This is such a sticky subject for me.  Fundamentally I believe it's wrong to kill, and like I stated on another thread, logically I think it's wrong to kill someone to punish them for killing someone.  But it just isn't that black and white.  I think when a person commits murder, and takes the life of someone else, they forfeit any of their basic rights, including their right to life.  Ted Bundy deserved to die.  He tortured and killed so many young women, and destroyed so many lives and families.  He wasn't a human being, and didn't deserve to be treated as such.  And he is just one of many.  It's lovely to think that you can rehabilitate a person, but some people are simply beyond it. 

Every one who commits a crime that is classified as a "capital offense", does so because they are emotionally disturbed...and that malady, that emotional illness, originates in the society in which the individual is raised.  I do not believe murderers are born...I believe that individuals are corrupted by the environment in which they live.  Once again, we are civilized beings who should treat our fellow human beings with compassion and understanding...especially if they are emotionally disturbed. 

Unfortunately, in this imperfect world in which we all exist, there are still far too many individuals who have not the ability to be comapssionate...Who must solve all the problems arising from people who are deviants to the established rules of socety, by the neat and final solution of permenently eradicating the offensive individual.  No need for lengthy rehabilitation...No need to house and feed such "vile" criminals.
Waste of money and time...  Oh yes, the death penalty is a simple solution...particularly favored  by the too large "simple-minded" segment of society.



I think it's rather "simple-minded" of you to assume that people who favor the death penalty are "simple-minded".  There was no need to be insulting.


I think there are some people who cannot be rehabilitated, who cannot be helped.  I think there are people who can.  Why should the people who can be rehabilitated not get the help they need because we're spending millions of dollars and countless hours trying to fix what cannot be fixed?  The Ted Bundys of the world, the Charles Mansons of the world......they aren't going to suddenly change. 

I don't think the death penalty should be used in every single murder case.  I think there needs to be especially extenuating circumstances for it to even be mentioned.

I don't think the death penalty should be used in every single murder case.  I think there needs to be especially extenuating circumstances for it to even be mentioned.


Irrefutable evidence. For example, DNA.

But, I'm simple minded so that wouldn't occur to me.  ;)

I think it's rather "simple-minded" of you to assume that people who favor the death penalty are "simple-minded".  There was no need to be insulting.


I think there are some people who cannot be rehabilitated, who cannot be helped.  I think there are people who can.  Why should the people who can be rehabilitated not get the help they need because we're spending millions of dollars and countless hours trying to fix what cannot be fixed?  The Ted Bundys of the world, the Charles Mansons of the world......they aren't going to suddenly change. 

I don't think the death penalty should be used in every single murder case.  I think there needs to be especially extenuating circumstances for it to even be mentioned.


Well said!!!!

I don't believe in the death penalty however, there may be a few exceptions to that rule. Unfortunately, with our justice system, far too many innocent people are sentence to death (1 is far too many in my book). Also, none of us know for sure what is on the other side. It could be "Heaven" as some believe. Personally, I wouldn't want to send someone who has done a heinous act to "Heaven" where there is no pain. I would rather he (or she) spend a lifetime behind bars, and become "Babba's bitch".




Cat

I think it's rather "simple-minded" of you to assume that people who favor the death penalty are "simple-minded".  There was no need to be insulting.


I think there are some people who cannot be rehabilitated, who cannot be helped.  I think there are people who can.  Why should the people who can be rehabilitated not get the help they need because we're spending millions of dollars and countless hours trying to fix what cannot be fixed?  The Ted Bundys of the world, the Charles Mansons of the world......they aren't going to suddenly change. 

I don't think the death penalty should be used in every single murder case.  I think there needs to be especially extenuating circumstances for it to even be mentioned.


Damn, you beat me to it.

And yes, there are people who can't be helped. Sociopaths come to mind. Come on, these people have no conscience. Do you honestly think rehabilitation is going to help?

hear hear ! could not have said it better myself.

I have always been 100% for capital punishment and wish I lived in a country brave enough to bring it back.

Personally I am for it if someone I love gets murdered - and I would STILL be for it if someone I love committed the murder.

I have just spent 12 months helping a co-worker get over the death of her sister. She was brutally killed by her ex husband last Christmas. The coroner recorded 170 separate blows to her body with a cricket bat (twice the width of a baseball bat and made of solid wood), and 150 separate stab wounds. Her defense wounds included the loss of all of her finger nails and two of her fingers as she fought for her life. He drove off and left her body to be found by her teenage son.
He got sentenced to 17 years. In my state that means he will likely serve a maximum of 7.

No one can tell me that man deserves to be alive.

Another of my coworkers was arrested last year. He and another man kidnapped a 12 year old boy and held him captive for weeks. During that time they sexually molested him, tortured him, and subjected him to the most vile acts. They also videoed it and released it to the internet paedophile network. The court case is still in progress but I can only guess they will get 5 or 6 years with parole - maximum. This is a guy I use to have lunch with every week. Someone I considered a close friend. A friend with a vile dark secret.

I want him to die in jail sooner rather than later - he deserves to.



  Putting the personal spin on something like this is foolish.  Even if my closest relative were the world's worst serial rapist and killer, I may be against his incarceration, much less his execution.  But that's not how one views such issues and doing so solves nothing...



Why should my taxes pay to feed and clothe these types of people ? Why should my taxes pay for their TVs and dvd players, and computers and broadband access ?



  Ah..! The old "prison is a holiday camp" ploy...

  It seems to me that nobody is rushing to get into prison, despite the "perpetual comfort" it supposedly offers...

  There are more Americans incarcerated for murder today than ever before.  This suggests to me that the death penalty is no deterrent... 

Irrefutable evidence. For example, DNA.

But, I'm simple minded so that wouldn't occur to me.  ;)

DNA is not 100% irrefutable.  Human error is still quite possible.  I am in favor of using DNA evidence, of course, because it is much more accurate than other evidence.  Absolute proof of guilt for first degree murder does not make me favor capital punishment. 

I don't know about broad-band access on death row.  I don't care either.  If we instituted the social reforms this country needs, you wouldn't have to fret over your tax dollars paying for so many incarcerated citizens. 

Every one who commits a crime that is classified as a "capital offense", does so because they are emotionally disturbed...and that malady, that emotional illness, originates in the society in which the individual is raised.  I do not believe murderers are born...I believe that individuals are corrupted by the environment in which they live.   Once again, we are civilized beings who should treat our fellow human beings with compassion and understanding...especially if they are emotionally disturbed. 

Unfortunately, in this imperfect world in which we all exist, there are still far too many individuals who have not the ability to be compassionate...Who must solve all the problems arising from people who are deviants to the established rules of society, by the neat and final solution of permanently eradicating the offensive individual.  No need for lengthy rehabilitation...No need to house and feed such "vile" criminals.
Waste of money and time...   Oh yes, the death penalty is a simple solution...particularly favored  by the too large "simple-minded" segment of society.

I apologize to anyone who took offense at my reference to the death penalty being a simple solution for the simpleminded.  It just troubles me that so many people can accept the act of putting to death another human being, no matter what terrible crimes they may have been convicted of committing.  Once again I must insist that no one commits a capital crime without being instigated by some societal aberrations.  None of us are born murderers.  We are emotionally twisted somewhere along the paths of our development to bring us to the point where we are capable of surmounting the rules of society and are able to commit the murder of another human being.  Since I place the responsibility for such an individual's criminal actions with society,I require society to care for the individual and,at least, make an attempt at rehabilitation.

I apologize to anyone who took offense at my reference to the death penalty being a simple solution for the simpleminded.  It just troubles me that so many people can accept the act of putting to death another human being, no matter what terrible crimes they may have been convicted of committing.  Once again I must insist that no one commits a capital crime without being instigated by some societal aberrations.  None of us are born murderers.  We are emotionally twisted somewhere along the paths of our development to bring us to the point where we are capable of surmounting the rules of society and are able to commit the murder of another human being.  Since I place the responsibility for such an individual's criminal actions with society,I require society to care for the individual and,at least, make an attempt at rehabilitation.



As I said, some people are beyond help.  Those kinds of people really do exist. 

Wow.

I bet the guy who killed his wife because she was about to divorce him and take everything he had was clinically insane...

Or that other guy who faked his wife's death so he could collect the life insurance money...

Yeah, let's blame society.  Wait, I thought society said killing was bad.  Someone must not have been teaching these guys right.  Let's blame those people instead and leave society out of it. 

Wow.

I bet the guy who killed his wife because she was about to divorce him and take everything he had was clinically insane...

Or that other guy who faked his wife's death so he could collect the life insurance money...

Yeah, let's blame society.  Wait, I thought society said killing was bad.  Someone must not have been teaching these guys right.  Let's blame those people instead and leave society out of it. 

Let's not engage in simplistic rhetoric.  It gives the illusion of logic, but it is a sign of unexamined thought, which leads to illogical conclusions because it cannot handle nuance. 

You will have first degree murder in any society.  The two scenarios above are first degree murder cases.  Social reforms will decrease second degree murder and manslaughter far more.  They will decrease first degree as well, though not as much.

Let's not engage in simplistic rhetoric.  It gives the illusion of logic, but it is a sign of unexamined thought, which leads to illogical conclusions because it cannot handle nuance. 


This doesn't sound uppity at all.

Let's not engage in simplistic rhetoric.  It gives the illusion of logic, but it is a sign of unexamined thought, which leads to illogical conclusions because it cannot handle nuance. 

You will have first degree murder in any society.  The two scenarios above are first degree murder cases.  Social reforms will decrease second degree murder and manslaughter far more.  They will decrease first degree as well, though not as much.


You're right.  Let's blame society.

Like this one, we'll blame society together!

None of us are raised in a vacuum.  The society we live in determines all of our behavior...values, morals, ethics.  If the society we live in is screwed up...it's not difficult to see how someone can be screwed up.

None of us are raised in a vacuum.  The society we live in determines all of our behavior...values, morals, ethics.  If the society we live in is screwed up...it's not difficult to see how someone can be screwed up.


Then how do you explain the Menendez brothers?

Then how do you explain the Menendez brothers?


Definitely society's fault.

Then how do you explain the Menendez brothers?



Rich, entitled, raised by loving parents......I don't see where you're going with this.  I mean, that's screwed-up, right?

anyway you look at it, murder is an individual act done with the sole purpose of violently ending another persons life. I can't comprehend the mindset of someone who viciously kills another human being. I'm not a person who enjoys hurting people but I've known a couple of extremely violent people and one who shot and killed some other guy I knew. I've known many who have no regard for other life. Their childhoods and upbringing weren't much different than mine and yet they were violent people that had no problem whatsoever hurting people. The idea of placing blame and responsibility on society just takes the blame off the killer and their criminal act and makes it seem like their rights are more important than the protection of citizens from being killed. Our rights to live and not be killed have to come first but in this topsy turvy world, it seems like some people are more concerned about the rights and future of stone cold killers that shot, stabbed, burned, strangled innocent people. It's fine if we find it in our hearts to forgive these people and they may rehab and change while in prison or on death row, and they may even get born again, or find some other spiritual enlightenment that causes them to actually undego a psychic change and sincerely be reformed, but they still need to face the consequences and pay for their heinous crimes. I'm not saying everyone who kills deserves the death penalty, but there are some that do and society is better protected from those if they are executed.

Instead of the death penalty they should have the breath penalty. Stick these creeps in a cramped cell with 3 or 4 guys who never brush their teeth and who are on a strict diet of nothing but garlic, onions, and milk and who all chain-smoke really cheap cigars.

Instead of the death penalty they should have the breath penalty. Stick these creeps in a cramped cell with 3 or 4 guys who never brush their teeth and who are on a strict diet of nothing but garlic, onions, and milk and who all chain-smoke really cheap cigars.


Or instead of the gas chamber they could have the ass chamber...but I'm sure that too would be considered cruel and unusual punishment :P

HAHA!  They could nickname it the Cleveland Steamer too!

Instead of the death penalty they should have the breath penalty. Stick these creeps in a cramped cell with 3 or 4 guys who never brush their teeth and who are on a strict diet of nothing but garlic, onions, and milk and who all chain-smoke really cheap cigars.
omg you're quite cruel  >:(

anyway you look at it, murder is an individual act done with the sole purpose of violently ending another persons life. I can't comprehend the mindset of someone who viciously kills another human being. I'm not a person who enjoys hurting people but I've known a couple of extremely violent people and one who shot and killed some other guy I knew. I've known many who have no regard for other life. Their childhoods and upbringing weren't much different than mine and yet they were violent people that had no problem whatsoever hurting people. The idea of placing blame and responsibility on society just takes the blame off the killer and their criminal act and makes it seem like their rights are more important than the protection of citizens from being killed. Our rights to live and not be killed have to come first but in this topsy turvy world, it seems like some people are more concerned about the rights and future of stone cold killers that shot, stabbed, burned, strangled innocent people. It's fine if we find it in our hearts to forgive these people and they may rehab and change while in prison or on death row, and they may even get born again, or find some other spiritual enlightenment that causes them to actually undego a psychic change and sincerely be reformed, but they still need to face the consequences and pay for their heinous crimes. I'm not saying everyone who kills deserves the death penalty, but there are some that do and society is better protected from those if they are executed.


      The whole point of "justice" is that we are members of a civilization and that civilization teaches us to rise above our base emotions.  Once civilization has a chance to intervene, I expect more from us collectively than individually...

  You have simply not thought your scenario all the way through. You folks all do the same thing. You get to the part where the perp is dead.  You grin and say, "At last, it's over..."

  Trouble is, it's not. Let's put this in perspective, Mike. I'm going to try something I've recently knocked someone for.  An appeal to emotion.  You've had a loved one killed by another human being.  You, of all people, know at that moment just how that feels.  It's unbearable. You wouldn't want anyone ever to feel that way...

  You're in the courtroom.  The suspect has been arrested, charged with premeditated murder and convicted beyond the shadow of a doubt (I'll conveniently cut to the chase...) The jury agrees and Judge Hizzoner Buford, the Last Living Redneck, hands down the death penalty...

  You walk out of the courtroom with a great feeling of relief.  What do you see over on the other side of the aisle?  The family of the condemned.  His brothers and sisters.  His wife and children.  His nieces and nephews.  His minister.  His best friend who tried so hard to steer him onto the right path. (I'll leave out his parents, in case we've unrepentant-Freudians-who-blame-our-parents-for-everything-we-do-because-we're-too-weak-to-exercise-our-own-free-will in our midst...)  They're all crying.  They all feel exactly the way you do.  They just lost someone they love, and they didn't do a damn thing to deserve it...

  What possible excuse do you have for wishing that kind of pain on another human being?  You call it justice.  I call it sick...

  If Joanne were murdered and I had to walk out of a courtroom bearing not just my own grief, but knowing that all those other people felt just as bad as I did, I don't know if I could bear it.  And I'll tell you something else -  if I didn't storm into the sentencing hearing, grab the microphone, and make the most impassioned, tearful plea on behalf of that nasty a**hole's family, Joanne would come back and haunt me for the rest of my life.  Instead of eventually being able to fill my heart with happy memories of the time we'd spent together, pride for all the good deeds she accomplished and the lives she had changed for the better, every time I closed my eyes I would see that family standing in the courtroom crying their eyes out...

  That would not be justice for my wife, for me, or for that family.  The death penalty punishes families...

  Please, Mike, give civilization a chance to work.  Don't keep this planet mired in the Dark Ages for another thousand years because you can't see beyond the end of a trial groove ;) on...

anyway you look at it, murder is an individual act done with the sole purpose of violently ending another persons life. I can't comprehend the mindset of someone who viciously kills another human being.
I can and it's bonechilling.

The idea of placing blame and responsibility on society just takes the blame off the killer and their criminal act and makes it seem like their rights are more important than the protection of citizens from being killed. Our rights to live and not be killed have to come first but in this topsy turvy world, it seems like some people are more concerned about the rights and future of stone cold killers that shot, stabbed, burned, strangled innocent people. It's fine if we find it in our hearts to forgive these people and they may rehab and change while in prison or on death row, and they may even get born again, or find some other spiritual enlightenment that causes them to actually undego a psychic change and sincerely be reformed, but they still need to face the consequences and pay for their heinous crimes. I'm not saying everyone who kills deserves the death penalty, but there are some that do and society is better protected from those if they are executed.

It's not either/or.  If I "blamed society" I would say, "Let all the murderers out!" 
In medieval Europe, they used to crank out executions ten at a time week after week.  This went on for hundreds of years.  You'd think anybody inclined to pick pockets would refrain, but they didn't.  Always a fresh batch of wrongdoers to send to the gallows. 
The study of crime causes and crime prevention may obviate the need for more prisons.  If you just say some people are born with the devil in them, you can be a smug right-winger, but you don't address the problems.  I don't think anybody is born to join a streetgang and carry a Glock.  "Excuses" don't enter into it. 
I distinguished "first degree murder" from other homicide because it's often a different kind of crime.  Call it "evil" or call it "mental illness," you'll always have a few people who kill regardless of circumstance.  Intervention is won't help if you can't identify the psychopath.  People who knew Ted Bundy were shocked when he got convicted.  He was the last person they thought who would do something so atrocious, but he'd been murdering young women for years.  Whether you're talking about Ted Bundy who murders college girls by the dozen, or just Joe Sicko who decides he's sick of his old lady and arranges an accident for her life insurance, the death penalty isn't a deterrant because these monsters don't think they'll ever get caught!
Some murder in the first can be prevented. A 17-year-old kid from a poor neighborhood who kills a rival for gang initiation has made a "choice."  Throw the book at him.  However, that's the kind of murder we have a better chance of preventing by way of social justice early in life.

         That would not be justice for my wife, for me, or for that family.  The death penalty punishes families...

   


Just a personal observation:  Let's say Ed Gein was my brother, and I found out he'd murdered several people and hung their dead bodies from his kitchen ceiling for his own amusement.  I think that finding out who a loved one really was, and what they had done would be far more heartbreaking than him being sent to death row.  We certainly can't imagine what these families go through, but I would think that the second I heard the news of what my brother had done, the brother I knew and loved would die right then and there.  For me, the knowlege of their acts would be far worse than their execution.



You will have first degree murder in any society.  The two scenarios above are first degree murder cases.  Social reforms will decrease second degree murder and manslaughter far more.  They will decrease first degree as well, though not as much.


Can you give some examples of the social reforms you would like to see take place? 

Just a personal observation:  Let's say Ed Gein was my brother, and I found out he'd murdered several people and hung their dead bodies from his kitchen ceiling for his own amusement.  I think that finding out who a loved one really was, and what they had done would be far more heartbreaking than him being sent to death row.  We certainly can't imagine what these families go through, but I would think that the second I heard the news of what my brother had done, the brother I knew and loved would die right then and there.  For me, the knowlege of their acts would be far worse than their execution.
 


  Wasn't Ed Gein found to be clinically insane..?

  But look, Ash, would I want to save that creep?  Of course not.  If I, by chance, caught him in the act I'm sure I would be overcome by my primitive emotions and try my best to wring this neck.  And if we catch someone in the act of extracting revenge in the heat of the moment, I will lead the cry for "Let him off. He's acting out of pain and grief..!"  That in prison they will be treated like cockroaches because they mutilated children.  So what exactly do we gain by killing them...?

  I say it is not necessary.  Maybe the death penalty was necessary 3,000 years ago when you couldn't count on a government to last long enough to keep its prisons guarded, or the woods were so full of bandits that they would just break the jail open and pull the guy out.  It's not "necessary" today, unless you believe that sating people's baser lusts is a "necessity."  Don't they already get enough of that from Jerry Springer and "wrestling..?" groove ;) on...

Just a personal observation:  Let's say Ed Gein was my brother, and I found out he'd murdered several people and hung their dead bodies from his kitchen ceiling for his own amusement.  I think that finding out who a loved one really was, and what they had done would be far more heartbreaking than him being sent to death row.  We certainly can't imagine what these families go through, but I would think that the second I heard the news of what my brother had done, the brother I knew and loved would die right then and there.  For me, the knowlege of their acts would be far worse than their execution.


Can you give some examples of the social reforms you would like to see take place? 

I'm going to catch hell for this, but less social inequality and more social stability for the most economically vulnerable cuts down on the kind of rage and apathy that encourages crime and hooliganism above hard work and education.  Economic privations bring about anger, stress, hopelessness, intrafamilial conflict, and substance abuse.  Sorry, Bill O'Reilly, you can't fob it off onto gangsta rap and Jesse Jackson. 
BTW, the same goes regardless of ethnicity or color.  What social reforms do you think I mean? 
If I get too specific, I will derail the topic.  The subject needs its own thread.


   Wasn't Ed Gein found to be clinically insane..?


Ed Gein was crazier than a rat in a tin sh*thouse.  Again, nobody in Plainfield, Wisconsin, believed Eddie Gein was up to no good until he got caught.  In Gein's day it wasn't so odd to live alone on a farm with no electricity.  The folks just minded their business and didn't go prying.  This is usually a good idea, but not in the case of old mean Ed Gein.  In an early time, Gein might have been lynched.  However, it would serve no useful purpose for the state to execute Ed.  He died of old age in the puzzle factory in 1984!
BTW, Gein was one of the principal inspirations for Norman Bates and for "Buffalo Bill" in "Silence of the Lambs."  Ed Gein was the one who made himself a female body suit out of cured human flesh.  Yes, what you saw in "Silence of the Lambs," somebody really did do that!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/eek2.gif

      The whole point of "justice" is that we are members of a civilization and that civilization teaches us to rise above our base emotions.  Once civilization has a chance to intervene, I expect more from us collectively than individually...

   You have simply not thought your scenario all the way through. You folks all do the same thing. You get to the part where the perp is dead.  You grin and say, "At last, it's over..."

   Trouble is, it's not. Let's put this in perspective, Mike. I'm going to try something I've recently knocked someone for.  An appeal to emotion.  You've had a loved one killed by another human being.  You, of all people, know at that moment just how that feels.  It's unbearable. You wouldn't want anyone ever to feel that way...

   You're in the courtroom.  The suspect has been arrested, charged with premeditated murder and convicted beyond the shadow of a doubt (I'll conveniently cut to the chase...) The jury agrees and Judge Hizzoner Buford, the Last Living Redneck, hands down the death penalty...

   You walk out of the courtroom with a great feeling of relief.  What do you see over on the other side of the aisle?  The family of the condemned.  His brothers and sisters.  His wife and children.  His nieces and nephews.  His minister.  His best friend who tried so hard to steer him onto the right path. (I'll leave out his parents, in case we've unrepentant-Freudians-who-blame-our-parents-for-everything-we-do-because-we're-too-weak-to-exercise-our-own-free-will in our midst...)  They're all crying.  They all feel exactly the way you do.  They just lost someone they love, and they didn't do a damn thing to deserve it...

   What possible excuse do you have for wishing that kind of pain on another human being?  You call it justice.  I call it sick...

   If Joanne were murdered and I had to walk out of a courtroom bearing not just my own grief, but knowing that all those other people felt just as bad as I did, I don't know if I could bear it.  And I'll tell you something else -  if I didn't storm into the sentencing hearing, grab the microphone, and make the most impassioned, tearful plea on behalf of that nasty a**hole's family, Joanne would come back and haunt me for the rest of my life.  Instead of eventually being able to fill my heart with happy memories of the time we'd spent together, pride for all the good deeds she accomplished and the lives she had changed for the better, every time I closed my eyes I would see that family standing in the courtroom crying their eyes out...

   That would not be justice for my wife, for me, or for that family.  The death penalty punishes families...

   Please, Mike, give civilization a chance to work.  Don't keep this planet mired in the Dark Ages for another thousand years because you can't see beyond the end of a trial groove ;) on...

but davester, I do have a good imagination and can play the "in their shoes gambit" as I'm sure you can too. You say that we should rise above our emotions and then you paint this highly emotionally charged courtroom scene and ask me not to give in to other base emotions but that this emotional scene is acceptable. I can imagine your scenario, and probably react the same way you, or as you think you would, and I could have mercy on someone even if I support the death penalty, seeing their family may make me think that perhaps the death row inmates family shouldn't be put through that. On the other hand, can you imagine your life wrecked by murder, your wife's family, their suffering, and pain it's going to cause for the rest of your lives. I would think it much more painful for victims family. Are you not able to possibly think for 1 minute that the death peanlty is appropriate or are your convictions so strong, you refuse to allow yourself to.  I do believe that the feelings and emotions of the criminals family and also my feelings as a relative of the victim should not be a deciding factor. The crime and the overwhelming evidence, beyond reasonable doubt is all that should determine the punishment. I say, we focus on the criminals action and the punishment he/she should be given for that. I'm willing to not let revenge be my reason for wanting the death penalty, but also I think mercy for the sake of the criminals family shouldn't be the included either. let an impartial jury decide.

the thing is then, what is the reasonable punishment? The gangbanger shoots a rival out of revenge, a man walks into his home and kills his wife and her friend he finds her cheating with. the gangbanger is probably 2nd degree, the 2nd guy is 2nd or voluntary manslaughter, each is given 20-50 years, maybe life in prison. Now you have a 39 year old man that stalked a 14 year old girl for days, confesses to it, he breaks into home when she's alone, sexually assaults her, then ties her up, then on the way out thinks maybe he shouldn't leave a witness. goes back in, picks out a big butcher kinfe and plunges it into her multiple times as she lays helpless. then just to make sure, pulls out a 22 and pops her twice in the head. and then realizes, maybe I better just eliminate all evidence and burns the house down with her brutally murdered body in it. he gets the same sentence as the 2 guys above or do you think there should be a harsher penalty?  I'm not talking revenge here as a parent or a husband. Simply, what is the proper retribution for someone like this and maybe just for kicks imagine if you were to agree that he deserves the death penalty and that it is the best retribution and punishment. IF NOT, what do we as a society do with a criminal like this? send him some friggin cookies while he's locked up or let the punishment fit the crime.  8)

Myself, I support the Death Penalty.

And I do not give a damn about "Rehabilitation" or "Deterence".  Because they are both meaningless phrases.

If "Deterence" really worked, then we would not have criminals.  The threat of 20-50 years in jail alone would prevent them from killing another person.  But we have several problems, which means that the idea of deterence is meaningless.

Often, you have people who think they are so smart they will never be caught.  Since they will not be caught in the first place, there is nothing to be feared by prison (or execution), since they will obviously not get caught (or "get away with it" if they are caught).

Then you have those who are psychiopaths, who simply do not care.  Deterence or rehabilitation means nothing to these people.  If allowed to be free, they will simply do it all over again.  In with this group I include those with other mental/emotional disabilities.  There is no concept of right/wrong in their thinking when they break the law.  Be it shoplifting, rape, murder, drugs, or any other crime.  The only thing that matters to them is their own wants/needs/desires, and absolutely nothing is going to stand in their way of getting it.

Then you have the "crime of passion" individuals.  These are the ones that simply "snap", and once again deterence or rehabilitation has nothing to do with their crimes.  They are not thinking of any kind of punishment or consequence from their actions.  They simply act, and remorse (if any) comes at a later time.

Then there are the ones that simply do not care, because what they get outweighs the inconvience of incarceration.  This is the guy that makes $500,000 selling drugs, but get's popped on a minor trafficking charge, and serves maybe 5 years.  He gets out in 2-3 years, and simply goes back to work again.  Or the professional shoplifter that makes $50k a year, and get's caught and does maybe 30-60 days in a county jail.  The minor time served is meaningless to them, since it is little more then a "vacation", and they will resume soon after their release.  These people have no intention of being "reformed", they simply want to do their time, so they can get "back to work".

The above criteria probably cover around 85% of criminals in the country.  The other 15% include most of us.  We may at most get popped with nothing worse then a minor drug possession, drunk driving, or some other minor infraction.  We are not "career criminals", and do not make a life decision to persue a life of crime.  Deterence makes an impression on us, because we care.  Or we get caught, and make decisions to change our lives.

***

To me Execution is the ultimate deterence.  Because the person will never commit another murder.  How many times have people killed somebody, done their time, then gotten out and killed again?  Heck, how many times have people in jail managed to kill again?  Or Rape?  Or beat and terrorize others?  I can think of several instances right off the top of my head.

I do not believe in "reform" or "deterence", because it is obvious that these concepts simply do not work on the majority of criminals.  That is why I support Capitol Punishment, Three Strikes laws, Meagan's Laws, and anything else that can be used to keep the animals away from decent society.

To me, the ultimate aim of the justice system is to seperate the animals from decent society.  And I am not talking about the minor crimes here.  I am talking about those that are a threat to you, me, and everybody else.  Rapists, murders, pushers, robbers, gun runners, gang bangers, skinheads, and those that make us fear going out at night.

To me, the only crime that deserves Capitol Punishment is either Treason (when the lives of people are put at risk - IE: Nuclear Weapons Secrets), or First Degree Murder or Multiple Murder (Serial Killers or Spree Killers).  Even though emotionally I may like the idea of killing rapists (especially those that do such crimes against children), I really can't justify it so would oppose such an event.

but davester, I do have a good imagination and can play the "in their shoes gambit" as I'm sure you can too. You say that we should rise above our emotions and then you paint this highly emotionally charged courtroom scene and ask me not to give in to other base emotions but that this emotional scene is acceptable. I can imagine your scenario, and probably react the same way you, or as you think you would, and I could have mercy on someone even if I support the death penalty, seeing their family may make me think that perhaps the death row inmates family shouldn't be put through that.


  An excellent reply to my post.  I deserved that.  My straw man has been noted and disregarded.  My aim was to call attention to the oft overlooked group of victims.  Maybe we're not understanding each other.  Perhaps part of my problem with the death penalty is my uncomfortability with "letter of the law" legalism vs. my bias toward humanitarianism and morality.  I need to ponder this further.  Anyway...


On the other hand, can you imagine your life wrecked by murder, your wife's family, their suffering, and pain it's going to cause for the rest of your lives. I would think it much more painful for victims family. Are you not able to possibly think for 1 minute that the death peanlty is appropriate or are your convictions so strong, you refuse to allow yourself to.  I do believe that the feelings and emotions of the criminals family and also my feelings as a relative of the victim should not be a deciding factor. The crime and the overwhelming evidence, beyond reasonable doubt is all that should determine the punishment. I say, we focus on the criminals action and the punishment he/she should be given for that. I'm willing to not let revenge be my reason for wanting the death penalty, but also I think mercy for the sake of the criminals family shouldn't be the included either. let an impartial jury decide.


  For me, it's not a question of appropriateness.  Perhaps what you mean by appropriate is really "highly convenient"?  All moral discussion boils down to a single question, "What kind of person do you want to be?"  Compassion gets us to the same conclusion via a different road, Mike.  I am not mainly concerned here with a compassion for the killers, for many of them deserve none.  It is compassion for ourselves that is of interest here.  What kind of people do we wish to be..?


the thing is then, what is the reasonable punishment? The gangbanger shoots a rival out of revenge, a man walks into his home and kills his wife and her friend he finds her cheating with. the gangbanger is probably 2nd degree, the 2nd guy is 2nd or voluntary manslaughter, each is given 20-50 years, maybe life in prison. Now you have a 39 year old man that stalked a 14 year old girl for days, confesses to it, he breaks into home when she's alone, sexually assaults her, then ties her up, then on the way out thinks maybe he shouldn't leave a witness. goes back in, picks out a big butcher kinfe and plunges it into her multiple times as she lays helpless. then just to make sure, pulls out a 22 and pops her twice in the head. and then realizes, maybe I better just eliminate all evidence and burns the house down with her brutally murdered body in it. he gets the same sentence as the 2 guys above or do you think there should be a harsher penalty?  I'm not talking revenge here as a parent or a husband. Simply, what is the proper retribution for someone like this and maybe just for kicks imagine if you were to agree that he deserves the death penalty and that it is the best retribution and punishment. IF NOT, what do we as a society do with a criminal like this? send him some friggin cookies while he's locked up or let the punishment fit the crime.  8)


  I don't know...

  Retribution is never proper.  But are you asking me if I think manslaughter should be treated the same as murder..?  Sorry, I'm tired...

  Compassion for the executed is not completely irrelevant.  We have executed teenagers, the mentally retarded, psychotic people who were only able to understand what was happening to them because crammed to the gills with medication...

  When I was in my twenties, I imagined that four significant attributes in life were reason, independence, loyalty and justice.  Now, pushing forty, I know better: humility and compassion are the two most important qualities a human can have, and I only wish to live under a standard derived in its entirety from these foundations groove  ;) on

It is true if you kill a guy, he won't kill anybody else, even in prison.  There are murders in prison to be sure.  The U.S. prison system is a sick, sick joke.
Guys on death row are usually segregated.  No cellmates.  Little contact with anybody except prison staffers.  The problem is, it takes years or decades before a condemned person gets executed.  The more you expedite the appeals process, the more you increase the risk of
a. executing an innocent person.
b. executive a criminal who should not be eligable for the death penalty.
From the trial to the end of the convicts natural life, it is cheaper to sentence a person to life without parole than it is to try and carry out a death sentence.  Per the above, all the ways you could make the death sentence cheaper make it more likely the state will kill the wrong man. 

Even so, I don't agree with capital punishment from a philosophical standpoint.  I believe in a justice system not a revenge system.  The inhumane treatment of convicts in our prison system doesn't do anybody any favors either.  If you say people in prison deserve to get beaten, raped, robbed, and driven insane via noise torture and isolation, then you advocate "revenge" as justice.  I don't equate the two. 

Most prisoners will get out.  When they get out of U.S. prisons, chances are they've learned only to be harder criminals, and crime will be the best career open to them. 

Capital punishment is revenge the way Mushrooom described it.  I just don't agree with that perspective.

  Putting the personal spin on something like this is foolish.  Even if my closest relative were the world's worst serial rapist and killer, I may be against his incarceration, much less his execution.  But that's not how one views such issues and doing so solves nothing...

  Ah..! The old "prison is a holiday camp" ploy...

  It seems to me that nobody is rushing to get into prison, despite the "perpetual comfort" it supposedly offers...

  There are more Americans incarcerated for murder today than ever before.  This suggests to me that the death penalty is no deterrent... 


I see nothing wrong with mentioning a couple of examples that hit close to home for me personally in the past 12 months. Neither of them actually changed my opinion on the death penalty. I have been lobbying my state government since I was a teen in the 80s to bring it back and back then I hadnt been personally affected by any similar events.

And if my closest of closest relative commited ANY crime of ANY description I would break off contact - and in fact I have already done it. And if they commited something that resulted in a life sentence or the death penalty if it existed - I wouldnt be nearby begging for them to live - I would be handing the hangman his rope.

As for "holiday camp ploy" - ok so I have never seen the inside of a US prison - but I am Australian and am talking about Australian prisons and Australian prison sentences. I have a cousin who is a prison guard in Australia's SuperMax - the toughest prison in the entire country - where the absolute worst of the worst are kept - the seriel killers, the gang rapists, the guy that skinned his wife alive - all those real charming folk. And yes they get a room to themselves with a laptop computer each, a tv and dvd player each, etc etc they get an education and arts degrees for gods sake - when the average teenager cant afford thier fees for an arts degree.

And yes - here they literally ARE rushing to get to prison. Its pretty standard for anyone with too many parking fines to choose prison over actually getting their wallet out and paying.

And all I want is for the death penalty to EXIST again in Australia. Just to see if it MIGHT just be a deterrant. We havent had it in my state since the 60s - entire generations of criminals have been born since then. Even if it never actually gets used - I just want to see it brought back - along with tougher sentencing all round.

Ah, what fun is crime and punishment without the death penalty? They say it's more expensive than keeping a criminal in prison for life, but I don't see how. All you gotta do is kill them. How expensive can that be?  I'd like to see it more evenly applied. The rich as well as the poor should be on the end of the needle, the shock, and the rope.

Prisons are a moneymaking industry, and they are building more and more as we speak. I'd like to see the drug laws abolished. That way, we'd have less non-violent offenders behind bars. And the less people behind bars, the less prisons will be built. Why do we have to be the country with the most people doing time?

I have a cousin who is a prison guard in Australia's SuperMax - the toughest prison in the entire country - where the absolute worst of the worst are kept - the seriel killers, the gang rapists, the guy that skinned his wife alive - all those real charming folk.


Sorry to deviate. Did he get to hang out with Mark Read?

Ah, what fun is crime and punishment without the death penalty? They say it's more expensive than keeping a criminal in prison for life, but I don't see how. All you gotta do is kill them. How expensive can that be?  I'd like to see it more evenly applied. The rich as well as the poor should be on the end of the needle, the shock, and the rope.

Prisons are a moneymaking industry, and they are building more and more as we speak. I'd like to see the drug laws abolished. That way, we'd have less non-violent offenders behind bars. And the less people behind bars, the less prisons will be built. Why do we have to be the country with the most people doing time?

But that's why drug laws won't be abolished.  Too much money to be made on both sides of the crime business!

"All you gtta do is kill them"?  What if you kill the wrong one?  Homicide is irreversible. 
One of my arguments against capital punishment is economic.  You will never, ever see rich defendents get it as often as poor defendents.  If O.J. didn't have a five million dollar wad to blow on a legal "dream team," he would be on death row.  When Joe the janitor butchers his wife and her friend, you know what happens.  I don't believe in the DP on principle.  No matter what the penal code, I'd like to see it applied equally.  That will never happen because you can't make lawyers work for nothing.  If you insure equality in justice, Americans might start to demand it everywhere else, and you know, equality is un-American!
::)

  I don't believe in the DP on principle.  No matter what the penal code, I'd like to see it applied equally.  That will never happen because you can't make lawyers work for nothing.


Good thing you oppose universal health care.  Or do you think doctors, unlike lawyers, can be made to work for nothing?

Maybe if we nationalized the legal profession and privatized all health care, we'd have more doctors and fewer lawyers.

Good thing you oppose universal health care.  Or do you think doctors, unlike lawyers, can be made to work for nothing?

Maybe if we nationalized the legal profession and privatized all health care, we'd have more doctors and fewer lawyers.


It's one thing to want to talk like Sean Hannity, it's another to want to be as dumb as he is.  Sheesh! 
Use your brains.   I haven't got time for this drivel.

Sorry to deviate. Did he get to hang out with Mark Read?


Hardly - Chopper isnt a big enough criminal to have made it to the SuperMax - even in his own mind !  All he did was kill other criminals ! He spent most of his time in Melbourne jails - Pentridge from memory.

The guys on my cousins ward - he looks after just 6 of the cretins in a "prison within a prison" (totally unescapable) include Ivan Milat - the backpacker serial killer, and John Wayne Glover - the granny serial killer (well except he died last year), and the two lebanese brothers gang rapists forever known only as "M" and "X" or some similar initials - they got 50 year sentences each - the best ever rape sentences in our entire country. Plus some real nasty piece of work - name unknown - has been in jail since the late 60s for skinning his wife while she was still alive.

It's one thing to want to talk like Sean Hannity, it's another to want to be as dumb as he is.  Sheesh! 
Use your brains.   I haven't got time for this drivel.



Was that necessary? 

Hardly - Chopper isnt a big enough criminal to have made it to the SuperMax - even in his own mind !  All he did was kill other criminals ! He spent most of his time in Melbourne jails - Pentridge from memory.

The guys on my cousins ward - he looks after just 6 of the cretins in a "prison within a prison" (totally unescapable) include Ivan Milat - the backpacker serial killer, and John Wayne Glover - the granny serial killer (well except he died last year), and the two lebanese brothers gang rapists forever known only as "M" and "X" or some similar initials - they got 50 year sentences each - the best ever rape sentences in our entire country. Plus some real nasty piece of work - name unknown - has been in jail since the late 60s for skinning his wife while she was still alive.


Pentridge University. I didn't know if he was ever sent there or not, but thinking about it, No DUH! He wouldn't have been. 19 Murders but no convictions.
Skinned her alive! Dang, he's gotta be a mean sumbitch!

I am curious:

How many in here condemning Capitol Punishment were cheeering and posting comments about the execution of Saddam Hussein?

I am curious:

How many in here condemning Capitol Punishment were hccering and posting comments about the execution of Saddam Hussein?

I made a couple of wisecracks about Saddam's execution.  I am against on principle, but I'm sorry I couldn't muster up that "Save Saddam" spirit!
::)

Father Decapitates 4 Year Old Daughter

Yes, but remember, everyone should have a second chance. ::)

I SO want to hear this guy's reasoning for murdering a four year old.

Father Decapitates 4 Year Old Daughter

Yes, but remember, everyone should have a second chance. ::)

I SO want to hear this guy's reasoning for murdering a four year old.



String him up by his testicles.

String him up by his testicles.


He deserves to spend the rest of his time in jail...his head in one cell...the rest of his body in another cell.....

This is my take on it and I could give a damn on what everyone else thinks of me after saying it: Everyone can spend 24/7 arguing about the death penalty and whatnot. But if that murderer is going to kill an INNOCENT CHILD, then screw 'em. They can go die right now and I certainly wouldn't weep for their ass or whine about how they should have been rehabilitated.

Young children are like the last innocent thing in this world. To defile that by killing a baby is just heinous.

The more I think of the death penalty and who deserves it, the more I lean towards the criminals who murder children as the primary offenders I think should be executed along with criminals who kidnap, torture, assault, and then kill their victims regardless of age.. Then of course there are cases like the mom who drowned her 3 kids, obviously insane and I don't think she deserves the death penalty. A big factor in who should be executed is MOTIVE. The man who kidnapped his next door neighbors 4 year old daughter and sexually assaulted her and they found her blood in his winneabgo RV is someone I would vote Yay on the death penalty. I don't believe emotional disturbance can be claimed as the end all reason for murder and that anyone who murders can just be declared sick, and then not be as responsible for committing the murder, as if now it's society's fault.


This is my take on it and I could give a damn on what everyone else thinks of me after saying it: Everyone can spend 24/7 arguing about the death penalty and whatnot. But if that murderer is going to kill an INNOCENT CHILD, then screw 'em. They can go die right now and I certainly wouldn't weep for their ass or whine about how they should have been rehabilitated.

Young children are like the last innocent thing in this world. To defile that by killing a baby is just heinous.
my kind of juror  8)

I can understand the desire for retribution, but in the end, it's not a rational argument.  In legal issues, logic and practicality has to prevail over indulging destructive emotionality.  People like that guy who just decapitated his 4 year old should be put away so we can study their brain chemistry and psychology and actually learn something.  

If we can understand what flips out someone like that to such an extreme, maybe we can learn to prevent many other less dramatic but still destructive things, like people who scream at their kids that they're no good and will never amount to anything.  That kind of thing happens every day.  Your average, irritable, nasty non-violent parent doesn't make the paper, because "it's not that bad".  But their kids who hear that kind of stuff from them every day might be the kind that end up decapitating their own kids.

I am curious:

How many in here condemning Capitol Punishment were cheeering and posting comments about the execution of Saddam Hussein?



I wasn't cheering. In fact, I am very worried about the repercussions it is going to bring.




Cat

This is my take on it and I could give a damn on what everyone else thinks of me after saying it: Everyone can spend 24/7 arguing about the death penalty and whatnot. But if that murderer is going to kill an INNOCENT CHILD, then screw 'em. They can go die right now and I certainly wouldn't weep for their ass or whine about how they should have been rehabilitated.

Young children are like the last innocent thing in this world. To defile that by killing a baby is just heinous.



I'd give you another karma point if I could.

I can understand the desire for retribution, but in the end, it's not a rational argument.  In legal issues, logic and practicality has to prevail over indulging destructive emotionality.  People like that guy who just decapitated his 4 year old should be put away so we can study their brain chemistry and psychology and actually learn something.  

If we can understand what flips out someone like that to such an extreme, maybe we can learn to prevent many other less dramatic but still destructive things, like people who scream at their kids that they're no good and will never amount to anything.  That kind of thing happens every day.  Your average, irritable, nasty non-violent parent doesn't make the paper, because "it's not that bad".  But their kids who hear that kind of stuff from them every day might be the kind that end up decapitating their own kids.

logical and pratical study  ???  that's the kind of mushy moral reasoning that I hope doesn't exist in the minds of jurors and judges. Retribution is not emotional, nor is it revenge. Logic and praticallity has been weighed in and that's why the laws are designed to punish the criminals accroding to their moral culpability. This reasoning doesn't seem to want to make the murderer accountable. Like the judge that gave the child predator probation instead of prison, so he could get therapy for his sickness. protect the criminal, don't protect the child is what it amounts to

This is my take on it and I could give a damn on what everyone else thinks of me after saying it: Everyone can spend 24/7 arguing about the death penalty and whatnot. But if that murderer is going to kill an INNOCENT CHILD, then screw 'em. They can go die right now and I certainly wouldn't weep for their ass or whine about how they should have been rehabilitated.

Young children are like the last innocent thing in this world. To defile that by killing a baby is just heinous.



I <3 you....you rock! ;)

logical and pratical study  ???  that's the kind of mushy moral reasoning that I hope doesn't exist in the minds of jurors and judges.

"Mushy moral reasoning?"  I didn't give any moral reasoning whatsoever.  Everyone's morality is different, so moral arguments are iffy at best.  My points were grounded in pragmatism and constructiveness.  Not everyone's cup of tea, I know.


This reasoning doesn't seem to want to make the murderer accountable.

A murderer being locked up for life and studied in a lab is not being held accountable?
:o

A murderer being locked up for life and studied in a lab is not being held accountable?


Sometimes being held accountable for your crime means having to be executed for it.  If you cut off your own child's head......off with your own.  No amount of jail time or "lab study" is ever going to get to the bottom of why people like that exist. 

Sometimes being held accountable for your crime means having to be executed for it.  If you cut off your own child's head......off with your own.  No amount of jail time or "lab study" is ever going to get to the bottom of why people like that exist. 


You're talking about the four year old who was decapitated by the father, aren't you???

You're talking about the four year old who was decapitated by the father, aren't you???



I did say "if you cut off your own child's head", so that would be a yes.

I did say "if you cut off your own child's head", so that would be a yes.


I read about it on yahoo.  At risk of being ridiculed.  I'd say the death penalty for the "Father".  That kind of Psychopathic behavior warrens it.

I read about it on yahoo.  At risk of being ridiculed.  I'd say the death penalty for the "Father".  That kind of Psychopathic behavior warrens it.


You won't get any ridicule from me.....people like this guy really get my hackles up and IMHO, a quick painless death is too good for him......

I read about it on yahoo.  At risk of being ridiculed.  I'd say the death penalty for the "Father".  That kind of Psychopathic behavior warrens it.



You won't get ridiculed from me either.  Our methods of execution are too humane for this guy. 

There is just no justification in my mind for this. . . NONE WHAT SO EVER!!!!

I'm sorry, but the poor child was four years old and BEHEADED!!! :o

The mother had to come home and find her child headless on the floor.  There isn't a drug or a therapist in the world that's going to help that woman.

"Mushy moral reasoning?"  I didn't give any moral reasoning whatsoever.  Everyone's morality is different, so moral arguments are iffy at best. 



  The death penalty debate takes place on three levels - practical, constitutional and moral.  I don't think discussing the practical invalidates the moral...

    From the morality arguement, it's not a question of "can we", but of "should we"...

   For instance: If it is moral to decide on the death of an individual in groups of millions (the U.S.A.), why would it be immoral to do so in a duly constituted group of hundreds (a town)..?  And if it's moral to decide on the death penalty in groups of hundreds, why not in groups of ten..?  And if it's moral to decide on the death penalty in groups of ten, why not between two individuals..?

 

The mother had to come home and find her child headless on the floor.  There isn't a drug or a therapist in the world that's going to help that woman.


I know!!!  My God.

"Mushy moral reasoning?"  I didn't give any moral reasoning whatsoever.  Everyone's morality is different, so moral arguments are iffy at best.  My points were grounded in pragmatism and constructiveness.  Not everyone's cup of tea, I know.

A murderer being locked up for life and studied in a lab is not being held accountable?
:o
Hey Dreamer, I meant no offense or insult with my comment. You're as entitled to your opinions and arguments and reasons as me and anybody else.   To have the murderer

There isn't a drug or a therapist in the world that's going to help that woman.


Sadly true, but there is a drug that will help her husband (if in fact he is guilty): it's called hydrogen cyanide, and I hear that, if administered properly, it's a 100% effective deterrent against repeat offenders.

Sadly true, but there is a drug that will help her husband (if in fact he is guilty): it's called hydrogen cyanide, and I hear that, if administered properly, it's a 100% effective deterrent against repeat offenders.




The crime was committed in NC and I don't think they have the gas chamber. 

A system of justice must remain on an even keel.

One's horror at the depraved crimes of a psychopath must not direct one's beliefs about the justice system for a nation.

If I say I am against capital punishment for a man who painlessly suffocated his wife with poison gas and then say I am in favor of capital punishment for a man who severed his four-year-old child's head I must count myself among those who favor capital punishment.  In all justice systems that allow for capital punishment are there not mitigating factors that exonerate a convict from a death sentence? 

That is why I remained against hanging Saddam Hussein.

If anybody deserved to hang it was Saddam.  I believe for the most part Saddam got what he deserved

However, a "system of justice," as indicated by the words "system" and "justice" must provide a framework for insuring that:
1. We sanction the criminal for his/her infraction against society.
2. We punish the guilty; if we punish a person wrongly we must be able to return that person to society.
The death penalty is irreversible.

Cinematic notions of justice at the end of a rope make us delusional.  In the movies they never hang the wrong man.  Most certainly Saddam was not the "wrong" man, but what of the men who hanged him?  What secrets about them did Saddam take to his grave?

In the old days, be it 1850 or 1450, innocent men and women were routinely executed.  I hear angry men and women on the Right talk of "justice" back then being "swift and sure."  One out of three doesn't cut it.  I hear thse same people say, "We should let the victim's family decide the punishment!"

That is not a system of justice.  That is an a lethal dose of revenge.  You start trading down the even keel of justice for unballasted thrashing of revenge, and we all sink into savagery.

Every time the discussion of capital punishment comes up, the guys at the bar start dredging up tales of the goriest murders imaginable, and soon you become the sicko because you don't want to kill the killers for killing in this way or that.  Yet, when you consider what a system of justice is, and whether we should implement capital punishment, these stories are not even germane to the conversation!

As I have said before, which is a truer form of justice for someone who has done hanous acts? A. Let him go to another world where there is no pain, no worry, no sorrow, no want, etc. etc. B. Put him in a cage for the rest of his life where he has to live with the pain of being confined, or even becoming "Bubba's b!tch".




Cat

As I have said before, which is a truer form of justice for someone who has done hanous acts? A. Let him go to another world where there is no pain, no worry, no sorrow, no want, etc. etc. B. Put him in a cage for the rest of his life where he has to live with the pain of being confined, or even becoming "Bubba's b!tch".




Cat

It depends on if you believe in hell.

I don't think anybody should be brutalized in prison either.

I'm not saying you think this, Cat, but there's this cultural misconception of "Boy, will they be sorry!"  I have never seen any evidence to suggest that prison rape teaches anybody a lesson.  All evidence I have seen shows convicts becoming more aggressive and less repentent because of inhumane treatment.

If you say, "I don't care if they learn anything, I just hope they suffer," then you're just back to spite and revenge.  I don't see where it helps anything.

It depends on if you believe in hell.

I don't think anybody should be brutalized in prison either.

I'm not saying you think this, Cat, but there's this cultural misconception of "Boy, will they be sorry!"  I have never seen any evidence to suggest that prison rape teaches anybody a lesson.  All evidence I have seen shows convicts becoming more aggressive and less repentent because of inhumane treatment.

If you say, "I don't care if they learn anything, I just hope they suffer," then you're just back to spite and revenge.  I don't see where it helps anything.



I understand what you are saying and I do agree with you. I just don't that death (concidering NONE of us really knows what is on the other side) is justice.



Cat

I understand what you are saying and I do agree with you. I just don't that death (concidering NONE of us really knows what is on the other side) is justice.



Cat


For me personally, I don't see killing a serial killer as doing justice to the crime they committed.  I am for the death penalty because I think the world is a much better place without them on it.


 

For me personally, I don't see killing a serial killer as doing justice to the crime they committed.  I am for the death penalty because I think the world is a much better place without them on it.


 


Let's see, a lot of serial killers have died in the past 20 years...1987 vs 2007...can you fill me in on that "world is a much better place" part.  I don't get it!

I wasn't cheering. In fact, I am very worried about the repercussions it is going to bring.


Actually, it would have made no difference if he was executed, or allowed to die in jail from old age.  People would still have used him as either a "martyr" or "political prisoner", and commited crimes in his name.

Myself, I was actually rather disturbed by most of the things said in the thread on that topic recently.

I believe in Capitol Punishment.  Before being executed, they should be given full access to clergy of their faith, and be allowed to pray for any forgiveness available according to their faith.  And I also believe that once a person has "paid his/her debt to society", then it is over.  I do not believe in hanging the body on gibbets.  I do not believe in either painfull deaths, or in mutilation before/after death.  To me, once the sentence is carried out, then it is over.

I also believe that their remains should be treated as anybody else of their faith.  With respect and dignity, because they have already paid the ultimate price on earth for their crimes, and at that moment they are answering to a "Higher Authority" (or are simply a rotting corpse with no soul if they are an atheist).

And that is actually what disturbed me.  I saw a lot of familiar names describing some really horid things to Saddam and his body, who are able to turn around and speak passionately against capitol punishment.  I guess it all really matters about who it is being punished, or how much it affects them personally.

Cinematic notions of justice at the end of a rope make us delusional.  In the movies they never hang the wrong man.  Most certainly Saddam was not the "wrong" man, but what of the men who hanged him?  What secrets about them did Saddam take to his grave?


Obviously you have never seen the classic western "Hang 'Em High", with Clint Eastwood.


Let's see, a lot of serial killers have died in the past 20 years...1987 vs 2007...can you fill me in on that "world is a much better place" part.  I don't get it!


Did you know that Charles Manson is still making money?

That's right.  Charles Manson.  He wrote a song that was recorded by The Beach Boys called Never Learn Not to Love, and was featured on their album 20/20.  Dennis WIlson changes dome of the lyrics (and the title), so it is attributed to both of them.  He also makes money from other songs he has written, that have been recorded by other artists.

Among the artists that have recorded his song are Guns N' Roses, Redd Kross, The Lemonheads, Marilyn Manson, and Devo.  And since the songs were all written before the "Manson Murders", they are immune from seizure under the "Son Of Sam" laws.

A system of justice must remain on an even keel.

One's horror at the depraved crimes of a psychopath must not direct one's beliefs about the justice system for a nation.

If I say I am against capital punishment for a man who painlessly suffocated his wife with poison gas and then say I am in favor of capital punishment for a man who severed his four-year-old child's head I must count myself among those who favor capital punishment.  In all justice systems that allow for capital punishment are there not mitigating factors that exonerate a convict from a death sentence? 

That is why I remained against hanging Saddam Hussein.

If anybody deserved to hang it was Saddam.  I believe for the most part Saddam got what he deserved

However, a "system of justice," as indicated by the words "system" and "justice" must provide a framework for insuring that:
1. We sanction the criminal for his/her infraction against society.
2. We punish the guilty; if we punish a person wrongly we must be able to return that person to society.
The death penalty is irreversible.

Cinematic notions of justice at the end of a rope make us delusional.  In the movies they never hang the wrong man.  Most certainly Saddam was not the "wrong" man, but what of the men who hanged him?  What secrets about them did Saddam take to his grave?

In the old days, be it 1850 or 1450, innocent men and women were routinely executed.  I hear angry men and women on the Right talk of "justice" back then being "swift and sure."  One out of three doesn't cut it.  I hear thse same people say, "We should let the victim's family decide the punishment!"

That is not a system of justice.  That is an a lethal dose of revenge.  You start trading down the even keel of justice for unballasted thrashing of revenge, and we all sink into savagery.

Every time the discussion of capital punishment comes up, the guys at the bar start dredging up tales of the goriest murders imaginable, and soon you become the sicko because you don't want to kill the killers for killing in this way or that.  Yet, when you consider what a system of justice is, and whether we should implement capital punishment, these stories are not even germane to the conversation!


  You make good practical arguements, Max, and also, unwittingly, touch upon the "anti-" argument from the morality POV...

  "Those who favor capitol punishment..."
  "We sanction..."
  "We punish the guilty..."
  "We should let the victim's family decide..."
  "We all sink into savagery..."
  "You don't want to kill the killers..."

  "Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law..."
                                                                                                                  Immanuel Kant 1724-1804

  This means that you should only do those things which you would be content to have everyone else do.  This is useful, but doesn't it also imply a corrolary, something like "Delegate to others only those things you would be content to do yourself"..?

  The reverse categorical imperative:

  If one is happy to have the state kill for them, would one be content to do it onesself?  For if the killing is by all our consent, then it was done by delegation.  If it was done by delegation, it was done on our behalf, effectively by us.  If it was done by us, we should be willing to take responsibility for it; this means we should be willing to do it ourselves, rather than asking someone else to do it for us.  If we are not willing to do it ourselves, then it should not be done...

  Some among our boardies will respond that they would be happy to take the responsibility themselves.  Disturbing as that is, it can be the only honest response groove ;) on...

Obviously you have never seen the classic western "Hang 'Em High", with Clint Eastwood.

Did you know that Charles Manson is still making money?

That's right.  Charles Manson.  He wrote a song that was recorded by The Beach Boys called Never Learn Not to Love, and was featured on their album 20/20.  Dennis WIlson changes dome of the lyrics (and the title), so it is attributed to both of them.  He also makes money from other songs he has written, that have been recorded by other artists.

Among the artists that have recorded his song are Guns N' Roses, Redd Kross, The Lemonheads, Marilyn Manson, and Devo.  And since the songs were all written before the "Manson Murders", they are immune from seizure under the "Son Of Sam" laws.

Yessirree!  Now he's got all that money to spend in the cell!
:P

   You make good practical arguements, Max, and also, unwittingly, touch upon the "anti-" argument from the morality POV...

   "Those who favor capitol punishment..."
   "We sanction..."
   "We punish the guilty..."
   "We should let the victim's family decide..."
   "We all sink into savagery..."
   "You don't want to kill the killers..."

   "Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law..."
                                                                                                                  Immanuel Kant 1724-1804

   This means that you should only do those things which you would be content to have everyone else do.  This is useful, but doesn't it also imply a corrolary, something like "Delegate to others only those things you would be content to do yourself"..?

   The reverse categorical imperative:

   If one is happy to have the state kill for them, would one be content to do it onesself?  For if the killing is by all our consent, then it was done by delegation.  If it was done by delegation, it was done on our behalf, effectively by us.  If it was done by us, we should be willing to take responsibility for it; this means we should be willing to do it ourselves, rather than asking someone else to do it for us.  If we are not willing to do it ourselves, then it should not be done...

   Some among our boardies will respond that they would be happy to take the responsibility themselves.  Disturbing as that is, it can be the only honest response groove ;) on...

Hey, me and Manny go way back! 
To be honest, I wasn't thinking of Kant, but that's exactly what I was drving at.  Boils down to:
Justice and Revenge are not the same thing, and we must take care that the twain do not meet!

Pentridge University. I didn't know if he was ever sent there or not, but thinking about it, No DUH! He wouldn't have been. 19 Murders but no convictions.
Skinned her alive! Dang, he's gotta be a mean sumbitch!


Ahh no the gaol not the Uni - thats across the road !
http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/historyofmoreland7.htm

Personally I think he is a moron - he does speaking tours which I refuse to attend because I dont believe he should be allowed to profit from telling stories about his crimes.

Let's see, a lot of serial killers have died in the past 20 years...1987 vs 2007...can you fill me in on that "world is a much better place" part.  I don't get it!


Oh Max, I think you know exactly what I mean.  :P

Oh Max, I think you know exactly what I mean.   :P


The world does not become a better place when you kill a killer.  What makes the world a better place is preventing the killer mindset via inculcation of humane values.  It's not as fiery as that "Zane Grey justice" Dennis Miler talks about.  Those things that satisfy our baser instincts for Eros and Thanatos give our egos a charge, but they do not make the world a better place.  Generally, quite the opposite.  The self-righteous satisfaction one gets when the state kills a serial killer belongs to ego not humanism.

The world became a safer (thus "better") place when John Wayne Gacey was incarcerated.  It is good to stop murderers from murdering.  Gacey's execution did nothing for the betterment of mankind.  Even if I supported capital punishment, the best I could say is that killing a John Wayne Gacey or a Ted Bundy is merely the end stage of a sentence handed down by the state.  The fact that homicidal maniacs such as Gacey and Bundy walk among represents the sick side of humanity, which has always been with us.  Killing people in war, revenge, or state-sanctioned execution has never, ever put a stop to the murderous nature of some human beings.

I\'m against the death penalty. It\'s all about revenge.

I am curious:

How many in here condemning Capitol Punishment were cheering and posting comments about the execution of Saddam Hussein?


Not only was the execution of the evil dictator, Saddam Hussein wrong, but I would oppose the execution of the evil serial-killer who currently rules America just as fervently.

State execution of another human being is barbaric and wrong!