Why NOT death penalty?

[davjohns 1]

Opponents of the death penalty like to point to mistakes and make a rule from the exceptions. I understand this. I think it is reprehensible in the extreme that people can be wrongfully convicted and executed. However, there are just certain people that have clearly voided their right to life and I will sleep better once they are dead. Sorry if this offends you.

Using the exception to support the rule: there has been a trial lately where two men invaded a house, raped the wife and 11 year old daughter, beat the husband with a bat, set fire to the house, etc. Their argument? The man didn't defend his family well enough (loosely paraphrased).

It is much worse in greater detail: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire,_Connecticut,_home_invasion_murders

Confession, text messages, video tape, DNA, eye witness (husband), picutres of the daughter's rape, etc. were all very conclusive on the events.

So...were the juries wrong in recommending the death penalty? Are we ready to keep these two in prison at an exhorbitant cost for decades? Parole? Can they be rehabilitated? Want them to date your daughter when they get out?

I'm sorry. While there are cases that indicate we need to be very careful in the use of this punishment and the system can always be improved, there are also cases that convince me that some people need to be destroyed just as a surgeon would not hesitate to destroy cancer cells. No good can come of keeping them alive.

If not the death penalty for these two...what? As long as they breath, they can get out. The Lockerbie assassin is living well in Libya. Manson comes up for parole routinely. The list is long.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Gravitymaster 0]

I am opposed to the death penalty even for the most heinous of crimes. I do not believe anyone is "authorized" to take another persons life regardless of the reason.
However, I am also against allowing someone to languish in a Federal Prison only to become a member of a gang or a drug dealer. I think we should have a "special place" for those convicted of evil crimes. My suggestion would be a very remote area of Alaska where they should be sentenced to a life of hard labor and their lives should be dedicated to actually paying for their crimes by reparations to the families of their victims and/or in some way contributing to society. I also believe in life sentences without the possibility of parole.

[davjohns 1]

In theory, I could agree with you. The problem is that, in practice, there is no such thing as life without parole. And while I support the idea of reparation, hard work, etc., I think it is impracticable. We currently have to provide cable TV and gyms to prisoners. Hard labor doesn't happen anymore. So, is there a more practical answer? What do we do with these two savages?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

The Lockerbie assassin is living well in Libya.

I believe the man you're referring to just died?
http://news.yahoo.com/lockerbie-bomber-buried-controversy-lives-080102587.html;_ylt=A2KJjamIDL1PvnQApG7QtDMD

Anyhow, I agree with the death penalty in cases that are absolutely heinous and absolutely provable. And if we limited it to these cases, perhaps we could make it less costly. One of the problems right now, is that it generally costs a lot more to have a death penalty trial and actual execution than it does to just lock them up for life without the possibility of parole.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Doesn't have to be a magical answer. Just treat prisoner the way they used to be treated. Life at hard labor. No gyms, no cable, no nothing. Get up, work all day, eat sleep, do it again.

Perhaps when prisoners who do get out after 20 years for less heinous crimes start talking about life in prison, it will have something of a "scared straight" effect. I'm not suggesting prisoners be treated inhumanely. I don't want them raped, beaten or starved. I just think this is a better idea than putting them to death after 20 years on death row and hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on appeals. At least if new evidence comes to light at a later date, we haven't taken their life.

[Andy9o8 0]

There are indeed several US states that currently do have true life w/o parole. All it takes is legislation.

[Andy9o8 0]

My own philosophical reason for always having opposed the death penalty - aside from the risk of error - is that by taking the life of the killer, society debases itself by bringing itself down to his level. Society should be better than the killers.* Or even the killlers.


* Not including the band; they kick ass.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

My own philosophical reason for always having opposed the death penalty - aside from the risk of error - is that by taking the life of the killer, society debases itself by bringing itself down to his level. Society should be better than the killers.* Or even the killlers.


* Not including the band; they kick ass.

I caught the crossover from another thread.

Philosophically, I could agree with you. I have always thought that some people earned torture that I would oppose just because I would be concerned about the effects on those who did the torturing. Similar line of thought. We don't want society as a whole to be analogous to what they are destroying. Still...as in the instant case...nothing else seems to fit some situations. And with appropriate safeguards, the death penalty is practicable.

I don't delve too deeply in the laws of states in which I'm not licensed. Are you saying there are states that have 'life without' provisions that have never been commuted? My main concern is that there are so many cases where those with the best evidence recommend / impose a sentence and a subsequent review by less informed individuals reduces that sentence.

Even if a true 'life without' were possible...I can't help but think that these two deserve something else. Like the case of Timothy McVeigh, how attrocious must your crime be before you abrogate your right to live?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[billvon 2,435]

>So...were the juries wrong in recommending the death penalty?

Only to the extent that they chose the more costly option.

To me, once someone commits a crime like that, the issue is no longer "how can justice be served?" The issue is how to remove them from society permanently. Both life imprisonment and the death penalty work from that perspective. Since we MUST be absolutely sure in death penalty cases, they cost a lot more. Thus in many cases life imprisonment is just plain easier.

>there are also cases that convince me that some people need to be
>destroyed just as a surgeon would not hesitate to destroy cancer cells.

Often surgeons just "passivate" cancer cells (i.e. use drugs to ensure they can't grow any more) and leave them there. Often that's easier/safer than trying to remove a tumor from someone's brain (for example.) The goal of the surgeon is not to destroy the cancer, it is to save the patient and try to ensure the cancer is no longer a threat

>No good can come of keeping them alive.

And no good can come from killing them. At that point it's just a question of "what is the least bad?"

[Andy9o8 0]

There are states with true life without PAROLE. I presume commutation or pardon by the respective governor remains available; and of course it is so by the President.

[davjohns 1]

Let me clarify a little bit: I do not think of myself as an ADVOCATE of the death penalty. I just see that there are cases where no other end seems justified. It is regrettable. It may be a failure of society. It may be a genetic aberation of the individual. I don't know. I just know that sometimes it is the only solution I can (lamentably) accept.

In the instant case, under the laws available...what is the right answer? Are we simply going to argue that it costs too much to do what must be done? Are we going to point to other cases to justify not doing what is right in this one?

I think people will avoid answering in this case, because it reduces the argument to something else. If you admit that this case justifies the death penalty, the argument is then 'where do we draw the line'?

I'm happier with that debate. It admits that some people will force society to remove them from our midst permanently. I've always been an advocate of giving people what they earn / demand by their actions...with compassion when possible...without when necessary.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[lawrocket 3]

What should we do with people that continue to kill while imprisoned?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Life in prison at hard labor I consider as repayment to society for crimes. The death penalty is revenge. Revenge is never the best option. It brings us down to the level of the murderer (since that's mainly what we are talking about).

[davjohns 1]

Quote

There are states with true life without PAROLE. I presume commutation or pardon by the respective governor remains available; and of course it is so by the President.

I was pretty sure that was the case. And please understand...I don't disagree with you philosophically. But as a practicality...there are people whose actions demand their removal in a permanent manner. I hate it. But it happens. My opinion.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[billvon 2,435]

>What should we do with people that continue to kill while imprisoned?

Send them to a "final" prison. Big cells, five to a cell. The problem will take care of itself.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Life in prison at hard labor I consider as repayment to society for crimes. The death penalty is revenge. Revenge is never the best option. It brings us down to the level of the murderer (since that's mainly what we are talking about).

I respectfully disagree.

I think you posted this while I was writing an explanation. I think there are times that we have to hang our heads and admit that there is nothing left to do but destroy the dangerous person. I do not want revenge. No revenge will suffice. Reparations are not possible. Nothing will bring back those who were tortured and killed. We can only protect the rest of society with finality by removing the cancer.

I think it should never me approached lightly, in anger or other emotion, or quickly. I think with solemn concern for others and recognizing that life is sacred, we have to make a decision to end a life that has proven it contains a mind that is dangerous to others and has passed the point of reasonably returning to a normal state.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

>What should we do with people that continue to kill while imprisoned?

Send them to a "final" prison. Big cells, five to a cell. The problem will take care of itself.

Please re-examine that answer. You are suggesting we send them off to be killed by other prisoners. I consider this more barbaric than a state sanctioned execution.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

What should we do with people that continue to kill while imprisoned?

Increase the security level of his captivity, like Hannibal Lecter. But not killing him, which makes Hannibals of us all. It is not 100% without further risk, but that's the price to pay for being a civilized society.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

What should we do with people that continue to kill while imprisoned?

Increase the security level of his captivity, like Hannibal Lecter. But not killing him, which makes Hannibals of us all. It is not 100% without further risk, but that's the price to pay for being a civilized society.

How restrictive do we become (going down this road) before it is torture? Are we saying that one's actions might deserve torture before they demand execution? If the torture leads the person to insanity (possibly dangerous insanity) have we attained a greater good than execution?

Is it less injurious to society to have guards who strap a human down, feed them through a tube, etc. on a daily basis, or to throw a switch, hang your head and walk away once?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[billvon 2,435]

>Please re-examine that answer. You are suggesting we send them off to
>be killed by other prisoners.

That was tongue-in-cheek. I don't think that prisoners killing each other is an insurmountable problem.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

>Please re-examine that answer. You are suggesting we send them off to
>be killed by other prisoners.

That was tongue-in-cheek. I don't think that prisoners killing each other is an insurmountable problem.

Ok. I thought that might be the case. We'll put you down as one who supports the death penalty. Thanks for clarifying.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[normiss 622]

I fear a government that kills it's own population.
Apparently not all of us do.

I never taught my kids to not hit by punching them, to not bite by biting them, teaching people to not kill by killing them won't work.
If it did, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I do not want my government killing people in my name.
I don't think it's the right thing to do to kill people.

Life without parole does exist.
It's all we need.

[billvon 2,435]

>We'll put you down as one who supports the death penalty. Thanks for clarifying.

Actually I don't, for two reasons:

1) Economics. Life in prison is cheaper.

2) Accuracy. Our system is not accurate enough (IMO) to execute people, and to make it more accurate would make it even more expensive.

[Gravitymaster 0]

I don't quite understand how you could think someone confined to a high security prison in a remote area of Alaska could pose a danger to society. Please explain.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

>So...were the juries wrong in recommending the death penalty?

Only to the extent that they chose the more costly option.

When I served on a jury in a capital murder trial, during the penalty phase we were instructed to assume that whichever punishment we chose would be carried out in a timely manner. Which was sort of difficult here in California, knowing how many people were (expensively) on death row and that no one had actually been executed in years. But we were supposed to only focus on whether we thought he should be sentenced to death or not.

We were also asked during voir dire whether we thought "life without parole" or death was a harsher sentence, to which I answered "life without parole." But again, we were instructed that we had to put our opinions aside and choose death if we felt that he deserved the harshest sentence.

And, as indicated in the link that davjohns posted, there are surely some criminals who feel like they are getting off easier with a death sentence rather than life imprisonment. So I wonder how much it serves to actually deter criminals.

But I also think that the case he posted is one in which there is really no question of guilt, and therefore death is a reasonable option. (I can't say that 100% without having been on the jury, but it sounds pretty clear-cut.)