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

[Voigtkampf]

First time I recall being on the same side as you in an argument.

"Once you strike down the path to the dark side..."

[Pindar]

"Once you strike down the path to the dark side..."

Voigtkampf knows me too well. You Gelatinous Cube, you must also learn the ways of the Dark Side. Then you will be unstopable.

[sharrukin]

I'm not talking about concepts like utility or economic efficiency here.

I was actually just challenging the idea that the value of a human life can be measured in such superficial terms.

I won't try to convert you from your viewpoint on corrections policy.

But if life cannot be measured by such a crass yardstick then human life must be something more than just a warm body.

A reverence for human life, to have any meaning, must incorporate the spiritual side of our lives. If not, how do we differ from cattle or chickens?

Doesn't our conduct give value to our lives, and cannot that same conduct take it away?

[Ja'chyra]

I believe there is still a case for the death sentence, take for example serial paedophiles or the failed suicide bombers. We have clear proof in the case of the suicide bombers including confessions and I don't think anyone can disagree that they deserve to die, alright I'm sure some people here will disagree.

As for the arguments that say we would deprive the criminal of his chance of reform or to show remorse, tough. Why would we want to let someone like this back into the community? I don't. Do they deserve a chance to make a new life? No, I don't think so. They deserve to be punished, not treated like some sort of victim, and if the crime is serious enough that they deserve to lose their lives then so be it, they shouldn't have done the crime.

And yes, I see this as justice not revenge, why would I want revenge on someone who committed a crime against someone I don't even know and never would know.

There is also the question of what is the value of a human life. I would say it is all dependant on whose life for example I value the life of my wife and family much more than, for example, someone who lives half a world away. Hell, if I had to make the choice I would sacrifice 1000 strangers to save my family if I had to.

[King Henry V]

The death penalty should only be used when there is no doubt whatsoever as to the guilt of the person convicted, and if the crime is very severe. In some cases the crimes comitted show that the perpetrator is not human at all, therefore does not deserve the same treatment.

[Voigtkampf]

The Cubical side is the greatest. All hail me.

Tough choice between:

“Your faith in geometry will be your undoing.”

“Twice the pride, double the fall.”

And, my favorite atm,

“Dark Side; be there or be square.”

[Roark]

@ Pindar: That is not what I was driving at. War is a different matter altogether. You are kinda insinuating that the only way to protect society from the worst of domestic criminals is to execute them, when (IMHO) this is not necessarily the case. Yes, it is more efficient, and permanent, but it is that permanency which disturbs me about capital punishment... There's no rewind button. No compensation can be made to that rare creature: the wrongly accused. It's just lights out. This is why my current opinion on capital punishment errs on the side of caution. I can't shrug off collateral damage as easily as certain others in this discussion.

The vague point that I was dancing around earlier in the thread is that I believe we should be advanced enough as a society to not have to incorporate primeval pack/herd concepts like utilitarianism and efficiency when we consider the value of a human life. Once again, I'm having trouble explaining myself, haha...

But if life cannot be measured by such a crass yardstick then human life must be something more than just a warm body.

A reverence for human life, to have any meaning, must incorporate the spiritual side of our lives. If not, how do we differ from cattle or chickens?

Doesn't our conduct give value to our lives, and cannot that same conduct take it away?

Well said, mate. At various points in my life, it is this same idea which has swayed me to be in favour of the death penalty. Forfeiture of a right to exist through despicable acts. As others on the board have said, though, I think that capital punishment exists largely as a cathartic form of retribution for society. That's not good enough for me personally, and rationally.

[Strike For The South]

BROCKTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- A man lifting his infant daughter out of his car was killed in an apparent case of road rage by a motorist "who obviously exploded" and shot him four times at close range in front of dozens of witnesses, authorities said.

The victim's 10-month-old girl was covered with blood but uninjured when police found her in a car seat on the floor of the vehicle.

Walter R. Bishop, 60, who was taking medication for depression, was arrested Tuesday and charged with first-degree murder in the death of 27-year-old Sandro Andrade. He pleaded innocent and was ordered held without bail; a hearing was scheduled for August 26.

Plymouth District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz said Bishop had made a calculated decision to "shoot a man in cold blood in broad daylight on the streets of Brockton."

Police Chief Paul Studenski described it as a case of road rage.

Bishop's attorney, Kevin Reddington, said Andrade had provoked his client during a traffic altercation.

"We have a homicide that resulted from a circumstance where somebody picked a fight with an individual who obviously exploded," Reddington said. Bishop, a former soldier and security guard, had recently begun taking two medications for depression, he said.

Bishop told investigators he was driving his wife to the train station when Andrade's vehicle backed toward him on Main Street, Cruz said. The two exchanged heated words.

"He said his wife was scared, and he said he was angry at that encounter," Cruz said of Bishop. "He said he made up his mind right there that he had to do something."

After dropping his wife off, he allegedly returned to the scene of the confrontation, pointed a handgun through an open window and fired, police said.

"Pop! Pop! Pop! Pop! Four shots. It sounded like a cap gun," Louis McPhee, the manager of a car wash across the street, told The Boston Globe. "The guy was lying there in his own blood with a hole in his head and his arm still on the baby."

Bishop left before police arrived, but witnesses gave investigators his license plate number and police found him at his home.

Police said Bishop has a valid handgun license.

What vile scum eh this is why we need the death penalty

[kiwitt]

...who was taking medication for depression, ...
....What vile scum eh this is why we need the death penalty

Sounds like this guy has a "Mental illness". I am sure we all know people with some level of mental illness. When they are under the influence of this, they may not think "rationally".

Currently, society does not treat "Mental Illness" with the same respect that they give to other illnesses. This is wrong and people should be treated with respect, if they have it. We should look after people with "Mental Illness", so that events like what happended above do not occur.

In the case above, some blame needs to be pointed at society for not doing enough and therefore the man is not solely to blame, and should not be "killed". However, he should be placed in a secure facility until he is "better", however long that takes.

[Strike For The South]

Sounds like this guy has a "Mental illness". I am sure we all know people with some level of mental illness. When they are under the influence of this, they may not think "rationally".

Currently, society does not treat "Mental Illness" with the same respect that they give to other illnesses. This is wrong and people should be treated with respect, if they have it. We should look after people with "Mental Illness", so that events like what happended above do not occur.

In the case above, some blame needs to be pointed at society for not doing enough and therefore the man is not solely to blame, and should not be "killed". However, he should be placed in a secure facility until he is "better", however long that takes.

[/QUOTE]Plymouth District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz said Bishop had made a calculated decision to "shoot a man in cold blood in broad daylight on the streets of Brockton.".[/QUOTE]

Ah yes a calculated decision sounds like an illness to me

[Roark]

Woulda been better if he didn't have ready access to a firearm...

I'm sorry, I couldn't help it... ;-)

[Strike For The South]

Woulda been better if he didn't have ready access to a firearm...

I'm sorry, I couldn't help it... ;-)

Thats for another thread

[kiwitt]

I am beginning to understand that quite a few "Americans" are really "ruthless" people and lack even any understanding.

Don't look right ? Kill them (see KKK history, Native Indian History)
Don't believe right ? Kill them (see answer to Terrorism thread)
Don't feel right in the head ? Kill them (see posts above)
...
One day. Too old ? Kill them (refer logan run).

Be wary of the direction you are heading in when you condone the state for killing individuals. One day it might be you. All it takes is a law change.

[Strike For The South]

I am beginning to understand that quite a few "Americans" are really "ruthless" people and lack even any understanding.

Don't look right ? Kill them (see KKK history, Native Indian History)
Don't believe right ? Kill them (see answer to Terrorism thread)
Don't feel right in the head ? Kill them (see posts above)
...
One day. Too old ? Kill them (refer logan run).

Be wary of the direction you are heading in when you condone the state for killing individuals. One day it might be you. All it takes is a law change.

This isn't about race or religon its about a man who made a desicon to kill a young father with the infant in his arms. If that makes me "ruthless" so be it

P.S I only support the death penalty for murder and only that if they try to change the law for a lesser crime ill be the first one yelling

[kiwitt]

Jeez, maybe the thread about arrogant Europeans was right.

I don't think I am being arrogant. Also I am not European.

Just I do not support the state having the right to kill it's own citizens, to which they have been elected to represent. As I said the "Death Penalty" is a slippery slope to follow.

In some places the "society" allows the rape of women because of some family member offence. This is wrong. Some women get stoned to death for adultery. The "Death Penalty" is from a "barbaric age", and soceity should evolve from it.

[Roark]

Speaking of the Death Penalty, I know they let you choose how you're gonna die here in the US, but do we have an option for beheading? After watching a documentary that included some info on lethal injection, I think i'd much rather be decapitated if I ever wind up on Death Row.

I'd take decapitation over the State-approved methods, anyday. Although I'd want either a guillotine or a master axeman. A botched beheading could be nasty...

I read somewhere recently that crucifixion is still legal in two countries... That would NOT be cool. I'll try to google some more on this.

Thats for another thread

Yeah, sorry... I knew I was being bad when I posted it... I'm not an anti-gun fanatic... honestly...

[Redleg]

Just I do not support the state having the right to kill it's own citizens, to which they have been elected to represent. As I said the "Death Penalty" is a slippery slope to follow.

.

Woulda been better if he didn't have ready access to a firearm...

I'm sorry, I couldn't help it... ;-)

So do you support abortion? (And I am primarily talking about abortions that take place in teh 2nd and 3rd Trimester.)

Which is the state allowing the individual to chose to kill another human being that just happens to be in the woman's womb.

See two can play that game.

[Ja'chyra]

Some interesting points raised.

Sounds like this guy has a "Mental illness". I am sure we all know people with some level of mental illness. When they are under the influence of this, they may not think "rationally".

Currently, society does not treat "Mental Illness" with the same respect that they give to other illnesses. This is wrong and people should be treated with respect, if they have it. We should look after people with "Mental Illness", so that events like what happended above do not occur.

In the case above, some blame needs to be pointed at society for not doing enough and therefore the man is not solely to blame, and should not be "killed". However, he should be placed in a secure facility until he is "better", however long that takes.

This my friend is crap. People need to stand up and take responsibility for their own actions, if they are unable to e.g. mentally unable to take responsibility then it is the duty of their families to do so, only in the case where there is no one to help them does society as a whole come in.

Even if he was mentally ill, he shot a man in front of his baby daughter, he needs to be punished not treated. If he can be treated at the same time then all the better but the man is a murderer, you don't put him in a hospital for six months pronounce him cured and set him free, that's just wrong.

The vague point that I was dancing around earlier in the thread is that I believe we should be advanced enough as a society to not have to incorporate primeval pack/herd concepts like utilitarianism and efficiency when we consider the value of a human life. Once again, I'm having trouble explaining myself, haha...

Fair point, but, what is the value of a human life? Are all lives equally valuable?

Before we start with the "Everyone has a right to life", no they don't, if they did there would be no death, no abortion etc.

Ok, individuals. Is everyones life of equal importance, I would say that if you answeres yes then you're wrong. For example, would you place more value on the life of your wife or mother than that of a thrice convicted paedophile, I sure as hell would (strange saying that, as hell isn't sure at all, anyway) and I would say that if you don't you seriously need to sort out your values.

So I would say that there is a case for the death sentence, and the case in example may be one but I'm not sure without knowing more about it. But saying that he can't take responsibility becuase he was depressed is ridiculous.

[Pindar]

@ Pindar: That is not what I was driving at. War is a different matter altogether. You are kinda insinuating that the only way to protect society from the worst of domestic criminals is to execute them, when (IMHO) this is not necessarily the case. Yes, it is more efficient, and permanent, but it is that permanency which disturbs me about capital punishment... There's no rewind button. No compensation can be made to that rare creature: the wrongly accused. It's just lights out. This is why my current opinion on capital punishment errs on the side of caution. I can't shrug off collateral damage as easily as certain others in this discussion.

War and capital punishment are both state sponsored killing. If one is opposed to state sponsored killing then both activities would need to be rejected. If the permanency of error is the issue: killing the innocent, this again applies to both cases. The wrong man may be convicted and subsequently executed, in war: friendly fire, collateral damaged etc. are terms used for the unintended death of innocents. The key difference between the two actions is that in a criminal trial, evidence has been presented and the convicted has been found guilty based upon that evidence. In a war scenario: victims of friendly fire, collateral damage etc. have no guilt that can be assigned. Further, such occurs on a far greater scale. It is therefore a very strained view that would recognize war as legitimate but exclude capital punishment.

ue point that I was dancing around earlier in the thread is that I believe we should be advanced enough as a society to not have to incorporate primeval pack/herd concepts like utilitarianism and efficiency when we consider the value of a human life. Once again, I'm having trouble explaining myself, haha...

Some of the bedrock justifications for government are derived from utility and efficiency arguments. The tenor of your rhetoric would seem to suggest we should move beyond such notions. This of course is an anarchist view.

The taking of human life is of such importance that it is reserved to the state alone. It thereby reflects the measure of the collective will. The value of human life can be measured by the degree of retribution brought to bare to preserve its sanctity. A system that does not demand the greatest sacrifice from those who have taken life violates the basic equity that informs systems of justice.

[Pindar]

I am beginning to understand that quite a few "Americans" are really "ruthless" people and lack even any understanding.


The "Death Penalty" is from a "barbaric age", and soceity should evolve from it.

A society that does not have the wherewithal to protect itself in the strongest terms necessary against internal threat will not be able muster the strength of will to protect itself against external threat. Like the prim little girl who squirms when her shepard uncle shoots a wolf moving on his sheep: those who through urbanization and appealing to the vagaries of the sophisticate have cut themselves off from the realities of life illustrate in stark fashion the social maturity that separates the slave from the free man.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Woulda been better if he didn't have ready access to a firearm...

I'm sorry, I couldn't help it... ;-)

He'd have hit him with the car instead.



I don't see the initial post as an argument against the death penalty but rather for reform of the criminal trial process.

The war argument is a good one.

[Goofball]

"Police said Bishop has a valid handgun license."

What vile scum eh this is why we need the death penalty

No, this is why we don't need handguns...

[scooter_the_shooter]

No we need them to be safe from wackos like him.

[Xiahou]

Is this an argument that society doesn't have the right to kill in order to protect itself? If so, then you must support disbanding the military. If not, then you have already placed a value over and above the preservation of life.

Now if society does have the right to kill this should apply to threats within as well as without.

The right to kill in defense isn't the same as killing in retribution. Who are you protecting by killing someone who is already locked away from society for the rest of their life?

Forced Labor for a fixed period without possibility of getting out early is something i'd support. But good luck getting any liberal, and some conservatives, to agree with that.

I agree, prison should be an unpleasant experience to serve as a deterrent. For non-lifers, they should have strict, harsh treatment with the opportunity for education or learning job skills. For lifers, just warehouse them.

[Xiahou]

Your protecting everyone's tax dollars.

Off with their heads!

Meh, I've read that, as it stands, it's cheaper to put someone away for life than it is to execute someone with all of th legal challenges and appeals involved. And once they implement emperor Xiahou's prison reforms it could cost 1/3 what it currently does to keep prisoners.

[scooter_the_shooter]

bullets cost to much... a rope is cheap and can be used again.

[The Stranger]

Criminals will get guns whether the law says they can or not. This isn't like cushy Europe, here in america you can get anything you want if you look hard enough.

The only viable solution is to encourage people to buy guns, and give free public training courses in proper firearms use.

so their kids can steal one and shoot his friend for loosing a game of dragonball on the PS2

[scooter_the_shooter]

Not if part of the training programs include eddie eagle for kids. http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/

[Pindar]

Posted by Pindar
Is this an argument that society doesn't have the right to kill in order to protect itself? If so, then you must support disbanding the military. If not, then you have already placed a value over and above the preservation of life.

Now if society does have the right to kill this should apply to threats within as well as without.

The right to kill in defense isn't the same as killing in retribution. Who are you protecting by killing someone who is already locked away from society for the rest of their life?

State sponsored killing is the common link. Further, retribution and defense are not mutually exclusive positions. Equity demands proper redress for murder. Moreover, murder by the act alone is an attack on society. Society is justified in removing that threat, but is under no obligation to maintain a determined threat indefinitely.

If man is a social animal then forced removal to the periphery of society for life is a barbarism.

[Xiahou]

State sponsored killing is the common link. Further, retribution and defense are not mutually exclusive positions. Equity demands proper redress for murder. Moreover, murder by the act alone is an attack on society. Society is justified in removing that threat, but is under no obligation to maintain a determined threat indefinitely.

Both solutions remove the threat to society- one does not needlessly kill a person, the other does. Again, the idea with the military and defense is necessary killing. I don't believe that "take no prisoners" in combat is considered an appropriate approach to combat anymore. Nor in modern society are you justified in hunting down your mugger to shoot them after the fact.

If man is a social animal then forced removal to the periphery of society for life is a barbarism.

So death is better?