Yet another case that shows why the death penalty is such a bad idea

[scooter_the_shooter]

I belive if some one kills some one they should hang. And if the state fails to do it the citizens should lynch the animal. We have no use for people who cant follow a "do not kill" law so we should remove them. They should be shot or beat to death or hanged.

[Slyspy]

And when mistakes are made? We say sorry, hand them some compensation and a new ID and then... oh, wait, they re dead.

As for vigilante killings, where to begin. You can have lynchings if you want, but if they get the wrong man then all the lynch mob must by our own admission be executed themselves. Besides which their very actions break the "no killing" law. You may well run out of mobs. I'd rather not have to walk around scared because I look a bit like that guy who was in court the other week, or because people don't know the difference between a paedophile and a paediatrician.

[Petrus]

I belive if some one kills some one they should hang. And if the state fails to do it the citizens should lynch the animal. We have no use for people who cant follow a "do not kill" law so we should remove them. They should be shot or beat to death or hanged.

That's an interesting option.

A killer get hanged, wich makes the hangers killers that must be hanged.

As some persons may not agree to hang others they are also hanged : how to refuse to kill an animal that is such a threat to society if you are not yourself an animal and a threat?

With this solution, when you will reach the last hanger alive you shall not have anyone not already hanged so the last hanger shall have to commit suicide by hanging.

I think this is the only way for crime to be completely eradicated : as cadavers cannot commit crime, kill everyone.

[Pindar]

I see that the state sanctioned killing arguments is still in full flow from our cold-hearted lawyer! I would still agrue that the state has no right to kill its own citizens. In fact I see that as a basic aspect of a free country. It is also why the recent Underground shooting disturbed me so (plus the aspect of extra-judicial killing). This is merest opinion however since I have no legal background.

Hello, I guess this is directed at me: I'm the cold-hearted lawyer.

If the state has no right to kill its citizenry then that would apply to the police, as well I suppose, to any enabling mechanism of the government i.e. the military.

I would suggest that if Pindar considers life imprisonment as torture even for the most heinous crimes (and therefore views death as a prefered solution) then surely it is torture for all?

This doesn't follow from my view. The condemning feature of life imprisonment is the inability to return to society not simply incarceration.

[Kagemusha]

I dont believe in Death sentence,Because at somepoint you will execute innocent people.I think prisons are too nice places.Im talking about Finnish prisons.My opinion is that prisons should be turned into forced labour facilities.That way inmates wouldnt just spend our taxmoney but also be profitable.
Pindar.I dont quite understand why you think death sentence is societys self defence.I read your post where you stated that without death sentence State cant kill its citicens.Of course it can like police shooting an invidual in dangering situation.But surely police cant shoot someone when they have captured someone allready.I think a society can and shoudl use leathal force,but only when its absolutely necessary.When it has no other possibilities.

[Xiahou]

I am not making a legal argument. The use of 'right' implies moral force. Are you challenging that the state has the right to kill?

Do you really think I am arguing for arbitrary killing? Has anything I've posted suggested the state can simply remove any and all at its leisure? The point revolves around base notions of justice and civil mandate. This should be obvious. With capital punishment I have argued that if there are such cases where the guilty are considered beyond reprieve and thereby would not be allowed to return to society then death is the proper conclusion. The simple working example has been cases of murder where a base equity can be demonstrated. I think I have been consistent in arguing this point.

You weren't arguing for arbitrary killing by the state, but you did make the case for it in your arguments with the notion that the state has the unquestionable right to kill

I have not argued imprisonment alone equals torture. I have argued that life in prison where there is no possible return is cruel and unusual punishment. I have also argued that in such cases death is more humane and proper.

Were it life in solitary confinement, I might agree that it's torture- but lifetime solitary confinement fell out of popular practice long ago as far as I know. I argue that prisons should be harsher, but I don't see any benefit to driving prisoners insane in absolute solitude- nor do I see any benefit to justify killing them.

Does this mean those who served in the Continental Army shouldn't have fired their weapons and thereby 'forced death on others for (their) principles?' Better they simply sacrificed themselves?

So we're back to this again? Killing on the battlefield is not equivalent to killing defenseless prisoners. I can't honestly believe you don't see a difference.

#Given recent confusion: no. I'm not justifying vigilantism here. Killing is a state authorized function.

Based on that, we would have no disagreement. But I part ways when you claim that a state has an absolute right to kill and that it is moral for a state to do so regardless of the circumstances.

[Papewaio]

Pindar you dodged the question. Are you stating that all bar 3 democracies in the world are morally inferior because they do not use the death penalty?

[Pindar]

You weren't arguing for arbitrary killing by the state, but you did make the case for it in your arguments with the notion that the state has the unquestionable right to kill

I have made no case for arbitrary killing.

The state does have a right to kill. The military is a simple example. The police would be another.

Were it life in solitary confinement, I might agree that it's torture- but lifetime solitary confinement fell out of popular practice long ago as far as I know. I argue that prisons should be harsher, but I don't see any benefit to driving prisoners insane in absolute solitude- nor do I see any benefit to justify killing them.

The benefit to capital punishment is it provides redress. This is the basis for punishment.

So we're back to this again? Killing on the battlefield is not equivalent to killing defenseless prisoners. I can't honestly believe you don't see a difference.

State killing is state killing. Whether this applies to an external threat or an internal one: it is the same.

Based on that, we would have no disagreement. But I part ways when you claim that a state has an absolute right to kill and that it is moral for a state to do so regardless of the circumstances.

I have never argued the state can kill regardless of circumstance.

[Pindar]

Pindar you dodged the question. Are you stating that all bar 3 democracies in the world are morally inferior because they do not use the death penalty?

I didn't reply because I didn't think it was a serious question.

Of course! Any nation that rejects capital punishment is morally inferior. I Consider socialism and its attendant baggage as morally inferior. It is just one more example of the feminization of societies that comfortable in their cafes do not understand the reality of evil. Capital punishment has been the standard for jurisprudential thought since the rise of Civilization. The reason being, it is almost impossible to come up with a sound understanding of law and punishment without it. Capital punishment is directly tied to equity which is the basis for law.


"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - Orwell.

[kiwitt]

I didn't reply because I didn't think it was a serious question.

Of course! Any nation that rejects capital punishment is morally inferior. I Consider socialism and its attendant baggage as morally inferior. It is just one more example of the feminization of societies that comfortable in their cafes do not understand the reality of evil.

It sounds as if you believe "women" have no right to influence the world. They have been ignored for many centuries and still are today in many cultures. Are you saying that women's influence should not be accepted because they are inferior. This is very similar thinking to "Islam" and some "Christian" and other religions, in the superiority of Men.

Man first, Women second. That is very arrogant thinking. Countless centuries of war can be traced in part to men's arrogance that they are superior.

Women should be respected fully, what they bring to the world. Unless you think they are only useful for 2 things: breeding an cleaning, like some men think.

[Crazed Rabbit]

*Ding Ding Ding!*
Congrats! You win the red herring award! Either that or you misunderstood him.

What he was talking about when he said 'feminization' related not to women, but to a pacifistic response of intellectual elites who have never experienced that which they preach about. They think they can remove evil from the world by ignoring it.

Crazed Rabbit

[Kanamori]

Yes, the right exists, but what are the criteria that must be met in order for the death penalty to be viable. I see a problem in the way it is carried out. There ought to be some standard so it is given out equally. Right now, it's whichever lawyer can give a more passionate speech to the jury. And no, before it's brought up, I don't support Judges giving it out, because I could see that as a very likely question or implication.

Edit: It can be put into the social contract that its citizen's are not to be put to death, but that isn't the case.

[Pindar]

*Ding Ding Ding!*
Congrats! You win the red herring award! Either that or you misunderstood him.

What he was talking about when he said 'feminization' related not to women, but to a pacifistic response of intellectual elites who have never experienced that which they preach about. They think they can remove evil from the world by ignoring it.

Crazed Rabbit

Thank you for stating what should have been obvious.

[Pindar]

Yes, the right exists, but what are the criteria that must be met in order for the death penalty to be viable. I see a problem in the way it is carried out. There ought to be some standard so it is given out equally. Right now, it's whichever lawyer can give a more passionate speech to the jury. And no, before it's brought up, I don't support Judges giving it out, because I could see that as a very likely question or implication.

Implementation and the base right are distinct. I have no problem with applying a high degree of rigor to the process so as to help eliminate error and instill fairness. I don't think that means abandoning the Adversarial Judicial System or trial by a group of one's peers however.

[Kanamori]

Agreed. What should those criteria be, though? I was plan side in a Death Penalty debate in school, so I would be interested in hearing the ideas of others.

[Pindar]

I dont believe in Death sentence,Because at somepoint you will execute innocent people.

Pindar.I dont quite understand why you think death sentence is societys self defence.

Sorry I missed your post earlier.

All systems are prone to some error. Innocent people will and do die. Guilty people will and do get off free. The military kills its own in friendly fire. Innocents die as collateral damage. Each is unfortunate. Striving to correct error does not mean abandonment of sound policy or justice.

Capital punishment (CP) is a societal defense because murder is an attack on society. CP is a response to crime not its precursor.

[sharrukin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
Does that include the mistakes made by the legal system when they let some killer escape or get parole released to kill again? Or do those innocents not count?

Such incidents are regrettable. However any subsequent killings are the crimes of the released man not, as is the case in the death sentence, of the courts and by extension ourselves.

Deaths due to acts of omission on the part of the authorities are not the states responsibility?

"Such incidents are regrettable"
So the innocents who are murdered by state negligence are not your responsibility, but the death of an inmate not guilty of the crime is your responsibility?
The moral obligation that weighs heavily on you is the one regarding the imposition of the death penalty, not the one regarding the states obligation to protect its own citizens?
Far more innocents are killed by such negligence than could ever possibly be killed by direct state action.
Is it about protecting innocents, or not?
Or is it about protecting your conscience?

You seem to be assuming that the death penalty is wrong based on the idea that the state has no scope of moral action beyond that which is permitted to an individual. Any legitimate state has a duty to defend itself and its citizens. It also has the right to go to war, and that is not something we would grant to an individual. The state is not a person, and cannot conduct itself based on personal morality.

A moral stupor seems to have descended on us that says the death of a murderous thug is not of equal moral significance to that of an innocent, but is rather of greater moral significance than that of an innocent, simply because the state carried it out!

Question is, why put them in prison at all?
I mean according to your logic the state bears no responsibility for what private citizens do.

Put simply human depravity exists and the moral and social order requires a response to the offense.

I see that the state sanctioned killing arguments is still in full flow from our cold-hearted lawyer! I would still agrue that the state has no right to kill its own citizens. In fact I see that as a basic aspect of a free country. It is also why the recent Underground shooting disturbed me so (plus the aspect of extra-judicial killing). This is merest opinion however since I have no legal background.

You are willing to accept a person is wrongfully left to rot until they die in prison, but you are opposed to capital punishment. You are willing to accept that they will be sent to prison and sodomized or killed. You are not willing to accept the state sanctioned killing due to the fact that they by implication represent you?

For all those who weigh up the value of life and the cost of prison and decide that death is better than spending dollars I say shame on you. If you believe this then you forfeit the right to any moral high ground on any subject of life and death (for example, abortion). You would sell your own Grandmother for glue.

Well, in point of fact it was the anti-death penalty crowd that brings up the dollars and cents issue time after time. The claim being that the death penalty cost more than life without parole. It is disproven by the evidence. I agree that justice for money is not an acceptable tradeoff. They should hang regardless of the cost, because it is just and right that they should!

[Xiahou]

I have made no case for arbitrary killing.

The state does have a right to kill. The military is a simple example. The police would be another.

State killing is state killing. Whether this applies to an external threat or an internal one: it is the same.

I have never argued the state can kill regardless of circumstance.

Do these statements seem inconsistent to anyone else?

State killing is state killing? Enemy soldiers, criminals, POWs, old people, babies? All equal and all good and moral so long as the state does it.

[Pindar]

Posted by Pindar
I have made no case for arbitrary killing.

The state does have a right to kill. The military is a simple example. The police would be another.

State killing is state killing. Whether this applies to an external threat or an internal one: it is the same.

I have never argued the state can kill regardless of circumstance.

XiahouDo these statements seem inconsistent to anyone else?

Where is the inconsistency?

[sharrukin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pindar
I have made no case for arbitrary killing.

The state does have a right to kill. The military is a simple example. The police would be another.

State killing is state killing. Whether this applies to an external threat or an internal one: it is the same.

I have never argued the state can kill regardless of circumstance.

Do these statements seem inconsistent to anyone else?

State killing is state killing? Enemy soldiers, criminals, POWs, old people, babies? All equal and all good and moral so long as the state does it.

"I have never argued the state can kill regardless of circumstance."

No inconsistency that I can see!
The state has the right to kill, as do individuals based on the circumstances.

Some killing is not morally wrong, and some killing is.

[kiwitt]

Looking at Killing individuals what is the lowest level you will think it is right to kill someone for their crime

Genocidal Leader (Hundreds, thousands, millions)
Mass-Murderer (Dozens, hundreds, thousands i.e. terrorist)
Serial Killer (Multiple; One/two at a time)
Child-Rapist Murderer
Rapist Murderer
Assassin (Specific Target - Unknown - for money)
Murderer (Specific Target - Known - revenge)
Assault/Robber/Burglar Murder (In the act of committing a crime)
Crime of Passion (Lovers Triangle, etc.)
Metally impaired Murderer
Drunk Driver / Speeding Driver killing
Accidental killing (Negligent)
Adulterer (no one dead)
Drug Courier (no one dead)

While against the "Death Penalty" for reasons outlined above. If it was to be enforced, I would probably support "Rapist Murderers" and worse being executed.

[sharrukin]

Looking at Killing individuals what is the lowest level you will think it is right to kill someone for their crime

YES
Genocidal Leader (Hundreds, thousands, millions)
Mass-Murderer (Dozens, hundreds, thousands i.e. terrorist)
Serial Killer (Multiple; One/two at a time)
Child-Rapist Murderer
Rapist Murderer
Assassin (Specific Target - Unknown - for money)

Revenge for what? (probably a YES)
Murderer (Specific Target - Known - revenge)

Dependent on the exact circumstances.
Assault/Robber/Burglar Murder (In the act of committing a crime)
Crime of Passion (Lovers Triangle, etc.)

NO
Metally impaired Murderer
Drunk Driver / Speeding Driver killing
Accidental killing (Negligent)
Adulterer (no one dead)
Drug Courier (no one dead)

[Voigtkampf]

Do these statements seem inconsistent to anyone else?

Not in the least.

Don't let yourself be blinded by political correctness.

[Xiahou]

Not in the least.

Don't let yourself be blinded by political correctness.

Political correctness has nothing to do with it. You can't reasonably say that the state can't arbitrarily kill people, then in the same breath claim that the state has a right to kill people and it makes no difference what the reason- state killing is state killing no matter what.

It's an absurd position- if the state has a 'right to kill', then it has the right to kill anyone. If it has limitations then its not a right- nor does it have a damn thing to do with the death penalty debate. As I've said- I'm well aware that capital punishment is legal, I think it's useless and uneccessary killing. It serves no purpose other than revenge- unless you subscribe to the 'eye for an eye' notion where some karmic imbalance is created and the world spins off its axis unless a murdered is killed- life for a life.

[sharrukin]

Political correctness has nothing to do with it. You can't reasonably say that the state can't arbitrarily kill people, then in the same breath claim that the state has a right to kill people and it makes no difference what the reason- state killing is state killing no matter what.

It's an absurd position- if the state has a 'right to kill', then it has the right to kill anyone. If it has limitations then its not a right- nor does it have a damn thing to do with the death penalty debate. As I've said- I'm well aware that capital punishment is legal, I think it's useless and uneccessary killing. It serves no purpose other than revenge- unless you subscribe to the 'eye for an eye' notion where some karmic imbalance is created and the world spins off its axis unless a murdered is killed- life for a life.

Well, first off, every right has limits. There is no such thing as an unlimited right.

The right of free speech is limited. No yelling fire in a crowded theatre.
The right to own property is limited. Eminent domain.
The right to vote is limited. No 6 year olds, or inmates allowed.
The right to the pursuit of happiness. You have to catch it first, it doesn't get handed to you.
The right to freedom of association. Terrorists not included.
The right to life. Capital punishment, the draft, robbing a bank.

There are limits on all of them.

Out of interest.
If justice does not incorporate any elements of vengeance, then what is it to you?

I assume Ted Bundy who killed close to 40 women is not going to get community service or a $500 fine in your system of justice, but why not?

If vengeance isn't at least a part of it and Brazil said they would take him as a talk show host, why not accept exile for him?

I ask because you don't seem to think justice and vengeance are related.

[Xiahou]

Out of interest.
If justice does not incorporate any elements of vengeance, then what is it to you?

I assume Ted Bundy who killed close to 40 women is not going to get community service or a $500 fine in your system of justice, but why not?

If vengeance isn't at least a part of it and Brazil said they would take him as a talk show host, why not accept exile for him?

I ask because you don't seem to think justice and vengeance are related.

It's pretty simple really- you imprison people to keep them from endangering the general population. Our government shouldn't be in the revenge business. Some criminals, however, commit such heinous crimes that we cannot afford to risk to have them loosed on society again- thus life sentencing. Obviously, the reason for non-life offenders being imprisoned is also a deterrant type of punishment.

Sending Bundy to Brazil would be unconscionable on our part, as we already know him to be a violent, murderous psychopath and all around scumbag.

[sharrukin]

It's pretty simple really- you imprison people to keep them from endangering the general population. Our government shouldn't be in the revenge business. Some criminals, however, commit such heinous crimes that we cannot afford to risk to have them loosed on society again- thus life sentencing. Obviously, the reason for non-life offenders being imprisoned is also a deterrant type of punishment.

Sending Bundy to Brazil would be unconscionable on our part, as we already know him to be a violent, murderous psychopath and all around scumbag.

The aim being to prevent or suppress crimes to acceptable levels. The purpose is increased safety for the community at large but not justice.

Should a man such as Adolf Eichmann or Heinrich Himmler be subject to any punishment at all? They will not ever be in a position to repeat what they have done to bring themselves to our attention. So if rehabilitation and deterrance is our sole intent then the job has been done. It would be retribution alone that would guide any action against them. If the death penalty does not deter, and if they are unlikely to repeat their crimes, then why even bother to put them in prison at all? Clearly Adolf Eichmann was less of a threat to society in the utilitarian sense than that posed by a 16 year old car thief. He was living peacefully in South America being a model citizen. Why hunt him down?

"When we see one man oppressed or injured by another, the sympathy which we feel with the distress of the sufferer seems to serve only to animate our fellow-feeling with his resentment against the offender. We are rejoiced to see him attack his adversary in his turn, and are eager and ready to assist him whenever he exerts himself for defence, or even for vengeance within a certain degree." Adam Smith

This is vengeance and retribution and it is why we despise the Nazi camp guard and lend our sympathy to the inmate of such places. Anger is the sentiment aroused by the sight of injustice, and is therefore intimately connected with justice. Should we not exact retribution from those who wrong us? Should we not act as defenders for those who cannot defend themselves?

Justice makes a virtue of controlled vengeance.

[Steppe Merc]

How does the state have the right to kill anyone? It's pathetic hypocracy at the highest to say that people can't kill each other in veganace or duels of honor or something, while the state can. What makes the state so special? Human life is human life, and no one should have the right to end another's that is not derectly threatining them.

Is it that much difference to give them life sentence? They will never be able to hurt anyone again anyway, and there is the possibility of reversing a desicion if someone is found to be innocent. Laws will have to change to accomadate this, such as making life really life, not 25 years, as well as lessening punishments for stupid crimes to make up for the cost of imporssining more criminals, but it would be far better for everyone.

[sharrukin]

How does the state have the right to kill anyone? It's pathetic hypocracy at the highest to say that people can't kill each other in veganace or duels of honor or something, while the state can. What makes the state so special? Human life is human life, and no one should have the right to end another's that is not derectly threatining them.

Is it that much difference to give them life sentence? They will never be able to hurt anyone again anyway, and there is the possibility of reversing a desicion if someone is found to be innocent. Laws will have to change to accomadate this, such as making life really life, not 25 years, as well as lessening punishments for stupid crimes to make up for the cost of imporssining more criminals, but it would be far better for everyone.

So if Adolf Hitler had escaped to South America on a submarine, we would be wrong to send someone to finish him off?

[Xiahou]

Alright, so you admit that they are henous individuals not fit to come back into society. Why make society pay extravegant sums to keep them alive then? Is that not adding insult to injury?

Yes, Execution can be expensive, but you are paying for the elimination of a criminal, not the sustainment of one.

Both options are currently very expensive. To make executions cheaper, you would need to cut down on the amount of appeals- almost invariably leading to more innocents being wrongfully executed. Prisons could easily be made cheaper, by making them less like country clubs and more like proper prisons.