How do you resolve the conflict between wanting a punishment that in the modern world has been deemed cruel (by Europe, every nation in the Americas with the exception of 38 legal jurisdictions within the US, and the less despotic regimes of Asia)?"

I don't know. How do you think it should be resolved? You show me how to resolve conflict like that and I'll give you a mirror to see the next Nobel Peace Prize winner.

[és:]

War is a thoroughly despicable method of pursuing policy objectives in almost all cases, and pre-emptive wars are completely inexcusable, but the worst excesses are ultimately carried out by members of those brave armed forces sent to do the dirty work. It is precisely because such behaviour by the participants is so very difficult to control in a war zone that war should remain so very much a method of last resort. An environment where killing, assault and the creation of terror are accepted, indeed necessary, activities should never be entered into except if one's own very survival is at stake.

I'm not sure if you were arguing against what I said or supporting it, but I agree with what that :D

[ZachsMacDaddy]

And of course the question of whether they should be executed is a separate question from whether you have the right to execute someone.


Like I said in my previous post, until the Supreme Court steps in and stops all executions in the US, the government will have the right to execute someone.

A bit martyr-ish today, are we? Where have I ever said that you don't have a right to express your opinion?


Ok, maybe I reached on that one. But your reaction to my statements was interpreted as telling me that with views like mine I should leave the country and go live in Iran. That's how I saw it.


I can't count the number of times I have been told "America: love it or leave it" by people who thought my lack of support for our war in Iraq meant that I sympathized with Osama bin Laden and his ilk.


Exactly. Had I said "Get out of my country" (a sentiment which has been expressed to me on numerous occasion by "patriotic Americans"), you might have a grievance.

I have been told the same thing. Funny that some of the people who tell us to get out of the country for opposing wars like this don't seem to have any trouble barging into other countries like Iraq to start the war and thrust their own agenda onto them. Perhaps THEY should just go there and fight the war themselves.

I am a registered Democrat who is against the war in Iraq and for the death penalty. I'm probably more an Independant than Democrat, who knows for sure.

[és:]

But your reaction to my statements was interpreted as telling me that with views like mine I should leave the country and go live in Iran.

Your view one capital punishment isn't a million miles away from theirs.

[ZachsMacDaddy]

Your view one capital punishment isn't a million miles away from theirs.

And I'm sure you may have an opinion on something else that is similar to how India feels, but does that mean I should tell you to go live there?

[és:]

And I'm sure you may have an opinion on something else that is similar to how India feels, but does that mean I should tell you to go live there?

No. The fact that nobody is telling you to live anywhere seems to have passed you by.

However, this is quite a big thing. Governments having the ability to kill it's own citizens isn't a small thing. 'Don't kill people... Oh, and ignore us killing people, too'.

[djellison]

#3 - Do you consider the victims to be only the deceased? What about their family and friends?

And the friends and family of the convicted criminal? And the friends and family of someone executed, only later to be found innocent?

Execution does NOT deter crime. Compare crime rates of countries with it and without it.

Tell me why they shouldn't stay in jail, so that if evidence shows them later to be innocent, they can be released.

So you get rid of the death penalty and people get life instead. Then you add in some innocent people who were wrongly convicted. One day a murderer comes along in prison and they kill another inmate who happened to be one of those wrongly convicted people. Now the system has allowed that poor person to be negatively affected at least 2 times, 1st by being imprisoned and 2nd by being killed in prison by someone who could have been executed had their been a death penalty. Sure, it's sounds like I'm reaching here, but c'mon, I won't be the first to do it.

Hold on - so you're actually saying that the death penalty is good because it kills innocent people before a fellow inmate gets the chance? That's screwed up - hugely.

[EricNau]

EricNau, a couple of casual points, just in passing: The only mammalian surplus on the planet is Homo Sap.

Some members of the species deny their own humanity by their actions. I see no compelling reason for their continued existence. Regular or Extra Crispy, mox nix to me.

As for what others do or think, that they believe as they do is not the determinant for any other society. If you get into the majority-rule deal on punishments, we'd have to take up chopping off of thieves' hands. I've read that there are over a billion adherents to the Koran. And China's billion+ are not revolutionizing against the death penalty, there. (Yeah, egregious examples, and halfway silly, but there ya go...)

'Rat
Rather than addressing this issue with majority/minority rationale, consider the nations which oppose the death penalty, versus those that practice it. I mean no offense to anyone, but all of America's best allies (Canada, Mexico, the EU, and Australia) oppose the death penalty, leaving the U.S. categorized with nations that most Americans do not traditionally want themselves associated (Cuba, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, China).

(Let me reiterate: this is a purely policy-based discussion, and in no way should these comments be taken personally.)

[CalBoy]

#1 - It completely removes the worst of the worst criminals from society and from the world. It gives a 100% guarantee that the person will NEVER be able to do harm to another person, whether outside or inside of prison.

You can achieve the same results with a well constructed and guarded prison.

The bonus of going that route is that incase you make a mistake in prosecution, you can always undo part of your error; with death, there is no going back.

#2 - The appeals process is what holds everything up.

Whether it's cruel to tell them they're going to die is up for debate, just like whether executing them is up for debate. It's a matter of interpretation and every one of us seems to differ on that interpretation.

That's the question I'm asking in this thread specifically.

If the person wasn't convicted of a crime, would you consider it cruel to tell them they are going to die and then let them sweat for 5, 10, 20, or even more years? What kind of psychological torture would that person have to endure during those years?

#3 - Do you consider the victims to be only the deceased?

Considering that we only use the death penalty today for murder, yes. Treason is there, but I can't think of any current death row inmate who has been convicted of treason.

What about their family and friends? I think it DOES provide comfort to some of them to know that the person who did this to their loved ones is gone and can never do harm to ANYONE again.

So you want to encourage vengeance and revenge in the justice system?

Sorry to tell you, but that's not the basis of law (or even any major religion for that matter).

I think the possibility of execution WILL deter some criminals.

Regardless of what you think, that's not what happens.

Murders are by their nature not fully rational when they commit the act; they are not performing a cost-benefit analysis in their head before they kill someone.

I'll throw this one out too. I'm not sure if someone already mentioned it or not and I'm not going to go back and re-read the whole thread again. So you get rid of the death penalty and people get life instead. Then you add in some innocent people who were wrongly convicted. One day a murderer comes along in prison and they kill another inmate who happened to be one of those wrongly convicted people. Now the system has allowed that poor person to be negatively affected at least 2 times, 1st by being imprisoned and 2nd by being killed in prison by someone who could have been executed had their been a death penalty. Sure, it's sounds like I'm reaching here, but c'mon, I won't be the first to do it.

The more horrible hypothetical is the state killing the innocent man.

Unless you're going to play that game, don't come up with far fetched hypotheticals.

The Supreme Court is in charge of determining what is "Constitutional," not me, you or anyone else. Since we still have capital punishment, I'd say they have so far determined that it is ok. We have a voice with which to express our opinions on it, but they have the final say.

That doesn't mean that it isn't cruel or unusual.

I'll throw out the same example I did before. For 58 years between 1896 and 1954 the Supreme Court said that segregation did not violate the 14th Amendment.

Did that make segregation between those years right? Sure it was legal, but was it right?

I don't know. How do you think it should be resolved? You show me how to resolve conflict like that and I'll give you a mirror to see the next Nobel Peace Prize winner.

There's nothing Nobel Prize-worthy about saying that we should end capital punishment.

For a nation that is supposedly the "leader" of the free world, we should hang our heads in shame that we still use this punishment in the 21st Century.

[63dot]

For a nation that is supposedly the "leader" of the free world, we should hang our heads in shame that we still use this punishment in the 21st Century.

Agreed. People should look at page one of this thread and revisit the map. Who do we share the death penalty with? 'nuff said.

Oh heck, I will pull up the map for late-comers.

[63dot]

Interesting Map. Does anyone else see a pattern?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Death_Penalty_World_Map.png


Color scheme:
Blue: Abolished for all crimes
Green: Abolished for crimes not committed in exceptional circumstances (such as crimes committed in time of war)
Orange: Abolished in practice
Red: Legal form of punishment for certain offenses

here

Let's take a look. Communist China, the middle east, and some nations in Africa noted for their warlords. Modern day Japan has it only as a remnant as an agreement as part of the World War II surrender.

[takao]

here

Let's take a look. Communist China, the middle east, and some nations in Africa noted for their warlords. Modern day Japan has it only as a remnant as an agreement as part of the World War II surrender.

not that such maps are a surprise in any way looking at some other recent treatys/conventions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Cluster_Munitions

[PcBgone]

Amazing. Simply Amazing.

Your against the death penalty of CRIMINALS who have Raped, Killed, and Molested society.

Yet your willing to kill an innocent UNBORN baby in the name of choice.

Does anyone see anything wrong with this picture? Why do we allow these ruffians to leach off of the system, with free housing, free food, free clothes, they watch free tv all day, work on building their bodies up using weights that the taxpayers paid for, only to get out of prison and go on yet another killing spree. Why should they live? They have TORTURED their Victims. What about those families who have lost their loved ones?

To hell with humane death sentences. Torture the bastards as they tortured their victims!

[zap2]

here

Let's take a look. Communist China,


Where? I don't see it ;)



To hell with humane death sentences. Torture the bastards as they tortured their victims!

:rolleyes:


Please, you sensationalist word hold little meaning. Respect for human rights however hold some meaning!

[PcBgone]

Where? I don't see it ;)



:rolleyes:


Please, you sensationalist word hold little meaning. Respect for human rights however hold some meaning!

LOL Respect for human rights? Respect is EARNED not given. A criminal who tortures its victims and then murders them deserves no respect. They are the scum of the earth. Just as with anyone who kills another human being because its "inconvenient" or simply just for the thrill of killing.

The death penalty is justice for the families of those who were killed by monsters. They are Inhumane. They deserve not one iota of respect.

[EricNau]

Amazing. Simply Amazing.

Your against the death penalty of CRIMINALS who have Raped, Killed, and Molested society.

Yet your willing to kill an innocent UNBORN baby in the name of choice.

Does anyone see anything wrong with this picture? Why do we allow these ruffians to leach off of the system, with free housing, free food, free clothes, they watch free tv all day, work on building their bodies up using weights that the taxpayers paid for, only to get out of prison and go on yet another killing spree. Why should they live? They have TORTURED their Victims. What about those families who have lost their loved ones?

To hell with humane death sentences. Torture the bastards as they tortured their victims!
No, but I see something wrong with with your portrayal or abortion.

The debate surrounding abortion isn't whether or not it's alright to kill an unborn baby, but rather, if it's "murder" if the fetus is not yet viable or sentient.

Execution, however, is undeniably murder.

[EricNau]

LOL Respect for human rights? Respect is EARNED not given. A criminal who tortures its victims and then murders them deserves no respect. They are the scum of the earth. Just as with anyone who kills another human being because its "inconvenient" or simply just for the thrill of killing.
United States Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Inalienable:
unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.

[skunk]

LOL Respect for human rights? Respect is EARNED not given. A criminal who tortures its victims and then murders them deserves no respect. They are the scum of the earth. Just as with anyone who kills another human being because its "inconvenient" or simply just for the thrill of killing.

The death penalty is justice for the families of those who were killed by monsters. They are Inhumane. They deserve not one iota of respect.The air is thick with irony. You advocate torture as a punishment because you think that torture is a heinous crime. You claim it is for the families and relatives of the original victims. You have supported barbarism elsewhere in the service of civilisation, and now you are proposing that the State employs people to torture criminals for the vicarious assuaging of the hurt of others, without even stopping to ask the families whether they actually want anyone tortured on their behalf.

[CalBoy]

Amazing. Simply Amazing.

Your against the death penalty of CRIMINALS who have Raped, Killed, and Molested society.

Yet your willing to kill an innocent UNBORN baby in the name of choice.

My personal ethics is more against torture, pain, and suffering. Executing a criminal inflicts all three when a life sentence can achieve all the same results (at a fraction of the cost, I might add).

If you want to discuss abortion, feel free to take yourself to that thread, since this thread is not about that issue.


To hell with humane death sentences. Torture the bastards as they tortured their victims!

Revenge is not a means of justice; to make such a remark is surprisingly unChristian.

[Gelfin]

Respect is EARNED not given.

May I inquire what a blastocyst has done to earn your respect?

[Delta608]

No, but I see something wrong with with your portrayal or abortion.

The debate surrounding abortion isn't whether or not it's alright to kill an unborn baby, but rather, if it's "murder" if the fetus is not yet viable or sentient.

Execution, however, is undeniably murder.


Not yet viable, is that how they live with themselves...??
Execution IS state sanctioned murder, thereby LEGAL...

[NT1440]

LOL Respect for human rights? Respect is EARNED not given. A criminal who tortures its victims and then murders them deserves no respect. They are the scum of the earth. Just as with anyone who kills another human being because its "inconvenient" or simply just for the thrill of killing.

The death penalty is justice for the families of those who were killed by monsters. They are Inhumane. They deserve not one iota of respect.
Respect for human rights has to be EARNED?!:eek: Well I guess you wont think anything if I were to kill an infant, after all they did nothing to earn my respect....

How exactly is the death penalty justice for the families? Does it bring back the dead? No.

Does it end the sadness of the loss of the family? No.

So its essentially "Well Jimmy's still dead, but hey we took another life!"

[EricNau]

Execution IS state sanctioned murder, thereby LEGAL...
By that logic, you mustn't take issue with abortion, right? After all, abortion is legal.

Legality does not constitute morality; the two are completely separate entities, and while they often overlap, an act can be one without the other.

[Lord Blackadder]

"I find it hard to believe that you can execute anyone without inflicting cruel and unusual punishment.

That depends on what we as a society deem to be "cruel and unusual".

I'm not a supporter of the death penalty, but at the same time I think that the popularity of the notion that executions are cruel and unusual is of relatively recent vintage. I think that certain classes of criminals absolutely deserve to die for their crimes, but I do not feel it is right for the state to kill them in the name of justice.

[iJohnHenry]

As I said, several pages back:

"Can An Execution be Done Without Being Cruel"

a bullet to the back of the head is quick, not drawn-out as are other methods, so I would say it is not cruel;

"and Unusual?

considering that the subject probably did the same thing to his/her victim(s), I would not characterise it as unusual.

Most other replies appear to be seriously off-topic from the original question.

[CalBoy]

Execution IS state sanctioned murder, thereby LEGAL...

So if the government does something it is legal?

Is that the Nixon defense?
That depends on what we as a society deem to be "cruel and unusual".

I think as a society we recognize that psychological terror is a form of cruelty. I think most of us are also aware of the much higher rates of depression and suicide amongst death row inmates.

For most Americans, I think it comes down to wanting revenge and fufilling a certain "justice" regardless of the method used.

I think that the popularity of the notion that executions are cruel and unusual is of relatively recent vintage.

Oh I don't know...the idea has been around for decades, and I don't think it's ever been popular! :p

[CalBoy]

"Can An Execution be Done Without Being Cruel"

a bullet to the back of the head is quick, not drawn-out as are other methods, so I would say it is not cruel;

Due process still involves telling the person that they are going to die, and the appeals process reminds them of this for years on end. The high rates of depression and suicide point to at least some sense of cruelty.

"and Unusual?

considering that the subject probably did the same thing to his/her victim(s), I would not characterise it as unusual.

The basis for determining 'unusual' isn't based on what the perpetrator did, but rather the acceptable forms of punishment in use.

A bullet to the back of the head, would alas be unusual for the modern day in the US while lethal injection would not be.

[Tomorrow]

I'm against the death penalty because it's too expensive and because of all the people who've been wrongly executed.

I don't believe I can name any - can you help us out?

most who advocate for the death penalty do not care about deterring crime or how much it costs as primary concerns. they advocate for the death penalty because they feel it is more fitting justice for the crimes they commit than getting off easy in their opinion by having the criminal live in prison for the rest of his life

If you had said "many" rather than "most," I would likely agree with this statement. Some of us advocate the death penalty not so much as a deterrent but to cut down on repeat offenses. I know someone can be sentenced to life in prison, but sometimes they are not, or a plea deal lets them off on a reduced sentence, or they get paroled. Many of these people cannot be rehabilitated by the prison system; executing them will guarantee they don't kill another innocent person.

Person A is killed by Person B in an horific and brutal way.
You kill Person B in an horific and brutal way.
So, why should you not be killed in an horrific and brutal way.


For the sake of argument, I will temporarily concede that execution can indeed be horrific, but mostly only to the condemned criminal. I will not concede that it is brutal.

In any event, executions in the U.S. must be handed down by a jury, and approved by a judge. The sentence is then automatically reviewed (similar to an appeal). In this process, there are many people involved, representing the people of that state (or the U.S. in a Federal case), all of which must agree that the offender must be put to death. There is no "you kill Person B" here - it is the will of the people, not of the victim.

[SLC Flyfishing]

We've undoubtedly killed innocent people in the past; if abolishing capital punishment could save so little as one life, then that's what we ought to do.

Funny, but you don't feel the same way about abortions?

I find that highly ironic!

I do agree however, both should be abolished.

SLC

[CalBoy]

Some of us advocate the death penalty not so much as a deterrent but to cut down on repeat offenses. I know someone can be sentenced to life in prison, but sometimes they are not, or a plea deal lets them off on a reduced sentence, or they get paroled.

Note that this happens even when execution is on the table.

If a criminal qualifies for some kind of parole in their distant future, it is very unlikely that they qualify for a death sentence. Preserving the death penalty does not help with that issue in the least.

Many of these people cannot be rehabilitated by the prison system; executing them will guarantee they don't kill another innocent person.

A life sentence also guarantees that, nor does it make any claim to rehabilitation.

The key strong points of life in prison are that it is reversible should a mistake be uncovered, it involves less pain and suffering on the part of the convicted person, and that it costs far less.


In any event, executions in the U.S. must be handed down by a jury, and approved by a judge. The sentence is then automatically reviewed (similar to an appeal). In this process, there are many people involved, representing the people of that state (or the U.S. in a Federal case), all of which must agree that the offender must be put to death.

Of course the problems inherent with this system are an overworked judiciary that has a tendency to rubber stamp death warrants, judges which are vulnerable to public pressure (at the state level), and juries that desire vengeance, all of which coalesce quite frequently to lead to the world's largest death row, and one of the most racist and unevenly enforced.

[Tomorrow]

If a criminal qualifies for some kind of parole in their distant future, it is very unlikely that they qualify for a death sentence.

Not necessarily true. First-degree murder is first-degree murder. You can be sentenced to death or some number of years, which means you're eligible for parole.

A life sentence also guarantees that, nor does it make any claim to rehabilitation.

There are only two reasons for sending someone to jail: either you want to rehabilitate them, or you want to punish them. Ending that person's life is punishment in lieu of (an impossible) rehabilitation.

I'm not saying every murderer is an ideal candidate for the death penalty - but some of the worst criminals are, in my opinion, "beyond hope" for rehabilitation.

The key strong points of life in prison are that it is reversible should a mistake be uncovered, it involves less pain and suffering on the part of the convicted person, and that it costs far less.

I agree that a prison sentence is reversible, and I agree it's less expensive than execution. As far as the pain and suffering go, I'm not at all in favor of executing someone for the express purpose of torturing or inflicting pain - but come on, it's supposed to be a punishment. It's not supposed to be pleasant, in fact the whole idea of punishment is that it's unpleasant.

If someone can come up with a fool-proof and painless method of execution, I would not be opposed to it. I would not argue in favor of causing the suffering of the condemned.

Of course the problems inherent with this system are an overworked judiciary that has a tendency to rubber stamp death warrants, judges which are vulnerable to public pressure (at the state level), and juries that desire vengeance, all of which coalesce quite frequently to lead to the world's largest death row, and one of the most racist and unevenly enforced.

The first part of this paragraph is utter hogwash; when it takes upwards of 10 years on average to execute a death row inmate (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-23-Death-row-time_N.htm), there's no plausible way that anyone can argue "overworked" as an excuse - nobody is so friggin' busy they can't find time in ten years to review a person's case.

And if you want to argue that judges are pressured by the public (meaning the people represented by the courts) and juries (again, the people represented by the courts) who desire vengeance, then you're simply stating that the death penalty is simply mandated by the people of this country. You can argue all you want that this statement is false, but you cannot deny that it would not be possible to unanimously sentence these people to death without a public mandate in favor of the punishment.

I'm not in any way suggesting that a person's opinion is wrong simply because they oppose the death penalty, I'm just pointing out that the majority of Americans in death penalty states are in favor of it. Otherwise, nobody would ever be sentenced to death; you could never find 12 random jurors to agree to it.

[CalBoy]

Not necessarily true. First-degree murder is first-degree murder. You can be sentenced to death or some number of years, which means you're eligible for parole.

You're missing my point; if a crime is horrendous enough to qualify for death, there's no chance a DA is going to be offering parole. If the DA does offer parole, it's because the case is materially weak and death was never an option.

In particular, the criminals who walk the streets after 10 years or so are going to be fully unaffected by the absence of the death penalty. Their cases were never going to be good death penalty cases, so no DA would have pursued them.

There are only two reasons for sending someone to jail: either you want to rehabilitate them, or you want to punish them. Ending that person's life is punishment in lieu of (an impossible) rehabilitation.

Life in prison is also punishment in lieu of an impossible rehabilitation.

I'm not saying every murderer is an ideal candidate for the death penalty - but some of the worst criminals are, in my opinion, "beyond hope" for rehabilitation.

So let them sit in jail. No need to rehabilitate them.

As far as the pain and suffering go, I'm not at all in favor of executing someone for the express purpose of torturing or inflicting pain - but come on, it's supposed to be a punishment. It's not supposed to be pleasant, in fact the whole idea of punishment is that it's unpleasant.

I'd say life in prison is pretty unpleasant. Moreover, the point is that certain types of punishment are so unpleasant that they are cruel. In my opinion, a punishment scheme that leads to shockingly high rates of depression and suicide is cruel. Even if we leave aside the problems of using lethal injection as a form of execution, which has many problems of its own. Justice Stevens noted last year "Kentucky may well kill petitioners using a drug that it would not permit to be used on their pets." Baze v Rees 553_ (2008) (3rd page of Stevens' concurrence).

If someone can come up with a fool-proof and painless method of execution, I would not be opposed to it. I would not argue in favor of causing the suffering of the condemned.

But in the meantime you are perfectly willing to let humans suffer. How would you ameliorate the current problems of pain and suffering given our biotechnological limits?


The first part of this paragraph is utter hogwash; when it takes upwards of 10 years on average to execute a death row inmate (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-07-23-Death-row-time_N.htm), there's no plausible way that anyone can argue "overworked" as an excuse - nobody is so friggin' busy they can't find time in ten years to review a person's case.

Just because you don't understand the intracacies of the appeals process doesn't mean that the problems faced by the legal system aren't real.

The number of appellate judges (which are required by law to review capital cases), is low relative to the total number of appeals filed in a given year. Not to mention the fact that appellate judges are also charged with reviewing the appeals for other cases, both civil and criminal in nature.

To gain perspective on the issue, consider the fact that Susette Kelo first filed her case against the City of New London in 1999, and had her case heard by the US Supreme Court in 2005. In that case, only a single question was being decided and resolved. For capital cases, there are frequently many points for appeal, and each new question prolongs the process by years at a time.

And if you want to argue that judges are pressured by the public (meaning the people represented by the courts) and juries (again, the people represented by the courts) who desire vengeance, then you're simply stating that the death penalty is simply mandated by the people of this country.

No, that's not what I'm saying. American judges have a political incentive to be more hostile towards the defendants who appear before them because they face reelection against a public that has a tendency to want revenge.

Federal judges, who don't decide the majority of capital cases, have less of an incentive to go along with the public will, so they are more insulated by public pressure to do the popular thing (as opposed to the just thing).

You can argue all you want that this statement is false, but you cannot deny that it would not be possible to unanimously sentence these people to death without a public mandate in favor of the punishment.

Unanimous for a jury, yes, but not for other levels of appeal. If 3/7 judges on an appellate panel or Supreme Court hearing feel that death is unacceptable, the punishment is still carried out.

What's more, the public pressure for death still applies to state appellate judges as well as trial level judges (as they both face retention elections), so even if they don't fully agree, they are more likely to go along with the wishes of a jury.

I'm just pointing out that the majority of Americans in death penalty states are in favor of it. Otherwise, nobody would ever be sentenced to death; you could never find 12 random jurors to agree to it.

I don't see the relevance here. At one time in history, you could easily find 12 random people who would be willing to sentence a black man to death (even if he wasn't on trial).

Public approval does not correlate to correctness, which is what this thread is about.

[Lord Blackadder]

I think as a society we recognize that psychological terror is a form of cruelty. I think most of us are also aware of the much higher rates of depression and suicide amongst death row inmates.

For most Americans, I think it comes down to wanting revenge and fufilling a certain "justice" regardless of the method used.

I don't think execution has ever been seen as anything other than cruel - in fact I think that's the point. The psychological "torture" is part of the punishment. Which isn't to say I support it.

[Delta608]

By that logic, you mustn't take issue with abortion, right? After all, abortion is legal.


Actually I do take issue with it, but the Supreme Court has spoken..Thereby LEGAL..

[Peace]

My answer.

NO.

Capitol punishment is murder. Society should not have the mentality of an eye for an eye.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

My answer.

NO.

Capitol punishment is murder. Society should not have the mentality of an eye for an eye.

That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

/Thread :)

[CalBoy]

I don't think execution has ever been seen as anything other than cruel - in fact I think that's the point. The psychological "torture" is part of the punishment. Which isn't to say I support it.

I agree with your assessment of the nature of capital punishment and why it's used, but the fact that so many Americans are willing to cast the 8th Amendment aside disturbs me.
/Thread :)

Yeah, except the thread isn't about what we think is murder, it's about what we think is cruel and unusual. ;)

[TuffLuffJimmy]

I agree with your assessment of the nature of capital punishment and why it's used, but the fact that so many Americans are willing to cast the 8th Amendment aside disturbs me.


Yeah, except the thread isn't about what we think is murder, it's about what we think is cruel and unusual. ;)

Is murder ever not cruel?

[CalBoy]

Is murder ever not cruel?

Maybe; I'm sure Lennie Small could give us some insight.

Seriously though, I don't think all murder is necessarily cruel, but telling someone they are going to die before hand certainly is, and due process requires this, ergo no state can engage in proper use of the death penalty.